HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - John Simpson Land DivisionSTAFF AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
BACKGROUND:
7A
HORST W. GRASER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
CONTINUATION OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
SIMPSON ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION
APRIL 18, 1994
OF JOHN
This administrative lot division is a continuation from March 7,
1994. Mr. John Simpson petitioned the City to administratively
divide a parcel of land at 3437 Sycamore Trail into two single family
lots.
This administrative land division was appealed to the Council by
concerned residents in the area. Staff received several letters and
a petition objecting to the land division. The stated reasons for the
objection were as follows:
1. Increased traffic would create an unsafe curve for the
traffic. Any increase of traffic would be detrimental.
2. Depreciation of property values in the neighborhood.
3. Private section of Sycamore Trail cannot handle any
additional traffic without first upgrading the quality of the
street.
4. Storm water management is inadequate on Sycamore Trail.
5. The preservation of a 30 inch maple and a 24 inch oak tree.
6. The construction of a retaining wall along the east property
line of Parcel B.
The Council discussed the issues and determined that additional
information was required before a decision could be made.
Specifically the following information was requested from the
applicant.
A drainage plan measuring the impact of the additional
home on the off-site drainage conditions.
That safeguards be provided assuring the development on
Parcel B will not have a substantial impact on the property
owner to the east. Specifically, Mr. Detjen wanted
assurance that a 30 inch maple tree close to the common
property line not be damaged and that a retaining wall not
produce a negative visual impression to his home.
That covenants be placed in the deed so that any
subsequent buyer/owner is aware of the restrictions on the
parcel.
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 553.712..-1714 / Ph. (612) 447.4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
T T~ ~
DISCUSSION:
ALTERNATIVES:
ACTION REQUIRED:
The applicant has responded to the request for additional
information in his letter dated March 29, 1994, to the Council
(attached). He has addressed the issues as follows:
Drainage plan: A stormwater runoff analysis was prepared
by Steven Harvey of Valley Engineering Co., Inc. This
analysis compares the efforts of the proposed development
before and after construction of a new home and driveway.
The conclusion by Mr. Harvey is that the effect of the new
home on off-site drainage will be minimal. Attached please
find a memorandum from Larry Anderson with supporting
analysis.
provide safeguards that the home to the east will not be
negatively impacted: The applicant has changed the
development plan reorientating his home to the southwest.
The proposed home would be a tuck under style that would
also eliminate the need for retaining walls along the east
property line and save a 24 inch oak tree in the northeast
corner of the parcel. The revised lot plan also moves the
proposed home 42 feet from the east property line instead
of the 15 feet previously proposed. The revised
development plan also provides considerably greater
protection for Mr. Detjen's 30 inch maple tree which is
located only a few feet within their common property line.
In his cover letter to the Council, Mr. Simpson has agreed
to deed restrictions that would bind any owner to the new
development plan and no grading within the drip line of the
30 inch maple tree. Park Director, Bill Mangan, stated that
by not disturbing the ground within the drip line will protect
the tree.
Mr. Kessel has drafted proposed Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions which are attached for your
review. These covenants incorporate protection from
grading within the drip line of the 30 inch maple tree,
require development of Parcel B in accordance with the
revised development plan, and a staked sod lining along
the road after completion of the development.
Approve the request for administrative lot split subject to
the covenants and restrictions as drafted by Mr. Kessel.
Deny the request.
Continue the request for additional information.
Depends on Council discussion.
-2-
March 29, 1994
City Council
Planning Director
4629 Dakota St. S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Ref: (a) City letter dated March 11, 1994.
Ref: (b) City Council meeting March 7, 1994.
Ref: (c) Valley Engineering Co., Inc. Analysis March 28, 1994.
Ref: (d) Protecting Trees from Construction Damage, Scott County
Extension Service, Doc NR-F)-6135-S
Dear City Council,
In order to meet the recommendation and guidelines found in ref.
a & b~ I contracted Valley Engineering Co., Inc. to review the
drainage situation and to provide factual information concerning
site drainage of the proposed property. To paraphrase the
project analysis, "it is the opinion of the engineer that the
proposed construction can be accommodated by the existing storm
drainage system, and will not unduly exacerbate off-site
drainage conditions".
To reduce any perceived negative impact to the property owner to
the east, a revised development plan has been drawn. The
proposed home is forty feet from the adjacent property line,
sixty percent further than required setbacks. In the guidelines
set forth in ref:(d) the 30" maple tree will have zero grading
done under the dripline of the tree; therefore, there will be no
impact whatsoever on the tree. With the revised drawing, the
24" oak on the N.E. corner of parcel B. will be an additional
large tree saved. There will be no retaining wall required on
parcel B.
Development covenants of parcel B. will read as follows:
1. Parcel B. Development plan will conform to the drawing dated
3/29/94; That is on file at the City of Prior Lake and the Scott
County Court House.
2. A staked sod lining along the existing roadway will be placed
at completion of the development.
In closing, I would like to reiterate a few facts. I am simply
requesting to return the property to its original two parcels.
The property was up for public sale ~n 1987 and will be again.
