HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/11/20022.
3.
4.
7.
8.
9.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case file g01-079 Kenneth & Carol Boyles are requesting a 14.5 foot variance to permit
a 10.5 foot rear yard setback rather than the minimum required 25 feet for the property at
15358 Breezy Point Road.
Case files g02-09 and 02-0 I0 Wensmarm Homes is requesfmg a Prelimina~ Planned
Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 23.66 acres to be subdivided into
2 lots for commercial development and 10 lots for 64 townhouse units to be known as
Fountain Hills 2nd Addition located south of County Road 42 and west of Pike Lake
Trail.
Case files 02-015 and 02-016 Tom Holme Construction, Inc., is requesting an
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map and a proposed Zone change request to
subdivide into 7 lots for single family homes at the property located on the northeast side
of Mushtown Road, directly west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook Drive.
Case file g02-020 John and Linda Meyer are requesting a variance to lot area less than
the required minimum of 15,000 square feet for the construction of a seasonal cabin on
Lots 61, 62 and 64 of Twin Isles.
Case file g02-022 Prior Lake Baptist Church is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to
allow multiple buildings on a single lot for the property located at 5690 Credit River
Road.
Case file g0~-020 D.R. Horton is requesting a combined preliminary plat and final plat
to be known as Deerfield 6th Addition. The proposed plat will add 10 feet of property to
the existing Lots 5-8, Block 1, Deerfleld 2nd Addition.
Old Business:
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the February 25, 2002, Planning Commission meefmg to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson,
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Absent
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the December 10, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier informed the public a notice was received from
Applicants Kenn and Carol Boyles - Variance (5.B) requesting a continuance to the next
Planning Commission meeting scheduled March 11, 2002. See page 3.
A. Case File #02-08 Wensmann Realty is requesting a zone change for 7 acres of
land from the current C-5 (Business Park) District to a R-4 (High Density
Residential) District for the property located on the west side of Pike Lake Trail,
approximately tA mile south of County Road 42 and south of Fountain Hills Drive.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 25,
2002, on file in the office of the City Plarm'mg Department.
Wensmann Realty, Inc., filed an application for a zone change for the property located on
the west side of Pike Lake Trail, directly south of Fountain Hills Drive and about 1/8
mile south of CSAH 42. The proposal is to rezone the property of approximately 7 acres
of vacant land from the C-5 (Business Park) and the C-4 (General Business) district to the
R-4 (High Density Residential) District. This property is presently zoned C-5 and C-4
and is desigaated as R-HD (High Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan
L:x02FILES~02pl arming eomm~2pcnYmute sXMN022502.do e
Planning Commia$ion Meeting
February 25, 2002
Land Use Map. The designation of this property was established in 1999 when the City
Council adopted the current 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Staff recommended approval of the zone change as requested. The proposed R-4 District
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation and Minnesota
Statutes.
Stamson questioned dealing with a small portion of the (business) park in the
Comprehensive Plan as R-4, and that maybe the entire area be looked at. Kansier said
they would be looking at the Comprehensive Plan for other designations between low and
medium districts. It could be initiated at that time.
Applicant Terry Wensmann from Wensmann Homes, stated he will be before the
Plarming Commission in a few weeks with the detailed plans. A 64-milt townhome
development has been submitted. The zoning change makes sense as it serves as a zoning
buffer between the business/commercial district and single-family homes. It is a better fit
with the topography preserving the slopes, trees and wetlands.
Comments from the public:
Mike Vierling, 13985 Pike Lake Trail, said he sees trucks going down Pike Lake Trail
every day. Questioned only one access with all the traffic and emergency routes.
Questioned if the applicant was going to have access through his farm and if he intended
to fill in the wetland. Vierling felt there will be mom runoffwith townhomes. The City
wants more businesses, here's their chance. Concerned with the children, the bikers and
an additional access.
Ed Vierling, 14310 Pike Lake Trail, adjoining property owner, stated his major concern is
the previous density and the arguments to change to Business Park. Vierling felt it
should remain Business Park. Questioned the topography and what will happen to his
property values with townhomes. Concern for the traffic and the rnnoffinto the wetland.
There should be more information to the neighbors before a decision is made.
Kevin Lilland, Embassy Circle, would prefer not to look down on high density housing.
The City keeps pushing for businesses and now they want to rezone and take away from a
possible business development. The City claims there is very little land available for
business parks.
Troy Christopherson, 14314 Robin Road, would like more information. He would not
like to look down over townhome rooftops.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· The time to get more information will be at the March 11, meeting when the
developer comes forward with his plan.
L:\02 FILES\02planning comm\O2pcminuteshMNO22502.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
Febntary 25, 2002
The concern at this meeting is there is a difference between the Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning Map. The Comprehensive Plan takes precedence and clearly
states the land is designated for high density. It is a Minnesota Statute and the
Commission cannot change that.
Criego:
· This property was reviewed in 1999 and zoned for high density because of all the
wetlands and sensitive area. It didn't make sense to put an industrial park in the area.
That was the main reason for the decision in 1999.
· It is better suited for high density R-4 area. The developer and City will work closely
together to preserve the wetlands and trees.
· When the Planning Commission looks at this next month I will be looking for a plan
that preserves the existing area. It does not mean the area is maximized with
townhomes. Believes the developer will come fo~vard with a PUD to preserve some
of the terrain.
· Agreed with staff.
Stamson:
· Concurred with Criego, felt the topography and the future use of the land would not
be conducive for a business office park designation. So when the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment was done, the Commission felt it was better suited for high density
residential. It is the right choice.
· The neighbors expressed some valid concerns. When we actually get the plans, the
Commission will look closely and address those issues of trees, roadways and runoff.
· R-4 is the correct use.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with all the comments.
· Staffpointed out it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
· Supported the change.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE FROM THE C-5 (BUSINESS PARK)
DISTRICT TO THE R-4 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on March 18, 2002. The public hearing for
the development will come before the Planning Commission on March 11, 2002.
B. Case File #01-079 Kenneth and Carol Boyles are requesting a rear yard
setback variance to construct a single family dwelling on the property known as
15358 Breezy Point Road.
The staffreceived a fax from the applicants requesting this matter be cont'mued to the
next meeting, March 11, 2002.
LS02FILES~02planning eomm~02pcmin uteshMN022502 .doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
February 25, 2002
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO
MARCH 11,2002,
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
A. 2001 Variance Summary
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Summary Report dated February 25,
2002, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
Fifteen applications were submitted in 2002 with requests for 27 variances. Eighteen
were approved and 10 denied, with one to be processed. Three requests were appealed.
The number of requests has significantly decreased since 1999 due to the Zoning
Ordinance revisions addressing many of the former variance criteria.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Questioned page 4 addressing all the 2002 variance requests. Kansier responded that
was the total requests.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND
FORWARD ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Discuss Planning Commission Bylaws
Plamfing Coordinator Jane Kansier suggested reviewing Section 2-3-1 regarding an
apprentice period for new Planning Commission members. This practice has not been
applied in the past several years. Staff suggested that part of the section could be deleted.
There were no other obvious changes.
Stamson:
· In the event the Commission cannot get a quorum, it is allowable for a City Council
member sit in as a member. Did not know if that would be appropriate. It has only
come up a few times.
· The Commissioners briefly discussed the matter and decided it would not be
appropriate to have a City Council member fill in.
· Stamson explained the City of Savage's procedure for the Park and Recreation Board.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vlN022502.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
February 25, 2002
Criego:
· Felt it was good practice to keep the apprenticeship.
· Criego and Dave Wueliner were probably the only ones on the apprentice program
for 3 month.
· Thought it was worthwhile. Would like to see it implemented. Understood it couldn't
be done in the past.
Kansier commented that it had not been practiced in several years but there is no problem
leaving it in.
Lemke:
· Both Ringstad and Lemke were appointed to fill terms that had not expired and
apparently City Council waived the apprenticeship.
· Understands why staffwould suggest the deletion.
Ringstad:
If the Commission decides to leave it in, we can make more use of it when certain terms
are up.
MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO KEEP TI-YE BYLAWS AS THEY
STAND.
Lemke questioned the time fxame for an apprenticeship for a retirement. Kansier
explained the process and the City could be more proactive when terms are expiring.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Stamson officially welcomed new Commissioner Dan Ringstad.
A joint workshop with City Council will be Wednesday, March 6, 2002.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:~2FILES~2planning comm\02pcminutes~VIN022502.doc 5
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REAR
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, Case File ~tO1-079
15358 BREEZY POINT ROAD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
~_X_ YES. NO
MARCH 11, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Kenneth & Carol Boyles,
applicant/owner, for the construction of a single family dwelling with an attached garage,
on the property located at 15358 Breezy Point Road, and legally described as Lot 1,
Block 1, Red Oaks Second Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
On February 24, 2002, the applicants submitted a letter requesting a ceontinuance of this
agenda item until the next scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on March 11, 2002.
The following variance is requested:
1. A 14.5' variance to the rear yard setback to permit the structure to be setback
10.5' from the rear lot line rather than the minimum required setback of 25 feet
[Ordinance Sec. 1102.405 (3)].
DISCUSSION:
Lot 1, Block 1, Red Oaks 2n~ Addition was platted in 1998. The property is located
within the R1SD districts (Low Density Residential, Shoreland). The subject property is
a legal conforming lot of record that meets the minimum dimensional standards for
riparian lots in the Shoreland District. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent
parcels. According to the survey submitted by the applicant the subject lot is 17,300
square feet in area above the 904' Ordinary High Water Mark (Attachment 1 -
Certificate of Survey).
The property includes a 30' wide drainage and utility easement that traverses along the
shoreline of Prior Lake and cuts across the subject lot. This easement is for a sanitary
sewer line that includes a lift station located between the lot and Breezy Point Road.
The City Engineering Department will not allow any encroachments within the easement
in order to ensure that it is accessible at all times for potential needed repairs or
replacement of the sewer line. The original proposal included a retaining wall in this
L:\01files\01vadances\01-079\PCreport2.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 44%4230 / Fax (952) 4474245
AN EQUAL OPPORT1jNII"/EMPLOYER
area. This wall will not be constructed, and the area will be graded to ensure the Public
Works Depadment access for maintenance of the sanitary sewer.
In addition, a drainage easement runs along the eastern 25' of this lot that includes a
channel where the lakebed is divided from the wetland/retention pond. This division of
lake and wetland was determined by the DNR after reviewing submitted materials by the
original developer that demonstrated through aerial photography that the pond was not
connected to Prior Lake in the past, with the division line being the 904' OHWM
(Attachment 2 - DNR Letter Dated 11/25/97). There is also a 5' drainage easement that
follows along the south and west property boundaries.
The wetland retention pond is southeast of the subject lot and has a 100 year High
Water Level (HWL) of 908.9' MSL. The subdivision ordinance requires a minimum
structure setback of 30' from the HWL of a wetland or retention pond. The applicant is
proposing to meet this requirement by installing retaining walls in the side yards with
portions of the wall encroaching the existing drainage easements. The retaining walls
can not exceed 4' height of unbalanced backfill or they are considered structures and
must meet the minimum setback for the required yard, 10' side yard.
Originally, Red Oaks Second Addition was platted showing a retaining wall to be
constructed on the subject lot and crossing over the 5' side yard drainage easements to
the adjacent Lot 2. However, the owneddeveloper sold the subject Lot 3 to the current
owners prior to installing the required walls. The applicant is proposing the revised
retaining wall plan to meet the minimum setback to the wetland and reduce the amount
of fill placed around the wetland area, and to contain construction and grading on the
subject lot (Attachment 3 - Red Oaks Plat).
When applying the required setbacks, 30' to the wetland HWL, 50.6' to the lakeside
QHWM as permitted by setback averaging, and taking into consideration all of the
existing easements, this lot contains a legal building envelope triangular in shape, and at
the widest point approximately 90', and tapering down to about 28' wide at its narrowest
point with an area of approximately 3,245 square feet (Attachment 4 - Legal Building
Envelope). At the time the property was platted, there was discussion about the lot area
and the buildable areas on each lot. The lots were specifically designed with a buildable
area that would not require variances to the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed impervious surface area, including driveway, house, patio and sidewalk,
totals 4,374 square feet, and is equal to 25,3% of the total lot area of 17,300 square feet
above the OHWM (Attachment 5 - Impervious Surface Calculations).
The proposed structure has a lowest floor elevation of 909.9' for the crawl space, 910.7'
for the garage floor, and 911.7' for the top of foundation. These elevations meet the
flood plain ordinance requirements.
The proposed dwelling is a two-story floor plan with attached garage and approximate
dimensions of 70' long by 60' wide. The total footprint of the proposed house and
attached garage is 2,930 square feet of ground floor area. The applicant submitted a
floor plan and front elevation of the proposed structure. The applicant is proposing to
L:\O1files\O1variances\O1*O79\PCreport2.DOC
Page 2
locate the structure 44.3' from the front property line, 50.5' from the OHWM, 10.5' from
the rear lot line, and 30' from the south side lot line.
The applicant submitted a narrative describing his hardship reasons for the requested
variance. On March 4, 20d2, after meeting with city staff, the applicant submitted a
revised narrative (Attachment 6 - Applicant Narrative).
The City Engineering Department's pdmary concern is the retaining wall proposed in the
front yard that prohibits vehicle access to the existing sanitary sewer easement. The
retaining wall in question has now been eliminated from the proposal and will not be
depicted on the revised survey for development. The Engineering Department supports
staffs findings and recommendation in this report.
The DNR has submitted comments on this request as attached (Attachment 7 - DNR
Letter Dated 2/19/02).
Subsequent to the Planning Commission's continuance of this item at the first scheduled
public headng, the applicant submitted additional documents relating to the dimensional
standards and legal building envelope for the subject lot (Attachment 8 - Letter Dated
2/25/02, 5 pages).
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of
this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional
or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot
in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which
said lot is located.
The combination of required setbacks to the OHWM of Pdor Lake and the HWL of
the wetland appear to be exceptional conditions for this lot. However, other riparian
lots on the lake do have water on two and three sides that affect structure setbacks.
The subject lot was platted to meet the minimum lot dimensional standards for the
district and with a building envelope with these conditions in mind. The applicant
has the option of redesigning the proposed house to meet the required setbacks.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
The conditions applying to this lot are no different than the conditions applying to
other ripadan lots with water on two or three sides in the R-lSD districts. The lot is a
conforming lot of record and was designed to provide a building envelope meeting
required setbacks.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
L:\01flles~01variances\01-079~PCreport2.DOC Page 3
Granting this variance is not necessary for the preservation of a substantial property
right of the owner. The lot contains a building envelope approximately 28' wide at
the narrowest point, 90' at its widest point, and 55' at the deepest point for a total
area of approximately 3,245 square feet. A smaller structure with a different design
can be located on this without the need for a variance.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
In staff's opinion, the granting of the variance would not impair light and air, increase
congestion in the streets or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character
and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair
established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way
impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the requested variance does not appear to unreasonably impact the
character of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish the surrounding property
values, or impair health safety, and comfort of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
This is a conforming lot of record with a building envelope that can accommodate a
smaller house with a different design, without the need for a variance. Granting the
variance appears to be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to maintain
community stability, promote orderly development and to regulate the bulk of
buildings in relation to the land surrounding them.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
Staff believes there is no demonstrable hardship in this case. The house can be
redesigned and relocated on the lot to eliminate the need for any variances.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance
to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property.
The owner can design and submit a building plan that conforms in all respects with
the ordinance requirements, and does not require any variances.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
L:\01flles\01vadances\01-079\PCreport2.DOC
Page 4
The applicant has not stated a need for the variance based on increased costs or
economic hardship to develop the lot as they propose verses as platted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above findings, the staff finds that this request does not meet the nine
hardship criteria. Staff has determined that Lot 1, Block 1, Red Oaks Second Addition,
was platted to meet the minimum dimensional standards and setbacks for the R1 SD
districts, and is a legal conforming lot of record. In addition, there is a legal building
envelope that meets the minimum setbacks to the rear lot line for a future dwelling of
less size. The staff therefore recommends denial of the requested variances.
ALTERNATIVES:
Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
approving the vadance requests.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated
hardship under the Zoning Ordinance criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends Alternative #3. This action required the following motion:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-01 PC denying the requested variance to the
rear yard setback requirement.
L:~01files\01variances\01-079~PCreport2,DOC Page 5
RESOLUTION 02-01 PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO REQUIRED 25' REAR YARD
SETBACK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
Kenneth & Carol Boyles, have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a single family home to be constructed on property zoned R1SD (Low Density
Residential Shoreland District), located at 15358 Breezy Point Road, and legally
described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Red Oaks Second Addition, Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-079 and held hearings thereon on February 25, 2002 and March 11, 2002.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Granting the variance as proposed could be construed to be in conflict with the
intention of the Zoning Ordinance, which establishes the minimum rear yard setbacks
for health, safety and aesthetic purposes.
Reasonable use of the property exists in that there is a legal building envelope on the
lot, which would allow the construction of a house of a different size and design
without the need for variances.
There is no justifiable hardship in this case as reasonable use of the property exists
without the granting of the variance. The lot was platted in 1998 and designed with a
building envelope meeting all setback requirements.
7. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
h\01 files\01 variances\01-079\pcres 02-01pc2.doc I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Pr. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E~PLOYER
There is a legal building envelope on the lot, which would allow the construction of a
house of a different size and design without the need for variances.
8. The contents of Planning Case File #01-079 are hereby entered into and made a pan
of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following requested variance:
1. A 14.5' variance to permit the structure to be setback 10.5' from the rear lot line
rather than the minimum required setback of 25 feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 11, 2002.
ATTEST:
Tony Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\01 variances\01-079\peres 02-01 pc2.do¢ 2
\
/ / / \
X903,4
X910.8
X 908.7
~7.7
906.,
908.6
RE'
:900.8
ENT BY: DNR METRO; 11-25-97 12:28; 8127727573 '> 6124474245; #1/1
ATTACHMENT 2- DNR LETTER DATEDll/25/97
Novc~ 25. 199'/
Minnesota Department of Natural Resourccs
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, ,qt. Paul, lVllq' 55106-679:t
Telephone: (512) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
city of Prior L~d~
16200 Eagle Czn=k ^vance, S.B.
Prior Lalm. Minn~:mta 553'72-1714
RED OAK SI-IOR~2S SECOND ADDiTIONPRF. LllvlINARY AND Fl/q;/. PLAT
Dc~M.q. Ksasi~:
I have reviewed the mar~..ids you imbmit~l to this office r-.lalive ~ tim mbj,:,:t zmong m~'t,.=, sad offer thG .S:llowin$ comments
on beahtdf of ri~ DNR.
~. ~ ~p~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~a ~ p~, ~t ~e w~ w~ at one ~
~ a~ent wi~ ~. 8m~ ~ 0~ ~, 19~ ~~ ~at ~ ~ ~ ~d ah~ ~ not p~ of
for m~a[~ p~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~e ~d ~t ~ ~ m ~ w~l~d ~ ~Z.
It appears the Ihran },,,,F.,~'d lots thcrcfo~ meet ~ ~q~ ~ ~ ~h ~. ~p~ ~ ~v~a~
~q~ c~ ~ ~L ~ I~e ~b~ (~ ~ ~g~ ~ ~s~g home ~ ~opo~ ~ 2) o~ bc m~ Ho DNR
~ ~ ~qu~ ~ ~ p~t ~ d~t~ ~ ~e ~a~ whi~ ~p~i~ ~c ~ chcc~ you p~d:d ~ ~.
I ~ t~,lc thn grnd~ e,~ FmF.-~-,4 L~ 3 appears to cxlmd beyond the property linc. Please check to vcrlfy il'this L~ the ¢~c. and
whcthor this is allowable.
With ~he dcamninalicm ~ th,: w~lard and cham~ ar~ not part o£P~or Lake for shorelsnd zoning end D'NR perm/tOng purpose,
and with th~ lake setb~:k md,--,-~1 to 50' sinc~ our initial, review cfi this proj~t, it appcar~ thc project mca:la thc shorcland
requirm'-. The DNR h~ no furkhcr mt an thc pmj,~t
Thank you for providing the Dlq]t. ~ opportunity {n c, urm~ent on thc Ia-oj~ct. Il'you have any qu~.-mtiou~, please call me at 772-
7910.
.
........
a 'c ..~,,,~,, Ill
AJ~a Hydrolus~st
~zz
~J,,~s H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235
HARD COVER TABULATION:
PROPOSED HARDCOVER
House
Patio
Driveway
Sidewalk
2,930 Sq. FL 260 Sq. Ft.
933 Sq. Ft.
251 Sq. Ft.
TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 4,374 Sq. Ft.
AREA OF LOT TO OHW
17,300Sq. F~
% HARDCOVER 25.3 %
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
TOP OF FOUNDATION = 911.7
CRAWl, SPACE FLOOR = 909.9
GARAGE FLOOR = 910.7
BENCHMARK* = 903.72
* RIM OF MANHOLE AS SHOWN
LAKE SETBACK DETERMINED BY AVERAGING
HOUSE WEST TO LAKE 34.9'
HOUSE EAST (PORCH) TO LAKE 30.7'
AVERAGE = 32.8' (50' MINIMUM)
MIN. SETBACK SCHEDULE TO PROPOSED STRUCTURE
LAKESIDE
POND/WETLAND
SIDE YARD
REAR YARD
FRONT YARD
= 50.6' FROM 904
= 30' FROM 908.9
= 30'
= 10.5'
= 44.3'
LEGEND
DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR
DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR
VARIANCE APPLICATION:
Property of: Kenn and Carol Boyles
March 1, 2002
The property is a platted building lot on Prior Lake in the city of Prior Lake. This lot is irregular in
shape and topography. It is surrounded by water on three sides and by city street on two sides. The
lot also adjoins a wetlands area. The geometry of the lot is comprised of 10 separate intersecting lot
line segments. The lot (Block 1 Lot 1: Red Oaks, Second addition) was resurveyed in December
2001. Lot 1 is the last bare lot in the subdivision and neighborhood. This lots orientation results in
application of lot setbacks not normal for most lake lots. The lot was platted in 1998. This lot is a
sub-standard/non-conforming building lot when compared to the zoning code for a typical
minimum lake lots..
Requested variance:
Decrease the rear lot line set back from 25 to 10.5 feet. This equals a 14.5 ft
variance (see survey plot, Exhibit 3). This is the lot line shared with the side lot
line of the adjacent Lot 2. This is similar to a corner lot. The variance is per-zoning
code 1102.405.
Except for this deviation, the proposed house/structure meets all known current
building/zoning codes.
Reasons for the variance:
Lot 1 is practically unbuiidable per the current plat. Special/unique conditions exist on this
lot. These conditions are unique compared to essentially all platted lots in the city of Prior
Lake. The proposed building plan ("The Proposal") virtually eliminates all the issues listed.
The following is a documentation of the issues related to this property as platted:
Lot 1 has a sub-standard building pad area that does NOT meet current standards
(5207 sq ft) for the minimum lake lot per Prior Lake requirements. This lot did not
meet the requirements at the time of plat; 1998. As platted, the building pad has 3180
sq ft of gross area. However, due to the triangular nature of the building pad the
effective area is less then 1500 sq ft (average width X average depth). With the
variance, the effective area increased to 2500 sq ft. This is a significant improvement.
(See Exhibit 1)
Lot 1 has been platted with 39 % of the building nad in the flood plain (below 908.9).
This requires massive fill both in Lot 1 and the adjoining Lot 2. With "The Proposed"
variance; only 9% of the buildine nad is below 908.9. The complete building pad is
above 908.0. No disturbance of Lot 2 is required. (See Exhibit 1 a/b )
Note: Lot 1 (as platted) did not appear to meet code requirement for 1006.406 for rain
area above 908.9 for properly including a wetland.
Lot 1, as platted, incorporates approximately 2000 sq fl of the adioinin~ neighbors'
lot as "fill" property. The plat plan requires fill, 6 fl deep, into 1/3 of the lot width of
Lot 2's front yard. The plat also includes a 6 fl high, 80 ft long engineered retaining
structure ill the neighboring lot 2. This structure is required to retain approx 400
cu yds of total fill. (See Exhibit 1 & 4). No plan or agreement exist for this structure
m
Z
--I
The incorporation of the adjo'ming neighbors property into the Lot I plat creates
issues including consideration of long term responsibility, maintenance, safety, etc.
This (due to the plat) also puts the City of Prior Lake as a responsible party on
potential liability iSSues related to this adjoining structure.
The City is requiring this seemingly un-necessary, expensive safety hazard
to be built in an adjoining neighbors' lot The neighbors are NOT in
concurrence with this idea since there are small children in the area.
The City Planning Dept has indicated that it would not normally support a building
permit that requires a massive retaining structure (engineered wall, poured concrete,
etal ) in the utility easement between Lot 1 and Lot 2. The result of this makes lot I as
platted an unbuildable - buildine lot..
The plat forces the property owner to site the home adjacent to the Lot l's southern
(side) lot line per the normal i0 ft side setback. I-Iowever, putting a structure in
this location will obstruct the view of the adjoining homeowner (Lot 2) in such a way
that the Lot 2 homeowner will not be able to see his front yard. The subdivision
architectural committee will not approve this infringement. (See Exhibit 5)
Essentially ALL of the above issues are resolved
by using the 14.5ft setback variance as requested.
The foHowine is a list of additionai/nracticai reasons for the request for this variance.
Maximize use of the Lot l's existing high, flat ground while maintaining all the key
setback requirements.
Siting thc house in the area oftbe lot where there is significant topography change will
require more steps to enter the house (or within the house). Physically challenged family
members would not be able to easily enter/navigate the house. Carol's father is confined to a
wheel chair. The proposed home is being designed as a handicap "friendly" enviromnent.
Maintain an appearance of the new home that is consistent with the other new homes
in the subdivision and neighborhood.
Using the normal 10 it setback on the side (south) lot line and 25 Ii setback on the rear lot
line, results in a building pad and subsequent structure that is long and very narrow. The
resulting house would only be approx 20 Ii wide. It is also not oriented to the lake. This
orientation would be significantly inconsistent with every other house in the subdivision or
neighborhood. The resulting structure would have the appearance (very long/narrow) of a
"doublewide trailer" with a garage.
0
Note: 80'A of all the homes in the area (including new construction homes) do not meet the
existing setback criteria and have required variances.
Maintain a continuity of orientation with ali the other houses in the subdivision. (See
Exhibit 9)
Utilizing the reduced rear lot line setback (the variance) allows all thc homes in the
subdivision to be oriented to the lake and also to the adjoining shared wetlands and meadow.
2
The front yard areas of all homes over look the meadow; the back yard areas overlook the
lake. The sides of all the houses are adjacent to each other.
Unanimous subdivision support (attached). (See Exhibit 6 a/b)
The proposed building plan and variance request have been reviewed with all subdivision
residents. This includes the property owner of Lot 2, the owner most affected by this
proposal. All owners have provided written support for this project.
Recommendation from the DNR (letter attached, paragraph 3). (See Exhibit 7)
The DNR recommends against placing a large retaining structure in the area as this would
negatively impact the natural elements in the area. Adding a massive retaining structure next
to 2 large (24' diameter) Ash trees with 6 t~ of fill which would effectively kill these trees on
the neighbor's property.
House design and what is the best solution. (See Exhibit 8)
Over 11 months of research on house plans (including professional designers) have not
resulted in reasonable house design that meets the current building parameters and the
standards of the neighborhood without this variance. Two separate and independent studies
of the best overall home solution for this lot have been completed. Both professional design
teams arrived at essentially the same house design/footprint. Both required the 14.5 fi rear
lot line setback variance and both increased the south side yard setback (beyond the required
10 t~) to save destruction oftbe adjoining/meadow area.
Kenn and Carol Boyles
# Criteria Requested variance Meets Not meet
complies
I Do unusual lot topography Water 3 sides, wetlands,
and lot conditions exist, irregular lot geome~y, multiple Yes
2 The ccoditions that apply to The lot is highly unique as
this lot are peculiar to and not compared to typical Prior Lake Yes
typical of conditions in the building lots being permit~d
city of Prior lake. today
3 Granting a variance is This is wate~ fro~at proper~y and Yes
necesaaty for prese~,ation of needs to take maximum
enjoymant of property owner advantage of the views of the
~ lake and the natural topography
for the prope~7 owner.
4 Granting variance does not Not granting variance will result
impair light,air,safly to in an impairmont of neighbors' Yes
adjacent properties line of sight to his fi'oat property
ifa house is built per plat (no
variances required). The
structure required in the adjacent
property is a safety hazard.
5 Granting a variance will not Cn'anting the variance will Yes
impact the character if the improve the character of the
neighborhood neighborhood by allowing the
build ora house typical of the
immediate surrounding homes in
oriantation, general shape, and
size. The variance has
unanimous subdivision approval
6 Granting the variance is not Variances are used to
enntray to the intent of the specifically target problem Yes
code situations and allow closure in a
reasonable way. The intent of
this variance application to fix a
very sexious problem.
7 Granting variance solves a Building this house with all the Yes
difficult problem and is not varied constraints and
just a convanience requirements has resulted in a
very difficult problem. These
include non-conforming lot,
building on a flood plain then
significantly changing the
topography of a neighburs
properi7, obstructive views, etc.
8 Hardship is due to the nature The property ownexs have take~ Yes
of the code and its affect on no actions on the property other
the property and not the then designing a house that takes
property owner advantage of this unique
watesfi'ont lot while mceting the
intent of the Code.
9 Cost is not the only factor Cost has not ~ a factor in this Yes
request. It is estimated that a
retaining wall structure on the
neighbors property will cost
more theo $40,000.
Overall Does this variance address allApproving the variance results
Summary 9 facters favorably in a much better housing Yes
solution considering all factors.
neighborhood, enviro~nnent, and
community). There are ao
obvious nezative impacts of
~rantin~ this variance.
Attachments to Variance Application
1) Documentation showing Lot 1 is a non-sM and non-conforming building lot as platted (Exhibit 1)
2) Survey map of eriginal PLAT showing issues relative to the variance (Exhibit 2)
3) Survey map showing PROPOSED building, setback variance being requested, adjoining neighbor is a
side lot line (Exhibit 3)
4) Documentation showing the fill and retaining wall differences between PLAT and PROPOSAL
(Exhibit 4)
5) Document showing sight line of as "as PLATTED" building, shows blocks view of neighbor of his
property (Exhibit 5)
6) Documentation fi.om all Red Oaks 2d subdivision property owners supporting variance (Exhibit 6)
7) Letter fi.om DNR recommending limiting fill and retaining wall eonslroctior~ in the Lot l/Lot.2 area.
(Exhibit 7).
8) Proposod structure under consideration (Exhibit 8)
Exhibit I
Summary of lot/building pad dimensions: (see work sheets a~b)
Lot 1 as Platted:
Lot 1, as platted, contains a building pad that has a gross area of 3180 sq ft. However,
consider'rog the triangular shape of this area; the effective building pad area (using
average width X average depth is approx 1500 sq ft.
NOTE: Us~g the normal dimensions ora typical minimum conforming lake shore
lot (per code) results building pad area of 5207 sq ft. Lot 1 does exceed the minimum
total area for a lake shore lot of 17,300 vs the 15,000 code (minimum).
Therefore, Lot 1 is a substandard building lot when considering the building
pad. This is due to the VERY unusual condition of this lot.
Lot 1 as Proposed:
With the proposed variance of 14.5 i~; Lot 1 's exoss buiding par area increased to 4111
sq ft. More importantly; the effective (using average width X average depth) building
pad area increase~ to approximately 2500 sq ft.
The city apparently has no minimum area requirement (for the building pad area)
for the platting of building lot.
Exhibit 1
Is Lot 1 Red Oaks Subdivision on Prior Lake a conforming lot ?
Use current city code - Shoreland regulations dated Mayl, 1999
Regulations
1. Min lot area above 904 OHW
2. Min lake side setback from 904
3. Min side lot line setback
4. Min front lot line setback
5. Min rear lot line setback
"6. Min width at front lot line
7. Min width at lake (904 OHW)
· 8. Min depth of lot
Value Code
15000 sq 1t 1104.302 ph 3
75' 1104.302 ph 3
10' 1102.405 ph3
25' 1102.405 ph 3
25' 1102.405 ph 3
90' 1104.302 ph 3
~5' 1104.302 ph 3
182' (Calculated
from above)
Pad area calculations:
With 15000 sq ff mia area and using values above
Bldg pad area is = 82 x (68 + 59) = 5207 sq ft
2
Therefore, a lot must have a building pad of a
minimum of 5207 sq ft area to conform with the code
qaq,o
Note: Actual building, driveway, etc area needs to stay
within the max 30% impervious surface criteria
~0
_.3
/
/
Exhibit 3
t
RETENTION
POND
L. OT ~_
Exhibit 4
Lot 1 and 2 - Fill and Retaining wall comparison bet~eell plat and Proposal Phns
(~outh side of lot 1 reviewed only, no~hsMe has IN'ol~ml B Pint)
Fill and Retaining walls PLAT PROPOSAL
Total fill (cu)'ds) 402 86
Fill in lot 2 (neighbors) (cu }'ds) 211 0
Engineered (>4') retaining wall length - ft 102 0
Engineered (>4!) retaining wall in neighbors 88' 0
lot- ft
Non-~ngineered retaining wall = landscaping 20' Of 2' high 40' of 3' high
(<4'): 40' of 1' high
Est c6st $40,000-60,000 $5,000-8,000
Notes and questions D~s a 5' high
100' long
retaining wall
need a safety
railing and
lights on top?
Poured concrete
Scale = 20' per inch with footings in
utility
easement?
Plat
~" I
Exhibit 5o~
v
/
/
/
Exhibit 6
15386 Breezy Point Road SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
January 26, 2002
To whom it may concern:
We have found out that our future neighbors, Kenn and Carol Boyles, have requested a
variance from the city of Prior Lake to build on Lotl of the Red Oaks 2~a Subdivision.
The Boyles' explained the variance to us in depth. We understand that it will change the
back yard set back from 25' to 10'. By granting this variance, the home, will fit better on
the lot. We feel very strongly that by granting this variance that the proposed house will
be well suited for our neighborhood.
It has also come to our attention that the City of Prior Lake is interpreted the Boyles'
survey and the plat of Red Oaks 2nd Subdivision to force them to put up a 6' high
retaining wall to keep them separated from the pond/wetland. We feel that this wall is
totally inappropriate for three reasons. It will be an eyesore, similar to that ora prison
wall that we will look at every day that we go out our front door! Secondly, it will be
primarily on Mike Bennidict's lot, our other neighbor, and will either terminate abruptly
or intrude on our lot. Thirdly, and most importantly, it is contrary to the spirit of the law
that intends to protect the wetland. The Boyles intend to keep a gentle slope of grass and
marsh grass down to th6 pond/wetland. This long mn of vegetation acts as both a filter
and a natural buffer to the run-off created by people. Ifa large retaining wall is put very
close to the edge of the wetland, more chemicals and other non-natural items may pollute
the eeo-systern~
In conclusion, we agree with Kenn and Carol Boyles' proposal for their variance and for
their approach in not building a large retaining wall. If you have any questions, please
contact us at (952) 440-2581.
Exhibit 6 b
Jan 29,2002
For whom it may concern:
In the matter of the proposed boding variance on Lot 1 RedOaks second subdivision.
I agree with and support the proposed plan for the building site variance on Lot 1. This
variance would decrease the rear lot structure setback from 25 to 10 tt min. This as
described in the variance documentation (survey attached).
Michael Benedict
Owner of the adjoining Lot 2
Red Oaks Second Subdivision
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
DNR Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106
Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977
Exhibit 7
February 19, 2002
Mr. Steve Horsman
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Variance 01-079, Kena and Carol Boyles, 15358 Breezy Point Road SE, Lower Prior Lake
Dear Mr. Horsman:
I have reviewed the materials you sent relative to the proposed rear yard setback variance requested to facilitate
construction of a single-family residence on Lot 1, Block I, Red Oaks Second Addition. In atltlition to the materials
you provided, I have also reviewed a letter and two drawings the applicant provided me directly. Although I am
quite familiar with the subject property, I stopped by last week and vicwed thc sit~, as it has been a while since I was
last in the vicinity.
Red Oaks Second Addition was platted relatively recently. It was platted such that building envelopes existed on
each lot meeting required setbacks wi[bout variance. There should be no reason thc lots in this subdivision cannot
be developed without variance. I recall when the platting process was nndexway and thc DNK recommended two
lots in this subdivision (versus thc three ultimately approved), it was stated that three lot~ could bc created which
would nat ....
acco~ro~slnlng wall necessary to build on the subject lot; Ideally, minims, vege~fi~n and topographic alt~'afion to
mmott0te construction is preferred. If possible, a building location and design should be considered which
A hardship must b~ d~monstrated before iss-ane~ of a varianec. PI~se let me know th~ oum3m~
call me ffyou have questions.
Patrick J. Lynch 1II
DlqR Area Hydrologist
c: Kcon Boyles. 3003 Cardinal Creek ~ Eden Prairie, MN 55346
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TrY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity C~ Pdnt~d on Rscycled Paper Containing a
Minimum of 20% Post-Consumer Waste
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5B
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY
PLAN AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN
AS FOUNTAIN HILLS 2~ ADDITION
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
MARCH 11, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Wensmann Realty, Inc., has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Fountain Hills 2ad Addition on the property located on the west side of Pike Lake Trail,
approximately 1/8 mile south of CSAH 42 and directly south of Fountain Hills Drive.
The application includes the following requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
While the total site area is 23.08 acres, the PUD plan encompasses 10.16 acres of the site.
The PUD development consists of a total of 64 dwelling units on 7.17 net acres, for a
total density of 8.92 units per acre. The remaining area of the development will consist of
two commercial lots, 7.01 acres and 4.67 acres in size.
BACKGROUND:
The site in question was originally platted in 1999 as Outlot A, Fountain Hills Addition.
The road alignment and utility extensions were established with that plat. Also in 1999,
when the City adopted the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, the 10.16 acres area was
designated for High Density Residential (R-HD) uses. The applicant has filed an
application to rezone this portion of the site to the R-4 district. The Planning
Commission considered that application at a public hearing on February 25, 2002. The
City Council will review that request on March 18, 2002.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
l:~02files\O2subdivisions\O2prelim platskfounta~Nl'~;~fl~f EMPLOYF.~ Page I
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site consists of 23.08 acres. The net area of this site, less
wetlands, is approximately 20 acres.
Tol~ogral~hy: This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from 850' MSL
on the north end of the site to 900' MSL. The site has slopes ranging from 3% to 30
percent. The steepest slopes are located along the west side &Lot 1, Block 1 and on the
south side ofLnt 1 l, Block 2.
Vegetation: A portion of the site is pasture or grassland, with several clumps of wooded
areas. Development on this site is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Wetlands: There is one 2.99 acre wetland located on the east side of this site. There are
also two smaller wetlands located on the west side of this site. The plans do not include
filling in any of these wetlands.
Access: Access to the site is from Fountain Hills Drive, located on the north side of the
site, and from Fountain Hills Court, which provides access to the southern side of the site.
No additional access will be provided from Pike Lake Trail.
2020 Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated as C-CC
(Community Retail Shopping) and as R-HD (High Density Residential) on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The entire site is located within the current MUSA
boundary.
Zoning: The site is presently zoned C-4 and C-5. As noted earlier in the report, the
applicant has filed an application to rezone the C-5 portion of the site to R-4.
PROPOSED PLAN
The proposed PUD portion of the site applies only to the 10.16 acres on the southeast side
of the property. The remaining acres will be developed under the conventional C-4
district standards.
Streets: This plan proposes a combination of public and private streets.
Public Streets: There is one new public streets proposed in this development. This street
is an extension of Fountain Hills Drive about 670' to the west boundary of the plat, which
will allow for a future connection to the property to the west. Fountain Hills Drive is
designed as a collector street with a 80' wide right-of-way, a 44' wide surface and
sidewalk along the north side of the street.
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\fountain hills 2nd\pc report.doc
Page 2
Private Streets: There is one private street designed to serve the townhouse portion of
the development. The private street is a loop street off of Fountain Hills Court. It is
designed with a 28' wide surface. There are also 2 remaining private streets, shown as
Street "A" and Street "B," which function more as driveways providing access to 5 of the
buildings. These are also designed with a 20' wide surface.
SectiOn 1004.415 lists the design criteria for private streets as follows:
Private streets shall only be permitted in Planned Unit Developments, which have
homeowner associations approved by the City. Private streets shall be platted as outlots,
and shall be designed and constructed in the same manner as public streets; provided, the
street pavement may be contained within the outlot and the balance of the street right-of-
way may be contained within adjacent easements, provided that the combined width of
outlots and easements shall not be less than the right-of-way, pavement width and easement
requirements for public streets.
The preliminary plat does not identify easements; however, it does not appear that there is
room for the required easements to equal a combined 50' width.
Sidewalks/Trails: The plan proposes a sidewalk on the north side of Fountain Hills
Drive. The applicant is also proposing a trail around the wetland on the east side of the
site as part of the common open space for the townhouse development. This trail
connects to the existing sidewalk along the east side of Fountain Hills Court.
Parks: This plan does not include any parkland dedication. A cash dedication, in lieu of
land, was made at the time the first plat, Fountain Hills Addition, was completed.
Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer will be extended from the existing utilities located in
CSAH 42. The sewer line is extended from the north through the commercial lots to the
townhouse lots. An easement across Lot 1, Block 1, Fountain Hills Addition will be
required for the extension of the sewer line. In addition, the sewer should be extended to
the south property boundary to provide a future service to this site.
Water Main: Water mains will be extended from the existing line in Pike Lake Trail to
serve this site. The water main has been extended to the west property boundary for a
future service to the property to the west. This line should also be extended to the to the
south boundary to serve the property to the south.
Storm Sewer: The plan proposes a series of storm sewers to handle the storm water
runoff on this site. The system will direct runoff to the north to the existing NURP ponds
on the south side of Fountain Hills Drive and on the north side of CSAH 42. These
ponds were designed to manage the runoff from this site.
l:~02filcs\02subdivisions~02prelirn plats~fountain hills 2nd\pc report.doc Page 3
Residential Densi .ty: The plan proposes 64 units on a total of 10.16 acres, Density is
based on the buildable acres of the site, or in this case on 7.17 net acres. The overall
density proposed in this plan is 8.92 units per acre.
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of a total of 12 lots. There are 2 lots for the
commercial development and 10 lots for the townhouse units and the common open
space. There is also one outlot, which will be the private streets for the townhouse
development.
The minimum lot area and frontage requirements for a lot in the C-4 district are 1 acre
with 150' of frontage. Both of the proposed lots exceed this minimum requirement. The
townhouse lots are "envelope" lots, which will accommodate the buildings.
Building S .tyles: The proposed PUD plan calls for a townhouse style development
consisting of 4-, 6- and 1 O-unit buildings.
There are two different building styles proposed. The first style is a 2-story, row house
style with tuck under garages. These buildings are located on the outer ring of the site, to
take advantage of the natural grade. The plan includes 34 of these units in one 4-unit
building and five 6-unit buildings. Each of the units in these buildings includes a 2-car
garage, rear yard decks, and approximately 1,768 square feet of living space on the upper
levels. The buildings are 35' high at the front, with vinyl siding exteriors and brick face
and vinyl shakes for accents.
The second building style is a 3-story, back-to-back townhouse building. There are 30
units in three, 1 O-unit buildings. These buildings consist of a lower level, 2-car garage
and 1,188 square feet of living space in the upper levels. These buildings are also 35'
high, with vinyl siding exteriors and brick face and vinyl shakes for accents.
Building elevations and sample floor plans for each of these buildings are attached to this
report.
Setbacks: The plan proposes the following setbacks:
Proposed Minimum
Front (foundation to back of curb) on 22' 30'
row houses
Front (deck to back of curb) on 10-unit 14' 30'
buildings
Rear (to property line) 30' minimum 25'
Side (between buildings) 25' 35' (½ sum of the
building heights)
Wetland (100-year flood elevation) 30' 30'
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\fountain hills 2nd\pc report.doc
Page 4
The developer is requesting a modification to the required setbacks as part of the PUD
plan. The developer must verify whether or not the proposed 30' setback from the
wetland is measured from the 100 year flood elevation.
Lot Coverage: The R-4 district allows a max'anum ground floor area of 0.35. The
ground floor area proposed in this plan is 0.21.
Useable Open Space: The R-4 district also requires 600 square feet of useable open
space per unit for cluster developments. Although this proposal is a PUD, it must also
comply with that requirement. The required open space for this development is 38,400
square feet; the plan indicates a total of 40,874 square feet.
Parking: The proposal provides at least 2 spaces per dwelling unit, which is consistent
with the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. Each the units have two car garages,
which provide the minimum parking requirement. The plan also provides 30 off-street
parking spaces in the townhouse area for guest parking. The proposed private streets will
not provide any on-street parking.
Landscaping: Section 1107.1900 lists the landscaping requirements for this
development. Perimeter landscaping is required for the townhouse portion of the
development with build'rags consisting of 3 or more units at a rate of 1 tree per th-fit or 1
tree per 40' feet of perimeter, whichever is greater. Our calculations indicate a total of 64
trees are required for this site.
The developer has submitted a landscaping plan that identifies the required perimeter
landscaping. However, the plan is not consistent with ordinance requirements for size
and species of the plantings. The ordinance requires at least 25% of the trees must be
deciduous and 25% coniferous to maintain a mix of plant types. The ordinance also
requires at least 20% of the plants must exceed the minimum sizes of 2 1/2 caliper inches
for deciduous and 6' for coniferous. This requires deciduous trees be at least 3 1/2 caliper
inches and coniferous trees be at least 8' high. The plan also does not indicate whether an
in'igation system will be provided.
Tree Replacement: The applicant has submitted an inventory identifying 1,159 caliper
inches of significant trees on the site. The Zoning Ordinance allows up to 25% of the
significant caliper inches to be removed for road and utility purposes, and up to 25% for
building pads and driveways. In this case, the proposal removes 23.04% for road and
utility purposes and 3.6% for building pads and driveways. Therefore, no tree
replacement is required.
Signs: There are no project monument signs identified on this plan.
Lighting: Street lights will be provided on the public streets. The developer also plans
to provide street lights on the private streets.
1:~02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats~fountain hills 2nd\pc report.doc Page 5
Traffic Impact Report: The developer has submitted an elementary traff~c study for this
development. This study indicates the proposed development will add a total of 375 daily
trips to Fountain Hills Court. A copy of the TlR is attached to this report.
Phasing: No phasing plan has been submitted for this project.
ANALYSIS:
PUD Preliminary Plan: The PUD must be reviewed based on the criteria found in
Section 1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 1106.100 discusses the
purpose of a PUD. These criteria are discussed below.
(1) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, materials, construction
and land development.
The developer has attempted to design the buildings so they fit the land, rather than
force the land to fit the building design. The row houses along the outer ring of the
development take advantage of the natural grade.
(2) Higher standards of site and buiMing design.
The density of this site is clustered on the west side of the site to avoid the wetland
and the trees on the east end of the site. The units have also been placed as far north
as possible to preserve the trees on the south boundary of the site. The utilization of
private streets in the townhouse portion of the development allows the preservation of
the wetlands and some of the slopes and trees on this site.
(3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support
high quality land use development at a lesser cost.
Maintenance of private streets, including plowing and future repairs, is done by the
homeowners association. This reduces City costs in providing services to these
homes.
(4) Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space components in the
development which may be made more useable and be more suitably located than
would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures.
As proposed, the developer provides a trail around the wetland. This trail will
connect to the existing sidewalk on Fountain Hills Court and Fountain Hills Drive.
(5) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows modifications to the strict
application of regulations within the various Use Districts that are in harmony with
the purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats~fountain hills 2nd\pc report.doc
Page 6
The density and variety of housing units is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
goals to provide a variety of housing styles.
(6) Encourages a more creative and efficient use of land.
The PUD allows the higher density areas to be clustered, and preserves open space.
(7) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including flora and fauna,
scenic views, screening and buffering, and access.
The townhonse units are sited to take advantage of the natural terrain.
(8.) Allows the development to operate in concert with a Redevelopment Plan in certain
areas of the City dnd to insure the redevelopment goals and objectives within the
Redevelopment District will be achieved.
This criterion is not applicable.
(9) Provides for flexibility in design and construction of the development in cases where
large tracts of land are under single ownership or control and where the use(s) has
the potential to significantly affect adjacent or nearby properties.
The use of the PUD allows the clustering of the homes and the use of private sweets.
(10)Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over and above required
dedications, by allowing a portion of the density to be transferred to other parts of
the site.
There is no additional parkland dedication with this plan.
Section 1106.300 states the quality of building and site design proposed by the PUD will
enhance the aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied:
(1) The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified
environment within the boundaries of the project by insuring architectural
compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation,
aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and efficient use and design of
utilities.
The design creates a unified environment. The extension of the existing streets and
provision of trails and sidewalks allows for efficient movement of traffic. Revision of
the landscaping plan to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance will also
enhance this area.
1:~02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats~fountain hills 2nd~pc report.doc Page 7
The design of a PUD shall optimize compatibility between the project and
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential
adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse
effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD.
The use of the PUD will allow the clustering of the townhouse units and provide a
transition from the commercial area on the west to the single family area on the east
side of Pike Lake Trail.
Ifa project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves construction over a
period of time in two or more phases, the applicant shall demonstrate that each phase
is capable of addressing and meeting each of the criteria independent of the other
phases.
This project will be completed in one phase.
(4) Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one building on a lot.
This is not applicable.
A PUD in a Residential Use District shall conform to the requirements of that Use
District unless modified by the following or other provisions of this Ordinance.
a. The tract of land for which a project is proposed shall have not less than 200feet
of frontage on a public right-of-way.
b. No building shall be nearer than its building height to any property line when the
property abutting the subject property is in an "R-1" or "R-2" Use District.
c. No building within the project shall be nearer to another building than ~ the sum
of the building heights of the two buildings, except for parking ramps which may
be directly connected to another building.
d. Private roadways within the project site may not be used in calculating required
off-street parking spaces.
The modifications requested by the developer include the following:
· The use of private streets. Normally, a development of this type would
require a minimum right-of-way width of 50' and a 28' to 30' wide surface.
The developer is requesting a 28' wide private street. The additional 22' of
right-of-way would be accommodated by the use of easements adjacent to the
private road.
· Reduced front yard setbacks on the private streets. The conventional setback
requirement is 30' from the right-of-way line. The developer is requesting a
22' front yard setback, measured from the building face to the curb of the
private street, and a 14' front yard setback, measured from the second-floor
deck to the curb of the private street.
l:\02filcs\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\fountain hills 2nd\pc report.doc
Page 8
· Reduced setbacks between buildings. The required separation between
buildings under the PUD provisions is ½ the sum of the heights of the
buildings, or 35' in this case. The developer is requesting a 25' separation
between the buildings.
· Exterior building materials. The Zoning Ordinance normally requires Class I
building materials on buildings with more than 4 units. Class I materials
primarily consist of brick, marble, granite, textured cement stucco and glass.
On buildings with 4 or fewer dwelling units, vinyl siding is a Class I material.
These modifications are permitted under the PUD provisions at the discretion of the
Council.
Prelimina~. Plat: The preliminary plat generally meets the requirements of the Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances. The major issue is the use of private streets, which is
permitted as part of the PUD plan. If the PUD plan is approved, the preliminary plat may
also be approved. There are also some Engineering issues, including the extension of
sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer, that must be addressed. These are basically
design issues that can be addressed at the final plat stage.
DISCUSSION:
The major issue pertaining to this development is not the use of the private streets, but
whether or not these streets meet the standards of Section 1004.415 of the Subdivision
Ordinance. As shown, the private streets have a surface width of 28 feet. However, there
does not appear to be room on either side of the private street to provide a 22' wide
easement (11' on each side).' The easement is necessary for the placement of small
utilities, signs and snow storage. This lack of easement, combined with the reduced
setbacks, could create some problems on the private streets, especially in terms of snow
removal and snow storage.
One of the ways to alleviate this concern is to eliminate one of the 10-unit buildings on
the inner portion of the "loop" street. This would allow the remaining buildings to be
shifted so as to provide the necessary easements. Another option may be to reduce the
number of units on these buildings to allow for some additional shifting.
A second option would be to require the use of public streets. This option would
probably result in fewer units, but it could also result in the loss of more significant trees
and disturbance of the steep slopes.
A third option would be to approve the plan without the setback modifications. Again,
this would pull the units back fi.om the street, but could result in the loss of trees and
slopes.
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\fountain hills 2nd~pc report.doc Page 9
Stqff Recommendation: The major issue that must be addressed is the easements
adjacent to the private streets. There is some redesign required to address this issue;
however, this could occur at the final plan stage. The staff therefore recommends
approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The private streets must be designed so that the sum of the width of the outlot and the
adjacent easements is equal to 50 feet.
2. Extend sanitary sewer and water main to the south property boundary.
3. Provide a drainage easement and stom~ sewer pipe from the south side of the wetland
on the east side of the property to the south property line for the future use of the
property to the south.
4. Provide a drainage and utility easement on Lot t, Block 1, Fountain Hills Addition,
for the sanitary sewer pipe located within this lot.
5. Provide the information necessary to show how the drainage will work behind Unit
#4 to achieve a 2% swale.
6. Provide retaining wall profiles and design by a registered engineer.
7. Revise the landscaping plan to include the required number of oversized trees.
8. Verify that the setback between the buildings and the wetland is 30' to the 100-year
flood elevation of the wetland.
9. Indicate whether signs will be provided for the townhouse development. If so,
provide sign elevations and greater detail on the location of the proposed monument
signs.
10. Provide a lighting plan identifying the footcandles at the south property line that are a
result of the wall lighting on the south side of the units.
11. Provide a phasing plan for the project.
12. Provide an irrigation plan.
13. Provide street names for the private streets.
14. Ensure that the tie-ins to the existing 8" water main valve on Pike Lake Trail will be
acceptable for hook-ups and testing.
15. Proved a concrete entrance to the easterly entrance to the new sidewalk. The westerly
entrance will require a valley-gutter where needed.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat.
1:\02files\O2subdivision s\O2prelim plats\fountain hills 2nd\pc report.doc
Page 10
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat subject
to the above conditions.
2. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the
issues that have been discussed.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Plann'mg staffrecommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the following requests:
· Approval of a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan to be known as Fountain
Hills 2~a Addition subject to the above conditions; -_
· Approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as Fountain Hills 2~a Addition, subject to
the above conditions.
EXItlBITS:
1. Reduced Copy of PUD and Prelim'mary Plat Plans
2. Developer's Narrative
3. Engineering Comments
4. Finance Director Comments
5. TIR
l:\02files\02subdivisions~02prelim plats~fountain hills 2nd~pc r~port.doc Page
C)
¢)
o
i!!ii
E~z__
:=
Preliminary Plat/PUD/Re-Zoning
Fountain Hills 2nd Addition
Prior lake, Minnesota
January 10, 2002
APPLICANT:
Wensmann Realty, Inc
1895 Plaza Drive, Suite 200
Eagan, MN 55122
651-406-4400
651-905-3678 (fax)
Contact:
Kelly Murray
Terry Wensmann
Engineer Pioneer Engineering Surveyor
Nick Polta
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 56120
651-681-1914
651-681-9488 (fax)
Pioneer Engineering
John Larson
Reg No. 19828
2422 Enterprise Dr.
Mendota Heights, MN
651-681-1914
651-681-9488 (fax)
I. Proposed Subdivision
Located South of County Road 42 and west of Pike Lake Trail, Fountain Hills 2nd Addition is the final
phase of the Fountain Hills preliminary plat originally reviewed in May I999. This proposal consists
of nine condominium building lots, and one outlot for the townhome association private street. This
request for approval will also require the re-zoning of approximately 7 acres from B-P to R-4. The
balance of the property has the correct zoning and was previously approved. Gross area is 23.66
acres.
2. History
The Fountain Hills Addition received preliminary plat approval and re-zoning for 6 commercial lots on
May 3, 1999 from B-P (Business Park) to C-4 (General Business) for approximately 33 acres of the
site. The remaining 7 acres remained B-P while the City of Prior Lake reviewed amending the
comprehensive guide plan to High Density Residential. The south 7 acres was designated as High
Density in the most recent comprehensive guide plan update completed in 2000 but is still currently
zoned BP. The original concept was to construct a Senior Condominium, however, with the recent
applications and other developments within the City of Prior Lake in the planning stages, we feel that
there are other locations in the community that the senior market may prefer.
3. Purpose of the PUD Request
During the planning phase, we determined early on, that this proposed development could not be
achieved without the PUD process. Many different versions were reviewed and designed until we
came up with a product mix that would work. However, they do have some variances from the
current zoning ordinance. Therefore, we feel the PUD process can achieve the added benefits to the
development. These benefits and variances are described below.
a. Site Design
The proposed subdivision completes the 6 commercial lots that were previously approved
along with the right-of way to the west property line for Fountain Hills Drive. In addition, 64
row and/or back-to-back townhomes have been designed for the R-3 land use area. An interior
private street for the townhomes is currently being proposed. This design allows for off-street
parking stalls for guest parking, maintained by the Association, not by public works. Funds
to maintain the private street are included in the association. They are built to city
construction standards however, with a narrower street width. Not only will the street
department not be required to plow these areas, public works will not be responsible for street
repairs either. Funds for future repairs are included in the association dues. There will be no
parking on the private street. Community monuments, cul-de-sac location and private street
siguage will deter through traffic.
b. Architectural Design
Townhomes within the development will consist of two-story row townhomes and two-story
back to back designs. The orientation and location of the buildings were designed to
minimize the impact to the trees on the south property line, and the wetlands to the eas~.
Where grade dilates, a tuck-under design will minimize the use of retaining walls, therefore
saving trees. The proposed townhomes will be for sale, marketing in the range of $150,000 -
$170,000. Creating a sense of community through monuments, uniform building materials
and uniform mailboxes will distinguish this area from the rest of the commercial
development. Cedar framed, rural mailboxes will be clustered in groups of four or eight, with
newspaper boxes to maintain a uniform appearance. The PUD as designed is utilizing a
variance to the setback requirement as set forth in chapter 1102.703 of the R4 Zoning
ordinance. Paragraph E. has buildings set back "a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the
curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots". As designed, the setback at ground
level is 22'. However, atthe deck level, which is approximately 8-9' above the elevation of
the driveway we are only 14' (refer to building plans/etevatiuns). This design will allow a
full-sized sport utility vehicle to drive, or park under the overhang. It also gives dimension to
the front of the building, and minimizes the height of the front elevation. Varying the
materials used on the front elevation also creates additional dimension to the front elevation.
Again, without compromising parking, or required setbacks between buildings just measuring
the setback from the private street to the building at ground level, rather than the overhangs 8'
above the ground we feel we meet the intent of the zoning ordinance as currently wriiXen. If
this 1' variance is not allowed, we begin to impact slopes and treed areas even more. Adding
an addition 1' setback across the development impacts the wooded areas and pushes us closer
to the wetlands even more. Setbacks between the buildings are met. The maximum height of
our buildings is 43' to the peak, and 28' to the soffit.
c. Efficient Street Use.
Without compromising design standards, private streets could be owned and maintained by a
homeowners association. Normal street widths within the City of Prinr Lake are 28-32 feet.
Our request is for a 28' street, with no parking on the private street. In addition to the two
stalls in the garage of each unit, two stalls are allowed for in each driveway, with an
additional 27 stalls in the offstreet parking bays for a total of 286 parking spaces for the
proposed 64 units. We are able to create "bump out" guest parking stalls utilizing the private
street design.
d. Recreation Aspects
Fountv2_ Hills Court has sidewalks along the cast side, with a connection to the sidewalk on
the south side of Fountain Hills Drive. This connects with a trail along Pike Lake Trail on the
west side going south. We are proposing to construct a connection along the south end of the
wetland to both Fountain Hills Court sidewalk and Pike Lake Trail bituminous path. This will
facilitate a "loop" for the residents who wish to enjoy the large wetland. Cash dedication will
be contributed for the project. No land is being dedicated.
e. Site Amenities
The site has a large wetland bordering the cast, and a very nice tree line to the south. We
have positioned the buildings to minimize the impact to the trees. In addition, a retaining wall
along some of the south lots will be constructed rather than removing additional trees to slope
the grade. Of all the trees removed, only 10 qualified as "significant trees" under the tree
preservation plan. We are saving 41 that qualify and stay well below the removal allowance
for grading and building pads.
f. Street Lights
The site plan shows the proposed street light locations. Any changes or additions staff
recommends will be accepted. Street light usage costs, within the private streets, will be paid
by the homeowners association (refer to proposed budget). Final plans will be provided by
Minnesota Valley Electric for staff review at final plat stage.
g. Land Use
The development has been designed to minimize the impact to the natural features, yet
allowing for a viable project.
In closing, we feel that by utilizing the PUD process, the benefits achieved will enhance and preserve
many of the natural features of the development, creating lasting value for the future homeowners of
Fountain Hills.
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Fountain Hills 2"" Addition - Revised
Plans) for the following:
Water City Code Grading
Sewer Storm Water × . Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Buildin9 Code
Erosion Control Other
Recommendation: Approval Denial " Conditional Approval
Comments:
Signed: ':J ¥, ..... -.. '-'~" Date: "- '
Please return any comments by Thursday, Februar~ 28, 2002, to
Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (952) 447-9812
Fax: ~952) 447-4245
1:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\fountain hills 2nd\referral2.doc Page 2
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Fountain Hills 2"d Addition) for the
following:
v/ Water City Code v,/ Grading
v/' Sewer Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric v~" Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion Control Other
Recommendation: Approval
Denial
Conditional Approval
Comments:
Please return any comments by Thursday, February 7, 2002, to
Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (952) 447-9812
Fax: (952) 447-4245
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\fountain hills 2nd\referral.doc
Page 2
BRADLEY J. [.ARSON
PUBLIC WORK5 DIRECTOR/
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
February 13, 2002
SCOFF COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT · 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST' JORDAN, MN 55552-9339
(952) 496-8346 · Fax: (952) 496-8365, www. co.scottmn.us
Jane Kansier
City of Prio~ Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Preliminary Plat, Fountain Hills 2nd Addition
CSAIt 42 - East of CSAH 21
Dear Jane:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat as it relates to Highway Department issues and
offer the following comments or concerns:
· There appears to be a 20 foot notch in the fight-of-way at the northwest comer of the
property. We recommend that additional right-of-way be dedicated to be consistent
with what was dedicated with the 1 st Addition.
· Any change in drainage entering the County right-of-way shall require detailed
drainage calculations to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and
approval.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincere~ly,
Transportation Planner
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director
Fountain Hills 2nd Addition- Preliminmy
(assessment/fee review)
February 15, 2002
Outlot A Fountain Hills (PIN #25 363 004 0) is proposed to be developed as Fountain Hills Addition 2na
Addition. The remaining balance of current special assessments are detailed as follows:
Legal Description PIN Number Code Type Amount
Outlot A Fountain Hills 25 363 004 0 92 Paving $48,536.20
93 S&W $19,092.90
Since utilities are available to the property site, the cost for the extension of services internally will be the
responsibility of the developer. In addition to these improvement costs, the subdivision will be subject to
the following City charges:
Collector Street Fee
Stormwater Management Fee
Trunk Sewer & Water Fee
$1500.00/acre
$2943.00/ac (residential) $6092.00/ac (commercial)
$3500.00/acre
The application of these City charges would generate the following costs to the developer based upon a net
lot area calculation of 16.90 acres of commercial and residential lots as provided within the site data
summary sheet of the preliminary plat description:
Collector Street Fee:
16.90 acres ~ $1500.00/ac = $25,350.00
Storm Water Management Fee:
7.17 acres @ $2943/ac = $21,101.00
9.73 acres ~ $6092/ac = $59,275.00
Trunk Sewer & Water Charge:
16.90 acres @ $3500.00/ac = $59,150.00
.Assessment Balance:
$67,629.10
Assuming the initial net lot area of the plat does not change, the above referenced storm water, collector
street, trunk sewer and water charges would be determined and collected within the context of a
developer's agreement for the construction of utility improvements at the time of final plat approval.
There are no other outstanding special assessments currently certified against the property. Also, the tax
stares of the property is current with no outstanding delinquencies.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
Trip Generation
for
Fountain Hills 2nd Addition
Lots 1-11, Block 2
in
City of Prior Lake
The following information is from Trip Generation 6a Addition, Institute of Transportation
Engineers.
Assumptions:
64 Townhome Units
Traffic generation considers the P.U.D. for Fountain Hills 2nd Addition, consisting of Lots 1-
11, Block 2 independent of the rest of Fountain Hills.
1. Average Daily Trips
5.86 trips per townhome unit per day
64*5.86 = 375 trips per day attributed to the development
Disbursement
50% trips in = 187.5 trips per day
50% trips out = 187.5 trips per day
2. Peak Hour Morning Traffic - 7-9 A.M.
0.44 trips per townhome unit
64*0.44 = 28.16 trips in peak A.M.
Disbursement
Townhome - 18% trips in, 82% trips out
28.16 * 0.18 = 5.07 trips in
28.16 * 0.82 = 23.09 trips out
3. Peak Hour Evening Traffic - 4-6 P.M.
0.54 trips per townhome unit
64*0.54 = 34.56 trips in peak PM.
Disbursement
Townhome - 65 % trips in, 35 % trips out
34.-56 * 0.65 = 22.46 trips in
34.56 * 0.35 = 12.10 trips out
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
$C
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND A PROPOSED
ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE
NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 11, SPRING LAKE
TOWNSHIP
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO~N/A
MARCH 11, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
On February 4, 2002, the City Council adopted a resolution annexing 4.34 acres of land
located on the northeast side of Mushtown Road, between Pondview Trail and Toronto
Avenue in Section 11, Spring Lake Township. Since this property was not included on
the City plans, the Council also initiated an amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Map to include this property. The proposed amendment designates this
property for Low to Medium Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan
Map and zones the property as R-1 (Low Density Residential) on the City Zoning Map.
BACKGROUND:
The Scott County Comprehensive Plan designated this property for Urban Growth
Expansion. On the Scott County Zoning Map, the property is zoned UER (Urban
Expansion Reserve). Accord'mg to the Scott County Zoning Ordinance, the UER District
is intended "to preserve land in those areas of Scott County identified in its
Comprehensive Plan for logical future extension of urban land uses served by public
utilities. This zoning district is intended to preserve these areas of the County in very low
?ural development densities or clustered residential developments that may be compatibly
integrated with future urban development."
The Planning Commission is considering two separate actions at this time. The first is an
amendment to included this property on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and to
designate the property as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential). The second
IA02files\02rezone~d c'¢dar hdghts~.d c~dar pc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., P~/or Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPF~OP, TUNITY EMPLOYER
,I
action is to include this property on the City Zoning Map and to rezone it from the UER
district to the R-1 district.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site area consists of approximately 4.34 acres.
Tooograohy: This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from 1000'
MSL at the southeast comer of the site to 960' MSL on the north comer of the site.
Vegetation: There is an existing house and outbuildings on this site, which will be
demolished. There are also several stands of trees on this site. Any development on this
site will be subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Wetlands: There is a wetland, approximately 35,971 square feet in area, located along
the eastern side of this site. The northern tip of the site is also located within a larger
wetland to the north. Any development of this site will be subject to the wetland
mitigation requirements, which means that any disturbed wetlands must be mitigated.
Access: There are two access points to this site. Overlook Drive, located on the west
side of Toronto Avenue, is platted to the easterly property boundary of this site and can
be extended to serve this property. Access to the site may also be obtained from
Mushtown Road on the south.
Zoning and Land Use Plan Designation,of Ad,[acent Property.:
The property to the north, east and west is zoned R-1. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan
designates this property for R-L/MD uses.
The property to the south is presently outside of the Prior Lake City limits and is
designated as an Urban Growth Expansion Area. This area is zoned UER and RR-2.
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan includes this area on the City's
Comprehensive Plan Map and designates the area for Low to Medium Density
Residential uses. This designation is consistent with the Land Use Plan designation of
the surrounding area. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the development of
this property with single family lots. This type of development is also consistent with the
proposed R-L/MD designation.
The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives, which are applicable to this request, are as
follows:
1:\02files\02rezone\red cedar heights~red cedar pc.doc Page 2
GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT: Encourage the development of
suitable housing in a desirable environment.
OBJECTIVE No. 1: Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality
housing.
OBJECTIVE No. 2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality
residential environments.
OBJECTIVE No. 3: Provide suitable passive open space for the preservatiOn of the
natural environment and the enjoyment of residents.
The proposed designation is eousistent with the above stated goals and objectives in that
it offers a variety of housing, and it provides open space and the preservation of the
natural elements of the site.
Zone Change Request:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the following policies for
am~dments to the Official Zoning Map:
· The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical
or administrative error, or
· The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of
the area, or
· The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will be appropriate on
the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
The proposed R-1 district is consistent with the proposed R-L/MD designation. This
district is also consistent with the zoning of the surrounding area.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change as
proposed.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
1:~02files~2rezone'~e.d cedar hei$1atz~ed cedar pc.doc Page 3
The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1. The Planning staff finds the proposed R-
L/MD designation consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
R-1 district is also consistent with this designation. The staff therefore recommends
approval of this request.
ACTION REQUIRED:
This proposal requ'n'es two separate motions. The following motions are appropriate for
this action:
1. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Amendment to designate approximately 4.34 acres Low to Medium Density
Residential.
2. A motion and second to recommend approval of the zone change request to the R-1
district on the same 4.34 acres.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Aerial Photograph
1:~02filesV)2rezone~rcd cedar heightz~red cedar pc.doc Page 4
Lo~tion Map
Tom ~me Development
100 150
Feet
~o~ Coumy
Location Map
attp://w.../com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&ClientVersion=3, l&Form=Tme&Encode=Fals 3/5/0
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5D
CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT
AREA REQUIRED TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A
SEASONAL CABIN STRUCTURE ON TWIN ISLES,
Case File #02-020
LOTS 61, 62 AND 64, TWIN ISLES
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
MARCH 11, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from John & Linda
Meyer (applicant/owners) for the construction of a seasonal cabin structure on
three platted lots on "Twin Isles". The applicant's stated they attempted to
pumhase lot 63 and combine it with the other 3 lots in order to meet the minimum
lot area, but were unsuccessful and request the variance to allow the
construction as proposed (Attachment I - Certificate of Survey).
The following variance is requested:
A 2,396 Square foot vadance to permit the development of a seasonal
cabin structure on lots with a total area of 12,604 square feet rather
than the required minimum area of 15,000 square feet or two
conti.quous lakeshore lots(Ordinance Sec. 1104.309 Island
Development).
The applicants also currently own Lots 43, 44 and 45, where an existing
seasonal cabin is located (Attachment 2 - Lots 43, 44 and 45).
The City received a complaint in the year 2000, regarding the construction of an
accessory building on two of the subject lots on "Twin Isles", specifically Lots 62
and 64. Upon inspection, staff determined the construction had commenced
without the necessary building permits. The property owner was notified ofthe
violation and halted construction.
L:\02FlLES\02vafiances\02-020\VAR02-020,doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
Ai'~ EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION:
Lots 43, 44, 45, 61, 62 and 64, "Twin Isles", were platted in September of 1925.
They are nonconforming lots of record, substandard in dimensions and area.
Lots 43, 44 and 45, contain the existing seasonal cabin (principal structure), and
Lots 62 and 64, contain an existing non-conforming accessory structure (shed),
and a partial slab. The plat for '%win Isles" provides for a 20-foot wide private
driveway dedicated for the use of the respective property owners. This platted
driveway separates lots 43, 44 and 45, from Lots 61, 62 and 64 (Attachment 3 -
Twin Isles Plat).
The applicants now propose to construct a seasonal cabin structure on Lots, 61,
62 and 64. Currently Lots 62 and 64 are legally combined, but Lot 61 was
purchased at a later date in the year 2001. Lot 61 shall to be legally combined
under one title with Lots 62 and 64 subject to variance approval and pdor to the
issuance of a building permit. The total area for lots 61, 62 and 64 is 12,604
square feet, which is less than the minimum required 15,000 square feet or two
contiguous lakeshore lots, as required for island development. The proposed
structure is setback approximately 168' from the OHWM and exceeds the
minimum required 100' setback [Ord. Sec. 1104.309 Island Development (6)].
The subject site has a platted 20 foot driveway or right-of-way on three sides. By
code definition a "Right-Of-Way" is an area or strip of land, either public or
private, on which a right-of-passage has been recorded for the use of vehicles,
including trains, or pedestrians or both. The minimum structure setback from a
public or private right-of-way is 25', and is applied to all yards that front on the
driveway. The platted driveway/right-of-way connects with a 30' roadway to the
shoreline of the island, and is the only access available to the subject site.
An existing shed (accessory structure) is depicted on the subject site that does
not meet required setbacks from property boundaries, and is considered a non-
conforming structure. Staff recommends the Planning Commission to require the
applicants to remove or make the shed compliant with applicable ordinances as
a condition of any approved vadance resolution. The shed would have to be
placed in the rear yard behind the cabin and at least 10' from the rear lot line, to
be in a compliant location [Ord. Sec. 1104.309 Island Development (10); and
Ord. Sec. 1102.800 Residential Performance Standards (8)].
The applicants submitted impervious surface calculations completed by the
surveyor that describes all proposed impervious areas totaling 1,049 square feet
for 8% of the total lot area (Attachment 4 - Impervious Surface Worksheet).
The submitted survey depicts a 25' setback line from all property boundaries,
and within this line is the legal building envelop. The proposed seasonal cabins
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-020\VAR02-020.doc Page 2
dimensions are 36' wide by 24 feet deep, for a total ground floor area of 864
square feet with a second level of same size for a total ama of 1,728 square feet
including the 22.25' by 24' garage area. A deck wraps around two sides of the
structure and includes stairs for the only access to the second level. The main
level includes a two-stall garage, second bedroom, full bath and utility room. The
second level consists of living and dining moms, kitchen, full bath and main
bedroom. The submitted plans do not depict a basement level. (Attachment 5 -
Building Plans).
The applicants have applied for and received permit approval from Scott County
for an individual sewage treatment system on the subject site as depicted on the
survey. The septic design also depicts a well water location that is not shown on
the survey. Ordinance subsection 1104.309 (2)Any structure built on an island
must contain an enclosed septic system or incinerator toilet facilities.
(Attachment 6 - Scott County Permit).
The applicants have submitted a copy of a lease agreement for two on-land
parking spaces for vehicles at 15363 Red Oaks Road, as required by Code Sec.
1104.309 Island Development (Attachment 7 - Lease Agreement),
In addition, the applicants submitted a narration describing their request and
addressing the nine hardship criteria (Attachment 8 - Applicant Narration).
The City Building and Engineering Departments have reviewed this variance
request, and in essence both departments have no objection provided well
location and septic design are approved by Scott County.
Finally, the staff has reviewed Ordinance Section 1101.501 (3) Lots Of Record -
Buildable, as it relates to this development and variance request. Paragraph c.
states in part, If 2 or more lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are
of record, and if the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot area
and lot width, the lands involved shall be considered to be an individual parcel,
and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes
compliance with lot area or lot width requirements by the Ordinance. The subject
Lots 61, 62 and 64, do not have continuous fronta,qe with Lots 43, 44, and 45,
which are also owned by the applicant.
Subsection 1104.309: Island Development: (8), that states in part, "any
construction project shall require a restoration plan to be submitted and reviewed
by the City to ensure that natural vegetation is retained insofar as possible to
screen seasonal structures and other buildings on site~. The submitted survey
includes a significant tree inventory for the subject site and a preservation plan
shall be a requirement of any future development of the property.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-O20\VAR02-020.doc Page 3
The Department of Natural Resoumes was referred and responded to this
variance request. The DNR stated they have no issues with the variance
proposed, and questioned whether 2 suitable septic sites been identified on the
property. Scott County approved one septic site for this application.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
Lots 61, 62 and 64, "Twin Isles", are existing lots of record platted in 1925.
When all th'ree lot areas are combined the subject site is nonconforming by
today's standards. Therefore, a hardship exists in relation to codes in effect
in the period it was platted and the Ordinances in effect at this time. There is
no legal alternative to obtain additional lot area or lot width to the subject site.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
The lot area and width of the subject site are .somewhat peculiar in that most
lots platted at the time where at about 50 feet wide. The required minimum
area for a buildable lot on Twin Isles under the current ordinance is at least
15,000 square feet or two contiguous lakeshore lots.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
As owner of existing platted lots, the owner has a substantial right to
reasonable development.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The granting of the requested variances will not unreasonably affect these
conditions or values.
L:\02FILES\02variances~02-020\VAR02-020.doc Page 4
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the requested variances will not unreasonably affect these
conditions or values.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the proposed variances will not be contrary to the intent of
this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
The requested variances are necessary to alleviate undue hardship.
The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of
the owners of the property.
The application of the provisions of this Ordinance on the affected property
results in hardship.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Increased development costs are not grounds for granting this variance, as
additional lot area is not available for the subject site.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff believes that by applying today's Ordinance requirements on
undeveloped existing platted lots of record creates a hardship as required by the
preceding stated conditions in this report. The staff recommends the Planning
Commission adopted the following resolution approving the requested variance.
,Approval of this request should be subject to the condition the lot is developed
as shown on the attached survey to ensure additional variances are not required.
The following are conditions which shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the proposed structure:
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-020\VAR02-020.doc Page 5
1. The property owner shall file with the Scott County Recorder a property
title that combines Lots 61,62, and 64.
2. The subject site shall be developed as shown on the attached survey to
ensure additional variances are not required.
3. The permit is subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable County
and State agency regulations.
The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the
Planning Department within 60 days. The resolution must be recorded
and proof of recording submitted to the Planning Department. An Assent
Form must be signed and, pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Code,
the variance will be null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained
for the proposed structure within one year after adoption of this resolution.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
denying the variance requests.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Variance Resolution 02-02PC approving a 2,396
square foot variance to allow a lot area of 12,604 square feet rather than the
required minimum area of 15,000 square feet.
