HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/20022.
3.
4.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MAY 13, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
A. Case #02-029 Steve Mosey Variance Resolution.
Public Hearings:
Case #02-026: Bluff Heights Apartments is requesting a Conditional Use Permit
to develop a 49-unit apartment building on 3.62 acres of vacant land located on
the north side of Franklin Trail, east of Highway 13 and west of BluffHeights
Trail.
Case #02-045: Shamrock Development is requesting an Amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to change the designation from Community Retai! Shopping
(C-CC) to Residential - High Density (RI-ID) for the vacant land located on the
west side of CSAH 83, south of CSAH 42 and north of The Wilds.
Case #02-044: Shamrock Development is requesting to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to reclassify Hass Lake as a Recreational Development Lake and to
rezone the adjacent 20 acres from the A (Agriculture) District to the R-1 (Low
Density Residential) District.
Cases #02-055 (Rezoning); #02-038 (PUD Amendment); #02-039 (Preliminary
Plat); and 02-048 (Vacation) Wensmarm Homes have submitted applications for
an amendment to the Wensmarm 1't Addition PUD Plan and a preliminary plat.
This proposal adds 0.53 acres of the Kuper property, located along the east side of
Wensmann 2~ Addition, to the existing PUD. The plan extends the private street
and adds 4 townhouse units to the PUD plan. The vacation application is to vacate
the existing drainage and utility easement over Lot 39.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUg, L OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. Old Business:
Case File #02-013 (confmued) Tom Holme Conslrucfion, Inc. is requesting
consideration of a preliminary plat named Red Cedar Heights consisting of 4.34
acres to be subdivided into 7 lots for single family residential development. The
property is located on the northeast side of Mushtown Road, west of Toronto
Avenue and Overlook Drive.
7. New Business:
A. Case//02-043 The City of Prior Lake is requesting to vacate a drainage and utility
easement on part of Lot 1, Block 2, Waterfxont Passage Addition.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
PLANNING COMM/SSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the April 22, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer
Sue McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes fi.om the April 8, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson mad the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case File #02-013 Tom Holme Construction, Inc. is requesting consideration
of a preliminary plat named Red Cedar Heights consisting of 4.34 acres to be
subdivided into 7 lots for single-family residential development. The property is
located on the northeast side of Mushtown Road, west of Toronto Avenue and
Overlook Drive.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Tom Holme Construction, Inc. has applied for a preliminary plat for the Property located
on the north side of Mushtown Road, directly west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook
Drive. The preliminary plat consists of 4.34 acres to be subdivided into 7 lots for single-
family residential development.
Staff has identified three issues that must be addressed. The first is the storm water
nmoffmanagement ponds. The Engineering Department has reviewed the storm water
L:\02FILES\02plannin g comm~02pcminutesWIN042202.doc
Planning Comtnission Meeting
April 22, 2002
runoffplan and has determined the second pond, located on the north end of Lots 3 and 4
may be acceptable, but is not the most desirable plan. The staff and the developer are
reviewing other options to manage some of this runoff.
The second issue is the required buffer strip around the wetlands. The plan does not
identify the proper buffer strip, and must be revised to include this area.
Finally, the tree inventory and preservation plan must be revised to identify the trees in
terms of caliper inches. This information is required in order to determine whether or not
tree replacement is necessary.
There are other engineering issues pertaining to the development of this site. These
issues are outlined in a memorandum from the City Engineer, dated March 28, 2002.
These issues must be addressed as part of the final plat application.
1. There will be no grading permit issued until the final plat has been approved by the
City Council.
2. Identify the required buffer strip around the delineated wetland and the required 30'
setback from the 100-year flood elevation of the wetlands and ponds on the grading
plan.
3. Revise the tree inventory to identify the caliper inches of the significant trees.
Provide the calculations indicating the number of caliper inches to be removed for
development of roads, utilities and drainage ways, and the number of caliper inches to
be removed for building pads and driveways.
4. Raise the garage floor elevations where possible at least 1' above the curb elevations
to provide positive drainage away from the house.
5. All improvements, including utilities, roads, storm water ponds and so on, must be
constructed in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual. All plans must
also be prepared in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual.
Staff recommended approval with the above 5 conditions.
Criego questioned if the final plat would come before the PC. Kansier responded it
would go straight to the City Council.
Comments from the public:
Jim Johnson, the Engineer from Hakanson Anderson Associates, representing the
contractor, felt staff presented the information very well. Johnson said they did hold a
public information meeting and there were no significant concerns from the public. They
have been in contact with the Spring Lake Watershed District. Most issues have been
addressed. The City Staff and the Watershed are working on the best alternative for
runoff. The tree planting survey will be revised as requested. The developer and
property owners were also present for questions.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vlN042202.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 2002
Jennifer McCollough, 17294 Toronto Avenue, the adjacent property owner, was
concerned with the rtmoffon Lot 1. McCollough suggested a better solution for the
runoff would be to have the driveway come offMushtown Road.
The public hearing closed at 6:50 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Asked staffto respond to McCollough's concern for runoff. City Engineer Sue
McDermott explained when a building permit is submitted and reviewed; the permit
woald not be approved until the runoffwas addressed. Originally, the developer had
brought in a plan with all the homes in a cul-de-sac coming offMushtown Road. The
City would like to minimize access on to Mushiown Road. There is an existing
driveway on the property with access to Mushtown Road. The proposed roadway
takes its place.
· Felt the driveway was excessive.
· Liked the fact the street is going to be 28 feet wide.
· The ponds and water retention issues are important.
· Questioned the Watershed District's concern. McDermott stated the plan that could
be approved by the Watershed District is slightly different than what is before the
Commissioners. The City has a concern because of the maintenance of the ponds and
lawns with steep slopes. It is not desirable for the City to maintain the pond. The
staff will meet with the Watershed District to discuss alternatives including a "dry
pond".
· What is the relationship with the ponds on the north section and the existing homes?
McDermott said there would not be any problems.
· Biggest concern was water retention.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with Atwood on the water retention.
· From the public hearing and the informational meeting most issues seemed to be
addressed.
· Supported the proposal with staf/'s five conditions.
Criego:
· This is a good use of the property.
· Strong feelings with the wetlands. Would like to see the final plans for this project
before approving.
· Agreed with staff other than the retention plan should be brought forward.
Lemke:
· Single-family homes are a good use for this property.
· Questioned staff on the access off Mushtown Road. Is another driveway appropriate
off Mushtown or can the runoff be addressed without changing the driveway?
Kansier noted the earlier comments by City Engineer Sue McDermott indicated the
L:~02FILES~2planning comm\02 pcminutes~vlN042202 .doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
runoffissue could be addressed without changing the driveway. Another driveway
access to Mushtown Road is not very desirable. Also, there is a fairly steep grade to
Mushtown Road.
,, Stamson:
· This is an appropriate development for the land.
· The ideal solution would to have the driveway off Overland Drive.
· Questioned the runoff into the pond. McDermott explained with some redesign it
would be possible to maintain the wooded area. The City has trouble getting access to
a pond in back yards. A newly designed pond would be located in the same area.
· Does not have the same concern for the runoff. It stays the same.
· Support the development and should be moved on to City Council.
Open Discussion:
Criego agreed with the Commissioners but felt the runoff should be addressed and the
matter should be open for the neighbors to view the plan. It is important the neighbors
understand and have a voice in the process.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CREIGO, TO DEFER THIS MATTER TO
MAY 13, 2002, TO REVIEW THE RUNOFF ISSUES.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #02-032 Wensmann Realty, Inc. is requesting approval of a
Registered Land Survey for the lots originally described as Lots 22-24, Block 4,
Regal Crest.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002,
on file in the office of the Plarming Department.
Wensmarm Realty is requesting consideration for a Registered Land Survey (RLS) of the
lots originally platted as Lots 22-24, Block 4, Regal Crest. The RLS formalizes an
administrative lot line adjustment on these lots.
When the traits on these lots were constructed earlier this year, they were placed on the
lots so that they encroached over the original lot lines. The staff approved an
administrative lot line readjustment in January, 2002 to correct this situation. When the
applicant brought the deeds to Scott County for recording, the County determined a
Registered Land Survey was required. The purpose of an RLS is generally to simplify
the description and recording for Torrens Land. The County is responsible for
determining whether an RLS is required, under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes
§508.47.
Staff recommended approval of the RLS as presented.
L:\02FI LES\02planning comra\02pcmin utes~IN042202.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
Comments from the public:
There were no comments from the public. The floor was closed at 7:05 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
All the Commissioners agreed this was a title process and should be approved.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE REGISTERED LAND SURVEY FOR LOTS 22-24,
BLOCK 4, REGAL CREST.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on May 6, 2002.
C. Case File #02~030 Mark Toohey is requesting a variance to the front yard
setback and bluff setback on the property located at 5584 Candy Cove Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application for the construction of a single
family dwelling with an attached garage for the property located at 5584 Candy Cove
Trail, and legally described as Lot 31, Candy Cove Park. The following variances are
being requested:
1. A 23.86' variance from the minimum 75' lot width at the Ordinary High Water
Elevation (OHW);
2. A 25' variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow the structure to be
setback 0' from the front property line rather than the minimum requirement of
25 feet;
3. A variance to allow a structure to be located within the Blufflmpact Zone;
4. A 4' variance to allow a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather than
the maximum 24 feet.
The lot is considered a nonconforming lot of record because it does not have the
minimum required lot width of 90' at the front building line. The lot also does not meet
the minimum lot width of 75' at the OHW.
The lot is considered a bluff under the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Using the required setbacks, including the front yard, side yard, and top of bluff, this lot
contains a building envelope approximately 100 square feet in area.
L:~O2FILES~02planning comm~02pcminutes~lN042202.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
The applicant is requesting variances to construct a single family dwelling on this lot.
The proposed dwelling is a 1 V2 story structure with a 20' by 22' attached garage. The
footprint of the house and garage includes 1,796 square feet. The applicant is also
proposing a 22' by 16' deck and a 19' by 18' deck, both located on the lakeside of the
house. The proposed impervious surface on the site is 23%, which is within the allowed
limits of the Zoning Ordinance.
The DNR did not comment on this request. The City Engineering Department comments
note the City will grant an easement for landscaping and access across the right-of-way.
In addition, the City will be responsible for providing sewer service at the time the
building permit is issued.
Based on the above findings, the staff found this request meets the nine hardship criteria.
There is no legal alternative for the construction of a house on this lot. The staff
therefore recommended approval of the requested variances.
Comments from the public:
Allison Gontarek, attorney for the applicant, Mark Toohey, explained working with staff
to address their concerns. The proposed single family home is simple and the applicant
has gone to great effort and expense to make a reasonable request. He has complied in
every respect.
Ringstad questioned Toohey if he was promised it was a buildable lot when he purchased
the property. Toohey responded the lake setbacks have changed since he purchased the
property.
Criego questioned the decks. Toohey responded they were walkout platforms.
Criego also questioned the front yard setback. Gontarek responded there were two
alternatives. Staff had suggested pulling the house forward so it would be as far out of
the bluff as possible.
Lemke questioned whether the number of borings were adequate for the engineer's
analysis. Staff noted the applicant had received a separate grading permit for that work.
They were restricted by the ordinance as to the location of the borings.
Bruce Thomas, a neighbor, stated he had several concerns. First, the impact on the
remaining lots. Runoff into the lake and Mr. