Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 09 2012 Agenda Packet/ 01RI p� AV 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, April 9th, 2092 City Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Approval of Agenda: 3. Consider Approval of March 26, 2012 Meeting Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: None 5. Old Business: A. #EP 11-101 Consider a Preliminary Plat to be known as Eagle Creek Estates consisting of 61 residential lots and 14.18 acres of commercial designated property. The property is located northeast of the intersection of CSAR 21 and Fish Point Road. 6. New Business: A. #EP 10-122 Consider an Access Easement for the approved Combined Preliminary and Final Plat to be known as Bluffs of Candy Cove consisting of approximately 1.07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. This property is located east of Candy Cove Trail, north of TH 13. B. #EP 12-110 #EP 12-110 Consider a Concept Plan from Deerfield Development related to a change in land use from industrial to residential in support of a townhome development project on 8.6 acres. The property is located in the southwest corner of Deerfield Industrial Park south of CSAH 21. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A. Recent City Council discussions/decisions. 8. Adjournment: LM I FILESM l PLANNING COMMISSION11l AGENDAS1050911 Agenda.doc Plione 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / Nvww.cityofpriorlakc.com PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, March 26, 2012 1. Call to Order: Chairman Phelan called the March 26, 2012, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan, Community R Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, City Engineer Larry Poppler, Planner J Matzke, and Community Development Assistant Peter Aldritt. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY ROSZAK, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPR AGENDA AS PRESENTED. A VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan 3 Consider Approval of January 9, 2012 MOTION BY ROSZAK, SECONDED BY PHELAN TO MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. %,.. VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik, and Phelan 4. Public Hearings: A. #EP 12-101 Self application to amend the C use. This application pr AM the Prior Lake City Cod Planner Matzke Ordi;nt nce Te use ihe .�11010 �, 110allow f Stor Usesr Questions 2012 MEETING lVeschke have submitted an allow Self Storage as a conditional 102.1103, 1107.304 and 1107.305 of vette Hil & Tom Meschke have applied for a Zoning t6e'�} i� which would allow a Self Storage Facility land g Distri�he applicant is proposing to amend section 07.305 of the City Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would 2 (General Business) Zoning District with a Conditional Blahnik asked I have `% about the conditions that you listed, the first one indicating that no compartment door wou 6 ce a residential area, you mentioned that you contemplated this issue if there was, that fencing ould be thereto block it and another requirement is that there bean 100 percent opacity wall if it faces a "R" district of a minimum 6 feet. There could be an 8, 10 foot wall that could completely block the door? Planner Matzke responded we looked at it both ways; at minimum there will be a 6 foot fence that will block the use. We felt that maybe the actual building wall had to be what would block that use because of the traffic and the types of activities taking place. Blahnik asked more noise consideration? LA12 FILES112 PLANNING COMMISSION112 MIN UTES1MN032612.doc Planner Matzke responded yes that's more what we were concerned with. Blahnik asked on the fence/ wall requirement, is there any requirement if it does not face a residential area? Planner Matzke responded we focused more on what materials that we would not like to see, we did not to restrict to a choice few but more wanted to restrict the ones that we felt were inappropriate to the area. Blahnik asked as far a screening from trash and dock areas you have the C y Ordinance 1107. 1900, is that otherwise required in a C-2 Zoning District? Planner Matzke responded yes that is actually in all of our Commerolil'a" ricts. Blahnik asked there is a recommendation of no activity which �a.rl�ies mu noise made by auctions or retail sales. 14>11, �A Planner Matzke responded in regards to the parking, e`n there is an auction ors ere would be more people brought to the site than what the norm ouId be. hese facilities a e. stet up for a retail use; they are for storage uses. City Staff felt tat t ould sa strain on the p g and access to the site if those types of events were allowed. '� Blahnik asked the exclusion of auctions of noise? Planner Matzke responded yes, the amplified unit to host a garage type of band practice. It our noise ordinance. Blahnik asked in relatioti5 the mi;?ls can you Planner Matzke respondd4WJ e s la of the the doors occupy then we u"@Ie, Blahnik as} c..Wifi"Y�l�VR to the 19, 41 aping cle ordinancePs i 0 due to the pa�fft. rest raints then the amplification ally to res r of people from renting out a ti�t�ng,p amplified music in regards to the percentages of each material needed? Wthe doors, if the area was taken away that of the walls that were left. and maintenance portion is that a reference to an PIan66F Ye respondedhat is it fi$'gards to our landscaping requirements and property maintenan inances. Roszak asked orage is wed in the C3 and I Use districts, would these staff recommendations be applicable in th ',- se dis is also? Planner Matzke responno they would not be, since they are allowed in the more industrial use districts, staff felt that ifJ were to be allowed in the more general commercial use districts that there would need to be tighter restriction on the building. Roszak asked is there a reason that the applicant did not decide to just rezone the site? Planner Matzke responded to change the zoning on a specific use district if it is not next to similar zoning districts is a poor planning practice. It is better to add it in as a conditional use which then allows staff to imply certain conditions and best fit the business to that zoning district. L:112 FILEM12 PLANNING COMMISSION112 MIN OTESVNN032612.dm 2 Phelan asked in regards to the building materials it stated that the requirement on the wall with the doors is 25 percent, why not 50 percent or 60 percent? What was the reasoning to deviate from that requirement? Planner Matzke responded the reasoning for the deviation was that this type of use has a lot of doorways on the on the building wall, where a restaurant or retail building do not have these large doors that occupy the majority of the space, the doors break up the building wall. We wanted to have requirements that were in line with the other zoning districts but also kept the building looking like it would fit in the C-2 Zoning District. Phelan asked can you discuss the parking requirements and how you a up with these requirements? " Planner Matzke responded we felt that 1 per 10 units was a very' ict par r quirement. We looked at what industry standards are for this type of usean�jt�th t.the a ml of 5 parking spaces or 2 parking spaces plus 1 parking space per 75 ft , w hhever is grea a standard that fits this type of use. z . Phelan asked if the amendment were to be passed ou readtated that this would need a C.U.P to be allowed or do we as commissioners need to ? X. Planner Matzke responded the applicant i . oposing that and }iii_ in the language in the staff report that a C.U.P. would be needed. If you as co boners feel that i z I ortant to have a C.U.P. needed make sure you state that in your com 'f A MOTION BY BLAHNIK SEC ND BY ROSZA rf O,� EN I LIC HEARING AT 6:43 PM VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Bla � P elan. The N ..' Ion carried. x Applicant Tom Mes haska, stated Jeff thk you for the nice presentation. We brought our builders from Pella Iowa. o re is questions relaf''o the building I will have him come up and respond. Dave Fegl ., x( i�j Moin 31 .,wa stated` ig are the developer and builder of mini storages', we have bu' , any storage ie s, t of recommended conditions we have and are following pretty M > them. The stan r: In the industry have changed over the years, they have beclne more ridged, `. d and he business have progressed they have become more sophistica his facility wil 1 appro (mately 200 units, with a state of the art computer gate system and a kiosk tenants can a there without having a manager there on weekends, nights or holidays. The fac# it be ma . ed by a manger during daylight hours about 9 am to 4 pm there will be a 24/7 electrons d co� access. The facility will have a lock down entrance gage as well as rod iron fencing. The f Is made of 20 gauge steel with a crushed marble acrylic paint on the ends that break up the look. a is also a climate controlled building that allows the inside units to be heated and cooled. Oq he outside there is the standard rental units that tenants can drive up to and drop off there items. Another building has larger units for boats and larger storage items there is about 12 to 15 of those units. This is an all-round storage facility, not just 10 by 20 or 10 by 15 garage units. There are units that are climate controlled, smaller non -climate controlled and larger units. Blahnik asked the recommended standards that we went over previously those are pretty standard with the industry that you have seen? LM2 FILES112 PLANNING COMMISSIONU2 MINUTES\MN032612.doe Fegley responded yes pretty much, what Jeff has mentioned is spot on. We do not allow any hazardous materials and we have a unit that is just used for trash. Blahnik asked when the compartment doors are facing a residential area are these requirements standard? Fegley responded typically when we are next to a residential area we require that there be a berm or a buffer area in place or to build the building without any doors facing the residential area. Ali the lighting is directed downward. We do not put any electricity in the units at all so ther s not the ability to have light or other power equipment. �. Roszak asked in the units for boats or R.V.s there isn't any power Fegley responded no we do not. Possible on the larger unit we"Auld get dark at the night. ,_ f Roszak asked are they condos ore rental units? Fegley responded they are rentals. Phelan asked where is the current site being proposed,Nno,residential? Fegley responded no I don't believe it is Planner Matzke responded it is in Fountain Blahnik asked on the auctionp, what is your units that are not paid for?:^��,,, Fegley responded tyyi alb .'f we do'lAie auctions to 5 minutes the bidder lookhe uni ��Then the acct remove the goods. It is not�Tl h� q e�,9n TV Blahnik askiftiif#iF3' eferr6 s an a auctionsIf ' f or anything like that? in there since it can for of goods that are left behind or rid of the material. Usually the door is open for O,T eld and the top bidder has an hour to Storage Wars. it is low key and quite. In the conditions listed this use would not allow Fegley ded yes it is c- dered a: duction and there are certain State Statutes stating that it must be po that we will be ..' ding a auction. We do have the option of moving the material off premises .25 q having the tion take place at a remote location. M Blahnik asked by ing t ord Auction in the new ordinance that would not be allowed. Would this have an adverse . your storage facility? Fegley responded no itAouldn't, we want to get rid of the stuff in the most efficient way possible and an auction is the most efficient way. Blahnik responded my inquiry on this is I would rather remove the language that prohibits the use of auctions. Fegley responded that would be nice if that language was removed. Roy Stromme 4913 Beach St. asked what are the setbacks? LA12 FILES112 PLANNING COMMISSION112 MINUTES1MN032612.doc 4 Tom Meschke responded 10 feet on the side 20 or 25 feet from the rear. Phelan responded there are standard setbacks for that use district. Stromme responded I think it is important to look at the driveway widths and how fire trucks can enter the property. Planner Matzke responded we do have standards in the zoning District width in regards to fire access and turnarounds. This type of use would Stromme stated in regards to the auctions the applicant is correct thq no events. It would be a good idea to allow auctions. �� A MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY ROSZAK TO VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan. Commissioner Comments: Roszak stated it is nice to see some acti as a C.U.P. is required. Blahnik stated as far as the proposed conditions one is,-� the compartment doors it compartment doors f r .( conceal the compa2' n with the public need for store store their stufJQV—.,ggnsist consistent yvih{Pefald. Phelaited it is askIN � t about the dd " Permit it coin with State and existing zoning amendment. ress setback and drive o those standards. frequent and low key AT 7:02 PM recommendations and as long rThe fF NOU `Qise two amendments to the e auctio second would be in regard to like to amend that language to say that wed as long as a berm is in place that would Ike rest of the recommendations are consistent n there is activity there is a need for people to ives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. It is q these recommended conditions. it wI , f0commended elimination of the auction language. I think ad. Rhould take the ambiguity out of it. I have some concerns 1 distict, as long as each application requires a Conditional Use hplemented on case by case.. There is a public need. It is consistent nts. With the elimination of the auction language and adherence to Conditional Use Permit I would support recommending the Blahnik asked just for ofirification the proposed motion would be eliminating the auction piece but it would still include the requirement for the disallowance for a compartment door to face a residential area even is a berm was in place. Phelan stated I agree. Blahnik asked I was hoping to amend it to include a berm. LA12 FILES\12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTLS1MN032612.doo Phelan I don't believe including the language to allow a compartment door facing residential area is a bad idea. A MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY ROSZAK TO ADOPT THE CIT'Y RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS EXCLUDING THE AUCTION REQUIREMENT AND INCLUDING THE ALLOWANCE OF A COMPARTMENT DOOR FACING A RESIDENTIAL AREA IF A BERM IS IN PLACE. VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Roszak, and Phelan. The Motion carried. B. #EP 12-102 5035 Beach St. Conditional Use Permit. Richard Langg.P�as submitted an application for a C.U.P to allow grading in excess of 400 cubic yards on his probe tyfyv ich is located on the Northwest shore of Prior Lake at the end of Beach Street Planner Matzke presented Richard Langer has applied for��9�!r,1��dif7Qnal Use"Pft it to allow grading and land reclamation of his property located at 5035 Beach'.Stree "--The site is loc,on the Northwest shore of Prior Lake, South of County Hwy 82. The projpcalls for the importing of' cubic yards of fill to the site. 4:r, City Engineer Poppler presented we did provide a memo'1 F6'Qards tolhis project thaf'would look at the erosion control and how the water would drain. In addition`'torft Conditional Use Permit we would require a Grading Permit in which we woula> ve additional contli.J..ns of approval. We do collect an �p. :Q:•�l.. Pp escrow for the project along with the applicatttap'J. QQ: We would regd a.storm water pollution prevention plan as well that would need to be ,'a—ff `ijt} !,with the gradt g'_ rfflit. Commissioner Questions: Roszak asked would we bel'•b911 lot of trees? Engineer Poppler res j bi tied it is gr Ysy area as you•,can see in the area photo. IV �{ rf�; Roszak asked will the app11tt::se?; hq grading. �• ff.