HomeMy WebLinkAbout9C - Eaglewood East
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MARCH 18, 2002
9C
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DENYING THE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN
FOR A 32-UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND A
RESOLUTION DENYING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE
KNOWN AS EAGLEWOOD EAST
History: Merlyn Olson Homes has applied for approval of a
development to be known as Eaglewood East on the property located
south of CSAH 21, ~ block north of Colorado Street, west of Duluth
Avenue and e~t of West Avenue. The application includes the
following requests:
· Approve a PI~ed Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approv~ a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of a total
of 32 dwelling units on 4.536 net acres, for a total density of 7.1 units
per acre. The proposed development includes 28 dwelling units in 7
four-unit buildings, and 4 dwelling units in 2 two-unit buildings. The
development also includes a private street and private open space.
Merlyn Olson Homes is the developer and applicant for this project.
The current property owners, Lee Klingberg and Gary Staber, have
also signed the application.
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing
on November 13, 2001. The staff and the Planning Commission
identified several issues pertaining to this development. The Planning
Commission continued this item to allow the developer the
opportunity to address the outstanding issues. The developer met with
City and County staffto discuss the various issues on November 28,
2001 and, thereafter, submitted revised plans on Tuesday, December 4,
2001.
1:\0 I files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\eagle cc2.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
On December 10, 2001, the Planning Commission considered the
revised plans. At that hearing, there was testimony from several area
residents in opposition to this development. The main concerns
expressed included the density of the development and the additional
traffic generated by the development.
The Planning Commission also expressed concerns about the density
of the project. The Commission noted the PUD process and the
requested modifications seemed intended to allow additional units on
the site. The Planning Commission recommended denial ofthese
applications on the basis that the project, as proposed, does not meet
the criteria for approval of a PUD. These criteria are specifically
addressed beginning on page 8 of this report. A copy of the minutes of
the November 13,2001 Planning Commission meeting and a copy of
the minutes of the December 10,2001 Planning Commission meeting
are attached to this report. The minutes reflect the Planning
Commission's rationale that the project does not meet the criteria
required for approval ofa PUD.
The City Council was originally scheduled to hear this request on
January 22, 2002. Prior to that meeting, the developer and the
property owners asked to continue this item. At the same time, the
developer and property owners waived the deadline for City action
until March 19,2002.
The staff met with Gary Staber and Lee Klingberg, the property
owners on February 13, 2002; Merlyn Olson, the deyeloper, declined
to attend that meeting. At that time, Mr. Staber and Mr. Klingberg
shared sketches of alternative options for developing-this site. One of
the alternatives appeared to address earlier concerns regarding traffic
and the PUD criteria. The property owners scheduled an appearance at
the City Council forum to share the alternate development sketch with
the Council. They cancelled their appearance because of an injury to
one of the owners and the fact they were not ready to proceed.
At the meeting on February 13,2002, the staff noted that the proposed
changes would require additional review by the Planning Commission.
This would require that the property owners withdraw the current
application or request a further continuance to allow for review by the
Planning Commission. In order to continue this item beyond March
18, 2002, the property owners and the applicants must waive the
statutory deadline for City Council action.
Since the meeting on February 13, 2002, the staff has received no
further information from the applicant or the property owners. The
staff has written both parties letters requesting some indication of how
they would like to proceed. No responses have been forthcoming.
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\eagle cc2.doc
Page 2
03/18/2002 13:22 9524612336
;.;,,: ":." ':".,
GARY STABER
PAGE 02
."
Miucli18,.2002
..': .' ;.... .' .
Jade Kansier '. .
16200 EagleCre~ltAve. SE. .
.Pribr Lake,MN~ . 55311~1 714.
,',,' ,. t' ,.,..
""
. 'Deu]ane, .
Ia~ writ:ing this letter as a follow up to our rec~ni: phon~ conversation regarding Eaglewodd
.'. East Pun Application. Mya.pologics for leaving this m;a.tter umesolved. Merlyn Olson
: Hohlesshould. ha~e teq\lesred the applic:arit;m~obe w.itl1drawn at this. rime.' A~ you know
Mcrly-n Olson Homes is:oo longer invohred with this ploject. Lee Klingberg and :myself are
now taking over the development of this parcel. It is ow: intention to revise the application,
, working with staff to r~61ve. any ou~smnding issues~ .
. Please consider thiS letter as my ,for~ request ~o Withdtaw the PUD. application for the
. '. E~~le1;Vood East project. If you have any questions please feel free to conra.ct me at 612-
, , 298-3025. .
,. I L . \. ...-l,
,~::1 '.::::7 \.s. U \::-
......<b ~
i4..J \..-'-
L.
:i
\1 '
.! L.
II..:-- i
i
i
.1 '
MAR , B 2002
~ ;
25275 VERGUS AVE.
NEW PRAGUE, MN. 56071
The City Council must act on this application on March 18, 2002.
Under Minnesota Statutes, failure to take action on this date means the
application will be automatically approved.
Current Circumstances: This site consists of a total of 5.003 acres of
unplatted, vacant land. In July, 2001, the Planning Commission
approved an exception to the minimum 1 Q-acre requirement for a PUD
in order to allow the developer to move forward with this application.
Section 1106.405 of the Zoning Ordinance allows an applicant to
request an exception to the minimum 10-acrerequirement. The
Planning Commission has the authority to decide, based upon the
certain criteria, whether to authorize the City staff to accept and
process an application for a Preliminary PUD Plan for a project less
than 10 acres. These criteria, which are separate from the criteria used
to determine whether a PUD should be approved, include the
following:
~ The proposed project meets all other criteria for a PUD except the
acreage requirement.
~ There are unique circumstances that prohibit the applicant from
assembling 10 contiguous acres.
~ The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan.
~ The applicCl!'t intends to provide for greater parks, open space,
trails or public areas than required by t~is Ordinance.
The Planning Commission determined that the applicant could not
assemble 10 contiguous acres, and that the applicant could proceed
with submittal of a PUD application. This action did not guarantee the
applicant approval ofthe PUD plan, in whole or in part.
The topography of this site rises 34' from the low point (the wetland)
on the west side to the highest elevation, 964.6' MSL, at the center of
the site. The property then slopes to the east to an elevation of 936' at
Duluth Avenue. This site also includes several trees. The project is
subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Tree Preservation Ordinance allows removal of 25% of the total
caliper inches for grading and utilities, an~ removal of an additional
25% of the total caliper inches for building pads without tree
replacement. Removal of additional caliper inches requires
replacement at a rate of 1/2 caliper inch for each caliper inch removed.
Initial calculations indicate tree replacement is required.
There is a 12,737 square foot wetland located at the northwest comer
of the site. The plans do not indicate any disturbance of this wetland.
There is also an existing 7,601 square foot NURP pond located along
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\eagle ee2.doe
Page 3
West Avenue on the west side of the property. This pond will be
expanded to handle additional runoff from the site.
Access to the site is from West Avenue on the west side of the
property. There is an existing private street, Racine Street, which
provides access to two houses at the southwest comer of the site.
This property is designated for Urban Low to Medium Density
Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The
property is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The R-3 district
permits cluster developments, with a maximum density of7.2 units per
acre. The western half of the property is located within the Shoreland
District for Prior Lake.
PROPOSED PLAN: The following is a review of the proposed plan as it
relates to the conventional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Where applicable, the departure from the convention requirements, and
the need for the PUD are noted.
Density: The plan proposes 32 units on a total of 5.003 acres.
Density is based on the buildable acres ofthe site, or in this case on
4.536 net acres. The overall density proposed in this plan is 7.1 units
per acre. The maximum density allowed in the R-3 district is 7.2 units
per acre. This density is consistent with the permissible density in the
R-3 district; no additional density is permitted under a PUD.
. Lots': The preliminary plat consists of 32 lots for the townhouse units.
, The proposal also includes three outlots. Outlot A and Outlot C are
, the qommon areas for the townhouse lots. Outlot B is the private
. street. The proposed lots are consistent with conventional
development. In order to establish Outlot B as a private street, rather
, than dedicating public right-of-way, the Council must approve the
PUD.
Buildin2 Styles: The proposed plan calls for a townhouse style
development consisting of2- and 4-unit buildings. Sample floor plans
of these buildings are attached to this report. The plan includes 2 two-
unit buildings and 7 four-unit buildings. The townhouses are rambler
or two-story lookouts with attached double garages. The exterior
materials are vinyl siding with brick accents. The building plans also
include decks on some of the units. Nothing in the design or
construction of the units meets the PUD criteria in Section 1106.100
(1,2).
Setbacks: The plan proposes a 20' setback from the private street, a
minimum 25' rear yard setback, and a minimum 20' building
separation (foundation to foundation) between the townhouses. The
1:\0 I files\O I subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\eagle ee2.doe
Page 4
required front yard setback, under conventional requirements, is 25'
from the property line. The required setback between buildings is ~
the sum of the height of the building, or 26' in this case. This proposal
requires a PUD in order to utilize the proposed setbacks. The
applicant has requested a modification to the minimum front yard
setback and the minimum setback between buildings as part of the
PUD plan.
Useable Open Space: The R-3 district requires 600 square feet of
useable open space per unit for cluster developments, which in this
case would equal a minimum of 19,200 square feet. The proposed
common area provides open space for this development; the
calculations submitted by the developer indicate a total of 83,639
square feet, exclusive ofthe wetland and stonn water pond, which
meets the minimum requirements under conventional zoning.
Parkin2: The proposal provides at least 2 spaces per dwelling unit,
which is consistent with the minimum Zoning Ordinance
requirements. Each of the units has a two-car garage, which provide
the minimum parking requirement under conventional zoning. The
plan also provides 11 off-street guest parking spaces. The proposed
private streets will not provide anyon-street parking.
Landscapin2: Section 1107.1900 lists the landscaping requirements
for this development. There are two types of landscaping required in
this development. First, p~rimeter landscaping is required for the
townhouse portion of the development with buildings consisting of 3
or more units at a rat~ of 1'tree per unit or 1 tree per 40' feet of
perimeter, whichever is greater. Our calculations indicate a total of 68
trees are required for this ~ite. Second, the developer must provide a
landscape buffer alot:lg the south property boundary, and along the
north property boundary. The bufferyard requirements on the south
side of the property include a total of 16 canopy trees, 32 understory
trees, and 48 shrubs. The bufferyard requirements on the north side of
the property require 9 canopy trees, 18 understory trees, and 26 shrubs.
The revised plan submitted on December 4,2001, meets these
requirements. The landscaping requirements are the same whether
developed as a PUD or under the conventional requirements.
Tree Replacement: The applicant has submitted an inventory
identifying 248 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. The
proposal removes 29% for road and utility purposes and 47% for
building pads and driveways. The Ordinance allows removal of 25%
of the significant caliper inches for road and utility purposes, and 25%
of the significant caliper inches for building pads. Any removal above
this percentage requires replacement at a rate of 1/2 caliper inch to 1
caliper inch removed. This proposal, then, requires replacement of at
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\eagle ee2.doe
Page 5
least 13 trees at 2 1/2 caliper inches per tree. The revised plans also
include the proper tree replacement.
Sh~ns: There are no signs identified on this site plan.
Li2htin2: There is no lighting plan included with this proposal. The
developer should be required to provide streetlights on the private
street.
Streets: This plan proposes one new private street, which is an
extension of Racine Street from West Avenue to Duluth Avenue. A
homeowner's association will maintain this street. The proposed
private street is 28' wide from curb to curb. A 28' wide street allows
2-way traffic, but does not allow parking on either side ofthe street.
The plan also dedicates an additional 10' of right-of-way for CSAH 21
along the north side of the property. This additional right-of-way is
needed for the eventual improvements to CSAH 21, which include turn
lanes and a median.
Under a conventional development, the developer would be required to
dedicate at least 50' of right-of-way for a public street. The use of
private streets requires a PUD.
Sidewalks/Trails: There are no sidewalks or trails proposed in this
plan (see discussion ofPUD criteria at 11)06.100 (4).
Parks: This plan does not include any parkland dedication. The
required land dedication is approximately'Y2 acre. The dedication
requirements would be satisfied by a cash dedication equal to
$1,685.00 per unit.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main: Sanitary sewer and water main
will be extended from the existing utilities located in West Avenue and
in Duluth Avenue. The extension of these lines is primarily within the
proposed private street.
Storm Sewer: The plan proposes to manage storm water runoff
through a stQrm sewer pipe located within the private street. This
storm sewer directs runoff to the NURP pond located on the west side
of the property. The developer has submItted storm water calculations,
which have been reviewed by the City Engineering staff to ensure the
pond is adequately sized to manage the runoff.
Traffic Impact Report: The developer originally submitted an
elementary traffic impact report (TIR) for this development. A more
detailed TIR was prepared by SRF consultants, and is attached to this
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\eagle cc2.doc
Page 6
report. This report concludes that the additional traffic would not have
a significant impact on the adjacent streets. All of the key
intersections are expected to continue to function at the acceptable
Level of Service (LOS) A. The report also recommended that the
intersection of Colorado Street and Racine Street be restricted to right-
in/right-out turning movements. A conventional development would
have the same traffic impact; however, a conventional development
would probably result in fewer units.
Phasioe: The developer is proposing to complete this project in three
phases. All of the infrastructure will be completed in the first phase.
The individual townhouses will then be constructed starting on the east
side and working to the west. The developer has not submitted an
anticipated completion date. The completion date for the public
improvements can be specified in the development contract.
The Issues: Attached to this agenda report are two letters from the
applicant's representative. The first letter, dated January 7, 2002,
reiterates the applicant's rationale as to why the proposal meets the
criteria for a PUD. This letter notes the R-3 district allows cluster
development as a use permitted with conditions. Under the Zoning
Ordinance, a townhouse development on this site would be permitted
as long as the proposal met all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
requirements. As a use permitted with conditions, this type of
development would require public streets, and larger setbacks than the
proposed PUD. Ifthe applicant were not seeking approval ofthe
project as a PUD, the only application that would require City Council
approval would be a preliminary and final plat. The letter notes the
site could be developed conventionally with 30 units. The staffhas not
reviewed the specifics of this plan to determine ifthat is correct, but
the staff does agree that a cluster townhouse development is a use
permitted with conditions in the R-3 district and could be developed
on this site without the PUD.
The second letter, dated January 9,2002, notes the applicant's concern
that the City constructed a storm water pond without the necessary
easements. When the City constructed the improvement project in this
area in 1998, the City obtained a signed easement for this pond from
the property owner at that time. In return for the easement, the City
oversized the pond to accommodate future development on this site at
the R-3 density. The signed easement documents were sent to Scott
County to be recorded. By the time the City became aware the County
had misplaced the original documents, the storm water pond had been
constructed and the property had changed ownership. The current
owner has refused to sign a new easement document. Ifthe City had
not oversized the storm water pond, the developer would be required to
build a new pond that would accommodate the runoff from this
1:\01 files\O I subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\eagle cc2.doc
Page 7
development. Mr. Huemoeller's letter has been referred to the City
Attorney.
There are two separate applications included in this request. The
issues for each application are discussed below.
Planned Unit Development: The PUD must be reviewed based on
the criteria found in Section 1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Section 1106.100 discusses the purpose of a PUD. These
criteria are discussed below.
(J) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design,
materials, construction and land development.
The proposal does not meet this standard since the developer is
utilizing standard construction and design practices for the
townhomes.
(2) Higher standards of site and building design.
Same as above.
(3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public
facilities to support high quality land use development at a lesser
cost.
Private streets are only permitted in a PUD. The development
proposes the use of a private street. A homeowner's association
will be responsible for the maintenance of the private street, ;
including plowing and future repairs. This reduces City costs in
providing services to these homes. Normally, a developm~nt of
this type would require'a minimum right-of-way width of 50' and
a 28' to 30' wide surface. The developer is requesting a 28' wipe
private street. The additional 22' of right-of-way would b~
accommodated by the use easements adjacent to the private road.