I have publicly stated that I will gave first right of refusal
to all neighborhood interested parties. Secondly, the lots
conform to all city zoning parameters.
T ]' 1
I have proven factually the additional run off is non-
exacerbating and will place covenants on said property that have
been recommended by the professional engineering firm. Thirdly,
I have addressed the eastern property owners perceived negative
impact by changing the developmental plan to conform to their
desires·
As a veteran of this great country, and a believer in our Bill
of Rights; to own and dispose of property as deemedyand based on
the facts, I find it very capricious in the nature of the City
Council not to approve my request for the administrative land
division·
Re/s~ec) fu 1~,
/0hn N. Simpson
I I' I
/
/-
1~1 1~. o ._~ 0 ~I L%~ ST 1~1~> S ON
]411 Sycaaore Trail trior Lake,WI.
-SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION-
! hereby certtfy ~hot thts s~r~ey, plo. or
re~ort w~s pr~ ~ m or ~r ~
.~'~.., SIGMA
..:.~ ~ 8"=RVICB~ IHC.
I
Scale:
h/I
1~1 ~... ~l- 0 ~-I ~I ~; -r 1~I ~:) S 0
343] Slcaaore Trail Prior Lake,al.
-SURVEYORS CERTIFICATIOH-
direct supervlsJofl and that J m a duiy
SIGMA
SERVICES INC
VALLEY ENGINEERING CO., INC.
Civ# Engineering for Public Works
and Private Industry
March 25, 1994
Mr. John Simpson
3437 Sycamore Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: Administrative Land Division: Outlot C, Maplewood, Prior Lake, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Simpson:
As requested, I have evaluated the impact on storrnwater runoff if another house and driveway
are added to the divided lot in the subject project. A report that quantifies the stormwater flows
is attached. It appears that the present storm drainage facilities are adequate for both the
existing and proposed conditions. Even though the impact of one more house and driveway is
incrementally small in the context of the neighborhood development, the addition of any more
hard surface has high visibility that often become the focus of real and imagined drainage
problems in the adjacent areas. In viewing the site, I found no reason to support the argument
that the neighbors' basement water problems would worsen. The Iow driveways along the north
and west sides of the street are bermed and storm sewered, thus averting inflow from the street.
Often, basement water problems are caused by infiltration from high ground water. Due to the
fact that the proposed new lot is already very steep, little chance for seepage into the
groundwater exists. When a house and driveway are added, then even less seepage will occur.
Any additional design stormwater runoff that is generated from the construction will be collected
by the existing catch basin.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service in this matter. If you have questions or need
additional information, please contact me.
Sincer~ely, ,
Steven D. Harvey, F.E. ~
attachment
7301 Ohms Lane, Suite 500
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 832-9475 · Fax 832-9542
STORMWATER RUNOFF ANALYSIS
FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE LAND DIVISION
OUTLOT C, MAPLEWOOD
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA
March 28, 1994
ALLEY ENGINEERING CO., INC.
7301 OHMS LANE, SUITE 500
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55439
(612) 832-9475 FAX (612) 832-9475
Certification:
I'hereby certify that thla plan, epecification or report was prepared by me
or under my^ direct supewlalon/and that I am a duly Registered
Professlona}/~/~gineer un~ ~/Lawt of the stata of Minnesota.
1.0 INTRODUCTION: Presentlyl drainage appears to flow along the north and east edges of
Outlot C in a shallow ditch adjacent to the pavement in Sycamore Trail. The ditch shows
evidence of moderate erosion. As the ditch proceeds south to the southernmost driveway
entrance on Outlot C, it feathers out and flows onto Sycamore Trail. The street lacks a crown at
this point and drainage appears to spread across the pavement. This drainage collects in a Iow
point that is drained by a catch basin inlet on the west side of the street approximately 100 feet
southwest of the property. A hand-formed bituminous curb contains the street drainage at the Iow
point on the west side of the street only. The east side drains into a sump that is drained by a
12" diameter PVC culvert connected to the catch basin. Because of the lack of a street crown
it is possible that some of the street drainage flows to the east side whenever a headwater
condition forms at the catch basin inlet. It is also possible that flow from the larger area east of
the street can create a headwater condition at the culvert inlet that overtops the street. In that
case a ponding situation would occur in the Iow point of the street. The curb on the west side
of the street then would become the emergency spillway. In order to quantify these possibilities,
three issues are addressed: 1.) Isolated flow from Area A, 2.) Isolated flow from Area B, and
3.) Combined flows from areas A & B.
A hydrologic model, based on a 10 year storm, was prepared for the purposes of this report to
compare the effects of the proposed development before and after construction of a new house
and driveway. The assumptions made for developing the rating curves used herein are intended
to indicate as best as practicable the prevailing conditions as estimated by a windshield survey
and other available maps and surveys. As such, the model does not accurately depict actual field
elevations and volumes, but instead compares the effects of increased hard cover against the
baseline assumptions.
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: The results from the hydrologic model computations are
included in the data attached to this report. A summary of the data is tabulated as follows.