$•:::��;- Engineer Ppfryrs stat ilizatitilil,required. Blahn,t%alaed is there aNWMktrictior ` ". n the tvoe of fill? Engineer P.,6& r no it is up fo> he applicant just clean fill. MOTION BY ROS-ZAK SECONWBY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:20 PM VOTE: Ayes, Roszak;-� ;ftK'and Phelan Applicant Richard Lander 5035 Beach Street as the applicant I would be happy to answer any questions on the project. Roszak asked is the fill being brought in for a building pad or being used to re -grade the entire site? Langer responded yes, right now we do not have a long term comprehensive plan for the site. I was able to get some cheap fill to fill in the low area. We may eventually develop the property. L:\12 FILEM12 PLANNING COMMISSION\12 MINUTES\MN032612.doc 6 Blahnik asked this was prompted by the availability of the fill and where is the material coming from? Langer responded yes that is correct. There are some homes going up on the other side of the lake that are being re -graded. Phelan asked if this does move forward what is your time table? Langer responded we would either get it done before May 151h or we would then delay until the fall. We do not want to disrupt the area during the summer. Roy Stromme 4913 Beach Street stated my comments are directed t area outside of the affected land site. The neighborhood is a small neighborhood. There is only - rance to this site. I am concerned with that route. I wanted to see if there could be possi '> es I s on the trucks weight and maybe a speed limit? Beach Street is not in the best of shap nd it is narrow. There are many different school bus stops on that route if the hours of ti 'i) could b ed to 9:00 am to 2:00pm. There should be a deposit collected to ensure t e can of the prope • er the project is finished. I think that the residents along the entire route ould be notified of when adin will take place. %, Dale Getz 4987 Beach Street stated my concern is the rod heavy traffic will the road deteriorate and then we will be as or 15 years from now. %/11 _ ROSZAK MOTIONED SECOND BY BLAHNI VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Roszak asked can I,iFor, ress tMO eanup of the i the best shapetnd with this damages now as opposed to 10 PUBLIUMEARING AT 7:31 Engineer Poppler rdspofiPee we w '"' d use the letter 1redit to pay for the cleanup if the developer failed to do so. The streetsel gs t' ton str ' and the trucks would need to abide to those restrictions. OO�reg ing thW o b d speed limit, I would leave that up to the commissiotlii o e condfns, but it rr�}be hard for our police department to enforce those restrictio , Planne ke responded o have struction hours, if I remember right they are 7:00 am to 7:00 pm a < r . ink Saturday i 00am.. o 7:010pm. That is an ordinance and the truck traffic would need to abide k afhat restrictions Roszak asked woUlN-.el b,���'Coming all at once or be broken up? Langer responded iybe coming all at once. The goal is to get it done in as short of time as possible to limit the in the neighborhood. Talking to the developer it would be about a two week time. Blahnik stated I will be supporting this request; I do appreciate the concerns the neighbors have with the safety of the neighborhood and the children in the area. Limiting the hours would just extend the timeline for the project. Changing the speed limit and putting weight restrictions on the road would be difficult to enforce. The overall project would not have a negative impact on the area. It is not detrimental to the health safety or morals of the community and there are no undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of the property. I will be supporting it. L:U2 FILE8112 PLANNING COMMISSIOM12 MINUTES1MN032612.doc 7 Phelan stated in regards to the speed limit I would say to look to city ordinance and any deviation from that would be difficult to enforce. Limiting the hours between 8:00 and 9:00 and 2:00 and 4:00, you are going to take 3 hours out of 12 hour day which is 25 percent if its 2 weeks you are looking at extending the project 3 days. In regards to the safety of the children I don't think that extending the project will be that more of an inconvenience. I would propose that we could discuss and consider some limitations on the hours. Roszak stated limiting the hours maybe a great idea but I think it would beicuit to do. Could we send out a notice to the neighbors? Notifying them of the two week pe rio . 611 tis project will take place? Planer Matzke responded that is a condition that the Planning applicant or City staff could send out the mailings. Roszak stated if it is possible to send out a mailing notifyi grading. I think that would be important. A Blahnik asked is the fill coming straight from the area td'y stored and then coming to your property. If we restrict the the other projects excavating? Langer responded they would have to stag Phelan stated I would support the motion with"0ithe logistical burden on the applicant or have City IV; f Trail and Beach Street explai i. the project and f= . S. A MOTION BY ROSZAK • ECONfD� BLAHNIK TI THE CONDITIONAL,, , ,ERMIT H THE COl' LETTER TO ANY NGHB S ON ACH STREI REVIEWD BY CITY STAFF .MAI BE IN OPERATION; VOTE: �� Roszak, and idle truck hours i n impose. Either the of the t`` • ine of the is it being exc ted and also restrictin_ ' he hours on not 8h may be a financial or e residents along Bluebird COVE RESOLUTION 12-03 APPROVING N THAT THE APPLICANT SEND OUT A S BLUEBIRD TRAIL AND THE LETTER BE ETAILNG WHEN THE PROJECT WOULD C. #EP 12-105P terson Drive y Variance. William Peterson is requesting a variance from the minimum side yar tback re (red for a driveway in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The property is loca 'i:at 15 Edgewater Circle NE on the West Shore of Prior Lake across for Lake Front Park. Planner Matzke presented William Peterson is requesting a variance to allow the realignment of an existing driveway completely onto the applicant's property located at 15291 Edgewater Circle NE. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and guided R -LD, Urban Low Density on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The variance request and driveway realignment are submitted in connection with an overall future building permit for a new house at 15291 Edgewater Circle NE; a previous single family residence has already been removed from the property. L:U2 FILEM12 PLANNING COMMISSION112 MAIUrESUN032612.doc 8 Commissioner Questions: None A MOTION BY ROSZAK SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 PM William Peterson 1423 Guild Ave. Apple Valley MN We are trying to move the driveway onto our property. To my knowledge the current driveway has been located on our neighbor's property for 20 years and now that we are redoing it we are going to move it completely on out property. The neighbors on both sides of us are c pletely fine with us doing so. If we are granted this variance we will then be submitting a building p�t9 build our house. MOTION BY ROSZAK SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THEPU - �I'-: _ ARING AT 7:53 PM VOTE: Ayes Roszak, Blahnik, and Phelan Commissioner Comments: Roszak stated l do not have any comments or questiogs. I will be supporting it. Blahnik stated I will be supporting this. In the world of p i al diff ties this is about practical difficult as it comes. This is necessary for them to put in th e � A MOTION BY PHELAN SECOND BY RO$ K ADOPTING R ` LzYTION 12-03PC APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1107.205 (1) ZONING CO QUI RING DRIVEWAYS TO BE ,���., SET BACK A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET FROM'`Tf� v1DE YARD PR`dP R; Y LINES VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan. D. #EP 12-106 Spring La Wilg- a variance to allow a gra . parkir the Northwest corner 'ng La 81. Planner Matzf�pj¢p ted St E SectionClas, located�n: a northw s r er of 81. Th nstruction of th it park{ a >. a part of deve expand the ; JQng lot once th Commissioner Q'-stions: lance. Stant�f 'Consulting ff'behalf of Scott County is requesting within the cit r imits of Prior Lake. The proposed lot is located in gional Park, s nth of County Road 82 and west of County Road Conalf of Scott County is requesting a variance from f avel parkin lot in the Agriculture Zoning District. The property is .., . Lake Park south of County Road 82 and west of County Road lot 13iitporary improvement to allow citizens to utilize the dog :s in - ring Lake Regional Park. There are plans to pave and c is rther developed. Phelan asked is ther24bf ,* to use the gravel that is already out there on the road? Planner Matzke responded the applicant can answer that question. A MOTION BY ROSZAK SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 PM VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Blahnik and Phelan Applicant Mark Themig Scott County Parks Manager Jeff covered the project very well in his presentation. The park is mostly natural; in 2006 community members got together with staff and developed a master plan. With the funding we have as of now the LA12 FILEM12 PLANNING COMMISSIOM12 MINIITES\Md032612.doc 9 dog park and bituminous paths were what we are able to develop. There are plans to develop along Spring Lake as well. Part of the master plan was to work with Prior Lake and Scott County on meeting both entities needs and desires for the park. That is why we are looking at this interim stage to get the regional park up and going and then as the City develops and designs their plans for the park, we will be able to incorporate that into the entire park. The timeline is uncertain as of now because it depends on what the City decides to do and when the collector street goes in along the west side of the park. To answer your question Mr. Chair we do plan on reclaiming as much of the gravel as possible. Blahnik asked is there any type of estimate on when it will be paved? Themig responded I do not have a timeline, it is contingent on the C=K; ns and when the County can secure more funds. Blahnik asked in regards to maintaining the parking lot is there 6%an on Themig responded it will be maintained similarly to how t 4 ravelsroad is done "..' If grading or filling is needed the streets crew will take care of it. We, re also in partnership with a Rivers Park District and they will help with some of the maintenan — IK V A MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY PH VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Phelan and Roszak Commissioner Comments: Blahnik stated I will be this moving forward. Roszak stated I too Phelan stated. Ltoorwill be s A MO 11 ; "BY BLAHNI A VA CE TO ALLC `�;� OF x > UIRED BITUMII VOTE: Ayes, ak, Phelan 5. Old Busi None 6. New Business: None TO CLOSE THMUBLIC HEARING AT 8:09 PM it meets th(gf(Iowable uspf the property, I am happy to see is. Ya: OS ZAK TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 12-04PC APPROVING -rION OFCLASS 5 GRAVEL PARKING LOT IN PLACE SU CE PARKING LOT REQUIRED IN SECTION 1107.204(5) Blahnik 7, Announcements and Correspondence: LA12 PILES112 PLANNING COMMISSION112 MINUTES1MN032612.doc 10 Economic Development Director Dan Rogness presented updates from the January 3`d, February 60' February 21" and March 19`h City Council meetings. Phelan asked the on Pike take acquisition it appears that there is a building on that property, was this property tax forfeited, what is the background on this property? Director Rogness responded yes there is currently a single family home and occupied by the family it has not gone through any tax forfeiture or foreclosure. The family is willing&eady to sell the property. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO ADJORNITI-frIMEETI VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Roszak, and Phelan. The The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Peter Aldritt, Community Development Assistant. LA12 FILESN12 PLANNING COMMISSIONX12 MINUTMNM032612.doc 11 Mto U 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake. MN 55372 �4VNHS��P PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 9, 2012 AGENDA #: 5A PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE PUBLIC HEARING: NO AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS EAGLE CREEK ESTATES DISCUSSION: Introduction Equity Properties LLC has submitted request for approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as Eagle Creek Estates. The property is located on a 45 acre site located northeast of the intersection of CSAH 21 and Fish Point Road, south of the Cardinal Ridge residential development area. The development plan calls for a residential development consisting of 61 single family homes and 12.7 acres of commercially designated property. History On September 26, 2011 the Planning Commission held a public hearing re- garding the Preliminary Plat request. Public comments at the meeting included the traffic on the collector street (Fish Point Road), proposed tree removal, and the number and size of proposed residential lots. After discussion of storm wa- ter requirements for the project, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted to table discussion of the item to a future Planning Commis- sion meeting. The Developer has spent considerable time redesigning the storm water drainage system for the project since the meeting last Fall. Current Circumstances The following paragraphs outline the physical characteristics of the existing site, the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations, and a description of some of the specifics of the proposed site. alykyLq,14&111=1101:&idR--3 Total Site Area: The total site consists of 45.7 acres. Topography: This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from 890 MSL at its lowest point to 950' MSL at its highest point. Vegetation: There are a large number of significant trees located on the north and west end of the site. Wetlands: Two wetlands exist along the eastern edge of the site and an addi- tional wetland is at the northwest corner of the site. The site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act. Access: Access to this property will be from extensions of existing Fish Point Road and Credit River Road. Utilities: Sewer services will be available from the existing lift station, south- east of the site. Water services will be available from the north and south through the extension of Fish Point Road. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Designation: This majority of the property is des- ignated for Urban Low Density Residential (R -LD) uses on the 2030 Compre- hensive Plan Land Use Map. A 12.7 acre area along County Highway 21 is designated for Community Retail Shopping (C -CC) commercial uses. Zoning: Separate areas of the development site are zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-2 (General Business Commercial). Shoreland: The eastern portion of this property is located within the Shoreland District for Markely Lake, a Natural Environment Lakes. As such, the property is subject to the Shoreland requirements listed in Section 1104 of the Zoning Ordinance, PROPOSED PLAN The development plan calls for a residential development consisting of 61 sin- gle family homes and 12.7 acres of commercially designated property. Lot Sizes: The residential lots are proposed with an average lot size of 13, 800 square feet and a minimum lot size and width of 12,000 square feet and 86 feet in width respectively. The proposed lots will meet the minimum lot size and width requirements of the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The commercial area is being proposed as outlots with final lot sizes and widths to be determined with future final plats. The minimum lot size and width required in the C-2 (General Business) Zoning District is 1 acre and 150 feet respective- ly. Setbacks: The residential lots have proposed setbacks that will meet the min- imum required 25 foot front yard, 10 foot side yard, 25 foot rear yard, and 25 foot side yard abutting a street. The minimum required setbacks for the future platted commercial lots is 30 foot front yard, 20 foot side yard, 30 foot rear yard, and 30 foot side yard abutting a street. Impervious Surface: The maximum impervious surface coverage for each individual residential lot within the Markely Lake Shoreland District is 30% of the total lot area as required by the Shoreland Ordinance. The maximum imper- vious surface for the future commercial lots is 75% of total lot area. Density: Density of the residential development is based on the residential net area of the site, which is 31.9 acres. The density of the residential area of the development is 1.9 units / acre. Parks: The developer proposes to dedicate 2.18 acreages of parkland into the City's public park system. A comment listed in the Community Development memorandum states that the slopes in the area adjacent to Lot 13, Block 2 ex- ceed the standards for usable parkland and therefore should be considered as a dedicated public outlot instead. Any remaining parkland dedication required by City Ordinance (10% of net acreage) that is not satisfied thru land dedication is proposed to be satisfied thru a cash payment into the City park fund. Streets: The Developer proposes construction of Fish Point Road, Credit River Road, Eagle Creek Circle, and Markley Lake Drive with the first phase of development. Currently a roundabout is proposed at the intersection of Fish Point Road and Credit River Road due to the traffic study forecasts for the area. Grading: Significant grading is required for the project. The Developer has revised the original proposed plans to address a large number of the grading issues for the site; however, as identified in the Engineering Staff memoran- dum, additional grading comments will need to be addressed prior to construc- tion. Sanitary Sewer/Water Mains/Storm Sewer: The hydrology and storm water design of the site is challenging given the site is located within the Markley Lake watershed area, a landlocked basin. The developer is working with the proper- ty owner to the east on a common storm water plan to help achieve an overall more efficient design of the storm water system for development of the entire area east of Markley Lake. The developer has been in constant contact with City Staff regarding their design of the system. Phasing: The developer proposes to develop the residential lots within the site in 3 phases beginning with Lots 1-23 of Block 1 and Lots 17-23 of Block 2 (phase 1), followed by the remaining lots in Block 2 (Phase 2), and the remain- ing lots of Block 1 (Phase 3) in the northeast corner of the site. The commer- cial area will be designated as outlots initially and platted by commercial busi- nesses prior to future Site Plan or Conditional Use Permit application for indi- vidual sites. Tree Rep lacement/Landscaping: There are many significant trees on the site. The tree inventory identified 16,185 significant caliper inches of trees on the site. Up to 35% of the significant caliper inches may be removed for house pads and driveways. Any removal above these amounts requires tree re- placement at a rate of '/ caliper inches for each inch removed. Per City Staff comments the developer is revising the tree replacement calculations. The ma- jority of tree removals are in the interior eastern portion of the site. Fees and Assessment: The development will be subject to all development fees including trunk utility, park dedication, utility connection fees, a City admin- istration fee, and a Construction Observation fee at the time Final Plat. ISSUES: The developer has met with City staff to address the comments as outlined in the City Staff memorandums. City Staff believes the overall proposed devel- opment layout appears appropriate, and recommends approval of the Prelimi- nary Plat subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The developer must obtain the required permits from any other state or lo- cal agency prior to any work on the site. 2. Revise the plans to address all of the comments in the City Engineering Staff memorandum dated March 29, 2012. 3. Revise the plans to address all of the comments in the City Community & Economic Development Department memorandum dated March 30, 2012. 4. All grading, hydrology and storm water comments must be addressed prior to any grading on the site. 5. As part of the park development, the developer is responsible for any grad- ing, topsoil, turf establishment and construction of any proposed trails to the specifications provided by the City. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to any listed conditions as identified by the Planning Commission. 2. Table this item to another Planning Commission meeting and provide the developer with direction on the issues that have been discussed. 3. Recommend denial of the request. RECOMMENDED City Staff recommends Alternative #1. MOTION: EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat Plans 3. City Engineering Staff Memorandum dated March 29, 2012 4. City Community Development Staff Memorandum dated March 30, 2012 RY jig! 'eF€:ae$;11ifl.:: °1?l�m;-e p a a!ycp a p W p` � aiEfiFg,.�dl€•e E?�tl ° '��e�°s$n i e . 's§ , Not, E$ o -ra!�t=aaa3g?a.:R; ;spss�.5 C g'=p-p$a�Fa�S�ts, Y:da.,R.fgi::nx.�a6�4n#fF,-^ee3;:Er,y"eey-f�a?•°gi$ap.o.s. + 3f":de-cd-fiyye=g:8y: fj_jfi_SefidtaaFi�aF�ifi;9�s;oy6a.4% gf? ia4 °=azs aa; :itsaHIM, €EeqR7 9 {sH. ;n I } 'f `\ waw � _ —• _ _ —a - •,zw: � w.As .aw�nx w.t w,•,P„n.,mww ___� —1 0110 as \\; p` --------- LL\ _ Li 4s1 t r� =JM. I Ir � IF66 r i ripp :N ci ILL W } ' cm gI : t, � N \ \ i t �O• S^ / \ �\ L 0-4 's-1 tom✓ ff w ov I 1 1' 1, 11 �u �. LO w A& ov A& O w � I 1 1 1 1 �r� ,, 1PERWE JUlu LOINI, 010) .�LU Ln Ln s N u— J p < W W 2 v W = 00 N fr 00 EO Q y Y Op O Z ion 5 w - �R rr i the 2S W w 4 O m s N N T m N mnc-2E. �8 uoa � t aaw V) 11ii iiiiiiii iiiii iiiii t da w tg ii t y 66 �i4 iy 3 i �o t t�� r`'" m Q 4 3" 000 its C FS �i{9gg .2gg 10aFFsip F! p i� N N 1 cm ca H / ✓ i � j f N vim N$I i E:; :i x `7�U O1 � r T �g�; �-!V Af-T` r '" r \ ., id r . d F, 7'; e S s i Y m N� 1 6�$j 'az36;�itl�ia� O m \ r o cm OD C14 �� i M ZN �� A N ® un co �N O Go N q I l•1 O N I� IN O N N r N T u � PN - cm r ® r p �fiti pu�q��l i /coio p pp Jill s LU LU �`� � '--c�s'[� �„-'xc➢r3"q fiy�n s � isy�s l ai° °�' ozn .E� � ~ xF � :rIS%cP �1 :8.�9 °iIT s?; ay X iT d � � �J • � N.Sm a � o s: ;; °_'�$g`?p::�gr#�nB ¢1� a r S ��= y`� _ .n,'�W^;:am � � `o• a^m'v aX [; . HIM, a%' "!6� -� y'y3S1,=`,y063x8j+s�d a 1u t"ig n%y$"- gy{!o'4""i[ it €11H a�7 sse SSs__a;�x iSm' rt$s o'•"X & := g 3E .§$ 1, { HIM. g .-.3 faaaaaaaa.„E: `sf • W'u^^c •xl P lox IeM .Vl /• 1PN le.. w11• •tl let .x\1- — �— —� 1 1 f I N 1 ti0 15 4= N I _ � � `\\ may., \l ,T, gym,; .\/ � /,;� �n✓--'".��-\\ ��3 �' II E I ri It *W _ v. ; LQ _— -- '� --J ''I ----=zl i 1<��i � � i r C 1\\7� I' N i / ej Jr 1 ILl N Oc '✓ / / / Q' / 25 I R f rl O tYLl ,d •,+ �i f / +[• l 725 Y _ C3 1/0 i x�.amr . OCA IQl C) \ U 7 �rNNgso�� Memo Date, March 29, 2012 To: Community Development and Natural Resources Department From: Engineering Department — Larry Poppler, City Engineer Public Works / Natural Resources Department — Ross Bintner, Water Resources Engineer Subject: Eagle Creek Estates (Project #11-101) The Engineering Department and Public Works/Natural Resources Department have reviewed the preliminary plat submittal for the subject project. flans dated 3/22/12. Stormwater management report dated 3/12/12. Comments more appropriate for the final plat have been removed. General 1. This project is utilizing County topographical data with additional survey shots using a City benchmark. The datum for the survey shots is shown but the datum for the county topographical information is not shown. A note detailing the datum for both sets of data should be shown on the plans. Plat 1. A county easement is showii over lots 17 and 18. The easement should be vacated as a part of the plat. 2. Lot 27, Block 1 is shown over the property line. Gradin 1. Show wetland buffer (hatched) and wetland buffer signage on the plans. Setbacks from wetlands must be checked to verify distance requirements. 2. The following backyard drainage swales require a permanent easement: a. Block 1, Lots 28-30. b. Block 2, Lots 1-4 c. Block 2, Lots 9-11 d. Block 2, Lots 20-21 3. The backyard drainage swale from Block 2, Lots 1-4 and 9-11 requires a permanent easement. The proposed grading in this area would place the easement exceedingly close to the proposed walk -out basement locations. No permanent structures (such as decks) would be allowed in the drainage Swale easement. Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / 4w%Mw.cilyofpriorlake.com 4. The slope of the drainage swales in several areas do not meet the 2% minimum slope requirement. 5. Any backyard drainage paths must be sodded and protected at the conclusion of grading activities. Provide notes indicating that this protection is needed. 6. Show slopes for maintained areas at no more than 4:1, unmaintained at 3:1. 7. Provide name of company contact person, and emergency phone number for person responsible for erosion and sediment control plan preparation, implementation, and maintenance. 8. Provide note on the plans specifying that perimeter / downstream sediment control best management practices should be installed by the Contractor and inspected by the City prior to any site 'work. 9. Show all emergency overflow routes on the plans using arrows and show the elevation of the high point along the emergency overflow route. 10, Show double row of silt fence for areas that drain to the wetland. 11. Provide tree plan that shows the proposed grades and significant tree locations. 12. Show proposed grading within the Park to create flat area for playground. Add Park parking lot with 7 stalls with access off of Credit River Road. 13. Show grading for access to each commercial property. Access for outlot F and eastern lot in Outlot G is not shown. 14. The 924 contour on Lot 21, Block 1 should be adjusted to match the spot elevations to promote drainage to the front of the Iot. 15. Show grading over sanitary pipe east of the property. For access purposes manholes should be flush with the ground profile. Manholes and outside the roadway require "Rhino" marking posts. 16. The 936 contour is missing near the intersection of Fish Point Road and the tie in point in Cardinal Ridge. Survey shot elevations should be shown on the grading plan here and at other tie in points to show the existing elevations. 17. Show EOF behind Lots 13 & 14, Block 1. 18. The contours for the commercial access road do not tie in to existing contours. 19. Show top and bottom retaining wall elevations for pond off Credit River Road near eastern property line. 20. It appears that the wetland buffer will extend to the building pad for lot 13 block 2. Utilities 1. The sanitary sewer serving lots 24-30 Markley Road flow to the property to the east. This property must be platted and the services must be installed for development of these lots. The grading for these lots does not correspond to the preliminary plats provided for Markley Lake Woods. 2. Show existing watennain at tie in points near CSAH 21 and Fish Point Road, Credit River Road, and Fish Point Road in the Cardinal Ridge Development. 3. Utility layout plan should include the sanitary sewer connection east of the property and the tie in point on Credit River Road. Streets 1. A temporary cul-de-sac is needed at the end of Markley Lake Road including signage per requirements in the Public Works Design Manual. The temporary cul-de-sac must be contained within the easements dedicated for the adjacent lots. 2. Review vertical curves proposed for the development. Numerous vertical curves do not meet 30 MPH standards. The vertical curve at the low point of Snell Lane is of particular concern. 3. A turning movement diagram should be prepared for the roundabout. Hydrology and Storm Sewer 1. PWDM III.4 WATER QUALITY/RATE CONTROLNOLUME CONTROL: a. Pond G calculation includes a math error and is currently undersized, but not drastically. This item should not affect preliminary plat. b. Provide time of concentration calculations consistent with each catchment, not a constant 15 minute. Perhaps for consistency, you could use Lag/CN method, or similar calculator built into HydroCAD. Model directly connected impervious separately from pervious fraction. 2. PWDM III.5 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT: a. Describe compensatory flood storage area between 893.2 and 896.5 in Markley Basin and include in grading plan. Check upstream concentrated flow paths, utilities in the area, and include tree removal quantities. b. Plan (pipe and outlot) should reflect landlocked basin C draining to basin D as described in the stormwater management report. 3. PWDM III.7 POND DESIGN CRITERIA: a. Lot 19 creates a containment dike for the upstream stormwater pond. Follow pond standard dike design. Low floor must be 2' above HWL of pond. 4. PWDM III.6 WETLANDS: a. Include wetland delineation lines on grading plan and show buffer area. No grading is allowed in 25' minimum no -grade zone. b. 10/15/11 MN -RAM indicates wetland D (W3-001) has high vegetative diversity/ integrity. Section 6 specifies this rating requires a 50' average, 25' minimum buffer width. c. Wetland F (W3-002) has a moderate vegetative diversity / integrity. Section 6 specifies this rating requires a 30' average, 25' minimum buffer width. 5. All pond and flood storage areas on neighboring site need drainage and utility easement. A wetland permit will be required for impacts due to pond basin G. 6. Correct minor errors in drainage areas and major error in drainage area for basin UG. 7. PWDM III.6 Wetlands: Provide the fimctional classification for buffer width and storniwater susceptibility for wetland Please note the 25' no -grading zone around wetlands in the Scott WMO. Plan should provide detail on buffer signs and seed types. 8. Describe maintenance access routes for all ponds (8% max grade, 10' wide) 9. PWDM III.8 STORM SEWER: Please provide calculations for storm sewer sizing. a. Provide city standard skimming outlet design to ponds. SWPPP 1. An NPDES Construction site permit will be required for this project. The City must approve the associated SWPPP prior to grading permit approval. Please review the individual provisions for temporary and permanent erosion control measure and pernianent water quality measure that are required for the NPDES permit and submit the SWPPP to the City for review. All areas coming out of agricultural production must be seeded with a cover crop prior to development. 2. Permit section III.A details the requirements of a SWPPP. 3. III.A.1: Describe requirements that need to be met prior to filing for Notice of Termination (NOT): 4. III.A.3.a: Detail is required on location and timing for all permanent and temporary BMPs. 5. IV.B.3: Design, describe and show 200' flow path stabilization through all phases of construction. (More detail required for construction phasing) 6. IV.C.2-7: requirements not addressed. (need info for temporary stockpiles for building construction, and plan for rock construction entrances during various phases) 7. IV.E.3: Seasonal information needed such as winter provisions. 8. IV.G.2: Describe and provide forms for handover of "Homeowner factsheet" for residential portions, where appropriate. Date: March 30, 20.12 To: Ray Brandt, Brandt Engineering & Surveying From: Jeff Matzke, Planner Subject: EAGLE CREEK ESTATES Preliminary Plat City Project #11-101 Memo The Community & Economic Development Department has reviewed the Preliminary Plat for the subject project with a plan date of March 14, 2012 and we have the following comments. Comment in bold are major comments to be addressed. General 1. Provide City with draft warranty deeds for all outlot areas to be dedicated to the City according to Ordinance 1004.604. A recorded copy of the deeds shall be delivered to the City after recording of the final plat. 2. Estimated development fees for this project can be indicated to developer once a final net lot area calculation is indicated on plans with final relisted Outlots (see Preliminary Plat comment 1.) Preliminary Plat 1. Relist Outlot Areas in alphabetical order (there are two OutIot I) 2. Are any subdivision monument signs proposed at this time? If so indicate location and provide spec detail rendering of sign(s) with dimensions. Tree Preservation Plan / Landscape Plan 1. Revise Tree Preservation Plan the match preliminary plat and grading plan layouts. 2. Provide la) total inches in right-of-way and City -dedicated outlot areas and lb) total inches removed in these areas. Also, indicate 35% calculation of total inches on entire site. Total inches removed in excess of 35% calculation must be replaced at a ratio of %: inch replacement tree per 1 inch of removed tree. See Tree Preservation Ordinance (Section 1107.2105) for more details on requirement. Landscape Plan 1. Revise Landscape Plan to match Preliminary Plat and Grading Plan layouts. 2. All proposed trees must be minimum 2 1/2" caliper inch for deciduous trees or 6 ft. in height for coniferous trees. a. Required 2 front yard trees on landscape plan must all be overstory trees. Ornamental trees are not applicable for front yard tree requirement. Indicate Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / Nw%vccityofpdorlake.com minimum 2 front yard trees located per lot (4 for corner lots because they front along two streets) Grading Plan Identify existing wetland areas (label acreage) and mitigation areas (label acreage). Identify wetland buffer areas in accordance with Ordinance 1004.903. 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake. MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 9, 2012 AGENDA M 6A PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, CITY PLANNER LARRY POPPLER, CITY ENGINEER / INSPECTIONS DIRECTOR PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE LARRY POPPLER AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER A PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT AND ITS CONSISTENTENCY WITH THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is for the Planning Commission to consider whether a propsoed access easement is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. History On December 19, 2011 the City Council approved a resolution for a combined preliminary and final plat to be known as The Bluffs of Candy Cove (see attached proposed plat). The resolution indicated that an access easement shall be granted for the properties of the Bluffs of Candy Cove Plat through the City - owned property (PID 25-936-075-0) located at the northeast of the intersection of Candy Cove Trail and State Trunk Highway 13. Platted in 1921, the 5 originally platted lots (now under common ownership) had direct access from Candy Cove Trail. In 1960, with the development of State Highway 13, the State of Minnesota acquired a portion of the lots and Candy Cove Trail was realigned to intersect with Trunk Hwy 13. The lots are proposed to have access through the City -owned parcel to Candy Cove Trail through a shared access driveway (which requires approval of an access easement). In order to achieve the driveway access a portion of the hill on the City -owned par- cel near the intersection of Candy Cove Trail and Hwy 13 is being proposed for removal. A new retaining wall system is proposed to be installed within the City - owned parcel with coniferous trees to be placed for screening and buffering pur- poses. Current Circumstances The attached draft easement document identifies an area for a permanent ease- ment area as well as a temporary easement area within the City owned property. The permanent easement is reserved for the installation of the driveway and permanent retaining wall systems. The temporary easement is for softening the slopes making the retaining walls shorter. A large hill is located on the City prop- erty. This large hill makes design challenging considering the grades must tie in at the neighboring property line. This City property has been a source of conflict between the Developer and the neighboring property owner. Each have different ideas and viewpoints on where the permanent easement lines should be drawn and how the grades should be sloped. The neighbor has existing retaining walls on the City property. The pro- posed permanent easement location bisects the City property evenly between the two driveways. This allows both the existing neighbor and the Developer room for maintenance of their retaining walls and allows for future modifications of the easement areas in front of their property. After analyzing the grades of the dri- veway and slopes of the large hill, by allowing temporary grading from the top of the existing retaining wall to the proposed driveway, retaining wall heights can be minimized and allows up to 15 feet of space between the retaining wall and the driveway for landscaping and screening. Depending on the wall system, landscaping could also be placed above the wall. The Developer of the plat has also submitted the attached letter and information stating his desire to acquire a larger permanent easement than is recommended by City Staff. However, this larger easement is not recommended because it does not allow sufficient room for maintenance of existing and proposed retaining walls. ISSUES: While the approval of a specific access easement agreement and defined area is the decision of the City Council, the Planning Commission, should consider the draft access easement request and whether the granting of an access easement is within conformance with the City Comprehensive Plan. A goal of the City Comprehensive Plan is to provide for access to and movement of people, goods, and services. The City ownership of this parcel allows the City to permit a reasonable access from the public street of Candy Cove Trail to the three proposed residential properties of the Bluffs of Candy Cove Plat. Contrary to the Developer's belief, City Staff believes the recommended easement area satisfies a reasonable access to the residential properties. FINANCIAL All costs associated with the installation and restoration associated with the con - IMPACT: struction of the access driveway will be borne by the Developer and future prop- erty owner(s). ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of a resolution approving a perpetual easement for the access driveway. 2. Table approval of a resolution approving a perpetual easement for the access driveway. 3. Do not recommend approval of a resolution approving a perpetual easement for the access driveway. RECOMMENDED Alternative ##1 MOTION: AGREEMENT GRANTING NONEXCLUSIVE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR THE USE AND MAINTENANCE OF THE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT This driveway easement ("Agreement") is made this day of , 2012, by and among the CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), JASON MILLER, a single person ("Miller"), referred to herein individually as ("Owner".) RECITALS A. Owner owns Lots 1, 2, and 3, THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE, Scott County, Minnesota, (referred to herein as "Lots"). B. Approved access to the Lots pursuant to City Resolution 11-148, approving the Plat of The Bluffs of Candy Cove is over and across City owned property, ("City Property") legally described and depicted in Exhibit A in relation to Lots, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. C. The Owner desires to construct a driveway and retaining walls, (referred to herein for the purposes of this Agreement as the "Driveway Improvements") over City Property to access the Lots in the Plat of The Bluffs of Candy Cove. D. Subject to the terms and conditions setout in this Agreement, the City consents to grant a Nonexclusive driveway easement, (referred to herein for the purposes of this Agreement as the "Driveway Easement") for ingress, egress and access purposes over, under and across that portion of the City property as shown in Exhibit B and a ("Temporary Grading Easement") as shown in Exhibit C. AGREEMENT Now Therefore, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.. 2. GRANT OF EASEMENT. Subject to compliance with the terms and conditions provided for herein, the City hereby grants and conveys a non-exclusive, perpetual Driveway Easement to the Owner and owners of Lots within the Plat of THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE, over, under and upon the Driveway Easement area legally described in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. 3. GRANT OF TEMPORARY EASEMENT. Subject to compliance with the terms and conditions provided for herein, the City hereby grants a Temporary Grading Easement to the Owner and owners of Lots within the Plat of THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE, over, under and upon the Temporary Grading Easement area legally described in Exhibit C, which Exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Prior to work within the Temporary Grading Easement area, Owner must submit plans detailing the grading activities. Such plans must be approved by the City Engineer prior to owner commencing any work within the Temporary Grading Easement area. The Temporary Grading Easement shall expire on October 15'x', 2012. Prior to expiration of the Temporary Grading Easement, Owner shall place 5" of topsoil and have seed or sod established and rooted over the Temporary Grading Easement area. 4. DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENTS. The City hereby grants the Owner permission to construct, at Owner's sole cost and expense, Driveway Improvements, retaining wall, and landscaping consistent with plans approved by the City Engineer ("Approved Plans") within the Driveway Easement area described in Exhibit B. Plans must be approved prior to commencement of work. Upon completion of the Driveway Improvements the Owner must provide the City with a complete set of As -Built drawings of the Driveway Improvements in such number and format as required by the City Engineer. Any additional Driveway Improvements beyond those in the Approved Plans require submission to and approval of new plans and specifications by the City Engineer. 2 5. BENEFITTED LOTS. The Owners of the Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Bluffs of Candy Cove are immediately benefited by construction of the Driveway Improvements. 6. MAINTENANCE. The Owners shall be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair, replacement and restoration (collectively "Maintenance") of the Driveway Improvements, retaining walls, landscaping and area within the Driveway Easement area and the City shall not be responsible for or obligated to participate in, perform or pay the cost of any such Maintenance, including snow removal. 7. INDEMNITY. Each Owner of the Lots agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City and its employees, contractors, agents, representatives, elected and appointed officials, and attorneys harmless from any and all claims, damages, losses, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising from, based on, or related to Owners constiuction of the Driveway Improvements, the City's granting of the Driveway Easement or the failure of the Owners to maintain the Driveway Improvements and Driveway Easement Area in a safe condition. 8. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. The Owner acknowledges that the Driveway Improvement is a private driveway, not a public street; and that the City has no responsibility for the construction or maintenance of the Driveway Improvement, retaining walls, or landscaping, other than to inspect the Driveway Improvements for compliance with the Approved Plans and applicable City requirements; and that the City has made no representations or warranties regarding the condition or suitability of the Driveway Easement Area for the uses permitted by this Agreement. 9. WAIVER. The Owner, on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns waives any and all claims he may now have or may have in the future against City relating to access to Owners Lots. 10. BINDING EFFECT. Except as hereinafter provided, this Agreement shall run with the land and bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. 11. RECORDING. Owner shall record this Agreement against the title or abstract to the Lots and provide the City with evidence the Agreement has been recorded not later than May 15, 2012. 3 12. GOVERNING LAW AND ENFORCEMENT. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. The City reserves to itself the right, but not the obligation, to enforce any breach of this Agreement. The proper venue for an action relating to this Agreement is District Court in Scott County, Minnesota. 13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions relating to the Driveway Easement and Driveway Improvements, and replaces any oral agreements or other negotiations between the parties. No modifications of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by all parties hereto. CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Frank Boyles, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF ) JASON MILLER Jason Miller, Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2012, by Frank Boyles, City Manager of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota, a municipal corporation on its behalf. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2012, by Jason Miller, a single. Notary Public 4 This instrument drafted by: Nilan Johnson Lewis PA 400 One Financial Plaza 120 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 .. 31 00. N1 i9.fl �� \ NN 1p o o I Y etc / }- �Q Rte' \ - '0.9'09 6 .� CD oza W y yo�>zpp 66.5 125.00 trj co, t 1 V Q Q Q; Q 1 111 is (0 � .a-� QD 41 . O �'-i,•, i - o s ooL �� or �� ai o4 D70N� -0 1 LOn-o L L' >� v- (00 ,� 0 3 V N V V v, o a=1 v Q tnr�c�Q (v 2 v -5w 0.CLv N LL O .--1 W Q OL OAD'I +!414x3 AF-rodoid R4IO.6AO4UaZdOICAQO'.-i-913144'£ii0A3AUn9S103rouitS - -Gvm - not 'SO Ay N O a.� tp � O _ y y O a o w N v v y c o 9))q)•+� N2 0:3 Z Q o *s' 3 `( o ao'0Mcoa v z v N O v U M �O ° U�Oa+,. v0 4D 4) c Y-/CC' OA +�UFv ^O♦N+ �rL iv vy4-? N7Of'0; i7O,0 L;'i'^o�O> OpfO�O 0, ONN0— CC�CaO p a 2 Va>U E o ND4/ 0N a'ap- 0 c AO v)tr sm ° v ZA O 1- 0 ° O ° Z w ° Wr O Tv Ega La+ OL V N ��C C: T+' c wyc� 3is0 ° o rN CL c°c o °c0 Q i N oyC oN u iv7 .yv, +.LO a L'10 VoIl o o 41) -Y ,iO OOO C v)N C C N wu S �C E O CO ° O O O,D N O F• 0o O My NOo0V _ N C We in U a d Eo o N X c oma, q) q) v 0 a y o L o C O N j MO L C af— v yNO w+ 7 �c 0 vrn" °cc0) '. 00 s o�.nU o o + % , ° a Q) v SvO0 3cNv ;N ° 0 V svr- 45 �N3 fLw'C°t v (A .0 ;;o=1 E oco N�L _o 0 0c r ° v o0U >.-h voa(Dr- -0 ) m w41 NfiM Oy�N O O In rN O co 0 M 0. 0 L. roO o .tto o°o w dr y vo ° 0.Z aw :a N v N to CN to ILI C.1G)y NN �"C O p0.0OU O ry b p{ UOy CE N •0 Cvram }°w0.- tV MC Oah � Mcv ZZr VV010*0w 00d N }Li'riS}j'% UaUN)yr MCNGaOv )rA•- Lo�C W 4;11 f Z E co E cN1.v_O(�1) vNr0Q) C0 iLO M0 � In 0O y 4) >4� Oa wNN --Q .GW =•• NL V N0-00- �0O V t0 U° yy,0r �w ?r C)* jqQ NN - 0) u O v y N v 0 12 O f v u N v0 L O U0.OD Z N C �r C ch + +• 3 'D N Z O .0 •O 0 0 CD 00 0 O 1 M y J y N O Q `� 7 ' 0 Q) 6 ODO M y N 0 L QCV OMv Ow CZy COw wM )—C-0 Q UUZ0NV NuIY oEC ZNN0N Z+•`' 16 �ycaOOV0�M�0 �O+v0 Q a cM 5 1,c 0 aN c EvN" (n (D —0 v _ °) c' (, �°'OCO Tv yO v In 7aOMa cocCq 0 CL N v q/ v v 4) 0 cv L ) v v v�) 1 yaS a. N 0-0aC v 01 v 01 J v c v. o aa.- + U d L cc+�ve E 0 0 :151M 0 O v OdvN C ,im+� °)ama -00 (o �o°-°0c oci vrn u E ° Ev_ crn uvo r vrnNccu ..)n o ..0 3co v `33 cx a,�Nv U �`oav Z v 7 N �.�- C �"- O v v v'a v w C O N 3 U 0t O -00 L._ U o03 C_O o o.r >� 000 0 0 Oo•-C) 0 FOV CrO" �uN F- v 6N1 O ° Of N O C p �'O N Q �V a+ N y y O 0 cp y v y O 7 .0 ,Cv,+ vc)0,U 04D mO FQ McVaCr0 ¢ OvCc VaZ�i`MavC+wst �Cv��o ¢ c c a -0 0 V cer0M EmNN; zOfWatEU z 0.0M .% :t-- 0 U 0v O LQa O CO C CC'cQ f LL _ ° 9 E O O ErU O C ~ ° m y rm NNOD O N aW ° t°a V vwNN0 ¢c 4 a C OO WO0. c nauv mccOsvpc ocN G`cDL ao cv'°°�(j �°c� ° a. NcQ-2 oo3o.o v J tr io-o L )- (EnO•N Ca+ a DAV•l ligl"3 R1JQWJd Ri1��0#uw)Oolanap-aa{ow,v{!WI'£dipA3Alff19.51�3f0itdIS - W9f)01 - 41W 'SO --dY m m W uu) ix a z Of • 0ol 32 00 Of 2.0 T7 03 ziz 3 N�'� f > 1�1 Iry 0 (10- 'Y 'Y t�fl N IX 2 N m Ln co Ld tn Q X10 s+Vol sZ •G O� W� V C COQ � a0-• w� N f�a a u ti 1 IA ka ocL-+N a`°t C•EY N � jd�� Hw stn v-0 Ln V O lO QI •O lt1 00 C Y bD 7 OD tU 7 p si y CL � M H ♦. T_ O GL Vr .1 c to ... E `aid °' ar F- •o " ri •— 3 Q! p sem.. w !SJ/YJ[ aC O O t' 7rj aJN �' C4 n. alH E p ^� 3 Vp � p yaro�i y y3 C La WD N C N Xf N CC4 t''+ 7 lL O C a N �OOj Q y y�N m m O p O .G p0� .np'pv Y,= N �`� n,u.� v°'iV c �,00 a�i'�irir�i-•i oz o� o, po�a a W p3 cYoZ 1!i p 3 O 1 0 ctf°Dc t1. Z'6 to � m w O O c tc IL CIL csa°�'cay"���rv3caocsoumCIL ai Q 0 C o' GU m N d N O apf N b .0 N O .—� CL fC aC� .3 i t!1 m 4,1fl i+ W Cxb7--. he n C� ��'IZI-OZ-£0)-f-;upwea�eap.�u9lLdO�onCO-ala+tiilUA-CZZOA3A!!lt9S1�3f0!)dsS - wO691Q - ZIOZ -{Z JON U m w aY W 8>z o �p�ro m 50 ' • •s y 1J INRs J� O oz Q ry LLI y1 vro aro � ro N 2�i �'L' v y bD O GNl = a1 U,i N N N O m T �i Uri a O vtva�=3a°0c3m"no3dNvtv4`9Wa"i� t-- E 4L � t v 01a w � "vv p a to U wT UE 'b O d/ C u pbp C� GOl C qU 5 H C 00 . y, (tl - C rA Y U C� 1l1 C C C/ O U 41 G L u L° to c s Y o Nz �.i•-3a Z "Qyo�o, ro �ya�inf ��nn m c u cow p N c N� E_ y i' p YG �' C p. 5 O Y W io •O O ]L y to O Gl t� a C O d al 'p L' O N tv .-J; c yta� y~Y a -8. L. F N E Fr! rb too oo Y 6 Y pC_n O N O N O `y O C o m N ro .t d 0 L .O N v- u �i O N +�$, =D w 0 'd J Oj Gl U L VOi L C Yn d N C �i a`i 7 dl d .�C ZO F M O N N—o O 'LI Q W . ?OO 'n ••' O ry V1 O N y `"� Vy Q�j m a y pyj y M p C$ `i to m —t -'c y C L pp cco o Q� 03: N Q •% y N co oO O d Y G ?j O t aL0 O tm N t0 t O E aQ LL ANA G -a0 = w U w u w O ttAA u c r �V u� U T u .a j La -Na to a z.2 io a W Q Y t10 U C M O G Q1 N ti' fO •E N vdi L ro H O •' Y •� Y C ro 'O h G r vpi C N G N •M Y U O .Yif O N d v Al U t' w Gl Q! •'' a t rod Q1 p 0 N .v V .-i O ... t0 O e -t O tip �j tyl O .- f, �j .�-' C .0 U Cl O L t? O a I^ Si P G7 J L to ro A to 1Z U to . I frl to O O W N to U V F F O_ F+ N N Z Y Y 7 Y Q 0►A'fZl-97rL0)-9'4=+eaOCu�C+�tQ}UanJOIBhBp'�9}wi}�yr'Q27AA3A8f19 St�3 fDNd tS - IMtCtB - ZSOZ •{L -MM THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE 5906 NOKOMIS AVE. S. Minneapolis, MN 55417 JASON A. MILLER - (612) 7506150 PAX (512) 208-1766 Planning Commission & City Council Members at the April 3, 2012 City of Prior Lake 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Re: Easement Document For The Bluffs of Candy Cove Hwy 13 & Candy Cove Trail Prior take, MN 55372 Dear Mr. Mayor, Planning Commissioners, and City Council Members: When my project was previously passed by you, I thought that it would be the last time that you would need to spend your valuable time looking at this project, and I would be able to resolve the remaining conditions for my project through the City Staff and start construction prior to February 191h, 2012. But, I have been told that the access easement that I am required to have prior to the release and recording of my plat (according to my resolution), must be approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. So, it is my understanding that you will be making the final determination as to what easement area my project will be provided with, which ultimately determines which grading plan can be used for the project. I would prefer not to be writing this letter, but it has been brought to my attention that there is no formal appeal process for appealing the recent requirements and decisions made by the City Staff; and I'm concerned that the City's currently recommended easement area, which is small and restrictive, will result in a lower quality project for our community. Again, I don't particularly want to confront the City, but there has been such a long history of actions which have made it more difficult and more expensive to access and use this property. And, I can't help but think that if more precautions like this letter, had been put in front of the previous Planning Commissioners & City Council Members during the variance process for Lot 31 in 2002, our properties would have never have been land -locked and you would not be stuck dealing with these issues today. I also think that the current Planning Commission and the City Council should be made aware of these issues, so that if they choose to, they can prevent these types of problems from happening to the other citizens in our community, Please consider this letter and the attached information as you are reviewing the easement for our property, which I would expect the City Staff to put in front of the planning commission on 4/09/2012 and the City Council on 4/16/2012. I've tried to highlight my biggest concerns about the project, in the pages that follow. We need an easement. Please provide us with a reasonable and unconditioned access easement by April 17th, 2012; so that we can close on the sale of this property and begin using it: If we decide to file the plat for the Bluffs of Candy Cove project, we need to receive this document well in advance of our plat filing deadline of May 17th; and even if we decide not to file the plat, we still need to get the access easement in order to install a driveway and start using the property again. For your Information: my last e-mails, with the City Attorney indicated that the City would provide us with access to our property even if we do not re -plat the property. I'm not quite sure why getting this easement has been such an issue of controversy, or why the previous owner was not provided with it? But I do know that getting it solves one of the major obstacles preventing this project from proceeding, which is why I have made repeated attempts (by e-mail and in meetings) to get the City to define and provide the easement over the course of the last year and a half; so that I could close on the sale of the property and produce a grading plan that conformed to the easement area. I know that I was consistently told by the City, that the easement could not be provided because it was dependent upon my grading plan; but recently, after having the City turn down my grading plans, which adhered to the City of Prior Lake Grading Guidelines, for reasons that left my retaining wall engineer confused, the City chose to define an easement area independent of the grading plans that I have had in front of the City for over a year. In case you are not aware of this: on 02/16/12 the City picked an easement line that is half way between my driveway and the neighbors, and told me to adlust my plans so that all of the retaining walls and permanent structures that I install, are located within the City's proposed easement area which is shown in orange on the attached drawing dated 2/28/12 (see page 8). It has been very frustrating to have the project delayed and the easement withheld over the last year and a half while we have had to spend money on grading plans "because the easement is dependent upon the grading plan", and then have the City pick an easement line half way between my driveway and the neighbors driveway, which is completely independent of my grading plans. Also, providing us with this Information while we were drawing our plans would have prevented several months of delays to the project, because we probably could have put a completed grading plan with easements in front of the City Council when they approved the project on December 19; 2011. As you can Imagine, if we have not been provided with all of the constraints for the project it's almost impossible to draw a plan that conforms to them. It should also be noted that making my easement dependent upon my grading plan contradicts the City Staffs past statements during the adjacent neighbor's variance process (see page 9), when the City Staff assured the concerned Planning Commissioners that our properties would not be land -locked, because City would provide access easements to our properties (notice there was no mention of making the owner spend $50,000 on grading plans to get the easement, or making him pay for surveys or legal descriptions to get it). I'm hoping that some of you might understand my concern that if the previous owner couldn't get an easement during the last 30 years, and I still haven't been able to get an easement with my constructlon/engineering/development background, $50,000 worth of plans and engineering, 2 years of my life, the advice of a lawyer,'a $301,750 letter of credit, and another half a million dollars set aside to construct the project, I'm still very worried that the City might not provide me with an acceptable easement prior to our plat filing deadline. While, I may never know what the City's real agenda was with this property and maybe the current Planning Commissioners and City Council members won't know either, since many of the problems with the property occurred before they were appointed or elected. What I do hope is that it is possible for us to find some common ground, so that we can eliminate one of the biggest problems with this property by simply issuing an easement (similar to the one provided to Lot 30) that provides for the maximum amount of flexibility with regard to the grading and landscaping on the City owned lot. As you review the potential easements for this property, you will notice that I provided the City engineer with two different legal descriptions, one for the area that he is suggesting (page 10), and one for the area that conforms to the retaining walls and landscaping which are currently shown on the plan, while still leaving my neighbor with room for a garage addition and room to maintain the existing boulder walls that are on the City property (page 11). Once we know which area the City will be including in our easement and if it will be turned over in time to meet our plat filing deadline, we will then be able to determine if we should proceed with this project or if we wlll need to pursue other options. Please keep in mind that even though i paid my engineer to provide legal descriptions for the access easement that was supposed to have been provided by the city a long time ago, this in no way indicates that I endorse or accept the currently suggested easement area from the City. My un -coerced acceptance of this project cannot be given until i have been provided with all of the requirements that will be attached to my project. The City's recently suggested easement forces us to change the grading & landscaping plans that were previously presented to you. Are you OK with this? The City staff has essentially redrawn the grading plan that I put in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council, by selecting an easement area that confines my 20' high retaining walls to a narrow area of land next to my driveway. I feel that I have an obligation to make you aware of this because I think that this decision results in several drawbacks for the community, many of which were explained when I highlighted the problems with the City's alternative grading plans with the elevation drawings that I previously provided to the City Council. (See drawing on page 8) The Planning Commission, the City Council and my resolution, all seem to indicate that I should be minimizing my wall heights and installing trees & landscaping in order to mitigate noise, but as you can see from the attached drawing, confining my retaining wall and landscaping to the narrow area that is shown in orange (on page 8), increases the size of the retaining wall and reduces the area that's available for landscaping. If you would prefer to see more trees planted on the hillside between our lots and the neighbor you may want to contact the staff about increasing the size of our easement. The neighbor's actions and his "potential garage variance" have been allowed to delay my project. On 2/8/2012 the City sent me a letter telling me to work with the neighbor to accomplish his goal of building a garage on the City property. Frank Boyles asked us to: "provide the City with a timeline agreed upon by both of you that will provide the city with plans for your respective projects that accommodate the needs of both projects to use portions of the City -owned property". This letter along with at least 20 other e-mails, comments and resolutions from the city, "urge" Jason Miller and the neighbor to work together, which I have tried to do for most of the last year, while the neighbor refused to speak to me. This is starting to concern me because the city knows that the neighbor is trying to get thousands of dollars from me (per our meeting on 01/30/12 he wanted me to delay my project while I pay for plans and processing costs to get him a garage variance and also give him $17,000). The City's letter (item 2) also requires "Mr. Miller & Mr. Toohey to accommodate one another's plans". Which means that now that my project is ready to start, I'm supposed to pay to modify my grading plan again, in order to accommodate the neighbors plans, which I have not seen (other than his basic sketch). The last time that I spoke with the City, neighbor still had not -filed a complete variance application for his garage and the city had not given him any sort of deadline to file his variance application. So, not knowing if he is even going to get a garage, where it would go, how big it would be, what his grading plan might look like, or how he would meet the same drainage requirements that we had to meet; I'm supposed to pay to accommodate his garage that does not exist, and in my opinion the City should not give him, because €t's probably a bad idea to set a precedent of letting someone build a garage on public property that exists to provide access to somebody else's lots. € want to bring this to your attention, because If the City forces me accommodate the neighbors garage variance which has no deadlines or requirements, while holding my project hostage to a plat filing deadline of May 17, 2012, they have effectively allowed my neighbor to cancel my project again. If you recall, on Friday — 11/18/2011 (1 working day prior to the City Council vote), I received a revised 30 page staff report and resolution for my project which added a condition to my project (condition 4G), which required me to agree to a retaining wall price with my neighbor and to pay my neighbor for a wall that sits on the city property, that I might not even touch, within 60 days, or my plat could not be released or recorded. Condition 4H was also attached, which required me to meet with the neighbor to agree to a grading plan within 60 days, or my project would go null and void: This of course gave my neighbor the ability to cancel my project by simply avoiding me for 60 days, and I feel that it should have been obvious to the City, that after over a year of drafting plans and getting commitments from me; it was not reasonable to attach conditions to my project which gave my neighbor the ability to cancel or delay my project at his discretion. I also felt that that it was unreasonable to force me to pay the neighbor for a wall that might not be removed, and should not have been installed, because it increased the cost to access our property. And, as far as I can tell, delaying my project and making me to accommodate the neighbor, completely contradicts item 2Q of the resolution for my project, where the City states: item 2g: "If feasible the 4 applicant and the owner of lot 31 should renew their efforts at dialog to negotiate on agreement regarding the location of the retaining wall, but the approvals and conditions provided for in this Resolution are not dependent on whether a dialog occurs or an agreement is reached because such events are beyond the control and not within the authority of the City Council to require." I'm getting worried because, depending upon how the City handles this, the neighbor could again be given the authority to cancel my project; although Larry Poppler recently approved a temporary grading sketch which could allow us to start construction even If we don't know If the City will be giving the neighbor a garage variance. Either way, we still need to resolve this issue soon,.in order to prevent my project from getting stalled out mid -construction, while waiting to see if the neighbor gets a variance. Fairness & Justification For a larger Easement: I'm stating my case, because the City has repeatedly claimed that it intends to "treat both parties equally and fairly," and I'm concerned that the fairness tipped strongly in favor of my neighbor. So far this process has cost the neighbor almost nothing. But between myself and the Clarke estate, we will spend more money than the entire values of neighbor's lot, just trying to get a driveway back into our properties. Also, some of the requirements and conditions that have been attached to my project appear to be assisting my neighbor with stopping my project and possibly even collecting a payment from me. For example my resolution requires me to pay the neighbor and/or indemnify the City if the existing boulder wall Is removed from the City lot; yet I'm pretty sure the neighbor wants this wall removed, and if the neighbor gets a garage variance It would have to be removed. The City always claims to be trying to be fair to all of the neighbors, yet the City's actions usually indicate that the City's main objective is to avoid liability. It's apparent that the City has little or no leverage over the neighbor's property, but the development contract that I had to sign requires me to relinquish my rights and Indemnify the City. This agreement also gives the City a tremendous amount of leverage to force me to pick up all of the extra costs of pleasing the neighbor and meeting the extra conditions that have been attached to my project. And It's my opinion that as a result of this set up, the City has usually favored the owner of Lot 31 (who can still sue the City), at the expense of the owner of Lots 32 - 36. if the City is honestly trying to be fair, and anyone at the city is worried about justifying a larger easement so that the community can have a better looking project, I'd like to provide the City with the following justifications for increasing the size of my easement Reasons to increase the size of the driveway/maintenance easement for Lots 32 - 36: • We could minimize the size of the retaining walls. • We would have room to install trees in front of the retaining walls. • We would have more room to install landscaping and trees farther up the hill, which would provide better sound mitigation for the neighbors. • If we leave the neighbor's driveway alone, there should belittle or no legal risk for the City. • Having me pay to install and maintain more trees In front of the neighbor's home should be a benefit to the neighbor. • The easement area that i have suggested still leaves the neighbor with at least 16' of width next to his existing garage, in case the City wants to grant him a variance to build another garage. Reasons why the current easement location as specified by the City is unfair, to the detriment of the Bluffs of Candy Cove project (Lots 32 — 36): • It does not make sense for one lot (Lot 31-17%), that has little or no use for an easement to get the same priority as 5 lots (83% of the lots), that have legitimate maintenance and engineering concerns, which could be reduced by having a larger easement area to work in. • The owner of Lot 31 has already been provided with a driveway, while owners of lots 32 - 36 have been denied of the use of their property for over 30 years. • The owner of Lot 31 was not "fenced off' from using his property by a 1 to 1 slope and a set of boulder retaining walls, like the owners of lots 32 - 36. • Is it fair to give the owner of lot 31 the same amount of room to maintain an existing, 6' —8' tali, unreinforced boulder wall (maintainable entirely from the front), as we are being provided with to install a new 20' high retaining wall with a reinforcing system behind it? • If the owner of lot 31 went to his own variance hearing, the Planning Commissioners made it perfectly clear to him that he was building next to 5 other existing lots and there was a concern that his project would land -lock our properties. If the city is still concerned about being unfair to the owner of Lot 31, you are welcome to reference the attached list of "10 actions which have landlocked, delayed, or increased the cost to access our property"; at which point it should become apparent that we have consistently been forced to pay for and fix an unreasonably lopsided portion of the issues associated with this situation. I'm not trying to push the City around, but I am frustrated by this situation and you are probably aware that I don't have a lot of other options when it comes to reasoning with the City; l either relinquish my rights and accept all the conditions that the City adds to my project, go to court, plead my case publicly in the newspaper, or plead my case to you. And, because I have typically felt that the current Planning Commissioners and the City Council Members have been fair, I thought I would attempt to appeal to you, prior to exploring my other options. Right now I have not decided how I will be proceeding with this project, because I'm not sure what the City intends to do. What I can tell you Is that: I do intend to proceed with this project if the city: • Provides me with the larger of the two easement areas that I provided to Larry Poppler • The City doesn't attach any more conditions to my project • The City allows me to start construction as soon as possible • And the City doesn't make me spend any more money on retaining wall engineering for the hillside until we decide to build the retaining walls, because the City seems to be undecided about giving the neighbor a garage variance (which would result in another plan change). If anyone would like to discuss the project, or has any questions, feel free to contact me. T ank you for your time, Jason Miller (612-750-6150 10 actions that have landlocked, delayed, or increased the cost to access our prooerty: • In 1979 the City vacated the roadway to our property with Resolution 79-41, and did not provide a new access point to the property or any sort of easement to access the property. This action legally land -locked the property and prevented it from being used or sold with a clear title. • On January 1, 2001, a perpetual driveway and landscaping easement signed by Wesley Mader (Prior Lake Mayor) & Frank Boyles (City Manager), was provided to the owners of Lot 30 of Candy Cove Park. This easement turned over a large portion of the city lot along with most of its' frontage along Candy Cove Trail to the owners of Lot 30. Keep in mind that the City lot exists to provide access to all of Lots 30 through 36. But, for some reason the home that was built in 1987 which had little or no use for an easement was provided with control over most of the City lot's frontage on Candy Cove Trail, just prior to Mark Toohey building a home on Lot 31. • On May 20`h, 2002 the City granted a variance to Mark Toohey to build a home on Lot 31 of Candy Cove Park, which allowed him to build a driveway on the original roadway to our property. It should be noted that instead of having the owner to align his home with the adjacent home as shown on his original plans, his home was relocated so that is was 0' from the City lot, and it was instail-with an unnecessary boulder retaining wall next to his driveway. This wall and the placement of his home with a 0' setback (instead of the 25' required by code), increased the cost to access our lots, & essentially walled our property off from Candy Cove Trail • During the Planning Commission meeting for Mark Toohey's home in 2002, the Planning Commissioners voiced their concern that our properties were being land -locked by the neighbor's project, but the City staff assured the Planning Commissioners that this would not happen because "there would be easement accesses recorded". But for some reason the City failed to provide these easement accesses and to this day they have still not provided them. • When i brought this issue to the attention of the staff at the City of Prior Lake they continued to refuse to provide me with the easement, claiming that it would not be provided, because its' location is dependent upon my grading plan. This contradicts the staff's statements in 2002 where they stated that they would simply record easement accesses. - • Denying the property of an access easement, substantially reduces the value of the property, and limits the number of potential buyers to mainly cash buyers. • _ It took several months for the City to confirm the development fees that they would be charging for these lots, which made it very difficult for the previous owner to sell the property. • On 11/18/2011, the City attached conditions to the Resolution for my plat, which gave my neighbor the power to cancel my project.. • On 02/12/2012 my project was delayed when the City sent me a letter requiring "Mr. Miller & Mr. Toohey to accommodate one another's pians"; because my neighbor said that he "intends" to apply for a variance to build a garage on the City lot. Obviously it's close to impossible to change my plans to accommodate a garage that doesn't exist yet. • On 2/16/12, after spending more than a year and $50,000+ on plans and engineering to get my project passed by the City, the City added another constraint to my plans, which increased the size of the retaining walls on the City lot, made it more difficult to build them, reduced the amount of landscaping that can be placed on the hillside, and in my opinion looks worse. . ..... .... . . .... . ........ 