The narrower right-of-way reduces setbacks, since they are
measured from the curb of the private street rather than the right-
of-way line, and preserves open space. The use ofthe narrower
private street also reduces the amount of impervious surface on
the site. The private street also enables the developer to dedicate
10' of right-of-way for future improvements to CSAH 21.
However, the Planning Commission believed the private street
was requested so that t1).e developer could construct more units
than would be allowed under a conventional subdivision, which
would require dedication of a public street.
(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.
1:\01 files\O I subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\eagle cc2.doc
Page 8
This proposal does not meet this standard. There is no additional
public open space on this site. The common open space on the
site will be available to all residents of the development as
passive open space. The same open space would be required as
part of a conventional (use permitted with conditions) cluster
development.
(5) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows
modifications to the strict application of regulations within the
various Use Districts that are in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The density and variety of housing units is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan goals to provide a variety of housing styles.
However, the Zoning Ordinance allows a similar development
without the need for a PUD.
(6) Encourages a more creative and efficient use of land. .
The proposed plan is not any more creative than that of a similar
design meeting the conventional requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The PUD does utilize a private street, which allows a
narrower street right-of-way. The use of a private street was
discussed in subparagraph 3 above. The narrower right-of-way
reduces setbacks, since they are measured from the curb of the
private street rather than the right-of-way line, and preserves open
space. The use of the narrower private street also reduces the
amount of impervious surface on the site.
(7) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including
flora and fauna, scenic views, screening and buffering, and
access.
The proposed plan does not meet this criterion. Although the
plan provides screening from the adjacent single family homes
and the adjacent County road, the same screening would be
provided under a conventional development.
(8) Allows the development to operate in concert with a
Redevelopment Plan in certain areas of the City and to insure the
redevelopment goals and objectives within the Redevelopment
District will be achieved.
This criterion 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.
This proposal does not meet this criterion. The site is totally
surrounded by existing development and streets. The same type
of development could be accomplished under the conventional
1:\0 I files\O I subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\eagle cc2.doc
Page 9
(use permitted with conditions) requirements for cluster
developments in the R-3 district.
(10) Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over
and above required dedications, by allowing a portion of the
density to be transferred to other parts of the site.
There is no public park dedication proposed within this
development, although the developer is able to provide a walking
path that could connect to the public sidewalk along CSAH 21
and Duluth Avenue. The proposed plan also shows the
dedication 10' of additional right-of-way for the future upgrade
of CSAH 21. This dedication is possible due to the use of a
private street, which results in a reduced front yard setback.
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.
This proposal does not meet this standard. The design creates a
unified environment in that all of the buildings will be
constructed of similar materials. The extension ofthe existing
private street allows for efficient movement oftraffic. The
landscaping plan will also enhance this area. However, a similar
design can be accommodated with conventional development.
There is nothing exceptional about the proposed plan, except for
the private street, that distinguishes it from a development under
the conventional Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance process.
(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.
This criterion has not been met. Although the landscaping on the
site will minimize the impact ofthe use on the adjacent
properties, this same landscaping will be required with
conventional development.
(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
1;\0 I files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\eagle ee2.doe
Page 10
addressing and meeting each of the criteria independent of the
other phases.
The infrastructure, including the roads and the utilities, will be
constructed with the first phase. The remaining phases will
consist of constructiort (jf the buildings.
(4) Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one
building on a lot.
This is not applicable.
(5) A PUD in a Residential Use District shall conform to the
requirements of that Use District unless modified by the
following or other provisions of this Ordinance.
a. The tract of land for which a project is proposed shall have not
less than 200 feet offrontage on a public right-ofway.
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-]" or "R-2" Use District.
c. No building within the project shall be nearer to another
building than ~ the sum of the building heights of the two
buildings, except for parking ramps which may be directly
connected to another building.
d. Private roadways within the project site may not be used in
calculating required off-street parking spaces:
The development as proposed does not meet all of the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In order'to build this plan
as proposed, the developer has requested approv~l of a PUD,
which also allows the Council to modify certain provisions of the
ordinance. The modifications requested by the developer include
the following:
· The use of private streets. Normally, a development of this
type would require a minimum right-of-way width of 50' and a
28' to 30' wide surface. The developer is requesting a 28'
wide private street. The additional 22' of right-of-way would
be accommodated by the use of easements adjacent to the
private road.
· Reduced front yard setbacks on the private streets. The
conventional setback requirement is 25' from the right-of-way
line. The developer is requesting a 20' front yard setback,
measured from the curb ofthe private street.
· Reduced setbacks between buildings. The required
separation between buildings under the PUD provisions is the
height of the building, or 26' in this case. The developer is
requesting a 20' separation between the buildings.
1:\0 I files\O I subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\eagle cc2.doc
Page II
The Planning Commission felt the use of private streets would be
appropriate for this area; however, the setback modifications,
especially the reduced setbacks between the buildings, were
necessary only to allow additional units on the site. These
modifications are not appropriate for this PUD.
It should also be noted that Zoning Ordinance generally requires
a minimum of 10 acres for a PUD. In July, 2001, the Planning
Commission approved an exception to this requirement on the
basis that the applicant would not be able to assemble 10
contiguous acres for a PUD development at this location. Staff is
not aware of any hardship if the developer proceeded as a
conventional cluster development. This action allowed the
developer to move forward with this application. It did not
guarantee approval ofthe PUD plan, in whole or in part.
Preliminary Plat: With some modifications to the construction plans
for the public improvements, the proposed preliminary plat meets the
standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance.
However, unless the PUD plan is also approved, the plat would not
meet the requirements for dedication of a public street. Any action on
the plat is dependent on the action to approve or deny the PUD plan.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission concluded the proposal does
not meet the criteria for a PUD. The Planning Commission
recommended denial of the ofthe PUD plan and the preliminary plat.
FISCAL IMPACT: Budf!et Impact: The constructi<?n of new dwellings will provide
additional tax base to the City, hut the plan does not provide additional
tax revenue over a conventional development.
ALTERNATIVES: ~ The City Council has four alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution #02-XX denying the proposed PUD Preliminary
Plan, and adopt Resolution #02-XX, denying the Preliminary Plat
for Eaglewood East, with the finding that the PUD preliminary plan
and the preliminary plat are not consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances.
2. Approve the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat on the
basis they are consistent with the purpose and intent ofthe Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances and/or the Comprehensive Plan. In
this case, the Council should direct the staff to prepare a
resolution with findin2s of fact for the approval of these
requests.
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\eagle ee2.doe
Page 12
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
3. Defer consideration of this item for specific reasons. The State
statute requires the City take action on these applications by March
19,2002, or the application will be automatically approved. Tfthe
Connfil intenil, to de&-r t"'i~ if('fU b('yond th(' M!tt'('h 18} '002
City ('011'l('il met'ting, tbe appl1('3nt mn~t agret') in wrWng to an
pytension nf the de!tc;lUne for a('tion.
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
L
Manager
1:\0 I files\O I subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\eagle cc2.doc
Page 13
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN
RESOLUTION 02-XX
RESOLUTION DENYING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN
TO BE KNOWN AS EAGLEWOOD EAST
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS: Merlyn Olson Homes has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plan to be known as Eaglewood East; and
WHEREAS: The Prior Lake Planning Commission considered the proposed Planned Unit
Development Preliminary Plan at a public hearing on November 13, .2001 and on
December 10, 2001; and
WHEREAS: Notice of the public hearing on said PUD Preliminary Plan has been duly published in
accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and
WHEREAS" The Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issue and
persons interested were afforded the opportu~ity to present their views and objections
related to the Eaglewood East PUD Preliminary Plan; and
WHEREAS: The Prior Lake City Council considered the proposed PUD Preliminary Plan for on March
18, 2002.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA:
1. The above recitals are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
2. In considering an application for a PUD, the application and development must be analyzed and
evaluated in light of the criteria set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance for a PUD. Each of the
criteria are set out here, with the City Council's finding:
a) Greater utilization. of new technologies in building design, materials, construction and land
development.
The proposal does not meet this standard since the developer is uti[lzing standard
construction and design practices for the townhomes.
b) Higher standards of site and building design.
Same as above.
c) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high
quality land use development at a lesser cost.
Private streets are only permitted in a PUD. The development proposes the use of a
private street. A homeowner's association will be responsible for the maintenance of the
private street, including plowing and future repairs. This reduces City costs in providing
1:\01 files\O I puds\eaglewood pre pud\pudres.doc PAGE 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
services to these homes. Normally, a development of this type would require a minimum
right-of-way width of 50' and a 28' to 30' wide surface. The developer is requesting a 28'
wide private street. The additional 22' of right-of-way would be accommodated by the use
easements adjacent to the private road. The narrower right-of-way reduces setbacks,
since they are measured from the curb of the private street rather than the right-of-way
line, and preserves open space. The use of the narrower private street also reduces the
amount of impervious surface on the site. The private street also enables the developer
to dedicate 10' of right-of-way for future improvements to CSAH 21. However, the
Planning Commission believed the private street was requested so that the developer
could construct more units than would be allowed under a conventional subdivision, which
would require dedication of a public street.
d) 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.
TRis proposal does not meet this standard. There is no additional public open space on
this site. The common open space on the site will be available to all residents of the
development as passive open space. The same open space would be required as part of
a conventional (use permitted with conditions) cluster development.
e) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows modifications to the strict
application of regulations within the various Use Districts that are in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The density and variety of housing units is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals
to provide a variety of housing styles. However, the Zoning Ordinance allows a similar
development without the need for a PUD.
f) Encourages a more creative ~nd efficient use of land. .
The proposed plan is not any more creative that that of a similar: design meeting the
conventional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The PUD does utilize a private
street, which allows a narroV'er street right-of-way. The use of a private street was
discussed in subparagraph e .above. The narrower right-of-way reduces setbacks, since
they are measured from the cOrb of the private street rather than the right-of-way line, and
preserves open space. The use of the narrower private street also reduces the amount of
impervious surface on the site.
g) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including flora and fauna, scenic
views, screening and buffering, and access.
The proposed plan does not meet this criterion. Although the plan provides screening
from the adjacent single family homes and the adjacent County road, the same screening
would be provided under a conventional development.
h) Allows the development to operate in concert with a Redevelopment Plan in certain areas
of the City and to insurfl the redevelopment goals and objectives within the
Redevelopment District will be achieved.
This criterion is not applicable.
i) 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.
This proposal does not meet this criterion. The site is totally surrounded by existing
development and streets. The same type of development could be accomplished under
the conventional (use permitted with conditions) requirements for cluster developments in
the R-3 district.
1:\01 files\O 1 puds\eaglewood pre pud\pudres.doc
PAGE 2
j) 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.
There is no public park dedication proposed within this development, although the
developer is able to provide a walking path that could connect to the public sidewalk along
CSAH 21 and Duluth Avenue. The proposed plan also shows the dedication of 10' of
additional right-of-way for the future upgrade of CSAH 21. This dedication is possible due
to the use of a private street and a reduced front yard setback.
k) 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 proposal does not meet this standard. The design creates a unified environment in
that all of the buildings will be constructed of similar materials. The extension of the
existing private street allows for efficient movement of traffic. The landscaping plan will
also enhance this area. However, a similar design can be accommodated ;with
conventional development. There is nothing exceptional about the proposed plan, except
for the private street, that distinguishes it from a development under the conventional
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance process.
I) 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.
This criterion has not been met. Although the landscaping on the site will minimize the
impact of the use on the adjacent properties, this same landscaping will be required with
conventional development.
m) 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 phasf!s.
The infrastructure, including the roads and the utilities, will be constructed with the first
phase. The remaining phases will consist of construction of the buildings.
n) Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one building on a lot.
This is not applicable. Each of the buildings is on a separate lot.
0) 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. 1) The tract of land
for which a project is proposed shall have not less than 200 feet of frontage on a public
right-of-way; 2) No building shall be nearer than its building height to any property line
when the property abutting the subject property is in an "R-1" or "R-2" Use District; 3) No
building within the project shall be nearer to another building than ~ the sum of the
building heights of the two buildings, except for parking ramps which may be diffJctly
connected to another building; and 4) Private roadways within the project site may not be
used in calculating required off-street parking spaces.
This proposal does not meet this standard. In order to build this plan as proposed, the
developer has requested approval of a PUD, which also allows the Council to modify
certain provisions of the ordinance, including the use of private streets, reduced front yard
setbacks on the private streets, and reduced setbacks between buildings. The use of
private streets would be appropriate for this area; however, the setback modifications,
especially the reduced setbacks between the buildings, are necessary only to allow
additional units on the site. These modifications are not appropriate for this PUD.
1;\01 files\O 1 puds\eaglewood pre pud\pudres.doc
PAGE 3
3. The City Council finds the PUD Preliminary Plan inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance because it does not meet the criteria for approval of a PUD. A similar
development could be accomplished without the ordinance modifications.
4. The City Council finds the PUD Preliminary Plan is not compatible with the stated purposes and
intent of the Section 1106 Planned Unit Developments of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan is hereby denied.
Passed and adopted this 18th day of March, 2002.
YES
NO
Haugen Haugen
Vacant Vacant
Gundlach Gundlach
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal}
Frank Boyles, City Manager
1:\01 files\O 1 puds\eaglewood pre pud\pudres.doc
PAGE 4
PRELIMINARY PLAT
RESOLUTION 02-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
"EAGLEWOOD EAST"
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS: The Prior Lake Planning Commission coMducted a public hearing on November 13,
2001, to consider an application from Merlyn Olson Homes for a Preliminary Plat for to
be known as Eaglewood East; and
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission continued the public hearing to December 10,
2001; and .
WHEREAS: Notice of the public hearing on said preliminary plat has been duly published and posted
in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake Ordinances; and
WHEREAS: All persons interested in this issue were afforded the opportunity to present their views
and objections related to the preliminary plat of Eaglewood East for the record at the
public hearing conducted by the Planning Gommission; and .
WHEREAS The Prior Lake City Council considered an application for preliminary, plat approval of
Eaglewood East on March 18, 2002; and
WHEREAS: The Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed the ~ preliminary plat
according to the applicable provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances and found said preliminary plat to be inconsistent with the provisions of said
ordinances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRIOR
LAKE, MINNESOTA:
A. The above recitals are incorporated herein as if fully s~t forth.
B. The City Council makes the following findings:
1) The proposed development does not meet the criteria for a Planned Unit Development as
proposed.
2) If not developed as a PUD, the preliminary plat does not include public street right-of-way for
access to the proposed lots.
3) Private streets cannot be developed without an approved PUD.
C. The preliminary plat is hereby denied.
Passed and adopted this 18th day of March, 2002.
1~g~s~~~WW~g~e3~.P'f)t}I&~.~'f{g?~;MJg~t!o55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 4~~~~5
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
YES
NO
Haugen Haugen
Gundlach Gundlach
Vacant Vacant
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal}
Frank Boyles, City Manager
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\eaglewood\plat res. doc
Page 2
HUll
---~~I
l-~!.~
"10:--...1<
19;;:11
~ l~n!'
f :;~H ~l
I ~ fn~-
f hn~~
, ~~~~
i
SOl } I
a ~ I eOO( 00
. ~ IIIIIIIII~
I 111111111
~ Ii ;nlPIIII
I i
~
i
S
! ~-"'f&- ~
r ~
-.....- ~
. t..
I --""b- ~
~
~
1;:1.
!!t;:
~
~
!:::i -,
~ .-
~----
-~- .
__11&__
~~~~& ~~&
..,IN II..
i~~i ~i
UII 11
un n
~~~~& ~~~~&
...... ....
ii~i m{
UII UII
uu uu
. !;n~S
~;i~~i
~h~~
~~i:i
l!!8
;;I:
~:u
.,.
'un ~~~~&
~n.. .....
!I~!i iiii
~.~e! Ult
e;m un
Um
[[
.
&
I
!!U~i
~~~~z~
""JiG)
~~I~i
~m
z
G)
I-
/._.-m-....
/
/
t:2~
[II i! l ~nlJi:I' ;rti~l!f llil ~ ~
m.' rl.l~l, h~'~l~. In. ~ ~
..~ il !:j Iii tlilrn 1'1 a ~
l!ilHi UII}rH !l:!lii' (I g ~
'_I'" 'ii,." ,I'i!l I t ~
I~ I 18 I · i r")lI' i. t--..
I It '.. ~ I II.., r ',"' ::""'J
iIIll- IlIlIl1 -I I"""
i," IHi~'" ; ll~n i I" ~
h .f 'iJt"~ U t r-.. ~
'I I~ ': It; "tl~IA it~.
~I ~ I~flil Uil'n! ~~m
I. r I..' 8~ Bll 0: 11<
I! i IItl;~ ,i!:!,-il itU;
Ii I ~J~ l}- I'l ~., Ii m
:,! itni~ :AJI1!l lie
Cl
~
~
r-) 0
~ ::::
~ '~~.(' I
i S 0 <;s.,,>
I ......,"'''~t,,,;,(,,c..('oo
<"v,...(..
!l ......q..." -L-
& --1'- ___ --------
i . ~
$
I
e ii
"'-
I "':::
r'l
I
I
I ~!~~SI:I
I I ~g~~ ~,
I / . ;bll~1
I / ~~
I / ", ~
I / ,~ 2
I -0
I / "
()
~~ I ':-CI . !!n~1
~ I ~gi!
iann
'!nn I f;- ~
!!.....N- ~ ~ m~~
~Iin I ),.
II -i ~ 1IlC)
I till ~ I c) ~8
i~UII I ':-c, PI:
~~
If I ;; ("1
I C')
I -> ~I~~I
I -- ~ C)
I mIl
I
I ~ C)
I
__J ~~
L- ~.!'i.i
~
--, "I i~ l !l1)f~1 l ~llf~111 Ilil ~. ~
c:l 'S", 'I 111 lll,.-~" .ll
m n' " · .- , D"..I, 11'1 d~
"
~-I I 1 I J.-' II' 'II_I I'
-7 ;.~ it '},I I tll Ii. 'I g~
., I 1'1 h ;1" ~I It I
,:-j
9 / i~' n dllltl ";~Jl~ t.
Q
I / ,l r 'I,I,~ i"r .' i, ~~
-tJ Ii 8" '; , 1,.1 ~, ~
I %! / 'I,! Ijl'lll =lp'"1 V)
--
() ii, ~ Hl~" , i' I I '--3
"'~f iHi! I :::CJ / It .f 'ill". .. I'll ..t
i~i 'I I: i= II. ii~li~1 Il
!firG I -1 /
"-If P1l ~ r-_ () 'I ~ IJ il 'I}.....~'
l~1 hii I ),. ..-
~ !~i ..~ / j, I 1!llii IlrJ~!i!1
'- -'
~, >
fi'l- I r'l <- I! i lrti;~ II:'I-! It
1 119 {oh
~ He !l.!h S) ~i' ~)m' il}a.' If
, .. flf..s il ~ it;;d iihl!lrl
; ~~ ;I!i '1
;1 [
~
II H ..~~
::'~i ~... ~
G'Il~~ i :
iH I 0 i
.-8 ~~ i ~
;~i2 3 I
. hi i
~r."~t
'n
~ .
~'"
[
PI>BOlm
fii~(Jm In
m~-( Z
. r ~
~~m~?~
m~.-t......
.Cl';I.r=~
]!l:F~t;x
IU~moH
I> mll'
i l!n
Cl' I> r
o i
~ -
~ C
ll'
l'i'\
C")
'ml~
.
,..
....Ol:j
../ !.:~~~~~
' ,., '"3A;:l..--<....
~... ~oz
O ~:;U~o8
", S!~~ilI"'liim
0... lo.LlClZo~
:A. 2~0I~""z..
).. is
. ~:g
o
::0
>
~
o
z
s
"Ui~;
~~gCl:=
~;ir~ .
::!ii~
1'., ::0
g~~~2
Ill~
~S
;;I'
~;
JJ
m
~~
~
p
2
:I:
o
I:
'"
JIl
~ ill.-' .
C) I-;_li
.... I-'K~
1'1 ~_I
~ !tr I z ~ ~ ~
o "O::Ooz
o I .. C)"O
1'1 i ~!a!a
)> l/l
III
~
\I Jill r;-
~r i 11 ~~
m !: ~~ & ~
~, 5"n i!
~ ~ : B .~
~ ~ /lI....i: /lI~~
;t ~::' 1?~&~ ~!!'~
~ ~.. -1lIt;;!;; m..~
~ U! m"'QQ oul!!'
C\ o:f o. ~~ -to
'" -tIP ;t~oo Illr
~ ilI~ I>~:;:; fII~
o lAm ~o1'io IPti
I.P-t <<Pm:!%. 0
~ 01= oj\loOl ~;:;
/II !jl.. m... O!!J
E~ ~p ~8 ~;g
:; OF~. E~
x: ~ii ~ =i~
c! ...m S", J:~
~ != ~ ~ ~ G)in
5 @~ @l: ~
~: at
III m
n; m
~
n
m
~
~
~
/:i
~
2
c
~
~
'"
=
9
I> "'z
r 11I0
r m-t
m om
x !!J"
~ ll>
~ ;=
'" If
~ m
~ 2
-t i'l
m ~
III -(
.. 11
... ~
o r
m
~
z
o
1:
~
m
III
~
I>
-t
2
~
~
~ ;t
m ~
o
2
~
r
r
III
!-:I
m
m
o
m
-t
I>
;=
....
IP
~
III
-t
r
...
Q/ ~
IInll
111111
I I
~:~.
.1 W i I HiP
I !ll!,!
:J~~'CI
M_"OPlZ
if:~' g
~~I~~~
j'1 ~~s:
~~~~~~
:II
m
...,
:II
~
:<
Z
J'J
<
-
en
m
c
~~
~
~
~
:I:
~
,.,
'"
~ f!"li .
Cl ~ii! i
F;; I~g~ I
~ hSJ ;! - [J] ~ III
o -, il ~!til-)~
o I .. Cl"O
E i ~!ti~
....
..
:;;..
E;a~ E i
III
~r ~ ~
g~ iiI
~~ !:l
- 2 'II !
Fi 1'1 i
0 I~i
I"
iJ
:;;...
~ p ..~ . ~... ,.. ~ ,.. po ~
lil111li n I~ ~ IIII;',UI In II! iilnl~ III IIlnn P~I ;t
II . n I! 111'1' J I' II, ~llfiBb 1'1"5 ~:I I 'I ~
P.~I"IIII!lI~li~!I!!!! !i i 111!!!i! i'1!1 ij!i 11'.11 II! ;
I Ii I .1) J II I~ll b I i 1!41~.3 . I 41 II' ~~~
Ihll' IIII li'!,~ 'I' , dl!IIJ II i" I.! I~I
l .' till I' t . I&,II!' ~I 8 ~g~
'0
"2
..
~
Z
III
1O
;a
~
~
o
III
i:
F
c::l
rn
n
j:>.
"",
=
9
:rJ
m
~ 1111 II 1I~:)j ~~ rrt t!II-1 .
- }>-
." 1'1 (J) ,.. c;) ;-ii
,.. 'I J . ~ r
>- I r Ii,. IT"J fi:M I
I z m ~
:I 'tUI f2
z I lit !I,r il
N (l (lu I( C 2 0 z~~~
." I 0 il
~ 1 ) ill' I . 0;uoz
x IT"J i 0",0
2 }>- rlTllTl
! If ... VI -<;U;u
!" -i VI
('
_.
\ I
r,)
rrl
-I)>
-<0
lJ .
~ 1-1 I
111 n rrl .
:::0 )> ~
r r L-.
-< CD 0
Z SO
ror 0
o.
(1)1-1
~ ~ -rl
o
I 111 ~
or L-
~ 111 Z
111;;:'-
(I) -I -L
1-10
. ~ 3:
rrl
(J)
r-
L =
I :
. i
, I ~
I I
! ~
~
",
, ,~
e
r
"TI
o
c
z
o
~
5
z
"U
s;:
.z
~
ii
.
c
,--
.
.--~-----.
1_----__________
.
~
I..
or
. -.....,
DEe 4 2001
.. _i:I t P~t>>i._._,-.
'...-O.F FI C E -(952)226 - 6022
6715 Featherstone Drive, Savage, MN 55378
December 4,2001
City of Prior Lake
Planning Commission
16200 Eagle Creek Ave., SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Pro DOsed Townhome Protect - Eaalewood East
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Based on the Planning Report dated November 13, the Public Hearing of November 13, and the
meeting with the City, County and Land Owners on November 28, we provide this additional
information.. !
Revised Site Plan:
The revised Site Plan incorporates the agreements reached at the meeting of November 28.
1. Setbacks between the buildings and County Road 21 are reduced from 35 feet to 30
feet.
2. The width of the private road is reduced from 32 feet to 28 feet.
3. The private road will be shifted south 1 (one) foot.
We believe these modifications will meet the County's requirement for a 10-foot increase in
right-of-way along County Road 21 for pOSSible road widening at an unspecified date.
The County will be providing a letter outlining it's acceptance of this plan.
Other Changes to Site Plan:
Optional decks are now shown.
,
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
Revised Grading Plan:
The revised Grading Plan will reflect the changes made to the Site Plan. This plan will be
submitted ASAP but is not included with this letter.
It is our understanding (from the meeting of November 28th) that the infiltration areas used for
runoff collection can be located in the right-of-way requested by the County.
The revised Plan also provides for the minimum 30-foot setback from the 100-year flood plain
for the Unit identified as Lot 1, Block 7.
Building Styles:
Building styles remain the same as the original submiSsion. Optional decks are :now shown on
the Site Plan.
This project enhances an existing neighborhood by providing attractive town homes for first-time
homeowners and empty nesters.
Setbacks:
We request a modification to the minimum required setback between buildings.
The setback between buildings is 20 feet. Without modifying the building height
ordinance, or redesigning the roof, the setback would need to be revised to 26 feet. This
setback would require the elimination of two units and increase the cost of remaining
unitS by approximately 70/0 ($11,300 each unit). Such an increase would have an
adverse impact on many moderate-income families looking to purchase 9 home in Prior
Lake.
Accommodating the additional right-of-way requested by the County reduced our ability
to. meet the 26-foot setback requirement. ' >
. :.
we propose revising the building height to 25 feet by redesigning the rQ9f.
We further request that the building height ordinance be modified by 250/0 so that our
proposed 20-foot setback between buildings can be maintained.
Our goal for this project is to offer moderately priced housing for young families and
retired persons. A 20-foot setback between buildings will help us achieve this goal.
The scale of building elevations is Y4 inch = 1 foot.
All proposed building pads are located at least 30 feet from the 100-year flood plain, as will be
shown on the revised Grading Plan. .
Phasing:
In addition to the phasing schedule provided earlier, we anticipate that this project will be
complete within 2Y2 to 3 years from the date of permit, depending on market conditions.
Useable Open Space:
Removing the proposed NURP and infiltration ponds from the open space calculation results in a
total of 83,639.8 square feet of useable open space -more than the required 19,200 sq. ft.
.
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
, .
Parking:
Jane Kansier recommended that we increase the number of off-street guest parking spaces.
The revised Site Plan shows an additional parking area for 3 more vehicles bringing the total
off-street guest parking spaces to 11. This is in addition to the double-car garages and
driveways, which meet the minimum parking requirements.
Landscaping:
The Landscaping Plan has been further defined in the accompanying revision from the
Landscape Architect.
Tree Replacement:
The Tree Replacement Plan has been further defined in the accompanying revision from the
Landscape Architect.
Signs:
Based on Sue McDermott's recommendation, we will post "No Parking" signs on the entire
private road.
Street Ughting:
Street lighting will be mounted on each building.
Streets: .
aased on Bud Osmundson's recommendation, the width of the private road has been 'changed
from 32 feet to 28 feet to accommodate the County's request for a 10-foot right-of-way along
County Road 21.
Traffic Impact Report:
..
With the submission of our check for '$4800, the City of Prior Lake has hired a traffic ~ngineer to
analyze the traffic impact of this' project.
Intersection with Duluth Avenue:
Based on discussions at the November 28th meeting, we request that the intersection of Duluth
Ave. with the new private road be "right in/right out" to minimize stacking both on Duluth and
the new private road.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~~~.04~
Merlyn J. Olson, President
Merlyn Olson Development Company
.
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
..
SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST, JORDAN. MN 55352-9339
(952) 496-8346, Fox: (952) 496-8365 . wwW.co.scott.mn.us
BRADLEY J. LARSON
PUBUC WORKS DIRECTORI
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
December 5, 2001
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Subject:
Eaglewood Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD
SE Corner ofCSAH 21 and Duluth Avenue
Dear Jane:
I am writing to follow up on the November 28th meeting involving :the City, County, and the
developer regarding Eaglewood East. We are willing to allow infiltration areas for the site to be
located on the ten-foot ~de strip to be dedicated to the County as part of this plat. We normally do
not allow additional site-r~lated drainage to be handled within the 90unty road rights-of-way, but we
realize there are limited areas available to properly handle the dramage related to this unique site.
We appreciate the City and developer meeting with us in address~g the issues regarding County
State Aid Highway 21. W-e would also be willing to become invo~ved earlier in the process with
future developments, if the City feels it is appropriate. "
If you have questions or require additional information regarding Eaglewood East, please call me at
496-8060.
Sincerely,
Brian K. Sorenson, P .E.
Transportation Engineer
Email: Brad Larson, Public Works Director
Greg Ilkka, Assistant County Engineer
Craig Jenson, Transportation Planner
Sue McDermot, Prior Lake Engineer
W:\ WORD\Review\Plats\O l]lats\Prelim\PL_ eaglew00d3.doc.
"._ ___ ....__'_'_t4"':"_...._~______.~ _..___..~._:".~- ___. _..~. .., .._.4___,_~...__ .-. --_.. .....
. . .
OFFICE (952) 226-6022
6715 Featherstone Drive, Savage, MN 55378
June 28, 2001
City of Prior Lake
Planning Commission
16200 Eagle Creek Ave., SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We respectfully submit, attached with this letter, our Preliminary PUD Application for a proposed
town home development.
Since 1984, Merlyn Olson has been building custom single family, twin homes, and townhomes.
While th~ majority of our work is local, we are also currently building twin homes and recently
completed low income; 6-plex town homes In Blooming Prairie, Minnesota. We are a small
company, which prides Itself on quality and meeting the needs of the homebuyer.
The property we propose to develop (5.003 acres, Including wetland area) is currently zoned R3
therefore, no rezoning is necessary. It is located on the South side of County Road 21 between
Duluth Ave. SE on the'East and West St. SE on the West (Section 3). : Due to the size of the
plat, we have requested an exception to the 10-acre requirement (Sectidn 4).
We believe this property Is Ideally suited for moderately priced town homes appealing to young
families and empty nesters. It's close proximity to downtown Prior Lake and the lake itself
provides recreation, library, restaurants, and a variety of other shops - all within walking
distance.
Our preliminary plan includes:
1. Eight 4-plex buildings, and one 3-plex building of between one and four bedrooms
each (35 units total).
a. Units can be either 2-story or one level, rambler style.
b. Many units will have walkout lower levels.
c. Each unit will have it's own 2-car garage.
d. Front elevations and interior floor plans are attached as Section 6.
e. Units will be marketed at between $165,000 and $195,000.
2. Buildings will be located along a gently curved, private road.
..
3. The plan includes guest parking for 8 vehicles (noted on the Survey),.. and a
playground located near the guest parking area.
-------. .~--_."--_...._"- ~'--"-----'-------------'-'- -"
._"" . ... .'-.-_-"".._'._n _"" ..... .~
4. The neighborhood closest to the development is to the South, along the North side of
Colorado Ave. SE. The plan Includes a natural buffer between this property and
these neighbors (see Landscape Plan, Section 10).