HYDROLOGIC MODEL DATA SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS
RUNOFF RATE, IN
CFS 3.30 2.31 4.18 3.30 2.46 4.23
RUNOFF VOLUME IN=
ACRE FEET 0.34 0.34 0.68 0.34 0.36 0.70
10 YEAR HIGH
WATER LEVEL 933.20 934.28 934.28 933.20 934.29 934.29
PEAK DISCHARGE
AT OUTFALL 3.26 2.29 4.18 3.26 2.43 4.23
T !TM I
The rate of flow to the catch basin will increase from 2.31 cfs to 2.46 cfs. Properly placed, staked
sod lining of the existing roadside ditch propedy maintained can accommodate the new flow rate.
The increased flow can be accommodated by the existing catch basin with only 0.01 ft. increase
in headwater. Hence, no spillover to the culvert inlet on the east side of the street should occur
and Area "A" flows will remained unchanged for the proposed condition. The modeled rate of flow
from Area "A" can be handled by the existing culvert without overtopping the street.
The volume of runoff will increase from 0.68 acre feet to 0.70 acre feet. This additional volume
will flow to the lake and should be considered in the reserve capacity afforded new, incremental
development within the overall lake watershed. Since the increase in volume is very small, its
impact on lake water level will be less than measurable.
Consequently, in consideration of the foregoing it is the opinion of the engineer that the proposed
construction can be accommodated by the existing storm drainage system, and will not unduly
exacerbate off-site drainage conditions.
9815
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
HORST GRASER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
LARRY J. ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
JOHN SIMPSON LOT SPLIT ~
APRIL 12, 1994
The City of Prior Lake on March 7, 1994 tabled Mr. Simpson's request for
Administrative Land Division pending receipt of three conditions.
The first condition was "Drainage information and plan which confirms that the
construction of the house on the subject parcel will not exacerbate off site drainage
conditions."
Mr. Simpson has provided a report from Valley Engineering & Company, Inc. which
shows that the surface water runoff will have a slight increase in volume and rate
compared to pre existing conditions. In Valley Engineering & Company, Inc. and
the writer's opinion, this increase in runoff will not cause any significant drainage
problems to existing homes in the area.
According to the calculations performed by Steve Harvey, the depth of flow at the
catch basin at the low point of the street will increase by is .01' or 1/8" in height.
This increase and the depth of flow to the catch basin will provide additional head
on the catch basin to intercept the water into the storm sewer.
At the Public Hearing property owners on the north and west side of Sycamore Trail
indicated that they have water problems with their houses. These drainage
problems were indicated at 3470, 3454 and 3442 Sycamore Trail. The drainage
from this lot appears to stay on the easterly side of the roadway and would not
impact the drainage of these houses on these three addresses. The drainage from
the street area in general does cross the street in the area of 3420 Sycamore. The
driveway for the house at 3420 and 3406 Sycamore were increased in height above
the street to provide for positive drainage from the driveway out to the street for the
first 10' of the driveway. The homes in this area could improve their own surface
yard drainage by increasing their height to the curb along these two properties.
In summary, it appears that the building of a house as proposed in the current plan
by Mr. Simpson would not exacerbate the offsite drainage conditions.
The second condition placed' was "Safeguards be provided assuring that
development of this parcel will not have a substantial negative impact on the
property owner to the east."
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The revised site plan prepared by Mr. Simpson has provided that the house be
reoriented towards the west with the driveway coming off the west side of' the
house. This should eliminate any need for a wall along the north of the lot and
provide for a much greater distance in protecting a 30" maple tree which is located
at the address of 3469 Sycamore.
A compliance with the proposed house style and grading plan should accommodate
this item.
The third item was regarding covenants and should be addressed by the Planning
Department.
LMEM43.ENG
Toi Hors~ Graser ~rom: uco
DECLARATION OF C~)VENANTS,
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICqTIONS
THIS DECLARATION, made this day of ,
1994, by JOHI~ SIMPSON, owner in fee of the land hereinafter
described lying in Scott County, Minnesota.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREA~, John Simpson is the fee owner ("Owner") of real
property located in the County of Scott, State of Minnesota,
described as follows (the "Property"):
Outlot C, Maplewood, according to the plat thereof on
file in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and
for Scott County, Minnesota
and
WHEREA~, Owner, as mortgagor, executed and delivered a
Mortgage Deed, dated ("Mortgage") to
as mortgagee ("Mortgagee") , which
Mortgage was filed in the files of the Registrar of Deeds, Scott
County, Minnesota, on , as Document No.
; and
~A~, by the terms of the Mortgage, Owner conveyed the
Property to Mortgagee as security for a certain Promissory Note
dated ; and
WHEP~AS, Owner has made an application to the City of Prior
Lake ("city") to subdivide Outlot C, Maplewood into two ~2~
parcels pursuant to an application for an administrative plat
dated , 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Council for the City, as a condition for
approval of the administrative plat has required that this
T .- ·
To~ Hor~ ,jra~er
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions be executed
and recorded with the Scott County Recorder's Office to place, of
record, certain covenants, conditions and restrictions on the
Property.