6 >1 4J 6 -6 0 a) 0 I D 0 1 ool CL 41 0 I 4J 0 a 0 ol oj4/ v C, 0) > Q 4j to o in 0 L w , 0 4j ry 41 'L.6 - 6 Imo` 0 96 IN U) 1,b u ,Jn 0 5 A 250 -44 0) r to I D 0 1 4J 0 v 0) > Q 0; L 96 I D 0 1 Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: • Questioned staff on the streets. McDermott explained the right-of-way obtained from MNDOT. Part of the easement was granted to Dale Braddy. If this is ap approved, staff will take thus before City Council for easement approval. cDeri iott . explained the potential ace Kansier responded there i ttf M a i e • Can understand this applicant requesting access but,concerned for the other` adjoining,' {properdcs • Kansier explained why the City requested Mr. Toohey to have an engineering report up front. • Questioned why the driveway would be 28 feet wide instead of 24 feet. McDermott said it would be 24 feet at the roadway. • Has been at the sight, the applicant has done his best to comply. • It would not interfere with the quality of the lake. • .t Questioned the zero lot.line.' Kansier explained the measurement from the bluff. They were minimizing the effect as best as they could. • Good application. In favor. Lemke: • Questioned staff what would happen if the surveyor was off a few inches. Kansier explained private use of public property. It has happened before and that is how it is addressed. • McDermott said property boundaries are marked clearly and will snake every effort to snake sure it does not happen. • Agreed with Criego, it is a good application. • Clarified he had been to the site. Atwood: • It is a good use of the property, Approve. Ringstad: • It meets all 9 hardships. Approve. wowlovw Stamson: • This lot is clearly unbuildable without variances. • Support the variances as proposed. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02- 007PC APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO THE LOT WIDTH AT THE OHW, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, THE BLUFF SETBACK AND THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH. Vote taken indicated ayes by a1L. MOTION CARRIED. — Document 4 m T x LU • L �J ou 6"P'(ZI-OZ-;O)'6-4UaQS036Ap Wa4014AGO-JOlure&Jo11-CZZOAUMSS1O3MM IS - UJD6Si8 - ZIOZ 'IZ -M N j2o a -a Tm � 0 e Z.1po4- N.c gyro c (u vww vv� '� LL H N O Nom..-.ul S.iV aLv00 tj LO y -O to M N co c? O tmD L O U yp�� '•- H C V C L E ro 41 V' t0+ ♦- cu L U H C N Q 1-, N H ri NN 7•Y-, `�- a, IH E•E Z N E O 0 N rn pp W c 0 0 C C =• chi ro a N C F+ p N VI N tr L ,roil L ro O` ry C LD Cd O C_ M N 'O O 'O S E M j W O C ,.+'�/ M a✓ iii Ql y°'j c prop 0 C ro b w0 •cM '- � Q , - -o � 'W Q N v ..! �O+ r/1 IS V - aL.+ co lLD (dtJ� Q1 V Y N L C N M H C L O H cJ 6 0 'O 'n Q H O rn .Q 4- LU 5> O O j U T H may+, p� ro v LD m w N �' In O N @ O -� fO to O to o oa_—° N Q/ N C Q1 .0 L-' m� a N 'o v pp ro ro 'O r O co .c to 1 C} •O O11 aita N .1 0 N O 0J UN a -Np tell y a N . C M aO C M C L ro .ny O G CO L O C h1 o E C m L Fro rC9 N O th' N p �j N O <f o fNv O C Y Y' rt •n ", ..J in m .-1 to w c- 'o _ 6"P'(ZI-OZ-;O)'6-4UaQS036Ap Wa4014AGO-JOlure&Jo11-CZZOAUMSS1O3MM IS - UJD6Si8 - ZIOZ 'IZ -M W .02 WQW Z CO in KCO < z tL �Qo ui > 0 000yobuj W 0 (A z Vol v �Jl I—q 0 cill Cb, >- S�s N r. A col -lb A AX, LLJ Ojoa ri U) 'S _0 -jq a) tD �M CU C -r- tlO 4- C: r- Z�! C�n t.4 r 4 0 cl 3- 4, 0. j C: -D 16 ai � fC: -- f >0 � A U kD '0 C3 'n c o E c 00 C- 0 0 o ,-i Vl :Ej E 5 "s zo d 3c s, 0 0 C,) to C: r4 C: E CO to w cc 0 ", .'-o A , - 151 C.: Tu Cc C,) C, 0 u C5 -00 �o Ylto Nu -6 -r- ) ' 40) 'r) ro- 0) (21 cj :0 "n to (u ry 6j 0 0 .Cj 4) 4- E m z "1 4 r w < () v . 0 Q) 6 C: J-- to 1� o C: N �) t o V3 c 41 on ri U, r C: (L CIL co u u Co8 CIO 2, 'U to a, , ru d, w r: E to C, C4 o C3 'A to r -u _0 ,a p Lr, Ln Z Z to (A -D CL f g Z WICZI-OZ-fo)-S-IUOLa90j6.04LPOud3lUAOG-JO4o041tr4-CZZGAIAMSiSL03f'OU,IIS - IMIGIO - ZIOZ 'IZ Jbnl AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: 4646 Dakota Street Sl? Prior lake. MN 55372 PREPARED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT DISCUSSION OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR A MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN DEERFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK DAN ROGNESS, COMMUNITY & E.D. DIRECTOR ,_YES X NO -N/A APRIL 9, 2012 INTRODUCTION Deerfield Development, Inc. has submitted a concept plan for a land use and zoning change, a housing development project, and a future final plat in the Deerfield Industrial Park. The site Is approximately 8.6 gross acres. A concept plan review process Is allowed In Part 10 of City Codes for Subdivisions. Section 1002.100 "Concept Plan" states that discussions of the concept plan shall be advisory and not considered binding in regard to subsequent plat review. The development site has two platted lots, Including Lot 1, Block 1 (1.6 acres) and Outlot A (7.1 acres) of Deerfield Industrial Park Fifth Addition, which must be combined Into one lot. This concept review is also Intended to provide input to the applicant on the proposed land use change from Industrial to residential. A 66 -unit rental townhome development is proposed on this site, to Include 28 2 -bedroom and 28 3 -bedroom affordable workforce housing units. This property is currently guided In the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as Planned Industrial (I -PI) and zoned General Industrial (1-1). The Planning Commission has an opportunity to voice any particular concerns or Ideas about the proposed land use change and development. This discussion Is for Informational purposes only. This concept plan, along with any Planning Commission comments will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. DISCUSSION Deerfield Industrial Park was first first platted in 2004 with Adelman Street providing access to numerous outlots (see Exhibit A). OUtlots A and 13, as shown on Exhibit A, were later replatted as COUrtwood Village, and therefore, removed from the industrial park. Subsequent final platting through Deerfield Industrial Park Seventh Addition in 2006 has resulted In 14 Lots (28.4 acres) and 6 Outlots (21.1 acres). The Deerfield area Includes land guided and zoned as follows (see Exhibit B): rea A: Planned Industrial (I -PI) land use ..... [proposed housing site) General Industrial (1-1) zoning ........ [proposed housing site] Phone 952.4,17.9800 / Fax 952.447.42.45 /��h�u.ciE�oP�rlorlake.cont Area B: Residential Urban High Density (R -HD) land use The site is currently guided Planned Industrial (i -PI) and zoned General Industrial (1-1). A land use change to residential, as proposed by the applicant, would require the following processes: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from the Industrial designation of I -PI to a residential designation of R -MD (Urban Medium Density), followed by an Amendment to the Zoning Map to rezone the property from an 1-1 industrial use district to a R-2 residential zoning use district for townhomes at a density of 7 units or less per acre. The final step would be to combine the lot and outlot Into one lot for the proposed development all under one ownership. Surrounding land uses both support and work against this proposed land use change. For example, existing land uses to the south and west Include both medium density and high density residential development. Existing land uses to the north and east include business park and industrial development. Therefore, the proposed land use change from Industrial to medium density residential would continue the existing residential land use pattern further northeast from the existing residential development areas (an expansion of 8.6 acres, or 56 townhome units). On the other hand, the industrial park will lose 8.6 acres of nearly pad -ready sites for economic growth in Prior Lake (outlots are not pad -ready since they must be platted to lots). Exhibit C provides an overview of all parcels within Deerfield, including a corresponding map of each parcel location. Staff estimates that within the 8.6 acres, It Is possible to achieve future Industrial building space of 56,250 square feet with 84 employees. The following summary of Exhibit C describes all property within Deerfield: o Total developed property - 15 acres (30%) o Total undeveloped property - 35 acres (70%) o Total property (rounded) -- 50 acres The summary above is further divided into the three zoning categies of industrial, business park and commercial: o Developed industrial property - 8.9 acres (33%) o Undeveloped Industrial property 18.1 acres (67%) o Total industrial property 27.0 acres High Density Residential (R-3) zoning Area C: Planned Industrial (I -PI) land use General Industrial (1-1) zoning Area D: Hospitality General Business (C -HG) land use General Business (C-2) zoning rea E: Planned Industrial (I -PI) land use Business Park (C-3) Area F: Residential Urban Low Density (R -LD) land use Medium Density Residential (R-2) zoning The site is currently guided Planned Industrial (i -PI) and zoned General Industrial (1-1). A land use change to residential, as proposed by the applicant, would require the following processes: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from the Industrial designation of I -PI to a residential designation of R -MD (Urban Medium Density), followed by an Amendment to the Zoning Map to rezone the property from an 1-1 industrial use district to a R-2 residential zoning use district for townhomes at a density of 7 units or less per acre. The final step would be to combine the lot and outlot Into one lot for the proposed development all under one ownership. Surrounding land uses both support and work against this proposed land use change. For example, existing land uses to the south and west Include both medium density and high density residential development. Existing land uses to the north and east include business park and industrial development. Therefore, the proposed land use change from Industrial to medium density residential would continue the existing residential land use pattern further northeast from the existing residential development areas (an expansion of 8.6 acres, or 56 townhome units). On the other hand, the industrial park will lose 8.6 acres of nearly pad -ready sites for economic growth in Prior Lake (outlots are not pad -ready since they must be platted to lots). Exhibit C provides an overview of all parcels within Deerfield, including a corresponding map of each parcel location. Staff estimates that within the 8.6 acres, It Is possible to achieve future Industrial building space of 56,250 square feet with 84 employees. The following summary of Exhibit C describes all property within Deerfield: o Total developed property - 15 acres (30%) o Total undeveloped property - 35 acres (70%) o Total property (rounded) -- 50 acres The summary above is further divided into the three zoning categies of industrial, business park and commercial: o Developed industrial property - 8.9 acres (33%) o Undeveloped Industrial property 18.1 acres (67%) o Total industrial property 27.0 acres 0 Developed business park land 5.1 acres (30%) a Undeveloped business park land 11.7 acres (70%) e Total business park property 16.8 acres ® Developed commercial property 1.0 acre (18%) a Undeveloped comm. property 4.6 acres (82%) ® Total commercial property 5.6 acres The existing a potential building space is summarized below based on an assumption that 15% of a site will become building space, and 1.5 employees will work in that space for every 1,000 square feet: a Existing total building space ® Potential new building space a Total future est, building space 84,500 square feet (27%) 225,000 square feet (73%) 309,500 square feet City staff further analyzed whether vacant property In Deerfield was pad -ready, which refers to property that can be purchased easily by someone to build a project by submitting a building permit application. In other words, there are no zoning, platting, street or utility issues to deal with ahead of time. Staff's conclusion Is as follows: 14 acres is pad -ready (includes one 1 -acre parcel zoned commercial) a 21 acres is nearly pad -ready (includes one 3.6 -acre parcel zoned commercial) The Maxfield Commercial -Industrial Demand Analysis was completed in 2011 showing projected building space demand between 2010 and 2030: TYPE 2010.2016 20162020 2021.2026 2026.2030 TOTAL 2010.2030 Retail - Bidc . St .Ft. 55,000 126,000 125,000 126,000 430,000 sq. it. Retail -- Acres 9.