5. The property will be developed in four phases. Construction will begin on the East
side and proceed Westward as units are sold. The first phase includes construction of
the private road, infrastructure, and buildings 1 and 2. The first building will be used
for model homes. We estimate Phase I to be complete in 8 to 9 months after the
permit is issued. Subsequent phases will be developed under separate PUD's as units
are sold and, depending upon market conditions, should be complete within 24 to 36
months.
6. Construction will begin as soon as the PUD is approved and building: permits have
been issued. We anticipate construction will begin in September 2001.
7. A Townhome Association will maintain common areas (Section 13).
8. Proposed Covenants are included with this application (Section 12).
9. The roadway inside the development will be private and maintained by the
Townhome Association. It will exit onto Duluth Street and West Avenue.
10. Mailboxes will be grouped in sets of 8 and located along the North side of the road
between buildings.
11. ,Most of the drainage and storm water will be directed to the storm water pond area.
12. Sewer and water will tie in with existing lines on Racine Street SE, and/pr Colorado.
13. Grading will conform to most adjacent topographies to minimize ~the need for
retaining walls.
14. An inventory of significant trees on the site is included with the applicatior,l. We plan
to remove 30% of the caliper inches of significant trees for the ;street and
infralstructure, and 27% of the caliper Inches of significant trees for the construction
of townhomes (see Section 11).
15. A list of neighbors within 600 feet of this proposed development is included as
Section 14. We will hold a public meeting with the neighbors to discuss the project.
We welcome open discussion with our project neighbors and hope to gain their
support through positive dialogue.
The following information is referenced throughout the attached Land Use Application Form.
We invite your questions and suggestions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Merlyn Olson, President
Merlyn Olson Homes, Inc. "
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com 2
- - - -. - - - -. ~
.'--.. _.-. ." - .
City of Prior Lake
Land Use Application
Subdivision Name (proposed) "Eaolewood East"
Developer Merlyn Olson Development Company, Inc.
6715 Featherstone Drive
Savaoe, MN 55372
,
Current Land Owners Lee Klingberg, 952/447-2557
; 17833 Panama, Prior Lake
Gary Staber, 952/461-2356
25275 Veraus Ave., New Praoue
-
Surveyor Valley Survey
SECTION 5 16670 Franklin Trail. Suite 230, Prior Lake
Building Designer Merlyn Olson Homes, Inc.
SECTION 6 6715 Featherstone Drive, Savaoe, MN 55378
Site Engineer Halling EnginE;!ering, Webster
SECTION 7
Soil Testing , Instant Testing Company, Eagan
.. SECTION 8 .
J ,
e !
Wetland Delineation Report Aquatic EcoSolutions, Golden Valley
SECTION 9
Landscape Designer Gerten's Greenhouses, Inver Grove Heights
SECTION 10
General Contractor Merlvn Olson Townhomes, LLC
=
Construction Financing "' Prior Lake State Bank
Existing Zonina Classification R3
..
..
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com 3
-~ --:- '---~-_-._- .- -. 7-----~--.--... -:-- --"- - - - ---------...-..-.-..0-.-- -- -' _L~._ ~_.---O_._-_.: .-_0.-" .....:.-- .~:.:--7.......'- -.
Total Acreaae 5.003 acres
10-Acre Ex~~ption Request Due to the size of this plat, we've included
with this application a request for an exception
SECTION 4 to the 10-acre requirement.
Wetland Area 0.2924 acres
Watershed District Permit Application filed June 20, 2001
Number of proposed townhomes 35
Number of oroposed buildinas 9
Number of parking spaces 4 per unit
2 inside each aaraae, 2 in each drivewav -
Number of oroposed auest parkina spaces 8
Proposed Private Road Name Racine Street SE
.
Usable Opel1 Space 89,647 square feet
(600 sa. ft. per unit required) (excludina pond and wetland areas)
Unit Price Ranae $165,000 to $195,000
Finished Square feet per unit 925 to 1770 square feet
. .
Proposed Protective Covenants Developed by Huemoeller & Bates,
SECTION 12 Attorneys at Law, Prior Lake
Utility Location Underground within a 10-foot easement along
the private road.
Erosion Control - Site Development . See SHEET Cl, ENGINEERING REPORT
. Site improvements will begin at the time
the Preliminary PUD is approved - ideally
about August 1st.
. Erosion will be controlled with the use of
silt fencing along all areas disturbed.
. Integrity of the silt fence to be inspected
and repaired, if necessary, by Merlyn Olson
SECTION 7 Townhomes personnel daily.
-
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023j E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com 4
--"'--'..-;._-~--:_._----_._---------- -' -
. . .-.... '. .'. - .~ - ...
.~_._~--- ....--. .~ -~. ..---,-
--':....-.;~~.:::;;.~.-:-.-.-.-.-- -:-.
Erosion Control - Building Construction . See SHEET Cl, ENGINEERING REPORT
. Foundations for the first two buildings will
be started as soon as permits are issued -
.- ideally September 1st.
. Areas disturbed by construction will be
fenced off using silt fence.
. Additional foundations will be started as
the first two buildings are completed and
sold - one at a time. We expect
construction to proceed at a rate of one
SECTION 7 building approximatelv every 10 weeks.
Temporary Soil Storage . Soil and dirt stockpiles resulting from
. excavation will be stored on site to be used
for back-filling and final grading.
. Erosion control measures will be used as
described below.
.
Tree Preservation Plan By Merlyn Olson Homes, Inc.
SECTION 11
.
Tree Replacement . The Landscape Plan calls for the addition of
, 24 trees to replace those removed for
: cQnstruction. ,
. Tree species and location are ider:ttified on
the Landscape Plan.
, . The size of replacement trees win be as
. SECTION 10 reauired. .
!
Townhome Association . Structure and registration by Huemoeller &
Bates, Attorneys at Law, Prior Lake
. The Association will be in place before
SECTION 13 occuoancy begins.
Neighbors within 600 feet List compiled by Scott County Abstract & Title
SECTION 14 Shakopee
~
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com 5
~ - _..._.._._-~. - - ---.-. _.._.--.;.....-.--'-,.-_._..--,-,~_. -.- -'- ._."'--..-..~..- , .. ---.::...-;--..----'----.---. -- - - ------... ~------------._---_.._.~--.
._.~__~---...-.-;.~.,...____.._._..__._.._......-................-..... ... -..- -'. -...--..-__......__. -. __.._._ _u._.._;..
ERLYN
OLSO
H 0 M E
Ucense #3162
6715 Featherstone Drive,
SEP 2 4 2001
.J ,... .
.~.' i
OF FleE ..( 9 5 2)---2 i6-60 22
Savage, MN 55378
September 24, 2001
Oty of Prior Lake
. Planning Commission
~6200 Eagle Creek Ave., SE
Prior Lake, MN 553n-1714
RE: Additional Comments: Proaosed Townhome Proiect - Eaalewood East
Dear Planning Commission Members:
To the best of our knowledge, three Issues remain with respect to the proposed townhome project referenced
above. P1~ oonsider these additional comments as part of our total application.
1. Proximity of exit onto Duluth to lfunty Road 21.
1 We believe the best use of the pnvate road inside the project is to have an exit at both ends. If proximity to
County Road 21 is a concern, we Could limit traffic to a right turn only in, right turn only out at that
Intersection. .
> Alternately, if the Oty and County reject any exit onto Duluth from the private road, we offer as an option to
dead-end the private road at Duluth prqviding a .,... turnaround South of the building on the East end of the
~ . P':!Jject. t
. 0....
2. Width of orivate road and watershed district comments.
Recent comments suggest that the private road be reduced in width to 30 feet This would reduce storm
water runoff and would prohibit on-street parking, thus improving safety by eliminating obstructions caused by
street parking for those backing out of townhome parking spaces.
We ask that this change be considered as part of our application.
3. Increased right-of-wav for future expansion of Countv Road 21.
We acknowledge the Cty's suggestion that we provide for an Increased right-of-way along County Road 21 and
will be discussing this request with our attorney.
We will respond to this request by weeJ(s end.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
t11 ~ 04'"\~
Merlyn J. bison, President
Merlyn Olson Development Company
.
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
A__.....:.~=:.::~~..~~=._~~~..~~-:~ .: ._A _ __,_.'::-:::::~~"'~."J.-.~..-:~=~",~-:'-':.~~:~--~~::~:~',:::. -~_~ ._A" ~'::':h~:::':':'~_:-"':-: ~.: ~ ~~-:::'~-:._ .-=..__
/
"
-....,
,
r-,
j :....,'
I! i
II!
. I
ERLYN
OLSO
H 0 M E
Ucense 13162
6715 Featherstone Drive,
I:
I:
I
!1J ~.
. L____
OFF ICE (9 5 2) '2 2 6 - 6 0 22
Savage, MN 55378
s r:P 18,2001
September 19, 2001
Oty of Prior Lake
Planning Commission
16200 Eagle Creek Ave., SE
Prior Lake, MN SS3n-1714
RE: Proaosed Townhome Proiea - Eaalewood East
Dear Planning Commission Member:
This letter, and the accompanying materials, addresses the omissions (Identified by Jane Kansler In her letter of
July 10) to our Application for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans for Eaglewood East
STATEMENT SHOWING HOW THE PUD WILL MEET THE STATED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OFTHE PUD
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
(SECTIONS 1106.100 AND 1106.3,00).
Watershed Reaulrements:
As designed, this development meets the NEW Watershed Dlsbict requirements for collection and retention
of run off.
Effldent Use of Streets and Utilities:
This proposed townhome project utilizes existing services effldently with minimal infrastructure
construction and neighborhood disruption. The private street inside the development joins and uses the
existing section of Radne Street; utifities will tie Into stubs located on Racine and Colorado; storm water
will be diverted to an existing collection pond.
Creative and Effldent Use of Land:
The project is a creative use of 3 separate parcels of land now owned by unrelated individuais. Combining
these parcels and developing a townhome community is a positive and benefidal project for the people of
Prior Lake.
- .
This project enhances an existing neighborhood by providing attractive townhomes for first-time
homeowners and empty nesters.
Preservation of Desirable Site Characteristics:
The attractive nature of the buildings, the dean look of the development and the integration of natural
beauty already on the site compliment the park aaoss the street and provide a pleasing "welcome" to
those traveling east into town on County Road 21.
The design and landscaping of this project create moderately priced residences and an aesthetically
pleasing place for people to Jive dose to the Oty. ..
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: Info@merlynolsonhomes.com
-..-. -~-. .-... ~'-''''..._.."_.__.,,-,-._- ---"~. --.-- "" - .. '--.'-- -'--
.d
-'"- ,". ... - .'.
. .... -_..:.. ."" '. ~ .... .', .
,.
Construdfon Phases:
Since the project Involves multiple phases (as shown on the MAP), we have decided it will be more cost
effective and less disruptive to construct infrastructure elements In their entirety before construction of
buildings commences. Each phase invofves the complete construction of buildings within that phase, one
building at a time. /4s units are sold, additional buildings within that phase will be started and completed
before subsequent phases are begun.
Unified Environment:
All structures wiD be constructed using the same materials building to building. Design of ,indMdual
buildings Is somewhat dependent on whether the buyer contracts for a rambler style or 2-story style
townhome. The architectural drawings dearfy show the elevations of each type of structure.
The townhome community concept Includes all elements In a single block. The private road. (Radne
Street:) will extend from its ourent location eastward to Duluth Avenue. Buildings will be located on either
side of Radne. Parking, walkfng paths and a small playground are all part of the Proposal. ;
Neighborhood Imoact:
Since this project is on a relatively isolated piece of property, Impact on the surrounding neighborhoods will
be minimal. Construction activities will be confined to the job site. Buffering (see Landscape Plan) will
provide a natural barrier between the new development and the existing neighborhood to the South.
Residential Use DIstrIct Reauirements:
We believe this project meets all the requirements of the Residential Use District for R-3 development.
AC'r'P<s for Exlstinq Homes alone Radne Street:
,Atr.1!ss to Radne Street for the existing homes will be provided via easement.
I -
We are hopeful that this additional information completes our application and that your review can proceed
without delay.
Thank you.
: Respectfully submitted,
!
Merlyn J. Ison, President
Merfyn Olson Development Company
i : !
I ' '
,. '
! ; ~
~:-
"
I!
....i L-._.
"
L____. "-".--- ....-... ----l
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
_._____+..__.. ___d___._n_._
-_.:. ""';"'-:.--:-~..:~~.~..~_._.-~_.. ~ ~",_~"..'."..".'~.".. .... .
R:-" _:..:;.: :-._'':;;;';:;';;'.--:.. - . ~._.
Land Surveyors
Planners
Valley Surveying Co., P. A.
(612) 447.2570
Suite 230
16670 Franklin Trail S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
October 17,2001
. .
. Area calculationS prepared for: .
EAGLEWOODEAST .
City of Prior Lake ..
Scott County, Minnesota
PLAT AREA DENSITY:
Gross.plat area . .'
Proposed units =32
Total wet land area
Net plat ar~a
5.003 acres = .217,937 sq. ft
Gros$ Density = 32/S.003 ac =
0.4669 acres = 20.338 sq. ft
4.S361 acres = 197,S92 sq. ft
Net Density = 32/4.S361 ac =
6.3962 D\U ac. .
7.0S4S D\U ac
FIRST FLOOR AREA RATIO: '
Total First'floor area = 39,316 sq: ft. =0.9026 ac.lS.003ac. = 0.i804 percent
Net First floor ratio = 0.9026 ac.l4.S361ac. = 0.1990 percent
. .
IMPERVIOUS C0VEJ11RATIO:
Area impervious cover = Roadway, Driveways, Parking Lots and Buildings.
Impervious area = 81,447 sq. ft. = 1.8698ac.lS.003ac. = 0.3737 percent
Area calculations prepared by:
onald A Swanson, Land Surveyor
Minnesota License Number 10183
Our file no. 9286
.
.
--. -.'----'-.---.-...-." .....---. ----~.
-- -----.--
:::.:-:-_..=:-~ -=--'-::':;'::'-:~::~:....-..-:- ---....---. -- ----
o
-
~
~
~\
r
~
t
.~
.~
, ..... :1.:': i',::i.\i:i'!j::"'i'i:1
. ". I:' '~'l ~. ..; ,t.. I . '1- 1 ~I , f
". . .' ""., "\" l'r:J rt fl'I', I i
' ,:,~f!,t",;i!.i :,~~. "'.l""~' t.
',! '!ih"!:i:,l.~ If I "':'111 .al ';1
',:'i:',I.!jj:.il':'j ;j 141;111 hh'~"
!,;iI"'!'."'''\ji; I, I iI1'1!IJ'II\;
'11"':~"I;'l,j ..1 . 't. 1~1~1"' 'II
., ...... ., :..:11/ : t ',1'\".'1".. "'1
....... I. '" l. I 1"1,. '. .
.j '~:::I~ ,f~ ~~:~!t . ~ .I~~.;l 4~ ,~~
.< :., ,:'.t.I;': : i '.~"d'l~ l~ 'H
" !~I! .n:,):,,; ;: .~St~ Iii 9~ ~i:
. . ,t .1 -'..1 . , '..In -I, 41 .
.. ,:" ..1'.,,"., '. I 'iI' 'II i/!
"..: '/::. ;.It;:~~! i ~ ~'t',i : I: !!
' I. .'1' , . . . '" I' I _
.~ ,; I 'I. .;:. . :'. J'e :.' Iii ~!~
:. .. r; 1 ! · . ~ ;!! ~l !~l '
'. ! ;:; . '!
! :-: l
I '1/ i
. ,.. J
· fS\}
: .fJ
Ihl
f 'Hi
· II
: \It
"
I.,
.... -~-..
CJ
):.
-
\
"<:.
~
~
'"
- ..J.
~
q~ ;(~o 7~y:~__.
~ 'rrr-" \jr.:
. [:. !.. I-\~.
."-'.1. -.:> ~ .-;;.l&..... .
~.;/~;L ~.:.:- p. .. :-., 5:.._~.-:;;,...~~~:
'.;-
:.;-
~.
,'.-. .
~,I
S..
1-
'i
..
...
t;"
',,)
.l
,..
~
,",;' ".,
Q,
'-.I
t
J
'I.
l.
s
i
Q'I
Q1r
. II
~ II'!
, 1/'
~ jl .
',. .1
1" :,
~ II
;:-)
v
..:-----..
,- .---
-'1-
.'
.
.\ --
I;
.f
:f .
!~1~
51, ;-
-Iii
~, ;.,
:(~
; ~ ..
.,
I
.l!
!i
! <'.> '.
t~:<' ':::..,'
, . , '.
! .\\':. \
-, '.\
. """ \ .....
,Co '\ \
..-. ,,\
- .
,
--..
o
\
""-D~:'
!:...". ~a
:. p I,.", i '
"a'~_il[:
r-- Ii!
.' .'1 Ii
I 1 '. ...~
I i. ~.
- il' ~...:
, ..
I
~ ! ~- I
; .....~:
e,l
~t
t II I
;" $ !!!i.
; ~"~
: l~
,
I
.~-.~., .. \ \
,'/.' :: ".
(' ~" . .
" .,' '"-
I .../- :1 · --"'----'-- -- -I
. I : I
! '. '. I
' 1'1.. i I : : : ; ; I
.. . . . . I I . . ,
iiiiililil;;iIHIIIH!I i !
1,lllll!ljl 1I1UliPjl
/ IIi:lJ i1 I
\ ,
"
~
~
f..
~ ~
?(,
: ':::: ~
: "';~;" ";~ C )l: .1
~ ~~. .; .I I;
': ;: f ! ;~ li
,. c. J'I
~
':
n
iii
!'j1
j.l
.~
~
- .'\.
\
~
.
__..~_'~n',.. ..____ ______._...__~~.'__._____. ____ _ ._.._. _,'''~''''~ ....___.__
...'l""-..........-:--.
f ,~ .'
.~
.I'COTr
p&~g~~~~Jlm-'::c ;Y:C,,'!!01
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT I;, \' AUG - 6 2001 ! U
, 600COUNTRYTRAILEAST iUGL-.. ,.}
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 I ' -. ----.-- ,-,.' I
(952) 496-8346 . '- _!
Fax: (952) 496-8365
BRADLEY J. LARSON
PUBUC WORKS DIREC1"ORl
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
July 26, 2001
Jane Kansier
City Planner
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake,:MN 55372
Subject:
Eaglewood Preliminary Plat and PreIiminary PUD
SE Corner of CSAH 21 and Duluth Avenue
Dear Jane:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the Eaglewood development and offer the following
comments:
. The plat does not reflect two recorded highway easements for CSAH 21 on the existing western two
lots that are a part oftbis plat. The easements should be shown on the plat, per document number,
before it is recorded.
I.
. The right-of-way along CSAH 21 should be increased to accommodate future improvements to
CSAH 21, such as turn lanes and median. Please keep in mind that any road expansion would affect
the south side of CSAH 21 more than the north side because of topography and curve of the road.
Therefore, we are requesting a minimum 60 feet of right of way from centerline be dedicated along
CSAH 21. We would also accept the additional 10 feet in the form O~Jl County highway easement to
be recorded with the County.
This request for additional right-of-way conforms to the County's 2020 Transportation plan. In the
plan traffic forecasts show CSAH 21 between CSAH 82 and TH 13 will be congested under the
current design within 20 years. To alleviate the congestion, the plan recommends that CSAH 21 be
improved to a four-lane divided road. The 60 feet of right-of-way from centerline is the absolute
minimum to accommodate a four-lane divided road with turn lanes. It may not accommodate
sidewalks, utilities, or trails successfully
-
If additional right-of-way is not planned for now and obtained with tbi~ development, the County will
be approaching property owners in the future about acquiring parts of their backyards not long after
this development has been established. Anyone purchasing these homes should be made fully aware
of what will happen in the future with CSAH 21 and all the related effects it could have on their
homes.
. The proposed road for the development will exit onto Duluth Avenue approximately 100 feet south of
the intersection with CSAH 21. Duluth Avenue is classified as a collector road, and we expect
conflicts with stacking on Duluth Avenue as traffic volumes increase. There would also be conflicts
if the intersection of Duluth Avenue and CSAH 21 were to be signalized in the future. To reduce the
potential conflicts with the intersection of CSAH 21 and Duluth Avenue, we would recommend that
An Equal Opponuniry/Safery Aware Employer
..-:. ~-:- --:-~_._........ ~-.-. :-. ~.' -.---.-.--.--.....
Eaglewood
Page 2
the proposed road at Duluth Avenue be designed as a right-inlright-out only at this time, or as a future
right-inlright-out when intersection improvements are made. This would require a center median
along Duluth Avenue. Another recommendation would be using the property that extends to
Colorado Street for a one way road designed as an exit only. The access on Duluth Avenue then
could be designed as an entrance only.
. No berming, landscaping, signage, or ponding shall be permitted in the County right-of-way.
. Any work in the County right-of-way shall require a County utility permit.
. Any increase in drainage entering the County right-of-way shall require a detailed stormwater
analysis to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval.
Would it be possible for us to be involved during the concept plan process for developments adjacent td
County roads? We believe early involvement is key to good communication and timely resolution of
issues related to developments such as this. The more open communication will not only promote a
smoother development review process it will build a stronger partnership between the City of Prior Lake
and Scott County.
~
Ig Jenson
Trahsportation Planner
Email: SueMcDcrmot.Prior Lake Engineer
"
"
, . ~-._._..... ..---....-- ~ - ----- -- ~- -,'. ..__ _ _':"~__~.__'.______'. --.....____.. ________ _ ___ _ _.' ............:,.....:....:..:~_.;_._.......__.4.. ._~~-...'-.,
OFF ICE. (9 5 2) 2 26 - 6 0 22
6715 Featherstone Drive, Savage, MN 55378
October 16, 2001
Oty of Prior Lake
Planning Commission
16200 Eagle Creek Ave., SE
Prior Lake, MN 553n-1714
RE: ProDOsed Townhome Proiect - Eaalewood East
EXPLANATION OF ACCESS TO PARCELS ADJACENT TO SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PROJECT
Radne Avenue is a 16.5-foot private road that runs along the south line of the project for a distance of 250 feet
from west Avenue. The easement that established Radne Avenue as a private road is cxmtalned In a quit daim
deed that was filed for record in 19n as document 16362.
Radne provlpes access to two properties - a single family house owned by Ronald Anderson at 16215 West
Avenue, and a duplex owned by Gerald Senechal at 4351 and 4353 West Avenue. Although the Anderson house
lies adjacent to the easement, it also has a driveway access onto West Avenue and does not appear to regularly
use the private easement. .
The 16.5-foot strip that Is subject to the private road easement will be part of the common elements of the project
and will be owned In fee by the Eaglewood Homeowners Association. The transfer of the common elements to the
assodation will be subject to the existing easement rights In deed 16362.
!
The preliminary plat shows that the private street running through the project from West Avenue to Duluth Avenue
aosses over the private road easement. This street will be paved and appropriate curb cuts will be provided for
access to the house and duplex. There will be no interference or restriction on the right of the house and duplex
to use the easement for access purposes. In fact, the easement to the house and duplex will be enhanced since
the street will be paved with proper storm drainage, and the assodation will be responsible for repair and
maintenance.
In summary, the design of the project is consistent with and preserves the private easement, known as Radne
Avenue, that provides access to the house and dupl~.
Respectfully submitted,
~wL;O~
Merlyn J. Olson, President
Merlyn Olson Development Company
..
..
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
Telephone: 952.447.2131
Facsimile: 952.447.5628
E-mail: buemoellerbates@aol.com
OCT I 2 2001
. -..'---'--.-.. .~---
-- .--- --- -- '.. .--
BRYCED.HUEMOELLER
JAMES D. BATES
ALLISON J. GONTAREK
OF COUNSEL:
CHARLES C. HALBERG
October 12, 2001
Ms. Jane Kansier
Prior Lake PlaIlIling Coordinator
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Eaglewood East
Dear Ms. Kansier:
I am writing at the request ofMerlyn Olson Development Corporation ("MODC")
concerning two issues that have arisen in connection with th~ pending application for
preliminary pl~t and PUD approval that is scheduled to be considered by the Prior Lake
Planning ComInission on November 13, 2001.;
BACKGRO~
. ; I
Eaglew.Qod is a planned community conta.infug 32 toWnhomes on a site consisting
of 5.003 acres. The project is being reviewed as a planned unit development under the' . ."
Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance.
The site abuts the south right-of-way line ofCSAH 21 between West and Duluth
Avenues. The site is a consolidation of 4 separately owned parcels of record. The
underlying zoning of the parcels is R-3, Medium Density Residential.
ISSUES
.,
The issues that I would like to address in this letter are as follows:
1. The extent to which MODC can be required to dedicate 15 or more feet of
additional right of way for CSAH 21 to accommodate anticipated increases in traffic
volume that are unrelated to the impact of the proposed development.
..
..
.--.---.-.- -- .._.__._._-_..----_._-~ -----------...-.. _.. - --- - --~. ---.
Ms. Jane Kansier
Page 2
October 12, 2001
..
2. Alternatives for dealing with the access of the development onto Duluth
Avenue.
DEDICATION OF ADDITIONAL CSAH 21 RIGHT OF WAY
It is our understanding that the Scott County Highway Department has
commented on the proposed development pursuant to Minn.Stat. ~505.03, Subd. 2(b), as
follows:
"The Scott County Transportation Plan forecasts this segment of CSAH 21 to be
congested by 2020 and recommends a capacity improvement from 4 lane
undivided to 41ane divided. Additional right of way should be dedicated for a
total of 65 feet from the center of CSAH 21."
Implementation of the recommendation of the Scott County Highway Department
will have the following impact on the project and the 2 easterly parcels within the
project:
i '1. The setbacks from the modified right of way will substantially reduce or
eliminate the building pads for up to 2 buildings. ;
2. The loss of the right of way will materially reduce the density of the entire
~~ .
3. The expanded right of way will cause a loss of infiltration areas needed to
implement the stormwater management plan for the project.
In general, the expansion of the right of way 15 or more feet into the property is
financially devastating for the project as a whole, and for at least 2 of the separate parcels
that comprise the project. Accordingly, we request that the City consider the following
in response to the recommendations of the Scott County Highway Department:
. 1. The comments of the Scott County Highway Department are made pursuant to
Minn.Stat. ~505.03, Subd. 2(b), which provides as follows:
"The county engineer's review shall be limited to factors of county significance in
conformance with adopted county guidelines developed through a public hearing
or a comprehensive planning process with comment by the cities and towns. The
guidelines must provide for development and redevelopment scenarios, allow for
variances, and reflect consideration of city or town adopted guidelines."
..
__.__.......~-:-_..'.~.____._...._......._~__~.4~.._____..~:..-_~_..._._.. ,..______.________.._.._ .__._______n_ _._. .._..
Ms. Jane Kansier
Page 3
October 12,2001
.-
We would ask the City to consider the following with respect to the County's
comments:
A. While the traffic issues on CSAH 21 are generally referred to in the Scott
County Transportation Plan, there is not a specific timetable set out in either the plan or
any other document, such as the 5 year capital improvement plan, for actually expanding
CSAH 21. Accordingly, it does not appear that there is in fact an "adopted county
guideline developed through a public hearing or a comprehensive planning process" that
is being implemented in this instance. Furthermore, if the Scott County Transportation
Plan were to be construed as such a "guideline", it does not provide for "development
and redevelopment scenarios" or "allow for variances" so as to prevent one parcel, such
as this project, from bearing an inequitable portion of the cost of dealing with the
increased traffic.
B. It is also not mandated or required that the City conform to the
recommendations of the Scott County Highway Department. In Minn.Stat. ~505.3,
Subd. 2( c), it simply requires that City and County representatives "meet to discuss the
differences and determine whether changes to the plat are appropriate prior to final
approval." Under the circumstances, it would appear that the City should rejectithe
recommendation of the Scott County Highway Department with respect to the expanded
right of way, and provide the reasoning at the meeting called for by the statute.
2. The recommendation of the Scott County Highway Department raises a
significant constitutional concern. Both the federal and state constitutions require that
plat dedications pass a two part test. First, there must be a connection between the
dedication and the proje(~t. Se90nd, the dedication must bear a "rough proportionality"
or "reasonable relationship" to the pr9posed development's impact.
In this case, the dedication is neither connected to the project, nor is it
proportional to the impact of the project on the public road system. The only connection
between the project and CSAH 21 is fortuitous timing, in that the project is being
constructed before Scott County began condemnation to expand the CSAH 21 right of
way. The dedication is "disproportionate" because the apparent need for the additional
right of way has already been established without regard to any impact at all from this
project.
If Scott County wants additional right of way from this land, it should buy it, and
the cost of the additional right of way should reflect the impact on the parcels from
which the right of way is being taken. However, to demand the additional right of way
now irrespective of the actual impact of the project on the projected traffic for CSAH 21
is unlawful.
"
"
.:~~ .:...______.._....__.~. _~_ '"_._._.___'___'A__.___ _____ ._. ._.______. _____.~_,._..._____.._._. _.__.__.__~_._ _. _.________". _______.__~. __ __
Ms. Jane Kansier
Page 4
October 12,2001
3, The recommendation does not consider other options, such as the following:
A. Table 4.1 of the Scott County Transportation Plan states that the width ofa 4
lane divided highway with a "minimum urban section" is 120 feet (not 130 feet as stated
in its comments). This would reduce the taking to 10 feet rather than 15 feet.
B. The recommendation does not consider other scenarios such as taking more
right of way from the north side ofCSAH 21 where the impact on the land will be less.
(C) The recommendation does not consider using the PUD process or variances to
mitigate the negative impact of the dedication on the project and underlying parcels.
Reduced setbacks, increased density, permitting the use of dedicated right of way for
screening and stormwater infiltration areas, and similar ideas, should be included in the
recommendation to comply with Minn.Stat. ~505.03, Subd. 2(c).
Based on the foregoing, MODC requests that the City disregard the
recommendation of the Scott County Transportation Department and not require the
dedication of any ad<;litional right of way for the expansion of CSAH 21.
ACCESS TO DULUTH A. VENUE
In response to the concern expressed with respect to the access from the-project
onto Duluth A venue~ MODC intends to retain a consulting traffic engineer to evaluate
the recommendation :and to suggest alternatives that could include the following:
1. A "right in, "right out" access onto Duluth Avenue.
2. An entrance into the project from Duluth Avenue with the easterly exit from
the project being via the strip running south to Colorado Street.
SUMMARY
In summary, MODC requests that the City Plannmg Staff recommend to the
Planning Commission and City Council as follows:
1. The recommendation of the Scott County Highway Department with respect to
the expanded right of way for CSAH 21 is excessive and will constitute an
unconstitutional taking ofland that should not and need not, pursuant to Minn.Stat.
~505.03, Subd. 2(c), be followed.
.
.
--- ...__......~-.: -;:'....-:;.-_. -----'------~--_....._'.,-- ~..- .. -.-.. - - -.-- --'- ---_._----------~-_.__. --..-.. - --' --.---- _.-.- ..-.
. .
Ms. Jane Kansier
Page 5
October 12, 2001
2. The project can be approved with minor alterations to the easterly access that
will avoid the traffic concerns raised in the report of the Prior Lake City Engineer.
Sincerely yours,
BDH:jd
cc: Merlyn Olson Development Corporation
.
- .- - - -. - - - .- - -
-----.-.--
SRF CONSULTING GROUP
- - -.-.....- ... -.-
III 002
12/05/2001 16:20 FAX 7634752429
....__ __ CONSULTING
Transportation. Civil. Structural. Environmental · Planning · Traffic · Landscape Architecture · Parking
GROUP,
I N c.
SRF No. 0014384
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
FROM: Patrick Corkle, P.E., P.T.O.E., Associate
DATE: December 5,2001
SUBJECf: EAGLEWOOD EAST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY
CITY OF PRlOR LAKE, MlNNESOTA
Introduction
, .