NOW, TI{~R~FOPd~, the Owner hereby declares, imposes upon and
makes the Property subject to the following covenants,
restrictions, and conditions, which shall operate as covenants,
restrictions and conditions passing with the conveyance of the
Property and shall apply to and bind each and every owner and
their successors in interest until 2024.
From and after 2024, this Declaration shall be
automatically renewed for successive ten (10) year periods unless
sixty (60} days prior to the commencement of each ten (10) year
renewal period, the owners of each lot included within the
Property agree in writing to terminate this Declaration.
ARTI~ I.
Restrictions on Development Plans
of Parcel B
Parcel B of the Property as set forth on the certified
survey prepared by Sigma Surveying Services, Inc. dated
February 12, 1994 shall conform in all material respects to the
drawing dated F~rch 29, 1994 and attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit "A" (the "Development Plan"). No building
permit shall be issued by the City unless the proposed
improvement to Parcel B conforms in all material respects to the
attached Development Plan.
- 2
TO: Horst ~ra~er ~rom: ucu
Land UsC and CoD~truc~ion
Covenants and Rcs~riction~
Any proposed construction on Parcel B shall have zero
grading done under the dripline of the 30" maple tree as set
forth on the Exhibit A Development Plan. In addition, the 24"
oak on the northeast corner of Parcel B shall not be disturbed
and shall be saved in any proposed construction plans. There
shall be no retaining wall installed on Parcel B to the east and
to the southeast of the Parcel B Property. Deciarants declare
that all proposed construction on Parcel B be done in such a
manner so as not to exacerbate any offsite drainage conditions.
ARTIC~_~ III.
General Provisions
Section 1. Du~mtlon. The conditions, res[rictions,
reservations and covenants of this Declaration shall run with and
bind the land described above and shall inure to the benefit of
and be enforceable by the owner or owners of the lots included
within the Property, the City, and their/its respective legal
representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns up tc and
including 2024, and any extension of this
Declaration as set forth hereinabove.
Section 2. Enforcement. Enforcement of the conditions,
restrictions, reservations, and covenants of this Declaration
shall be by any proceeding a5 law or equity against any person or
persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant or
restriction, either to restrain[ such violation or recover
damages therefor. Failure by any owner or owners of the Property
3
Horst Graser ~rom: uco
or by the City to enforce or seek enforcement of the rights
hereunder shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do
so for any subsequent violation.
Section 3. Sevemability. Invalidation of any of the
provisions herein by judgment or order of any court shall not
affect any of ~he other provisions, which shall remain in full
force and effect until the date of expiration hereunder.
Section 4. Declars3ats. Any reference to declarants herein
shall include declarants' respective legal representatives,
heirs, successors and assigns.
Section 5. ~overx~ing Law. This Declaration shall be
governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHE~OF,, the parties hereto have caused this
Declaration to be duly executed and delivered as of the day and
year first above written.
John Simpson
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1994, by John Simpson.
Notary Public
The undersigned, , the
Morugagee under that certain Mortgage dated
("Morugage"! filed in the files of the Registrar of Deeds, Scott
County, Minnesota, on __, as
Document No. , with respect 5o that certain
froperuy legally described as Outlot C, Maplewood, Scott County,
Minnesota, hereby join in the foregoing Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions ("Declaration") dated
, 1994, to indicate its consent to the
foregoing Declaration and to subject its interest as Mortgagee
thereto.
MORTGAGEE:
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1994, by
, the
of
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
LOMMEN, NELSON, COLE & STAGEBERG, P.A.
1800 IDS Center (GRK)
80 S. 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 339-8131
S: \ SHDATA\ 16772G\GR~\S IMPSON. DEC
April 18, 1994
Hearing for Administrative Land Division
for John Simpson of 3437 Sycamore Trail SW
Comments to the City Council
My Name is Wes Mader, and I live at 3470 Sycamore Trail,
which is just across the street from the property proposed
for division. Incidentally, I am a graduate Civil Engineer
and professionally registered engineer, though currently
not practicing.
It is my opinion that lots within existing plats should not
be changed or divided unless the change is beneficial for
the general area, or as a minimum, does not adversely
affect others in the area. I do not believe a change
should be made when it benefits a single landowner at the
expense of adjacent property owners.
The proposed division would clearly benefit only a single
landowner, and would do so at the expense of others in the
area. Therefore, I urge the Council to disapprove the
request.
There are three factors that make the proposed change
objectionable to me, in addition to the objection that
others may have.
First, the street in this area is narrow, and makes a sharp
turn to the right, beginning in front of the subject
property. This geometry plus the elevation of the property
creates a blind spot for those making left turns into my
driveway, or the driveways just to the Southwest of my
property. Any additional congestion in this area will make
the situation worse, and increase the probability of an
accident. The proposal will result in three driveways
entering the narrow street within a lineal distance of
approximately 50 feet (from both sides with the proposed
change), and immediately adjacent to where my driveway
begins.
Second, the street is privately maintained, when maintained
at all. Construction equipment will undoubtedly degrade
the road, and as a practical matter, the adjacent property
owners will in all probability inherit the cost of repair.
· iesodo~d ~q~ ~Ao~ddes~p 0% I~DunoD sq~ sD~n I '~ues~
sq~ uI 'uo!~sod I~!~SaSAp~ u~ u! bu!sq u~q~
'sasumo ~a~doad asq%o sq~ ~o %aoddns sql u!~D u~q~ pInoo
uosd~!s 'aN KIq!ssod 'sm!~ san%n~ ~mos %~ psqs!Idmooo~ ~q
pInoo s!q~ )I 'pssssapp~ AIs%~nbsp~ ussq 8A~q ssnss!
qons II%un uo!~!ppw s!q% o~ pssoddo ~w 1%hq 'pooqzoqqB!su
sq~ u! s~oq Iwuo!~!ppw uw DU!A~q o% pssoddo ~ou ~w I
'~sIqoad uo!soas sq% s%~asISOO~ II!m K~mSA!ap p~doIs
KIqB!q ~ ~oa~ ~o una ~q~ p~o~dx~ ~q u~o ~I '%~s ~q~
u! Du!pu~s pn~ pu~ as~m 8A~SI AI~usaano su!~a %qD!I pu~
Mo~Iq pu~ do% )ool g%!m ss~aD )o ~us~so~lds!p sq~ 'Pa!qI
PRIOR LAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT
INCIDENTS ON SYCAMORE TRAIL FROM AUGUST 1991 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1993
CASE NUMBER DATE
S~1
SYN2
SYN3
TIME OFF CODE PLACE COMM
93004798 08/16/93 1532 P3110 3385 SYCAMORE
COMP RPT VANDALISM, DESTROYED A WISHING WELL IN FRONT YARD
$700 DMG
4809 08/16/93 2100 9000 3442 SYCAMORE TRAIL
T CAR DRIVEN RECKLESSLY COMP BLOCKED RD W/HIS VEH AND VERBAL
_ ~..
ATION STARTED BETWEEN COMP AND #37026, 37027, 37032, 37033, 37034.
93004883 08/19/93 2054 9000 SYCAMORE TRL
WHITE JEEP DRIVING CARELESS ON SYCAMORE.
93005191 09/01/93 130 9900 170/SYCAMORE
COMP OF BOTTLES LAYING IN THE ROAD. FOUND PART OF A CHAMPAIGN BOTTLE ON THE
ROAD. KICKED OFF TO SIDE. NO ONE AROUND.
93005241 09/03/93 905 9450 3400 BLK - SYCAMORE
COMP SAID AT PC HIS P/U WAS HIT BY A CEMENT TRUCK. DAMAGE TO DRIVER SIDE
OF FRONT QUARTER AND BUMPER.
93005617 09/21/93 1535 9301 3203 SYCAMORE
COMP REPORTS LOST 4 YR OLD - CHILD RETURNED HOME ON ARRIVAL.
14198 Commerce Ave. N.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Office (612) 447-4700
FAX (612)447-4735
To: Prior Lake City Council Members
and other interested parties.
From: Randy Simpson
Edina Realty
ARer review of properties on Sycamore Trail in Prior Lake, it
is in my opinion that it is not in the best interest of the majority of
the property owners for subdividing an existing lot. Property
values will be effected directly by the building of a lower valued
property on a minimum square footage lot. Many homes in the
area are in excess of $300,000.00 or more in value. The subject
property was purchased in the lower $100,000.00 range after a
long market time, and in my opinion the removal of the existing
three season porch would effect the curb appeal and marketability
of this property, in turn effecting all properties in the area.
Also the proposed minimum lot size, would effect
neighboring homes by eliminating open spaces, creating a
situation similar to Sand Point addition and the Inguadona Beach
area, in which overcrowding has diminished values and buyer
appeal. Water runoff from proposed addition roof and driveway
could effect properties down hill from new construction.
In summation it is in my opinion that the] proposed lot
division would effect neighboring properties and would not be in
the best interest of the majority of the home owners and the goal of
the city to encourage open spaces and prevent overcrowding.
Sincerely,
Randy q3impson
April 11, 1994
The Honorable Mayor and
City Council
City of Prior Lake
4629 Dakota Street
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE:
John Simpson
Subdivision Application
3437 Sycamore Trail SW
Dear Madame Mayor and Council Members:
We are neighboring property owners to John Simpson, who seeks
to subdivide his property. A number of us have previously filed
written objections and/or appeared at the March 7, 1994 city
council meeting to voice our strong objections to the sub-
division request. The purpose of this letter is to summarize our
objections to the proposed plan.
1. Private Roadway. Sycamore Trail, in the area of the pro-
posed subdivision, is a private 20 foot wide bituminous roadway.
There is no association or formal agreement in place which regu-
lates the use or maintenance of the road, and the neighboring
property owners depend on each others' honesty and good faith to
contribute a fair share toward maintenance and to repair damage
that one owner may cause during a construction or remodeling pro-
Ject.
2. Safety. The private road is quite narrow, hilly and
curving and is already at or past its capacity to reasonably
carry traffic. The addition of two, three or more vehicles in
connection with an additional house, when coupled with the
driveway's location at a curve in the road, would create an
unreasonable hazard to residents and their children, both in the
winter when the road is narrowed by snow accumulation and in the
summer when greater speeds make going in and out of the driveway
an increased risk.
3. Maintenance. Construction of a new home on the
subdivided parcel will involve considerable excavation.
Certainly the trucks hauling excavated material, plus the
construction equipment, will damage the private roadway, which
The Honorable Mayor and
City Council Members
Page 2
April 11, 1994
does not approach city specifications for a public road. We are
told the city will not involve itself in requiring the homeowner
to repair the damage his contractors or subcontractors may cause,
which leaves us having to sue a new owner to get repairs done if
he does not acknowledge the responsibility.
4. Effect on property values. During the last several years
a number of residents have made improvements to their homesites
ranging from landscaping to replacement of old cabins with new
homes. The new lot that would be created by a subdivision,
because of its size and topography, will only allow construction
of a small home that is not consistent with the neighborhood as
it now exists and will effectively reduce the value of neigh-
boring properties. Gary and Cindy DetJen have been given the
opinion of realtors familiar with the area that construction of
this new home next door to theirs, which now has an excellent
lake view, will destroy that view and reduce their property value
from ten to fifteen percent.
5. Drainage. One of the council.s concerns at the last
hearing, and our continuing worry, is that drainage problems will
be aggravated if a new home is built. Sycamore Trail, in this
area, has no curbs and owners acroms the street have already
experienced wet basement problems that the new home will only
make worse. Also, we believe the additional runoff, to the
extent it does not cross %he road, will damage the roadway and/or
the areas on either side, as Verlyn Raaen's January 4 report
indicates. Even more than with construction damage it is
difficult at best to allocate the repair responsibility to the
person causing the damage. We understand an engineering report
has been submitted by Mr. Simpson suggesting the proposed
construction "will not unduly exacerbate off-site drainage
conditions... We do not know what undue exacerbation is, nor do
we share Mr. Simpson.s confidence ~ on an engineering report
that uses a "windshield survey" of the property as its basis,
which the engineer acknowledges does not accurately depict actual
field elevations and volumes and considers the effect of only a
10-year storm event.
We have nothing against Mr. Simpson. He has, however, made
it clear that his motivation in this matter is strictly one of
profit since he intends to sell both lots and move.away. We
believe his plan would depreciate the value of the neighborhood
and diminish its safety, and that there is enough real potential
damage to surrounding homes, and the roadway, to deny the appli-
cation. If the council does determine to grant %he application,
we believe the minimum safeguards to be attached as conditions to
the approval would include the following:
The Honorable Mayor and
City Council
Page 3
April 11, 1994
1. That any new construction be required to follow the deve-
lopment and drainage plan on which the approval is based,
including but not limited to the statement in Mr. Simpson's March
29 letter that no retaining wall will be built.
2. That in order to prevent damage to the mature sugar maple
tree on DetJens' adjoining lot, the owner be required to follow
the construction guidelines for protection of trees set forth in
the 1993 University of Minnesota Extension publication
"Protecting Trees from Construction Damage." Since the tree is
approximately 80 feet high and sugar maples are listed as
sensitive to soil compaction and flooding, following this guide
there should be no soil disturbance or compaction within 32 feet
of the tree (40% of its height) and the area should be fenced
prior to any excavating or construction.
3. That the above restrictions be placed on the property in
permanent fashion so that future owners will be bound by them,
and that futUre owners be advised by the city, in some way prior
to issuance of a building permit, that they will be responsible
for the cost of repairing damage to the road caused by construc-
tion activity.
Respectfully submitted,
Sycamore Trail
Sycamore Trail
Sycamore Trail
Sycamore Trail
Sycamore Trail
Sycamore Trail
Sycamore Trail
Sycamore Trail
Sycamore Trail
Sycamore Trail
Sycamore Trail
Sycamore Trail
04/13194
To:
City Planning Commission
Mayor of Prior Lake and the City Council.
City of Prior Lake
4629 Dakota Street
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: Neighborhood Subdivision Application.
Dear Mayor, Planning Commission, and Council Members,
My name is Dave Johnston and I reside at 3415 Sycamore Trail adjacent to
Mr. Simpson's residence. The purpose for my letter is to explain my concerns
regarding Mr. Simpson's land division request, as well as, the condition of
Sycamore Trail in the area around my home.
My concerns involve several aspects to what is being proposed. I have water
drainage, road deterioration, density, and safety concerns that are directly
related to Mr. Simpson's proposal. I also have a quality of life within my
own neighborhood concern as well.
The drainage issue, I feel, is a major concern. My home is directly across
from a storm sewer that was installed not too long ago to handle water run off
from two new homes that were Just built. It is poorly designed and was poorly
installed and does not do an effective job of dispersing water run off. I
feel it is not adequate to handle any additional run off that may be caused by
construction of another new home on Mr. Simpson's lot. As it stands now, I
always have standing water in front of my home out in the street. I feel that
another new home will definately compound the existing problem and therefore
shouldn't be allowed.
The condition of the road is another concern. I am not happy with the way
the city allowed the two new homes that were recently built across the street
from me to get by without properly repairing the street once they were completed.
I am not confident that the city will enforce any street repair on Mr. Simpson
nor a new homeowner on his proposed lot. I feel that since this is a private
street all "street owners" should have a say in what's an adequate street
repair job, not the city of Prior Lake. I feel that Mr. Simpson should be asked
to get approval for his street repair plans and drain modifications from every
individual who owns a portion of the street in writing before his land division
should even be considered. I also believe Mr. Simpson should have to guarantee
that the road and the road's water problems won't be worsened by the construction
of another new home on this block.
The density issue is very basic. My opinion is that the proposed lot is
too small to build on properly. I think another house packed in on this street
will bring down all neighboring home values, especially Mr. DetJen's home. I
think it's unnecessary to have another home built in this area especially if it
depreciates my own investment, as well as, my neighbors. It's just simply
wrong and unfair to Mr. Simpson's neighbors.
The final issue is one of safety. I think safety is a major issue for
vehicles and pedestrians alike. For the vehicles, a home on this proposed lot
created an even larger blind spot while traveling around the corner at this
point. It's bad the way it is now. Additional cars traveling on this road is
not what I desire. As a father, I have concerns for my daughters' own safety
while out near this portion of Sycamore. There are numerous young children who
live right in this area and who all play together in this area. Additional
parked cars on this curve combined with more traffic is bound to cause an acc-
ident. Perhaps it's two cars colliding or a car running over an innocent ~child,
in either case, why take the risk? I don't wish to see an accident to prove
that I am correct about this safety issue. I firmly believe that a new home
built on that lot the way it is proposed is only going to make that curve even
more dangerous than it is right now.
I am writing you this letter because I am concerned and that I am not going
to be able to express myself at the upcoming council meeting because of my own
schedule. Water drainage is a problem now and will only be worsened by construc-
tion of another new home in this area. The road's condition itself will be
worsened by more construction. Not to mention the additional traffic a new
resident may bring will add to the deterioration of the roads surface. The
additional home packed in on this block makes our area too dense for my liking.
Not only will it depreciate my home and other's, it cuts into our neighborhoods'
quality of life. The granting of a permit last fall at 3406 Sycamore was bad
enough. I would hate to see it happen again on Mr. Simpson's property. And
finally the safety of myself, my family, and my neighbors are all being jeopard-
ized for no good reason at all.
Please consider my thoughts as a taxpaying, voting citizen of Prior Lake.
I do not want the sub-division request made by Mr. Simpson to be granted.
Dave Johnston
3415 Sycamore Trail
The Honorable Mayor and
City Council
City of Prior Lake
4629 Dakota Street
Prior Lake, MN 55372
me
II.
PRIMARY REARONS FOR DENIAL
The area of Sycamore Trail S.W. that is being affected by Mr. Simpson's
proposal is owned by neighboring property owners and not the city of ~'
Prior Lake. Although Mr. Simpson's proposal maY fit city planning commission
criteria for development,.it does not have 100% consent from neighboring
property/road owners. This is a private land use problem that is the sole
responsibility of the land owners and not the city of Prior Lake. A city
has no Jurisdiction to grant ingress or egress access to any property
located along a private road not owned by the city itself. There are several
cases similar to this on record at the Scott County courthouse dating back
as far as fifteen (15) years that will support the argument that the city
has no jurisdiction over a private road such as Sycamore Trail.
On March 7th, 1994 Mr. Simpson was asked to furnish a drainage plan to
the city that would guarantee not to "exacerbate" off site drainage con-
ditions. After being turned down by the neighbors to the South and West
of his residence, Mr. 'Simpson dropped his initial plans of putting in a
decent storm sewer system to handle off site water runoff. Instead, he is..
relying on Valley Engineering Company's report that states new construction
will only ".incrementally" add to the existing drainage problem. I must
emphasize that Mr. Simpson has hired Valley Engineering to produce such a
report making the report's contents bias towards Mr. Simpsons proposal.
Furthermore, since this is a private road, "road owners" should be allowed
to question Hr. Steve Harvey's calculations regarding the impact of new
construction as stated in the Valley Engineering report regarding their own
road.
In addition to Valley Engineering's report, I have also examined Mr. Larry
Anderson's report regarding the'proposed construction's impact on off site
drainage. First of all, Mr. Anderson states that the increase in runoff
will not cause significant drainage problems in the area but he fails to
point out that it may worsen or "exacerbate" the existing problem. He
also fails to explain in any detail where he thinks water flowing from a
new driveway will exactly go. There is zero curbing directly across from the
proposed new driveway and I don't think it takes an engineer to figure out
where water runoff will go. It will adversely effect a portion of 3442's lot.
It will definately exacerbate the existing problem at 3420, as well as, add
to the existing problem in front of 3406 and 3415.
In summation, Mr. Simpson was asked to provide information that would
assure the city, as well as, his neighbors that his proposal would not
exacerbate the existing drainage problem. Valley Engineering's report
concludes "incremental" exacerbation while Mr. Anderson's report concludes
that the problem is "not significant". Neither report, however, states
III.
IV.