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 69.0 acres Of floe -- Bldg. S .Ft. 46,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 295,000 sq. ft. Office - Acres 8.0 16.0 12.0 12.0 48.0 acres Industrial - Bldg, S .Ft. 20,000 40,000 60,000 60,000 180,000 sq, ft, Industrial - Acres 4.0 7.0 10.0 1010 31.0 acres Source: Maxfield Research, Inc. Tdor Lake commercial and industrial Demand Analysis, March 2011 Building square feet is converted to aces by dividing one acre by 6,250 square feet (acres rounded up to X.0) The applicants are making the point that based on the Maxfield demand analysis showing 11 acres needed between 2010-2020 plus another 20 acres needed between 2020-2030, the proposed change in land use will not negatively impact Prior Lake's economic development potential. For example, Deerfield currently has 13 acres of pad -ready industrial or business park property to meet the short-term demand of 11 acres. Another 17 acres is nearly pad - ready for Industrial or business park land uses. If the proposed 8.6 -acre site is removed for housing, then the supply in Deerfield would reduce to 11 acres as pad -ready and 10 acres as nearly pad -ready. The applicants are further making the point that land sales have diminished significantly, and that no building activity is taking place in Deerfield. The following summary shows the land sale activity: Deerfield Industrial Park Land Sales: 2004 ...... 5.6 acres (3.5 acres remain vacant) 2005 ...... 11.5 acres (2.5 acres remain vacant) 2006 ...... 3.0 acres (0.0 acres remain vacant) 2007 ... , .. 2.5 acres (1.5 acres remain vacant) 2006 ...... 1.2 acres (1.2 acres remain vacant) 2009 ...... 0.0 acres 2001-2005 2010 ...... 0,0 acres = 54 total units, or 11 average/year 2011 ...... 0.0 acres The applicant will provide a summary at the meeting about the proposed future housing development with the following brief summary provided in this report: 0 56 units, 28 2 -bedrooms + 28 3 -bedrooms, single car garages o 11 buildings, six 6 -unit buildings + five 4 -unit buildings o Density — 7 dwelling units per acre o Workforce rental housing supported by MHFA-Issued housing tax credits o Tax credit supported rental housing Is deemed to be affordable to residents with income and rent restrictions imposed on some or all of the units Staff is providing the following Information showing medium/high density residential supply and demand related to affordable housing In Prior Lake: Residential building permit history for Prior Lake shows the following: Sir gle Family Units: 2001-2005 = 783 total units, or 157 average/year 2006-2010 = 385 total units, or 77 average/year 2011 = 80 units Townhome Units: 2001-2005 = 1,140 total units, or 228 average/year 2006-2010 137 total units, or 27 average/year 2011 = 26 units Multifamily Units: 2001-2005 = 381 total units, or 76 average/year 2006-2010 = 54 total units, or 11 average/year 2011 = 0 units • Two other similar rental tax credit developments in Prior Lake include: Bluff Heights = 24 affordable units (49 total units), built in 2003 on 3.6 acres Kestrel Village = 48 affordable units, built in 1995 on 3.8 acres o The prior Lake 2030 Comprehensive Pian states that 728 acres of land has been designated for medium/high density residential in order to address the Met Council's 2011-2020 affordable housing needs for Prior Lake of 2,138 units (Note: the need was recently adjusted by the Met Council In September of 2010 to 1,166 units). • The (vacant) acreage designated for medium/high density residential In the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is primarily located along the County Road 42 corridor. o COUrtwood Village was a previous land use change in Deerfield supported by the City Council; however, many of those owner -occupied condo units are In tax forfeiture. The Planning Commission may wish to address the following: Y What are the positive and negative land use aspects of the site being utilized for housing vs. industrial? Y If other land in Prior Lake is already guided for Urban Medium density Residential, why aren't other locations being considered that don't need changes to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan? Y What are the positive and negative economic development aspects of property changing from industrial to housing? Y What other actions, If any, could be taken by the city to help achieve greater industrial development of Deerfield Industrial Park? Y Would the proposed concept plan support the 2030 Vision & Strategic Plan and the 2030 Comprehensive flan? ACTION REQUIRED: No formal action is requested or required at this time. The Planning Commission should provide the applicant with their comments, concerns and Impressions about this Concept Plan, and the corresponding land use, zoning and platting changes that are required to support the plan. Comments are not binding on the Planning Commission, City Council or applicant, and the applicant should not rely on any statements made by any individual Planning Commissioner or Councilmember. Further, statements made by Individual members are not Intended to represent direction from the majority. Future plans must be processed with the appropriate hearings and public participation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. 2030 Comprehensive Pian Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Exhibit A: Deerfield Industrial Park Plat, 2004 5. Exhibit B: Deerfield Map of Areas of Different Land Use and Zoning 6. Exhibit C: Table and Map Description of Each Parcel in Deerfield 7. Concept Plan for Housing 8. PowerPoint Slides from Applicant Scott County, WIN lhtsdrae'.ngisn{theralegdy(ecordadnaprwamvyand Isnot Mill) Scale N At0ndedl, 6ausedasane.Ih'sdrantrgIsaw *Won of reads, ,larmaVor4y and delatocated in various 0j, wuniy, and slate oIF44 s, en! 1 Inci1= 53� feel her sources atfeU7j iha a•ea stvnn, anf is to ha used rorrarueneo W p'Irposes ordy, scckt Cajntyls not responsWe for anyIna«uracks herein Map Date , I arta'ned.lfdsuapanckar sabuM,wnsa p4aseclthaScoitCounty su.vaVO(AWk& 41412092 8�r T� i%Iti�lr �J�.� t� �� � F, I tt; 'It •a- 'Afl sms A HII '9 -- ;Fa"i aro0 ZtrFn33'E " - 3,fG1U�s /}3 r• -r .i11 �,,•..v'n aA•.a n (Mill1 •rS,,I�S r 1 t••• �� Y� • i3 Ag a W6& A yc dozl b trISMS iAs (fl�yt�` ,Oj rti; /�1J i i� fit L-A Alt ONN ff gc1i Off.: e4v �N. )JI fit ____j 1717 -Sr NI yc dozl b trISMS iAs (fl�yt�` ,Oj rti; /�1J i i� fit L-A Alt ONN ff gc1i Off.: e4v �N. )JI fit ____j 1717 -Sr Scott County, IVIN I,ts deae iis nether a lepa'Fj rewded map nc{ a auvey and is nal mended to be usad as ons. 7h•s dratinp if a wnpyat'on N lecotds, dorma!bn, and data Ixaled In vadous Ot. county, end sla!a o&as, end Ner the erea Shaer, and b M to Used lot re4lenee Wgoses only. Seal Count' Is sal resyns�'e for ery hauuredes hece'n conla'ned, Itd'scccpancles are found, p'.ease conlscl the Scull county Su 41va Urxa. Map ScElle N 1 Inch = 405 teat Map Date 3/27/2012 s tr•1 I, 1.>j (7 ..:I +,`1 ,: + (,,I 161 ;•+1 �� tD Nv� o) V� W M It M (D 'V O M M V) o O Ill N lD V) M lD N V) M g Q) rj H V) tD N 1n V) N W rV Ql N V) O (� lD to V) o O O O in V) 'c1 O M H M�t N N M V) O In N N V) 00 H W Q) g rY N N V) M Ot of t\ (T) W Ol N VT 0 0 C O M V) M rr1 H V) 0 0 O lfl CO to O O r i V H V) h lD lD tfi H N O N N V) H M r; h (Y) h lD rr) N 0 0 O O (.D 1h O V N N VT 0 0 V) t� 6) lD O to H V) h 00 CO OBJ lD V) In O of H V} 0 O O I M V) h tD M V) 0 0 O O lD V) M rt N N 0 w Q) t1) O V) N W Ct +1T 6) b Ol Ol 0 V) .fl 141 �•„ O O lD O O N lD M O O lD O O O to M to It O •:.+ �'•1 to N N :}_ H H N M H 0 In H N o f H H fru %ii.llWD 00 m M r; — v to — V th/1 m -- h — lWD ------ O s-1 LO — <o 00 tri m O d M Q) (14 to 00 M O) N W W , t Q) (Ij n; 0 M iy H o w M M m rn N ' fA INtq N h y; p• 2 In 111 1, v a Q ltl tr•1 I, 1.>j (7 ..:I +,`1 ,: + (,,I 161 ;•+1 �� tD Nv� o) V� W M It M (D 'V O M M V) o O Ill N lD V) M lD N V) M g Q) rj H V) tD N 1n V) N W rV Ql N V) O (� lD to V) o O O O in V) 'c1 O M H M�t N N M V) O In N N V) 00 H W Q) g rY N N V) M Ot of t\ (T) W Ol N VT 0 0 C O M V) M rr1 H V) 0 0 O lfl CO to O O r i V H V) h lD lD tfi H N O N N V) H M r; h (Y) h lD rr) N 0 0 O O (.D 1h O V N N VT 0 0 V) t� 6) lD O to H V) h 00 CO OBJ lD V) In O of H V} 0 O O I M V) h tD M V) 0 0 O O lD V) M rt N N 0 w Q) t1) O V) N W Ct +1T 6) b Ol Ol 0 V) if) O O O (• •, O I, O O O to O op in M to ILD Q) :}_ o q o 0 o f 0) �t 00 m M r; to v to ni m h to O In M <o 00 tri m C O d M O) (14 00 O) N O I -i Q) (Ij O 0 M (Y) H H M N N V) INtq N h p. L1 VF (21 V) In In CO 0 Q LIDin G`1 O h O h 41 N O O C) ((D U Q) N C) Ol ( (� in r { H 11 .;t H a�--il d i• l <� •) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b �y �") i•) O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O �•> (•9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O fu ht (• o p if; O tri O c 1( O O 1t1 O (O O to 0 06 0 6d� :•) }.:I �+•) ++•f O Cf N M O M V N (D H lD H lD N to M M H W In 11) (* W V) lD H Q) ri N W M W ¢t N W H 00 fry N v) �i to V) v) V) (A V) t4 v) cn V) V> V) N V) b O 1 VT V) VT t -I v u w '^ ar CA c x cw e r- e e fu c _� .c ut to14 o (•, v c N c c C cv � c 3 C v I.y ,•, 2� v N to 01 in Q) in 0) v} o n Q7 V) O Sc 4) n ,1 c L !' O N N dl N 0) '�- N\ Ol G b0 d) oU u �. i3 U � O „) to O E +' [w .. } t•.'. V1 VI V) V) 0 0 V) Vl VI Vt V1 N I I! h O H M 0 -i (D 0) 0 0 0 to O O(Y) 0 0 H In tvi i••f V C�1 lD O N t, In O O O r. O O O O 111 11) U) N N if) H -1 N M a-1 t-1 M to t -i N 1-1 r-1 H 1i w LL U :t. ae .j } � O n• C7 AC N I- N v H u O N N � � C D N -O C ry, a 4 O X t0 u (U N N Vt N N v O N N -O N N N :3 :3 In NiU tS , ) O C b Q) "' O :3 Y O O Q fu bj) it) t n n� o c n n +' o n c •�Ql O N In 0 w _O H to N O M ej O fu Q1 T U D. N G J, fl M N Oin O 3 t3 O O G .C-- u r-U C to o o i� �.I lu n. 1.0 �u O 2 ENA660-e. Scott County, MN TNs dreni+V Is nelther a lag sty recardad rmp nx a survey a h rol Aended to be used as ona. TNS dra ping Is a con {b4:"an Gf u<ads, NbrmaFoi, and data lxaled In carious city, countyand slalo olfces, and Cher aource s aHec(T4 Iha area shown, and Is to" used W (ele renco pur"oses cNl(. Sint county Isnot respon1wa for any tnsuuracks Icrak conlalnad. U dsuepsnJes ere found, pkasa mnlacl the see'l eo,n<y Sun•ayors Wk.. Map Scale N Inch = 341 feet Mal) Date Y 4/412012 S / AS, fC, !i COMVCEFIITLAly lliEVIEl1V Lakeland `Torn Prior, Lake, Minnesota Site Location Map Concept Plan _ � :ili i�ewi+i.IN�.►�LW �itirNr �w:r Jrrr ` r / Project Site Plan Urban Medium Density `honing LAKELAND 1014 411OVE5 Floor Plan (4 --unit r4 VA, 1P ir Ica I aft. I sm 1: 'rhree Bc.-%droom Plan Four Unit Elevation Flan V��1 fas I, 11'1• 1. .•': -.Yls • }".. {.__. nVry ilii •t —T- f9 _ Site Inf-6 rrnatxon Location: Vacant land adjacent to Adelmann Street SE Land Area: 8.6 acres Ownership: (r/-)1.5 acres — Prior Lake State Bank (•f/-) 7.1 acres -- Mesenbrink Construction & Engineering, Inc. and Central Development, Inc. Zoning: General Industrial (1-1) Comp Plan: Planned Industrial (I -PL) Adjacent: South -- Owner occupied townhomes zoned R-2 Med Density Residential West— Owner occupied condoit1inium zoned I1-3 High Density Residential North— Vacant land and existing businesses zoned C-3 Business Park East— Existing Industrial businesses and vacant land zoned 1-1 General Industrial Please note that the multiple iidjoining Zoning classification and the subject site is bound on two sides by residential zoning. Site Information (cont'd) Deerfield: Total area - 50 acres Total developed area —15 acres (30%) Total undeveloped area — 35 acres (70%) Land Purchases by Year: 2004 — 5.6 acres (3.5 awes remain vacant) 2005 —11.6 acres (2.5 acres remain vacant) 2006 — 3.0 acres (0.0 acres remain vacant) 2007 — 2.5 acres (1.5 acres remain vacant) 2008 —1.2 acres (1.2 acres remain vacant) 2009 — 0.0 acres 2010 0.0 acres 2011-- 0.0 acres I'lease note the limited absorption of Ieerfield land. Project: Inf-brmation Housing Proposal: 56 rental townhome units, 28 2 -BR units plus 28 3-1311 units (affordable workforce housing) Density -- 6.51 dwelling units/acre Requesting zoning change from General Industrial (1-1) to Urban Mediurn Density Residential Requesting Comprehensive Plan change from Planned Industrial (I -P1.) to Urban Medium Density Residential Estimated development project cost - $10 million, or $178,000/unit Financing — Combination of first mortgage and partner capital Project Information (cont'd) Proposed rents $429-$759/month for 2 BR units and $479- $859/month for 3-1313 units Project Ownership: Lakeland Townhomes of Prior Lake Limited Partnership; Deerfield Development, LLC; Its: General Partner - Mesenbrink Construction, Inc., Member - Central Development of America, Inc., Member Management Company: Essence Property Management, Inc. Estimated Start Date: February 2013 Estimated Completion Date: December 2013 History In March 2003, Deerfield Development (Mesenbrink) applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change 4.25 acres from Low/Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential for a 54 -unit condo/apartment project. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the application as being inconsistent with the surrounding development of the property. On April 21, 2003, the city council approved the proposed pian amendment as being the best use of the property. Market Demand (Industrial) Maxfield Research completed a Commercial/Industrial Demand Analysis for Prior Lake in 2011 Maxfield analysis shows an industrial demand of: (1) 20,000 sq. ft. between 2010-2015; (2) 40,000 sq, ft. between 2015-2.020; (3) 60,000 sq. ft. between 2020-2025; and (4) 60,000 sq. ft. between 2025-2030, for a total 2010-2030 demand of 180,000 square feet. Vacant land in Deerfield is currently 34.5 acres with an estimated full build -out of 300,000 square feet based on building space being 20% of total site area (34.5 x 43,560 x .20). Proposed residential land area Is 8.6 acres, which could be used for 75,000 square feet of Industrial space (based on the same 20% assumption). Please nota that remaining Deerfield site provides over 33 years of anticipated industrial demand. The Deerfield site without the parcels under discussion, provides over 21; years of anticipated industrial demand. Market Demand (Residential) Building permit history for Prior Lake since 2000 shows the following: 2001-2005 — 783 single family units, or 57 average/year 2006-2010 -- 385 single family units, or 77 average/year 2001-2005 ---1,140 townhome units, or 228 average/year 2006-2010 --137 townhome units, or 27 average/year 2001-2005 — 381 multifamily units, or 76 average/year 2006-2010 -- 54 multifamily units, or 11 average/year The Prior Lake 2030 Comprehensive Plan states that 728 acres of land has been designated for medium/high density residential in order to address the Met Council's 2011-2020 affordable housing needs for Prior Lake of 2,138 units (NOTE: the need was adjusted by the Met Council In September of 2010 to 1,166 units), Mark -et Demand (cont'd) MHFA Community Profile Data City Census Tract in which proposed site is located and in Scott County: o High Need: Growing Workforce o High Need: Affordable Rental Housing o High % of renters are cost burdened The (vacant) acreage designated for m(dium/higi) density residential in the Comprehensive flan is primarily located south land north of the County (toad 42 corridor.