As you requested, we have completed a traffic study for the ,proposed residential development
bordered by CSAH 21. West Avenue, Duluth Avenue and Colorado Street in the City of Prior
Lake (see Figure 1). The purpose of this study is to detennine ,the traffic impacts on the adjacent
roadway system related: to the proposed development traffic and access. This traffic. study
inchides'a.traffic operatibns analysis during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for existing andIuture
build 'c.drid1tions.
Existing Conditions
Traffic operations for existing conditions were analyzed at the following key intersections:
. CSAH 21 and West Avenue
. CSAH 21 and Duluth Avenue
. Duluth Avenue and Colorado Street
One Carlson Parkway Nortli, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443
Telephone (763) 475-0010 . Fax (763) 475-2429 · http:/ /www.srfconsulting.com
An Equal Opportunity Employer
12/05/2001 16:21 FAX 7634752429
SRF CONSUJ,..TIN,!i GROUP
..-.-'--- -..-
@003
f HEM\.OCK
IB CIR.
Prior Lake
GE
92. HORIZON TRAIL
FIGURE
~CONSULTINC Gaoup, INC.
PROJECT LOCATION
1
SRF NO. 0014384
EAGLEWOOD EAST TRAFFIC STUDY
12/05/2001 18:21 FAX 7834752429
SRE-~ONSULTING GROUP
IaJ 004
Jane Kansier
-3-
December 5,2001
Current traffic controls at the CSAH 21 intersections with West Avenue and Duluth Avenue are
side-street stop control. The intersection of Duluth A venue and Colorado Street has all-way stop
control. Duluth Street is a collector roadway and CSAH 21 is an "An minor arterial. SRF
Consulting Group collected a.m. and p.m. peak. hour turning movement counts in December
2001 at the key intersections. Existing geometries and peak hour traffic volumes for the key
intersections are shown in Figure 2.
A traffic operations analysis was conducted for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at each of the key
intersections to determine how traffic currently operates within the project area. All key
intersections were a~alyzed using the Highway Capacity Software. Capacity analysis results
identify a Level of Service (LOS), which indicates the quality of traffic flow through an
intersection. Intersections are gfven a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the
best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS F indicates an
intersection where demand exceeds capacity. or a breakdown of traffic flow. LOS A through D
are generally conside:red acceptable by drivers. LOS E indicates that an intersection is operating
at. or very near. its capacity and that vehicles experience substantial delays.
Results of the analysis shown in Table 1 indicate that the key intersections currently operate at an
acceptable overall LOS A I worst approach LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours,
with existing traffic controls and geometric layout.
Table 1
Existing Capacity<Analysis
Level of Service Results
~ Level of Service
Intersection
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
CSAH 21/West Avenue* (2-Way) AIB A1B
CSAH 21IDuluth Avenue* (2-Way) AIB AIB
Duluth Avenue/Colorado Street* (AlI-Wav) AlA AlA
. IndIcates an unsignahzed intersection. The overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS.
,.
12/05/2001 16:22 FAX 7634752429
SRF CONSULTING GROUP
IaJ 005
<::)Gf:--
-....
CC
~
CJ
// ,/
/" / .
~~/
//~I~S\ DE
/' ~"
V .
J: .
UW
~ .~
co
W
:s
~
I-
en 80.
w
S
81.
I PLEASANT
CATES J_~ ST.
>-
z
<(
co
~
<(
.
w
~
'l'POD
. ?~\O~
ST.
.::>
o
LEGEND
XX (XX) = AM PEAK (PM PEAK)
I
!
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
EXISTING VOLUMES
FIGURE
_~JRiI C ONSU LTINC C .OUP, INC.
.
2
SRF NO. 0014384
EAGLEWOOD EAST TRAFFIC STUDY
<...:_.-;.__.___;;.....,,,.__-.:..~.~___.__:.." .:.~~ _..t.>_~
12/05/2001 16:22 FAX 7634752429
_'_ SRF. CONSULTING GROUP
laJ 006
Jane Kansier
-5-
December 5, 2001
Proposed Development
The proposed residential development is to be constructed on a currently vacant five-acre site
bordered by CSAH 21, West Avenue, Duluth Avenue and Colorado Street in the City of Prior
Lake. The proposed development of 33 townhomes is expected to be constructed by year 2005.
A new residential street (Racine Street) through the proposed developmc:nt will run parallel to
Colorado Street, intersecting West Avenue and Duluth Avenue. Direct access to/from the
proposed residential development will be alopg Racine Street. With the construction of Racine
Street, intersection access will then be provided onto West Avenue and Duluth Avenue. The
intersection of West Avenue and Racine Street will be located approximately 350 feet south of
CSAH 21. The intersection of Duluth Avenue and Racine Street will be approximately 150 feet
south of CSAH 21.
Traffic Forecasts
Traffic forecasts were developed for the year 2005. A four-percent yearly growth rate was used
to account for growth in background traffic volumes on CSAH 21 and a one-percent yearly
background growth rate was used for Duluth A venue through traffic.
. '
Trip generation estimates for daily and a.mJp.m. peak hours were calc~lated for the proposed
development based on land use type and size, and trip generation formulas from the 1997 ITE
Trip Generation Reports. The trip generation. results are displayed in Table 2.
.. :;.
Table 2
Trip Generation Estimates
. .
Land Use Land Use Size Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Type Trips In Out In Out
Residential Townhome 230 33 units 255 4 18 17 8
The directional trip distribution for the proposed site-generated trips was developed based on
existing travel patterns in the area and engineering judgment. It is assumed 55 percent of the
generated trips would be traveling to/from the east on CSAH 21,30 percent traveling to/from the
west on CSAH 21 and 15 percent traveling to/from the south on' Duluth Avenue. The
combination of background traffic and trips generated by the proposed developments is shown in
Figure 3 for the year 2005 a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
.
. .... "".---.--- .,-.-
. ~__~...._ ___,---,-__, ._'_..__ :_~---.:.-__...__._ _ _c._._..._______._.... _._.
12/05l~~0~. 1.~....: 22...F~ .76~4.t52-~.29
SRF CONSULTING GROUP
III 007
w
,,@ :s
~
RACINE ST.
COLORADO
PLEASANT
.
-- w
oco ~
:!..-
"'"' .... 1 (4)
~ ~ 6 (3) + + 4 (6)
1 (O)
7(10}
~ (1) 1 + +
co 0 (2) 2
("II N,...N
-- (4) 7 co....
eD .... ST. ....
....-
-
LEGEND
XX (XX) = AM PEAK (PM PEAK)
FIGURE
.4J91 CON S U L TIN C G It 0 UP, I N C.
.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
YEAR 2005 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
3
SRF NO. 0014384
EAGLEWOOD EAST TRAFFIC STUDY
_ 1~!0~/2001 16:~~ FAX 763475!429
SRF CONSULTING GROUP
raJ 008
Jane Kansier
-7-
December 5, 2001
Future Traffic Operations Analysis
To detennine how well the existing and proposed roadway system will accommodate the
proposed development, a traffic operations analysis was conducted for the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours for the year 2005.
Similar to the previous analysis, the unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the Highway
Capacity Software. As shown in Table 3, all key intersections are expected to operate at an
acceptable overall LOS A / w9rst approach LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours
in the year 2005, with existing traffic control and geometric layout.
Table 3
Year 2005 Capacity Analysis
Level of Service Results
Intersection Level of Service
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
CSAH 21IWest Avenue* (2-Way) AIB AIB
CSAH 21lDu1uthAvenue* (2-Wav) AlC AlC ,
Duluth Avenue/Colorado Street* (4-Wav) AlA AlA
. Indicates an unsignalized intersection. The overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS.
Access Issues
~ .
There are two proposed access points for the development along West Avenue and Duluth
A venue. The safe stopping and decision sight distances and queue lengths for each location were
reviewed to detennine the impacts of the new access intersections.
The proposed access onto W est Avenue would have adequate decision-sight and safe stopping
distances to allow safe turning movements to and from Racine Street. In addition, queue lengths
along West Avenue are not expected to back-up into the West Avenue and Racine Street
intersection.
-
The proposed access onto Duluth Avenue is closely spaced to the CSAH 21 intersection.
Adequate safe stopping distance would be provided for motorists turning onto Duluth Avenue
from CSAH 21, since this traffic has slower speeds, thus requiring a shorter safe stopping
distance. The northbound queues forming at CSAH 21 are not expected to block the proposed
access in year 2005. However, this could become an issue under future conditions as volumes on
CSAH 21 continue to in~rease. The proposed access does not provide adequate decision sight
distance for motorists to turn left from Racine Street onto Duluth A venue, due to the location of
.
12/05/2001 16:23 FAX 7634752429
SRF CONSULTING GROUP
IaI 009
Jane Kansier
-8-
December 5. 2001
the proposed town home located on Block 1. Lot 3. In addition. any landscaping along the west
side of Duluth Avenue would impact the decision sight distance. This situation would cause
some discomfort to the motorist turning onto Duluth Avenue.
To improve the safety of the intersection access at Duluth A venue. we offer the following
possible solutions:
. Sight obstructing objects should be relocated from the decision sight distance area.
including the proposed townhome located on Block 1, Lot 3 and any landscaping.
. Limit access to the proposed development to/from West A venue. This would create an
800-900 foot cuI-de-sac. The City Fire Chief and City Code should be consulted for the
feasibility of this solution. The relocation of the site-generated trips to the W est Avenue
access will not significantly impact the operations of the adjacent street system.
. Restrict the Duluth Avenue and Racine Street intersection access to right-inlright-out
movements, with channelization on Racine Street. However, it may be difficult to
enforce this type of turning movement without a center median on Duluth Avenue.
Drivers trying to violate this restriction will be in a worse situation. since they will
re9uire more time to make a left-turn movement.
. R~strict the Duluth A venue and Racine Street intersection access to a right-in only and
provide a right-out onto Colorado Street by extending a one-way road from the proposed
residential street to Colorado Street.
. 7 !
. Create a one-way only roadway system with the ingress at Duluth A venue and the egress
at West Avenue.
Summary and Conclusions
A residential development of 33 town homes is proposed on a currently vacant site borckred by
CSAH 21. West Avenue, Duluth Avenue and Colorado Street in the City of Prior Lake. The
purpose of this study is to examine the impacts this development would have on the adjacent
roadway system.
Based on the analysis. the following conclusions and recommendations are offered for your
consideration:
. All key intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS A / worst approach
LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with existing geometries and traffic
control.
.
12/05/2001 16:24 FAX 7634752429
SRF CONSULTING GROUP
~010
.. Jane Kansier
-9-
December 5, 200 1
. With the construction of the proposed residential development, all key intersections are
expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A I worst approach LOS C or better
during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in the year 2005 with existing geometrics and traffic
control.
. The proposed intersection access of West Avenue and Racine Street is expected to
operate adequately with the required safe stopping and decision sight distance.
. The proposed intersection access of Duluth A venue and Racine Street is currently located
(according to the proposed site plan) close to CSAH 21. The safe stopping distance for
traffic on Duluth Avenue is adequate. The estimated queues in year 2005 on northbound
Duluth Avenue at CSAH 21 are not expected to block the Racine Street. However, the
decision sight distance is inadequate for motorists to safely and comfortably exit Racine
Street onto Duluth A venue. Therefore, we recommend that the solutions previously
identified are considered to improve the traffic operations along Duluth Street and CSAH
21 with the proposed development in place.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhofcalled the November 13, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Stamson and Vonhof,
Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue
McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V onhof
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the October 22, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Consent:
A. Case #01-082 Koestering Variance Resolution
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier gave a brief overview of the report.
There were no questions from the Commissioners.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-
23PC APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 25' FRONT YARD
SETBACK.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
5. Public Hearings:
A. Cases #01-062 & #01-063 Merlyn Olson Development is requesting
consideration for a preliminary PUD Plan and a preliminary plat consisting of 5.003
acres to be subdivided into 32 townhouse lots on the property located on the south
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MNlll30 l.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2001
side ofCSAH 21, ~ block north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue
and east of West Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 13,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Merlyn Olson Homes has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Eaglewood East on the property located south ofCSAH 21,.~ block north of Colorado
Street, west of Duluth Avenue and east of West Avenue. The application includes the
following requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;:
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of a total of 32 dwelling units
on 4.536 net acres, for a total density of 7.1 units per acre. The proposed development
includes 28 dwelling units 7 four-unit buildings, and 4 dwelling units in 2 two-unit
buildings. The development also includes a private street and private open space.
Merlyn Olson Homes is the developer of this project. The application has also been
signed by the current property owners, Lee Klingberg and Gary Staber.
There are several outstanding issues, which must be addressed. The first major issue is
the need for additional right-of-~ay as discussed above. Wijether or not this right-of-way
is dedicated affects the design of the development. This iss~e should be resolved before
the Council approves a preliminary plat. The second major issue is whether the PUD
process is appropriate for this d~velopment. The primary ju~tification for a PUD appears
to be the use of the private streets. A cluster development of this type is permitted with
conditions in the R-3 district, so a similar development with 'public streets could be done
without a PUD. Finally, the third issue is the extension of Racine Street to Duluth
Avenue. This intersection should be eliminated as recommended by staff. This issue, as
well as the remaining issues, are primarily design issues that can be addressed with the
final PUD plan and the final plat.
If the Planning Commission finds the PUD process is appropriate for this development,
the staff would recommend the following conditions be attached:
1. The access to Colorado Str~et must be eliminated and Racine Street must be designed
with a cul-de-sac or a turn-around on the east end.
2. The unit identified as Lot 1, Block 7, must be located at least 30' from the 100-year
flood elevation of the NURP pond, or it must be eliminated.
3. The setback between the townhouse buildings must be at least Y2. the sum of the
building heights ofthe two buildings. The building elevations must be submitted to
scale to identify the height of the buildings, and the site plan must identify the
setbacks.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancornrn\Olpcrninutes\MNI 1 1301.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2001
4. The site plan and the building plans must be revised to show all decks and porches.
5. The tree inventory and preservation plan must be refined to indicate whether the trees
along the north side of the property are located on the property or on the County road
right-of-way. Ifnecessary, the plan must be revised to include any additional tree
replacement required.
6. Revise the landscaping plan to meet the requirements of Section 1107.1900, and
specifically to identify the size of the proposed plantings. The plan must also identify
how the bufferyard requirements are being met. The landscaping plan must also
identify the necessary replacement trees.
7. Provide an irrigation plan.
8. The calculation of usable open space must be revised to eliminate the area for new
storm water ponds.
9. A drainage and utility easement must be provided over all of Outlot B.
10. The plat must identify the drainage and utility easements over the wetlands and storm
water ponds.
11. The items outlined in the memorandum from the City Engineer, dated August 1,
2001, must be addressed prior to the final plat.
12. All necessary permits from other agencies must be obtained prior to any grading on
the site or prior to final plat approval.
The ;Planning staff recommended Alternativ~ #2, to table this item to December 10, 2001
and provide the developer with direction on the issues discussed.
Lemke questioned staffs recommendation f9r a cul-de-sac on the east end of Racine
Stref?t. Kansier responded.
V onhof questioned a right-in right-out access. McDermott stated they could look at it.
Comments from the public:
Merlyn Olson, of Merlyn Olson Development Company, thanked staff for the
presentation and welcomed the neighbors. Olson gave an overview ofthe project. He
would like to see the project attractive to all. The price range for the townhomes would
be around $160,000. Olson responded to some of staffs issues and stated he would be
in fayor of continuing the hearing to the December 10, 2001 meeting for additional time
to deal with those concerns.
Bill Bleckwenn, the landscape architect explained he had a complete landscape plan
meeting the requirements.