~clearly that development on the proposed site won't exacerbate or compound
an already bad situation. I do not believe his drainage plan is adequate
and I am sure it will exacerbate the present runoff situation in this
area. I don't feel either report adequately meets the criteria set forth
by the city last March 7th, 1994.
Another aspect to Mr. Simpson's proposal is the fact that the city has to
change a decision it made several years ago. The previous owners to Mr.
Simpson's residence were granted a permit to add on to their home about five
(5) years ago. At that time the city planning department approved of such
permanent construction. Now years later, the city planning department
approves of the removal and re-installation of a three (3) season porch
they once deemed as a permanent structure. Recently the city has had to
withstand the pressures being applied by the numerous developers it has
coming forth with their requests. Standing their ground, the city has
had to deny some residential development requests that go against our
city's long range development plans. Development requests that are surely
more significant than Mr. Simpson's request.
Our city's long range goal is to do away with ten thousand square foot
lots like Mr. Simpson's proposed lot. Why can't we hold'our ground as a
city and uphold previous planning decisions, as Well as, continue working
on our long range goal for larger lot sizes?
Packing in another home on this block depreciates the neighboring home
values. Some are worse than others, however mine has been estimated to
come down in value approximately 10%. Mr. Simpson's potential financial
gain comes at the expense of his neighbors. Mr. Simpson's existing home will
definately depreciate if he does what he intends to do to it.
The safety issue is one that is the responsibility of the road owners.
All owners, including Mr. Simpson, agree that we have safety issues to
address on this curve of Sycamore Trail. By allowing construction and land-
scaping that encroaches the streets' edge will only make this blind corner
worse. In order to save trees on the proposed lot we are now jeopardizing
the safety of ourselves and our children by having to build closer to the
street in order to comply with the proposed covenants that the city has
set forth. I feel the city is getting involved in an area where it doesn't
believe it is getting involved. It is a private road and therefore it's
owners should have more say as to what is appropriate or not regarding
safety. There are numerous complaints already on file with the police
department regarding safety on this area of Sycamore Trail. This is a real
concern and not an imagined one.
3442 Sycamore Trail S.W.
HISTORY OF PARCEL C (JOHN SIMPSON)
Maplewood was platted in
(Road dedicated to the respective land owners)
House constructed on S 1/2 of Tract C
Annexed to Prior Lake
Sewer and Water installed
Richard Bellew bought the house located on
S 1/2 of Tract C
Richard Bellew bought the N 1/2 of Tract C
(16,500)
Richard Bellew was issued a building permit
for a home and porch addition
County received request to combine
N & S 1/2 of Tract C into one lot
Sold Tract C to John Simpson
Prior Lake's first Subdivision Ordinance adopted
Current Subdivision Ordinance adopted
Jan.
Mar.
Oct. 24
Oct.
Feb.
1919
1971
1973
1973
1978
1987
1987
1989
1992
1974
1987
HISTORY OF PARCEL C (JOHN SIMPSON)
Maplewood was platted in
(Road dedicated to the respective land owners)
House constructed on S 1/2 of Tract C
Annexed to Prior Lake
Sewer and Water installed
Richard Bellew bought the house located on S 1/2 of Tract C
Richard Bellew bought the N 1/2 of Tract C (16,500)
Richard Bellew was issued a building permit
for a home and porch addition
County received request to combine
N & S 1/2 of Tract C into one lot
Sold Tract C to John Simpson
Prior Lake's first Subdivision Ordinance adopted
Current Subdivision Ordinance adopted
Jan.
Mar.
Oct. 24
Oct.
Feb.
1919
1971
1973
1973
1978
1987
1987
1989
1992
1974
1987
HISTORY OF PARCEL C (JOHN SIMPSON)
Maplewood was platted in
(Road dedicated to the respective land owners)
House constructed on S 1/2 of Tract C
Annexed to Prior Lake
Sewer and Water installed
Richard Bellew bought the house located on
S 1/2 of Tract C
Richard Bellew bought the N 1/2 of Tract C
(16,500)
Richard Bellew was issued a building permit
for a home and porch addition
County received request to combine
N & S 1/2 of Tract C into one lot
Sold Tract C to John Simpson
Prior Lake's first Subdivision Ordinance adopted
Current Subdivision Ordinance adopted
Jan.
Mar.
Oct. 24
1919
1971
1973
1973
1978
1987
1987
1989
Oct. 1992
Feb. 1974
1987
HISTORY OF PARCEL C (JOHN SIMPSON)
Maplewood was platted in
(Road dedicated to the respective land owners)
1919
· House constructed on S 1/2 of Tract C
1971
· Annexed to Prior Lake
Jan. 1973
· Sewer and Water installed
1973
Richard Bellew bought the house located on
S 1/2 of Tract C
1978
Richard Bellew bought the N 1/2 of Tract C
(16,500)
Mar. 1987
Richard Bellew was issued a building permit
for a home and pomh addition
1987
County received request to combine
N & S 1/2 of Tract C into one lot
Oct. 24
1989
· Sold Tract C to John Simpson
Oct. 1992
· Prior Lake's first Subdivision Ordinance adopted
Feb. 1974
· Current Subdivision Ordinance adopted
1987