L:\02 FI LES\02varia nces\02-020WAR02-020.doc Page 6
RESOLUTION 02-002PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 2,396 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
LOT AREA OF 12,604 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MHN1MUM
AREA OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
John & Linda Meyer have applied for a variance from the Zon'mg Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of a seasonal cabin structure located in the R1 (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts "Twin Isles", Prior Lake, MN, and legally
described as follows:
Lots 61, 62 and 64, "Twin Isles", Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in Case
File #02-020PC and held hearings thereon on March 11, 2002.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health,
safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light
and air, danger of fare, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the
surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible
to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not result in the
impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably
increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public
safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other
respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
The pre-existing lots of record do not meet the current Ordinance for minimum lot size for
island development in the K1SD Districts. This situation creates unbuildable lots and a
hardship with respect for the preservation and.enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the owner.
There is justifiable hardship caused by the minimum lot area required today and the platted
lots of record. Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the granting of the
variance to permit a buildable lot for a seasonal cabin structure.
7. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, a~d is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
l:\02files\02variances\02-020~res02-002.doc 1
'16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
8. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the
applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #02-020PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following
variance for the proposed structure as shown in the attached revised certificate survey dated
2/12/02:
1. A 2,396 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 12,604 square feet rather than the
required minimum area of 15,000 square feet or 2 contiguous lakeshore lots, whichever is
less.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the proposed structure:
1. The property owner shall file with the Scott County Recorder a property title that combines
Lots 61, 62, and 64.
2. The lot is developed as shown on the attached survey to ensure additional variances are not
required.
3. The permit is subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable County and State agency
regulations.
The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning Department
within 60 days. The resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the
Planning Department. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant to Section 1108.400 of
the City Code, the variance will be null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for
the proposed structure within one year after adoption of this resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 11, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\02files\02variances\02-020\res02-002.doc
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
JOHN MEYER
8500 EWING ROAD
EILOOI~INGTONj MN. §545~
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE 120-C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447'-25?0
ATTACHMENT 'I -, RTIFICATE OF SURVEY
N ~O° 2/'
PLA T s'~ ~i.,
DESCRIPTION:
Lots 61, 62 sd 64, "TWIN ISLES", SooU County, Mim~aso~. Also showing the
location of thc proposed dwelling as of this 18th day of July, 2001.
NOTES: Ben~hraark Elevation 932.25 Top of the existing concrete slab.
930.4 D~notes existing grade elev~ation
(931.5) Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
NOTE THE DISTANCE FROM THE
OHW L. 9040 TO 'J~lE PROFOSED
SEASONAL CAnlN IS A PPROXlMATL~
rn
Z
-H
--- 119. 98 N 54°30'38'W---
PRIOR
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calc.ulations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For Al1 Properties Located in the Shoreland Distil'ct (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
LotArea~2. lt0Oq Sq. Feet x 30% =. ............. 5~5[
~ LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
HOUSE x =
X =
ATTACFiED GA_RAGE x =
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTU1RE ......................
DETACHED BLDGS
(Oara6 x
TOTAL DETACHED B~LD~GS .......................
X
X ----
Di:klWEWAY/P AVED AREAS
CDriveway-paved or not)
(SidewalkT'Pa.r'kin g Areas)
PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS
(Open Deek~ ¼" min. opening between
boards, wRh a pcrvlous surface below.
are not considered to bc impervious)
TOTAL DECKS ........................................................
zq x =
X
TOTAL OTI~R. ......................................................
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
~VE~,,
Company q'o.~ r~ ~,a,~a l ~ o~
Date
Phone # %~'1'- 7..$"1 o
ATTACHMENT 5 - BUILDING PLANS
""~ ; ;': ..... ( MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM (ISTS) PERMIT
COUNTY USE ONLY .............................. COUNTY USE ONLY ............................ COUNTY USE ONLY
Twp/City /tgr",* c~r' ~:~.,,"f'e
city/Zip e-~
Site Evaluator I~]reS-]-r,~ ¢- _qe~.~ Installer
Septic Tank Siz~ as per design submitted and approved '72'50
Pump Tank Size as per design submitted and approved
Drainfield Size as per design submined and approved (below)
/ c/'x/,O'
Date Received __
Permit Number ~'-
Receipt Number
Fee J
New ISTS X Replacement
Percolation Rates ~, ~ &2
Garbage Disposal yes no
Number of Potential Bedrooms
Depth to Restricting Layer
Block #
State
1 Health
TOWNSHIP OR CITY USE ONLY
Are there any wetlands on property? __'/'es __
Wetland Replacement Plan attached Yes __
Recommend: Approval __ Disapproval __
No Will any wetlands be impacted by proposed project? Yes __ No
No LGU Exemption Ct Please ar;ach copy of exemption.
Signature of Township or City Clerk
Date
- COUNTY USE ONLY ............................ COUNTY USE ONLY .............................. COUNTY USE ONLY -
·
ISTS Setbacks: Building (tanks) /~> (drainfield) ~" Lot Lines or ROW/Easement Lake/CreelCWetland . '~'-'c:9 / Wells ,~__9 /
Approved b'~ Denied __ By Scott County Environmental Health, subject to existing regulations and the following conditions:
1. Verify and maintain all required setbacks and elevations.
2. Protect (fence off) the primary and alternate drainfield locations while any building construction activity is occurring
on the site and maintain fencing or some other approved barrier if the drainfield could be damaged after installation.
3. Install rock bed on contour and maintain at least 36 inches between the rock bed and the water table/mottling.
4. Protect sewer lines and system from freezing.
5. Divert surface water away from or around the drainfield area.
6. Sod or seed the area as soon as possible upon completion to prevent soil erosion and damage to the drainfield (for late
season installations, hay or straw can be substituted until sodding or seeding can be done in the spring).
7.,~~ valid for 12 months from th,e date issued. .
ATTACHMENT 7 - LEASE AGREEMENT
LEASE AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this ' 17th ' day of July, 2000, between James Feick,
hereinafter referred to as lessor and John M. Meyer and Linda J. Meyer, hereinafter referred to as lessees.
WHEREAS, lessor is the owner of real property located at 15363 Red Oaks Road S.E.,
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372, and,
WHEREAS, lessees are the owners of real property legally described as:
Lots 62 and 64, Twin Isles, Prior Lake, Minnesota, and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to provide for lessor leasing to lessees two (2) parking
spaces at the property.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Lessor hereby leases to lessee two (2) parking spaces at his property located at
15363 Red Oaks Road S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372.
2. Lessor and lessees agree that there shall be no rental due for the leasing of the two (2)
parking spaces referred to in paragraph 1.
3. Lessor and lessees agree that this Lease Agreement shall exist for as long as lessor
owns his property at 15363 Red Oaks Road S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease Agreement the day
and year first ab~'~.e~dtten.
James Feick
John M. Mey~'~
Linda J.('Meyer O
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this ' 17th ' day
of July, 2000.
ATTACHMENT 8 - APPLICANT NARRATIVE
APPLICATION OF
JOHN AND LINDA MEYER
FOR LOT SIZE VARIANCE ON TWIN ISLAND
Introduction
We own three contiguous non-lakeshore lots in the plat of Twin Isle, a copy of which
is attached. There are 64 lots shown in the plat, 52 of which are lakeshore lots. The
remaining lots consist of a group of four lots (of which we own three) and another group of
eight lots, each group surrounded by a 20 foot wide platted driveway. Our three lots total
12,604 square feet in area and we would like to build a seasonal cabin there.
Nature of the Variance
We request a 2,396 square foot lot area variance fi:om the 15,000 square foot
requirement of Section 1104.309 (4), which says that "On Twin Island, the minimum lot size
requirement is 15,000 square feet or 2 contiguous (side by side) lakeshore lots, whichever
is less." The area ora typical lakeshore lot in Twin Isles is about 5,000 square feet so in the
vast majority of cases on Twin Isle the lot size minimum is approximately 10,000 square
feet, or more than 2,500 square feet smaller than the parcel on which we wish to build.
Discussion
The intent of the 15,000 square foot limitation appears to be to limit the two inland
areas to one seasonal cabin on each. Our ownership of three of the four lots in one inland
area satisfies this objective without allowing for any additional residences in the area.
We believe the requested variance meets the hardship standards of Prior Lake's
zoning ordinance, as follows.
(1)
Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason
of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application or the terms of this Ordinance
would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship
upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
The only circumstance in which we could meet the ordinance area requirement would
be if we owned Lot 63 as well as Lots 61, 62 and 64. A strict application of the ordinance
-1-
would in effect prohibit any seasonal cabin in the area unless and until (and only if) we could
acquire Lot 63 also, even though the combination of two lakeshore lots permitted by the
ordinance could result in building on a parcel of substantially less area than what we own.
(2)
Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property
or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or
structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
As previously mentioned, the inland areas appear to be singled out by the ordinance
for treatment different from that afforded the 52 lakeshore lots, and again the intent of the
ordinance appears to be to limit density in the two inland areas to one seasonal cabin each.
(3)
The granting of the proposed variance is-necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the owner.
Granting of the variance is necessary in this case to preserve our right to the highest
and best use of this island property, namely the construction and enjoyment of a seasonal
cabin in an area intended for this primary use.
(4)
The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and
air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
The property is located at the highest point of Twin Island, inland from the lake, and
therefore will not interfere with other owners' view and enjoyment of the lake. An additional
cabin on this island has no effect on the general public and will not endanger the seasonal
users of the island.
(5)
The granting of the variance will not unreasonably affect the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health safety,
and comfort of the area.
The character of the neighborhood is limited to seasonal cabins and a new cabin will
if anything increase the value of existing properties in the area. The increased density is
consistent with the apparent intent of the ordinance to allow one seasonal cabin in each of
the two inland areas.
(6)
The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
-2-
The primary intent of the ordinance, as applied here, is to limit density in this
recreational use area, and the construction of one cabin meets the density limitation.
(7)
The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but
is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The only other potential use of these three lots would be for an accessory structure
of limited size in connection with the three lakeshore lots we now own and which are
occupied by an existing cabin. Granting of the variance in this case is the only way in which
the inland area of lots 61-64 may be used for a seasonal cabin based on present ownership.
(8)
The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to the
affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the property.
The lots are vacant except for a small shed and the hardship results from the
ordinance's application to this unique area rather than any actions we have taken.
(9)
Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be
grounds for granting a variance.
The hardship in this case is our inability to build a cabin without the variance. Cost
or economic hardship is not a factor, except to the extent that without the variance the
property will have virtually no value when compared to its value with a seasonal cabin
constructed on it.
-3-
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5E
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWO PRINCIPAL USES
ON A SINGLE LOT IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT
(CASE FILE #02-22)
PRIOR LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5690 CREDIT
RIVER ROAD
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
MARCH 11, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Prior Lake Baptist Church has filed an application for a Conditional Use P~nfit (CUP) to
allow two principal structures on a single lot on the property located 5690 Credit River
Road. This site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). No variances are required for
this project.
REVIEW PROCESS:
Thc proposed Conditional Use Permit should be reviewed in accordance with the criteria
found in Section 1102.1203 and Section 1108 of the City Code. Section 1102.1203
includes the specific conditions for the proposed use. Section 1108 includes the general
CUP criteria.
SITE ANALYSIS:
Prior Lake Baptist Church is planning an addition to the existing church and school
located at 5690 Credit River Road. In order to meet the impervious surface requirements
for this development, the Church has purchased the adjacent property to the northwest.
There is an existing single family home and detached garage on this lot. The Church is
proposing to rent the single family home until sometime in the future, when the home
will be removed. There is no specific date for the removal of this structure.
Section 1101.501 (4) o f the Zoning Ordinance states the following:
1:\02files\02cup\02-22 baptist\baptist pc.doc 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (9S2) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Principal buildings. There shall be no more than 1 principal building on 1 lot except by
Conditional Use Permit or as provided under subsection 1106.1 O0 through 1106. 600.
The Church is requesting a conditional use permit in order to maintain the existing
residence. It must be noted that approval of the CUP does not constitute automatic
approval of the church addition. The Church has also filed an application for site plan
approval for the proposed addition. Site plan approval is an administrative process,
handled by the staff, unless there is a need for variances.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.200 of the City Code sets forth the criteria for approval of a CUP.
(1) The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to "create an environment in which
all citizens have the opportunity to develop their full potential. " Objectives of this
goal are to ensure the development of a broad range of educational and learning
opportunities. This proposal is consistent with these goals.
(2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare
of the community as a whole.
This proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the
community.
(3) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and
the Use District in which the Conditional Use is located.
The proposed addition will be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance. In allowing this CUP, the impervious surface on the site will not exceed
30% of the lot area.
(4) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
services, or improvements which are either existing or proposed.
The streets and utilities to serve this development are in place. This use will not
adversely affect those services.
(5) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties in close proximity to the conditional use.
The only uses in close proximity to this site are industrial uses and vacant land. The
existing single family dwelling will be under the control of the Church, and will not
have an adverse impact on the nearby properties.
(6) The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape
plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect,
or civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, approved by the City
l:~2files\O2cup\02-22 baptist\baptist pc.doc
Council and incorporated as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the
City Council.
The proposed addition must be approved under the site plan approval process. This
process will ensure that all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are met.
(7) The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a professional civil
engineer registered in the State of Minnesota which illustrate locations of city
water, city sewer, fire hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and cable lines,
natural gas mains, and other service facilities. The plans shall be included as
part of the conditions set forth in the CUP approved by the City Council.
The site plans have been prepared under the supervision of a civil engineer.
(8) The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the City Council
may find necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety and
neighborhood character. Such additional conditions may be imposed in those
situations where the other dimensional standards, performance standards,
conditions or requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to achieve the
objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these circumstances, the City
Council may impose restrictions and conditions on the CUP which are more
stringent than those set forth in the Ordinance and which are consistent with
the general conditions above. The additional conditions shall be set forth in the
CUP approved by the City Council.
The proposed addition must be approved under the site plan approval process. This
process will ensure that all requirements of thc Zoning Ordinance are met. The
Commission may wish to attach a condition to this CUP requiring site plan approval
prior to recording of the approving resolution.
CONCLUSION
Staffrecommends approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Staff must approve the site plan for the church addition before the resolution
approving the CUP is recorded.
2. The applicant must file an application to combine the lots for City approval.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the CUP subject to the above conditions.
2. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the
issues that have been discussed.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
l:\02flles\02cup\02-22 baptist\b~ptist pc.doc 3
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the CUP subject to the listed
conditions.
l:\02files\02cup~02-22 baptist\baptist pc.doc 4
Location Map
Prior Lake Baptist Chur.,~J
COND,
NO.
I0Ol
N
Feet
February 6, 2002
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
RE: Prior Lake Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit Application:
To Whom It May Concern:
Brief Description of Proposed Project:
The Prior Lake Baptist Church is proposing an addition of 7,694 square feet to the existing
facilities of 13,912 square feet. To allow for the addition to fulfill the 30 pement impervious site
coverage required by being within the watershed district of Markley Lake, the church has
purchased the adjacent residential property that has an existing, occupied house and garage. The
short term plan is to allow the existing family to continue to rent the existing residence. At a
later date, the intention is to have the house removed. The Conditional Use Permit is required
due the composite site area used to satisfy the impervious surface requirement will have two
primary structures. By ordinance, only one primary structure is allowed on each property.
Proposed Use of the Site:
There will be no change from the current function of the site. The residence exists and is
occupied and will remain so with no expansion. The church addition will not bring any
additional or different use to the site. The addition will allow space for current uses to expand to
meet current needs.
!
i
February 6, 2002
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
RE: Prior Lake Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit Application:
To Whom It May Concern:
Brief Description of Proposed Project:
The Prior Lake Baptist Church is proposing an addition of 7,694 square feet to the existing
facilities of 13,912 square feet. To allow for the addition to fulfill the 30 percent impervious site
coverage required by being within the watershed district of Markley Lake, the church has
purchased the adjacent residential property that has an existing occupied house and garage. The
short term plan is to allow the existing family to continue to rent the existing residence. At a
later date, the intention is to have the house removed. The Conditional Use Permit is required
due the composite site area used to satisfy the impervious surface requirement will have two
primary structures. By ordinance, only one primary structure is allowed on each property.
Proposed Use of the Site:
There will be no change from the current function of the site. The residence exists and is
occupied and will remain so with no expansion. The church addition will not bring any
additional or different use to the site. The addition will allow space for current uses to expand to
meet current needs.
\
\
(
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
PLANNING REPORT
SF
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A
COMBINED PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL ~TO
BE KNOWN AS DEERFIELD 6~
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
MARCH 11, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an application for a combined
prelim'mary plat and final plat for the property is located on the south side of Fish Point
Road, west of Deerfleld Drive, at 17252, 17254, 17256 and 17258 Deerfield Drive. The
proposed plat will add 10' of property to the existing townhouse lots, described as Lots 5-
8, Block 1, Deerfie!d 2~, which will allow the construction of a deck on the townhonse
units.
ANALYSIS:
Applicant:
D.R. Horton, Inc. - Minnesota
20860 Kenbridge Circle, Suite 100
Lakeville, MN 55044
Project Engineer:
Brandt Engineering and Surveying
14041 Bumhaven Drive, #I 14
Bumsville, MN 55337
Location of Property:
This property is located on the south side of Fish
Point Road, west of Deerfield Drive.
Existing Site Conditions:
There are 4 townhouses located on this site.
Zoning and Land Use
Designation:
The property is zoned R-2 (Low to Medium Density
Residential) and is a part of the De=~field PUD. The
2020 Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as
R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential).
t:\O2flies\O2subdivisions\O2final plats~een~etd 6~ieer6 pc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.l:., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPI:ORTUN]TY EMPLOYER
Proposed Development:
The proposed plat will add an additional 10' of area
to each of the existing townhouse lots. This 10' wide
strip of land is currently part of the common area for
the townhouse development. The addition of this
strip does not reduce the required common area
below the minimum mount required.
Streets/Access/Circulation:
There are no new streets located within this plat.
Access to the townhouses is from Deerfield Drive, a
private street.
Grading/Erosion Control: There will be no additional grading on this site.
Sanitary Sewer and
Watermain:
Sanitary sewer service and water service are located
in the existing private street. No additional utilities
are required.
Landscaping:
The landscaping requirements for this development
were approved as a part of the overall PUD plan.
The addition of this strip does not affect the required
landscaping for the site.
Parkland Dedication:
This property has been previously platted. Park
dedication requirements for this subdivision do not
apply.
Finance/Assessment Fee
Review:
This subdivision is not subject to any additional fees.
The property has previously been assessed for street
ant utility improvements. There are no outstanding
special assessments. Tax status is current.
ANALYSIS:
This application is being processed as a combined preliminary plat and final plat under
the provisions of Section 1002.400 of the Subdivision Ordinance. This section allows the
City staff to combine the preliminary and final plat process when a proposed subdivision
meets all of the following requirements:
The resulting subdivision contains no more than 5 lots.
The proposed subdivision is located in an area where streets and utilities are in
place and capable of serving the subdivision.
The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication or construction of future
1:\02files\O2subdivisions\O2final plats\deerfield 6\deer6 pc.doc
Page 2
streets, and will not interfere with the development of adjacent properties.
The resulting parcels shall conform with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
The combined preliminary and final plat process requires a public hearing before the
Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. The difference is that the
Planning Commission and the City Council are simultaneously reviewing both the
preliminary and final pat.
The proposed plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning
Ordinance. The only issue with this plat has been identified by the City Attorney as part
of the review of the title work. These concerns are outlined in the attached letter, and
must be addressed prior to approval of the plat.
The Planning staff recommends approval of this plat subject to the following condition:
1. The 6 issues identified by the City Attorney in the letter dated Februa~ 26, 2002,
must be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney before the City will sign the
final Plat documents.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the preliminary and final plat of Deerfield 6~ as
presented and subject to the condition listed above, or with specific changes directed
by the Planning Commission.
2. Table or continue the public hearing to a date and time certain and provide the
developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future
Planning Commission review.
3. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific findings of fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsAltemafive gl
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion recommending approval of the preliminary and final plat of Deerfield 6~ is
required.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
1:\02flles\O2subdivisions\O2flnal plats~deerfield 6~eer6 pc.doc Page 3
2. Copy of Proposed Plat of Deerfield 6~
3. Applicant's Narrative
4. City Attorney's Letter, dated February 26, 2002
1:\02files\O2subdivisions\O2final plats\deerfleld 6\deer6 pc.doc
Page 4
Loc~tion Map
200 0 200 400 Feet
CERllFICATE: OF SURVE:Y
for
D.R. HORTON
M32-2519-01
~ 2
Scale: 1" = 30'
17252
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
superws*on and that I om o duly Registered
LonCI Surveyor under the Lows at the State
of Minnesota
D~Te '~/ 71J~./f' T.Z)O~ Reg No 8140
54 56 &: 58 Oeerfield
DESCRIPTION
DEERFIELD SIXTH
Scott County, Minnesota
Plat beo['ings shown
Drive SI
BRANDT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING,
Burnsville, MN 55337
(952) 435-1966 M52-2519-0t
Re/DEERFHRLD SIXTH
31 January, 2002
Paramount Engineering is the company that prepared the preliminary plat and
prepared the engineering drawings for the DEERFIELD project. The location of the
proposed buildings in the townhouse part of the project included a 25' setback fi.om the
back of the curb that runs in fromt of the building. When the construction was completed
and the building staked at this particular location it was found that the setback fi.om the
curb was less than 25' to one of the units so the building was moved back to
accommodate the required setback. This caused the proposed deck at the rear of the
buildings to project into the common area. This replat makes the lots 100 feet deep to
more than accommodate the decks. (I am now platting 100 foot deep lots, as you could
notice in the DEERFIELD FOURTH plat,)
The open space that was calculated for the original subdivision of DEERFIELD
inciuded the decks that are now being added to these four units. This replatting will allow
the decks to be added to the units and will leave the open space the same as provided for
in the original approved DEERFIELD. Exhibit A attached hereto is Page 20 of the book
prepared for the original PUD. The square footages included the decks for the
Townhomes (Coach). Exhibit B is a page fi.om the homeowner's association that shows
that the part of the lot not covered by the building is a "Use and Enjoyment Easement"
for the members of the homeowner's association and that area was part of the open space
area calculation. Since all that is being done here is the lot area being expanded to allow
the addition of the decks, no change is occurring to the open spa~e calculation.
There will be no modification to the approved landscaping plan because the decks
were assumed to be part of the buildings when the original landscaping plan was
prepared. Enclosed is a copy of the "Landscape detail - typical 4 unit" that was included
with the original PUD plans for DEERFIELD. Since the decks were included with this
typical layout nothing is changed with regards to the landscaping.
The fee owners and the mortgage companies that now exist on three of the lots
will sign a "consent to plat" form at the time the plat mylars will come to the City for
signatures.
The only result of this plat is to allow the units to add the standard-sized decks (12
foot by 12 foot) that D.R. Horton includes or adds to these style of units. Nothing is
added to traffic or congestion of population.
The attached certificate of survey shows the delineated wetland boundary which
is elevation 946. The 100-yr high water level is 943.2 and this approximate contour is
also shown.
[~] oo~'/o03
halleland lewis nilnn
sipkins & johnson
February 26, 2002
VIA Facsimile & U.S. Mail
Ms. Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Southeast
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Re:
Deerfield Sixth Edition ~ Proposed Plat
Our File No. 20245~0001
Dear Ms. Kansier:
Suesan Pace asked me to review the Title Reports for Lots 5 through 8, inclusive, Block 1
Deerfield Second Common Interest Community No. 1080 (the "Property") and to respond to
your request distributed February 12, 2002.
I have reviewed the Reports of Title from Scot-L County Abstract and Title, Inc. dated
January 16, 2002 and a copy o~ the preliminary plat of Deerfield Sixth (the "Plat'). It is our
understanding that the Plat has been drawn to reflect an expansion of the Property by 5 feet
which is a part of adjacent Lot 45, Block 1, Deerfield Second ("Adjacent Land") which
.comprises common interest elements.
Based on my review of the ReporLs of Title and the Plat, I have the following comments:
a. The Plat does not properly reflect ownership of each of Lots 5 through 8,
inclusive, Block 1. Based on the Trtle Report~, Lots 5, 6 and 8 are owned by individuals and/or
trustees other than D.R. Horton, Inc. - Minnesota, and Lot 7 is owned by D.R. Horton, Inc. -
Minnesota. The ownership information needs to be properly reflected in the Plat.
b. It appears that the Plat fails to set forth the correct ownership of the Adjacent
Land. i3ased on the information provided, it appears that the Adjacent Land is Common
Interest Community property owned by the Association. Because of the expansion of the
Property by way of reduction of the Adjacent Land, this ownership needs to be reflected on the
Plat.
c. The legal description in the Plat fails to properly describe the 5 foot strip of
property that comprises the expansion. This legal description needs to be set forth with more
specificity.
[~003/003
Ms. Jane Kansier
February 26, 2002
Page 2
d. Because the proposed revision to the Plat involves an expansion of a Common
Interest Community, we need a copy of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions to (0 ensure that the proposed expansion is permissible and consistent with the
Declaration; (ii) determine whether a resolution is required by the Association members for the
expansion. (and if so, we need to review such resolution); and (111) determine whether the
Declaration requires amendment in connection with the proposed revision to Plat.
e. The Plat fails to set forth the specification required under Minnesota Statutes
Section 515.B2-110 and fails to include a certification by a registered professional land
surveyor and/or registered professional architect that the Plat accurately depicts all information
required by Minnesota Statutes Section 515.B2-110. The Plat represents an expansion of the
Common Interest Community under applicable law and, therefore, even though the change is
small, must be completed as an expansion of the Common Interest Community.
f. The dedication of the Plat falls to include all owners. It is acceptable that
mortgagees consent by way of a separate wr'rtten consent, however, the owners' signatures
(including signatures of spouses, if any), including owners of Lots 5 through, inclusive, 8 and
Lot 45 should appear in the dedication of the Plat.
Please send to my atte. ntion at your eadiest convenience, (i) the revised plat corrected to cure
the deficiencies set forth herein; (ii) the Plat for Deerfield Second Edition; (iii) a copy of the
Declaration with all amendments thereto; and (iv) a copy of the corresponding resolution, if
any, to approve the expansion.
Please call me (612/204-4142) or Ronald Peterson, Esq. (612/204-4122) should you have any
questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
Cegeste~DeMars. Esq.
Enclosures
Suesan Lea Pace. Esq.
Ronald P. Peterson. Esq.
CJDAmb
DN;141497