Bill Jacobson lives on Racine Avenue and felt his residence would be greatly impacted
by the project. Jacobson is an attorney with experience in real estate development and
felt the density was too high for Duluth Avenue and County Road 21, which is extremely
L:\01fi1es\0Iplancomm\0Ipcminutes\MNI11301.doc 3
__<_,,_.___.___...___.__..~.o. "'_"_"~"',"~,___~,_._""_""_~,,,,,,,,,,_.~,,___,,,.,._~_,_,_-,,,,,,,,,-,<....,_._.."_'___d_...,._.._,___~__~__.'_'__d~~.~__.______,________~._____"R______________",___....
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2001
busy and has had many accidents. West Avenue is also impacted because it is the only
place people can park and fish on Prior Lake. He had concerns for the wetland, drainage
and runoff. Jacobson pointed out there would only be 8 additional visitor parking spaces,
which would not be adequate given the surrounding lack of parking space. He stated he
is not opposed to development or anti-development, but this is too large a development
for the space. Jacobson recommended denial ofthe development.
Lyaman McPherson, 16282 West Avenue, said he spent time today at the Spring Lake
Prior Lake Watershed District who were not aware of the project. McPherson read a
petition stating opposition to the project that included conditions that it was not consistent
with the surrounding housing development, preservation of the wetland and the existing
drainage problems on W est Avenue and County Road 21 and the increase in traffic will
further complicate the already heavy traffic. The existing church and school have
congested traffic problems. Property values will be affected. McPherson said the
watershed issues must be addressed as well as the parking. There is no play area for the
children. The amounts of units should be reduced. The atmosphere will be greatly
impacted. They would like to allow the development but not the current proposal.
Josie Schmaltz, 16200 West Avenue, across from Racine Street, stated the traffic is
excessive on West Avenue. Weekends, morning and afternoon peak traffic is
unbelievable. People park on both sides ofthe street to fish on Prior Lake. Residents
have brought petitions for "No Parking" signs to the City only to be denied. She knows
Merlyn builds quality homes, but this project does not fit. There are too many units for
the area. No one wants it. Every spring County Road 21 floods. $chmaltz explained the
proposed park in 1983. She was not against the project, would rather see single-family
housing.
Greg Ilkka, Assistant Scott County Engineer, Scott County Highway Department,
supported staffs recommendation to table the matter. Ilkka explained the request for the
additional right-of-way and widening the roadway. Under Design Standards the County
needs 120 feet minimum right-of-way to build a 4 to 5 lane road and maintain the
existing sidewalks and trails. Ilkka explained they do not have a full plan of the proposed
plan for widening County Road 21. It makes more sense to ask for the land on the south
side of County Road 21 than come in later and impact the residents. They are trying to
avoid that scenario.
Heidi Peterson, 4346 Colorado Street said she was extremely disappointed with this
development. They bought their property last August because it w:as a quiet established
neighborhood. Some of her concerns are the wetland, the trees, the high traffic and the
small amount of parking allocated for the project. She stated she used to live in
townhomes and did not want more townhome-type people in the area. The proposed
landscaping will change the entire look of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is
opposed to the project.
Julie Bruha, 4190 Colorado Street, noted the parkway was a Hennepin County Park trail.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\Ol pcminutes\MN 11130 I.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2001
Dan Willgahs, 4432 Colorado Street, said many residents are hitting on the same points,
but wanted to reinforce the traffic issues. Questioned the County's traffic proposal.
V onhof responded the City Engineering Department can explain some ofthe traffic
issues. Willgahs pointed out that he lives across from St. Michael's School and many
people are using his driveway to turn-around. Willgahs explained the traffic problems
with the existing parking and the increased traffic.
Anna Mae Ryan, 4296 Colorado Street, questioned the County's painted crosswalk. No
one stops at County Road 21. Many of the residents and homes were present before
County Road 21. She explained the skateboard problems. Another problem is the
increase in parking for fishing and lake usage. Residents have the right to use their own
driveways. Ryan pointed out the growing problem with St. Michael's Church and School.
There should be stoplights on County Road 21. V onhof said the crosswalk problems can
be forwarded to the police department.
Joanne Brandstedter, 4452 Colorado Street, explained situations with the neighborhood
racers and an unknown car parked in her driveway. She felt Prior Lake is not a very
pretty area. She proposed the City purchase the land from the developer and increase the
benefit of the area and put in a small parking lot and reduce the drainage problems on
West Avenue and Duluth Street. She explained the drainage problems in her back yard
and suggested other changes and alternatives entering downtown Prior Lake.
The floor was closed at 7:43 p.m.
Kansier did point out the stop sign proposals and the proposed parking lot at Grainwood
Park. McDermott said they would like to add 6 spaces.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. Questioned the R3 zoning. Kansier responded it was there for several years and used
to be zoned R4.
· What is the Planning Commission's role if a developer meets the requirements and
the Planning Commission does not want it, can the Commission say "No"? Kansier
explained the process pointing out it would be difficult to deny the proposal if it
meets the ordinances.
. What is the market value of the land ifthe City were to purchase the property?
Kansier said she could not guess. Staff did not have that information.
Stamson:
· Being within the density allowed, given the amount of green space, excluding the
ponding, the zoning is definitely what the City had in mind when it was zoned R3.
Given that, there is a definite problem of increase of traffic and how to deal with it.
· The plan needs to be further reviewed with the traffic in mind.
· Against the cul-de-sac proposal, all the traffic is pushed on to West Avenue, which is
far less than an ideal street. Duluth Avenue is built to a higher level of traffic.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\OI pcminutes\MNl 1 130 l.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2001
. Pointed out the traffic problems for the development turning onto Duluth Avenue.
. Maybe a right-in, right-out access would be a preferable solution.
. The tree preservation proposal meets the requirements.
. Density needs to be looked at.
Atwood:
. Does not like the development. The developer decided to maximize the density.
. The buffers are not adequate.
. The traffic on Racine will not work.
. Does not likethe right-in, right-out solution.
. The streets and project will not support the traffic.
. The matter should be tabled.
. No problem ~ a PUD.
. This is an already overburdened neighborhood and this project would only add fuel to
the fire.
. The additional parking of 8 spaces in the project will not work.
. Would be more agreeable to a lower density.
V onhor:
. Before tabling this issue would like to see a traffic study on Duluth Avenue and West
Avenue and estimate oftraffic impact by the proposal done by a traffic engineer.
. Would like to see an Environment Report done by the developer regarding the
wetland. .
. The City modified the NURP pond, was it done correctly? McDermott responded;the
NURP pond was redeveloped to take some development on this site into accOunt. .
Not the entire site, but at least half. The County has addressed the flooding on .
County Road'21 by adding a catch basin. It probably alleviated some ofthe problem.
She hadn't noticed any problems since.
. County Road 21 will be expanded in size.' It has shifted the traffic patterns off
Highway 13 to County Road 21. This will impact the site. It will be foolish not to
heed the County's input.
. Would not consider any development without sidewalks.
. The density and size of the buildings acts as a buffer between County Road 21 and
the existing homes. Is it esthetically pleasing? Probably not.
. Would like to see more preservation or something more creative than what is
proposed. This is basically a row of townhomes.
. More buffering is needed.
. The spirit of the PUD is to make homes cluster and fit into that area and maintain as
much natural preservation as possible.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO TABLE THE MATTER TO
DECEMBER 10,2001, TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS AND
THE ISSUES IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN11130 l.doc 6
.12~litft~Jn9lANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Stamson stated the Commission approved the Variance Resolution with numbers 1,3 and
4. The appeal period is 5 days.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
5. Public Hearings:
A. Cases #01-062 & #01-063 Merlyn Olson Development is requesting consideration
for a preliminary PUD Plan and a preliminary plat consisting of 5.003 acres to be
subdivided into 32 townhouse lots on the property located on the south side of
CSAH 21, one-half block north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue
and east of West Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated December 10,
2001, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department.
This site consists ofa total of5.003 acres of unplatted, vacant land. In July, 2001, the
Planning Commission approved an exception to the minimum 10-acre requirement for a
PUD in order to allow the developer to move forward with this application. This action
does not guarantee approval ofthe PUD plan, in whole or in part.
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on November 13,
2001. At that meeting, the Planning Commission discussed several concerns raised by
the staff. The Planning Commission also heard testimony fro~ several residents of the
area opposed to this project. The Planning Commission continued this item in order to
allow the developer to address the issues raised at this meeting.
Staff raised 12 issues in their report. At the meeting on November 13,2001, the Planning'
Commission raised 6 concerns - density, traffic, storm water calculations, sidewalks,
County Road 21 improvements and a more creative design. The overall design of this ..,
project has not changed.
Kansier also presented the Planned Unit Development Criteria and Findings along with
staffs 11 conditions of approval:
1. The developer must provide a design for a right-in/right-out access at the intersection
of Duluth Avenue and Racine Street.
2. The unit identified as Lot 1, Block 7, must be located at:1east 30' from the 100-year.
flood elevation of the NURP pond, or it must be eliminated.
3. The 10' strip of land shown as a road easement for CSAH 21 must be dedicated as
right-of-way.
4. A sidewalk connection to the public sidewalks along CSAH 21 and Duluth Avenue
must be provided.
DRAFT
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\MN121 OOl.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 2001
5. Homeowner's Association documents and covenants, specifically addressing the
maintenance of the private street and other common space, must be provided with the
final plans.
6. A lighting plan for the private streets must be provided.
7. An irrigation plan must be provided with the final plans.
8. A drainage and utility easement must be provided over all of Outlot B.
9. The plat must identify the drainage and utility easements over the wetlands and storm
water ponds.
10. The items outlined in the memorandum from the City Engineer, dated August 1,
:2001, must be addressed prior to the final plat.
11. All necessary permits from other agencies must be obtained prior to any grading on
the site or prior to final plat approval.
Mr. Pat Corkle ofSRF Consulting Group, the City's consultant, presented the Traffic
Report. The report indicated with the construction ofthe proposed project, an key
intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS (Level of Service) A.
The worst approach would operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours in the year 2005 with existing geometrics and traffic control.
Atwood questioned the times ofthe rush hour. Corkle stated it was from 6:30 a.m. to
7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
,
Criego questioned the impact of the right-in, right-out on Duluth Avenue pushing the
traffic out on West Avenue. Corkle responded with the number of trips it would still
wOfk adequately. There may be a little mo~e delay, but it would still work. Corkle
con.firmed the traffic numbers did notprodu,ce any volume of any significance.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Merlyn Olson, thanked all parties involved in this project for their quick
response. He was in favor ofthe right-in/right-out access on Duluth and Racine. If the
setback to the pond does not meet the required 30 foot setback they would be able to put
one of the other units in and comply. They are asking for a special consideration for less
than 20 feet between the buildings. In the process of narrowing the street and moving the
buildings away from County Road 21 to give a ten foot easement, they moved the two-
unit building, which is next to Duluth Avenue, which will help with sight lines. Olson
said they can comply with all 11 conditions.
Aaron Halling addressed the three concerns raised by the Watershed District. All issues
have now been met and will resubmit their application.
Lyaman McPherson, 16282 West Avenue, felt there had been no apparent change to the
project. There are further concerns raised especially the 10 foot easement to County
Road 21 and should technically be removed from the calculations. Even if the zoning
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MNl2 1 001 .doc
5
np At:T
r~:/" ~; ',~ ' -'(: ~-
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10. 2001
allows 7.2 units per acre, nothing states the Commission is compelled to accept the
maximum amount per acre. Suddenly 32 units are squeezed in between single family
homes. The developer is requesting variances between the building to make them fit.
McPherson stated he would not spend $195,000 for a house that he couldn't walk on a
sidewalk to get out of. His calculations indicated the developer's proceeds from the units
right now would be $5.9 Million. If reduced to 24 units they would receive $4.32
Million. He did not feel the neighbors have to put up such a drastic change and suggested
a lower density.
Mike Gundlach, Prior Lake City Council, said the townhomes were proper for the
property but did not feel the current project is a good use for the land. The first problem
is that it does not meet the City's requirement for a PUD. There are some acreage issues
and obviously they will have to get some variances to get a PUD. Not certain that is a
good use of a PUD. Does it meet the purpose of a PUD? Which means that the City and
the builder trade off for some clustering of homes to get some open space. Can the
objective be met without a PUD? In this case there is a private road where a variance can
be approved in some cases. Not sure ifthe density can be met with or without a PUD.
Can the setbacks be met without a PUD? If the Commission decides a PUD is not
appropriate in this particular context, if in fact, the Commission does decide a PUD is
appropriate, what are the tradeoffs? We need to ask what the tradeoffs are. There is not a
lot of open space. What would this look like without a PUD? Has that been explored?
Why do we have the PUD process and where did it come from?
Bill Jacobson 4385 Racine Street, questioned the traffic study. The study does not state
wOOt time of year. The heavy use of )Vest Avenue is in the summer. West Avenue is
packed with fisherman and traffic to Captain Jack's. It is difficult getting out on County
Road 21. Despite what the study indiqates there is no easy access. Another issue brought
up last meeting is the extra parking. Visitors will be forced out in the street. There is no
other place in Prior Lake that has a develop;nent like this proposal. This development
will be packed in like sardines. Variances would have to be granted to even make this
proposal work. There are no hardships for this density. The developer says he will meet
the conditions, but we don't see them today. Asked that the matter be delayed until all
the issues are in place. Not against development but the number of units in this space is
creating a precedent for Prior Lake resulting in additional traffic problems and changing
the whole nature of a residential area.
Criego asked Bill Jacobson what his recommendation would be for the property.
Jacobson responded a group home for handicapped but knew that is not a priority. He
believed a development could take place without an added 250 cars coming out on two
streets. Not against the development oftownhomes but the number of units and density
is too much. He would like to see more open space.
JoAnne Brandstedter, 4452 Colorado Street, does not personally know about the fishing
and parking problems on West Avenue, however she does face St. Michael's School and
there are considerations of the rush hour other than the weekends, school hours and
Wednesday nights. The rush hour is not necessarily with the traffic study hours. Her
L:\Ol files\OI plancomm\Ol pcminutes\MNl21 OOl.doc
6
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10,2001
other concern was for her property as well as her neighbors with the standing water and
flooding. Landscape will take a long time to mature. She was interested in fencing
around the project. Brandstedter felt there was a lot of fancy number crunching without
changing the project.
Pat Heaney, 4642 Pleasant Street, had questions on the traffic study. Where and when
did the study take place? The consultant states the access area on West Avenue and
County Road 21 is easy to see. As a jogger Heaney goes out of his way to avoid that
area. St. Michael's is expanding and does not know how they are going to handle the
traffic. Would like a discussion on the half acre of possible park. Maybe that area could
be used for some aesthetic purposes upon entering the downtown. Is it accurate if this
project could be developed other than a PUD, would 5 to 7 units be removed? In'looking
to the future, I hear a lot of plans for Main Avenue and County Road 21, as prudent
developers the City needs to look at this area. County Road 21 is only going to get more
and more crowded.
. Richard Keeney, 16102 Lakeside, was concerned with this development fitting into the
neighborhood. Questioned if the development could fit into the land use district.. Keeney
went on to explain the Conditional Use ordinances. Felt a better use of the land would be
for duplexes.
Merlyn Olson, the developer, commented on the remarks and comments:
· The development is below the required density and meets all the requirement~.
· The required open space is 19,800 square feet - they are providing 83,639 square feet.
· Regarding the Council Member's comments: This property could not be developed
unless it was a PUD. Without a PUD, a public street would be a minimum of 32 feet
wide with a dedicated right-of-way of about 60 to 66 feet and a common setback of
30 feet. The setback from the County Road would be another 30 feet.
· Comments about clustering the buildings: Olson responded he spent years coming up
with a design for a PUD. It is the only design that works for the area.
· Parking space - the requirement is 2 spaces per unit. There are 64 spaces plus an
additional 11 along the street.
· They did request a variance to the PUD. Ten acres is the requirement, but they came
before the Planning Commission several months ago and were approved.
· The traffic study - the LOC (Level of Service) in the area is "A". "A" being the best,
"F" being the worst. It is a very good rating for serving this area.
· The storm water issue: There is a storm water collection basin in the area. Their
design for the street will control the runoff.
· Parkland: Staff felt the property would not be suitable for parking and the developer
will contribute money for parkland in other areas.
· The last gentleman spoke of the development as a Conditional Use Permit. They are
not planning on a Conditional Use and are within the guidelines, which allow for a
more dense use of the property.
· They will preserve as much of the natural topography as possible. The buildings are
designed to fit in the topography ofthe area.
L:\Ol files\OI pJancomm\OI pcminutes\MNl21 OOI.doc
7
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 2001
Stamson:
· When the Planning Commission agreed to a PUD process, it was partially because the
Commission recognized it was a narrow lot and difficult to develop. Private streets
address that. Questioned why the developer needed a variance between the buildings.
· Merlyn Olson responded that in the process of moving the buildings - the area
became shorter. In accommodating that change they did use some space. They are
going to pull the height of the building down. He is trying to work with the City.
Dan Willgohs, 4432 Colorado Street, said at the last meeting the density was 5.03 acres.
Kansier explained the density calculations. His concern is the traffic with seasonal traffic
being higher. At times it is difficult to get on County Road 21 from West Avenue. The
parking and high density were also concerns.
Bill Jacobson, questioned Kansier regarding the 10 feet right-of-way not being taken into
consideration for density. Kansier explained. It was Jacobson's understanding that
County Road 21 will be expanded by 10 feet. By this procedure it is allowing another 10
feet off County Road 21. He also felt the traffic study was not done during the real use of
the area.
Sue McDermott clarified the traffic numbers were taken in August of 2000 on ColoradQ
Street and West Avenue over a two day period.
Mike Gundlach, Ptior Lake City Council, questioned if it is possible under City
Ordinance to get a.variance for a private road. ]<ansier said a PUD is the only way to
develop a private road in the City. Gundlach asked Kansier to explain the setbacks.
Pat Heaney clarified that parkland can mean a passive strip of land, it does not need to be
a playground. A strip of green space is also appealing to the eye as you come into Prior
Lake. The developer's opinion is that a PUD is the only way to use this land. There is a
healthy debate on that.
The public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m.
Kansier explained the modifications as part ofthe PUD. One ofthe purposes of a PUD is
to allow some flexibility and design. For that reason the ordinance does allow certain
modifications to conventional requirements such as setbacks. Under a PUD process it is
not a variance as the Commission is used to seeing. It does not have to meet the hardship
criteria under a PUD. It is up the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council
to determine if those modifications are appropriate for the site.
Kansier explained the private street verses a public street is not the width of the traveled
roadway. It is the right-of-way, the area normally used for snow deposit, mail boxes, etc.
On a public street ofthis size, normally the City would require 50 feet of right-of way.
The Ordinance allows anywhere from a 28 foot to a 32 foot wide traveled road surface.
On a private street, easements can make up the difference that would allow for small
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN121 00l.doc
8
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10.2001
utilities and snowplowing. The affect of the private versus public is the setbacks.
Setbacks are measured from the right-of-way line on a public street. The private streets
are measured from the curb line. That is the major effect. Anther thing the private street
does is reduce the impervious surface.
As far as parkland, the ordinance requirement is 10%. The City cannot require more than
that. The Parks Department has looked at the site and from the City's perspective, a half
acre is just too small. The City is then required to develop it and then maintain. It is just
too small, not cost effective. A development of this size would contribute over $52,000
cash in lieu of land. The money is used to develop other area parks.
Stamson questioned what other modifications are requested besides the private road and
the setbacks. Kansier responded from this development that was it.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· This land needs to be developed and the use oftownhomes is probably the
appropriate buffer between the single family homes and a very busy county road.
· Believed a PUD is right for this application. In the PUD process, it should be a two-
way process where the developer shows a positive to make the property work in with
the rest ofthe community or to provide some benefit to the citizens. The City's
responsibility is to provide modification, bending of the standard rules of the PUD
process to maybe allow tighter housing or smaller streets. The developer has taken
advantage of the PUD asking the smaller roads, setbacks and density.
· Questioned Merlyn Olson what the advantage of this PUD is to the citizens of Prior
Lake. It is just a row oftownhomes. Olson said he is making the availability of
affordable homes. It is difficult to purchase a new home in the price range of
$165,000 to $195,000. It is a good way to develop the land between the road and
single family homes. It would not be feasible for any kind of single family.
· Criego - why did you elect to have so many homes in this project? Olson responded
he looked at the density available and used that as a guideline.
· Ifthe Commission does not feel the rights of the PUD were used properly, the
developer has to go back and do it traditionally which could create 5 to 7 less homes.
The intent of the PUD is not to maximize the land, the intent is to make it better for
the community as a whole. Olson said his response would have to be in the financial
area, basically homes are on one side of a private street and all of the services go
along the private street corridor where there is a considerable price to put that
infrastructure in. Ifhe can't get the number of units proposed it will be difficult to
make it financially feasible.
· Overall a PUD is the right use of the property. But the density is too much for the
area. The property should not be maximized. There needs to be more benefit to the
City than lower price housing. $165,000 to $190,000 is not lower price housing.
There are other townhome developments in that price range that have a very nice
appearance.
. Based on what is before the Commission, would not approve this PUD.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MNl21 OOI.doc
9
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10.2001
Atwood:
. Concurred the PUD makes the criteria. The density is out ofline and agreed with
Mr. McPherson to reduce to 24 units.
. With less townhomes it could become unique which is part of the PUD give and take.
. Couldn't agree more with the residents with the seasonal traffic impact. The school
has a tremendous impact. The school does not start until 9:00 a.m. So the traffic
study between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. truly does not reflect the neighborhood traffic
patterns.
. Opposed to the right-in, right-out access. The sight lines on Duluth to County Road
21 are far from good.
. The Commission is not compelled to grant the full density. The density has been
maximized and green space has been minimized. Not in favor.
. The water infiltration concerns are going to be resubmitted and am interested to see if
they pass.
. Questioned Kansier about the access on Duluth Avenue. City Engineer Sue
McDermott said the Engineering Department originally suggested removal. The
Public Works Director felt the access was necessary for emergency vehicles.
. If the density was less the issue may be resolved.
. This plan should be redrawn to create a more unique plan than just a row of
townhomes; cut off the access to Duluth A venue and add a cul-de-sac.
. The neighbors are not against the development but would be pleased with a lower
density.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Commissioners this property should be a PUD, however, this plan does
not meet the standards and justification for a PUD. It is vc::ry close. The density is
okay as far as the prdinance goes, but the PUD in this process was used to maximize
lots. Would like t!J see less density for this project. It is not the intent of a PUD.
. There needs to bea larger separation between buildings.
. Concern was eliminating access to Duluth. If a person lives in the development and
doesn't have access to Duluth and is going to the County Market/Holiday end of
town, they will have to drive through the Colorado Street neighborhood. The idea is
to move the traffic directly out to the collector street and keep it off the residential
streets. Otherwise, a couple hundred trips are added to Colorado. Duluth is a
collector street and designed for higher traffic. The impact of closing Duluth is a
massive negative for Colorado and Pleasant.
. Seasonal traffic is; different issue. The traffic is steady throughout the year. This
development is not going to change the traffic.
. The fishing issue is not part of this development, the problem occurs in the same area.
. Overall this needs to be revisited and do a better job of justifying the PUD. The
criteria have not been met.
DRAFT
L:\01files\01plancomm\01pcminutes\MNl21001.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10,2001
Criego:
. No matter what this development is, the issue of traffic is going to come up. We have
to believe the traffic study as it will not change the seasonal traffic.
· If the developer comes back with less townhomes, the same traffic issues are going to
come up.
. The main issue is that this project does not conform to the PUD criteria. It does not
give the community enough for what it is requesting.
Atwood:
. In reading over the traffic study - there is no way Duluth A venue can handle that
traffic.
· One of the concerns ofthe neighbors is the times ofthe study do not reflect the true
traffic of the neighborhood. Because of the school, there are more buses and parents
in the area.
· Regarding the street lighting narrative by the developer - The developer said he
would mount the lights on the building but did not see it on the plans.
· Another question is the additional 11 parking spaces. Blocks 6 and 7 will not
conveniently be able to access those spaces.
. Kansier said the City requires decorative and adequate lighting.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
KNOWN AS EAGLEWOOD EAST.
Vote taken ipdicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY A~WOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS EAGLEWOOD EAST.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on January 7, 2001.
A break was called at 8:23 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:28 p.m.
B. Case #01-093 D. Mark Crouse of 15507 Calmut Avenue, is requesting a variance
to exceed the allowable impervious surface coverage area.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 10,
2001, on file in the office ofthe City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Ms. Allison Gontarek,
Huemoeller & Bates Attorneys At Law, representing Mr. D. Mark Crouse the owner of
the property at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The applicant is requesting a 1,260 square foot
variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of3,567 square feet (46.4%)
rather than the permitted maximum area of2,307 square feet (30%).
L:\Ol files\O 1 plancomm\Ol pcminutes\MN121 OOI.doc
11
DRAFT
. .
'. .4- __ ____. .~"~""'.'___.~""''''_'''.'_
......_..............._._-~........;~
-----,.:....--...
...-..-.-...--...:...-----. -----... ~._-... .-.-.... -_.~..,- --
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
P.O. BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
(952) 447-2131
.Fax: (952) 447-5628
E-mail: huemoellerbatesca2ao1.com
D rn@rn.n~g In
.-1. U
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
JAMES D. BATES
ALLISON J. GONTAREK
OF COUNSEL:
CHARLES C. HALBERG
January 7, 2002
The Honorable Jack Haugen
and Council Members
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
~.
Re: Eaglewood East PUD
:tOr
Dear Mayor Haugen and Council Members:
This letter concerns the preliminary PUD plan for Eaglewood East to be consid~red
by the City Council on January 22, 2002. .
Eaglewood East is a residential PUD that proposes 32 townhouse units on 5.003 C\cres
located on the south side of CSAH 21 between Duluth and West Avenues. .
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the PUD on the basis of density
and a perceived lack of "public benefit".
The purpose of this letter is to request that the City Council nevertheless approve the
preliminary PUD because; in fact, the proposed development is the best use of the property,
the density is reasonable and consistent with its R3 zoning classification, and the PUD
provides great public benefit by facilitating the future expansion of the CSAH 21 right of
way.
BACKGROUND
The land in the project has unique. attributes that support, but do not require,
development as a PUD with the proposed density:
1. The land is a consolidation of 4 separately owned parcels with an underlying
zoning ofR-3, Medium Density Residential.
2. The consolidated parcel has an unusual configuration that is best developed
as a townhouse or condominium site.
The Honorable Jack Haugen
and Council Members
City of Prior Lake
January 7, 2002
Pa2e 2
3. The site has a significant wetland that requires special protection.
4. The site is adjacent to Duluth Avenue, which is a significant collector street.
5. Tne site is adjacent to CSAH 21, which limits the alternatives for housing
styles and creates a long term issue related to the potential future expansion
of the CSAH 21 right of way.
CSAH 21 ISSUE
In its comments to the PUD, Scott County has recommended dedication of a 10 to
15 foot strip along the south line of CSAH 21 as a condition to approval of the PUD. The
purpose of the dedication is to accommodate thea future expansion of CSAH 21. It is the
position of the owners that the dedication requirement would violate both the federal and
state constitutions because the dedication does not bear a "rough proportionality" or
"reasonable relationship" to the impact of the proposed PUD on CSAH 21. In their view,
the dedication is neither connected to the project, nor is it proportional to the impact of the
project on the public road system; in part, because the apparent need for the additional right
of way bas already been established without ,regard to any impact at all from this project.
Accordingly, it is the legal position of the owners and builder that the project can, and
should, be approved without the requested right of way dedication, leaving Scott County in
the position of having to acquire any additional right of way by condemnation from the
existing or future landowners. .
It is also their position of the developer that developing the project in a way that
accommodates the future expansion of CSAH 21 provides a great public benefit to both
Scott County and the City of Prior Lake that was not in any way recognized by the Planning
Commission in its denial of the preliminary PUD.
ALTERNATIVES
_ The owners of the 4 parcels involved in this PUD, and the builder, see 2 alternatives
fQr development of this consolidated parcel:
1. Traditional R-3 Development. The pending PUD application can be
withdrawn in favor of a proceeding to subdivide the consolidated parcel as a
traditional R-3 development with 30 townhouse units substantially in
accordance with the drawing attached to this letter. The R-3 subdivision
would dedicate proposed Racine Street to the public, but would not provide
any additional right of way for CSAH 21, leaving Scott County to deal with
that issue at a future time. ..
The R-3 subdivision appears to meet applicable city zoning and subdivision
----........;-..-------.--.-... ..--.:...-------
.._-..__..._'---.....~..._~;u.:...~.......:..-___..:-_~~
'. .J. _.. _~. .__
The Honorable Jack Haugen
and Council Members
City of Prior Lake
January 7, 2002
Paile 3
requirements.
The impact to the City of the R-3 subdivision is to create a 30 unit townhouse
project, with units slightly smaller than those proposed in the PUD, that meets
current ordinances, protects the existing wetland, is served by a public street,
but does not deal with the future CSAH 21issue.
2. Proposed'PUD Development. Conversely, the proposed preliminary PUD
will develop the consolidated parcel in a manner that enhances the long term
public good. By changing Racine Street to a slightly narrower private street,
the project with 32 townhome units will have slightly larger units, a better
configuration, enhanced landscaping, and will accommodate the dedication
of a 10 foot strip for the expansion of CSAH 21.
It is believed that larger homes, a better configuration of units, more
landscaping, and a provision for a future public road expansion are all public
benefits that merit approval of the project by the City Council. .
STANDARDS
Section 6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance contains a list of "public benefits" that
can be achieved through the use of the PUD process. The zoning ordinance does no~ require
that each development provide all of the benefits listed in Section 1106.100. Nevertheless,
the proposed Eaglewood East PUD meets many of the benefits listed in Section 1106.100,
including, but not limited to, the following:
(2) Higher standards of site and building design.
(3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to
support high quality land use development at a lesser cost.
(5) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows modification to the
strict appJication of regulations within the various Use Districts that are in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
(6) Encourages, a more creative and efficient use of land.
(10) Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over and above
required dedications, by allowing a portion of the density to be transferred to
other parts of the site.
.
-...-...:....-.;....-
The Honorable Jack Haugen
and Council Members
City of Prior Lake
January 7,2002
PalZe 4
SUMMARY
In summary, the owners and builder request that the City Council approve the
preliminary PUD plan for Eaglewood East for the following reasons:
1. The density of the PUD is comparable to the density that could be obtained
in a traditional R-3 subdivision.
2. A proposed PUD contains enhanced housing design, project design and
landscaping that would not otherwise be available'in a traditional R-3
subdivision. .
3. The proposed PUD provides for the dedication of right of way for the future
expansion of CSAH 21, over and above the dedication that could otherwise
be required of the project, by allowing modifications to the site through the
use of the PUD process.
Merlyn Olson and his representatives will be available at the City Council meeting
to respond to further questions about the PUD.
Sincerely yours,
~
Bryce D. Huenioeller
BDH:cak
cc: Merlyn Olson Development Corporation
. ~,--
.
....-..-...---..--.....--^ .._- -..-'- .------.-.-.. .-.._...~..../. .........:.....- ....-....._ __ ._.:.-__--.;...~~..._~~-...:....-.__......a__..._.._.. ..___.___.._.......__ .;..__._________..._=...-._-.;.". '.'
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l I
I I,
I I
I I
I I
I I
I ~ I
I ~ I
I~
I .~
t ~ I
L ~ f
I :-11..'
- __I 1_- __
......---,..,,, -...
. ,
!
j
..l
'-.-,'
I
I
I
I
lVESt' .A va:
+-
~ ~.
n@
Z
~ t~ /
)0
~ . - -: . /
. I
I
I
/
. I
~ /
~. I
~. I
I
I
~V.llJ:rR
/
I
/
j
.~ I
~
f. ~ I
I
I
/
/
'; /
i~
I
I
~J
I
/
I
" liE.
r---~: -~ -7
I
/
I /
I /
. 11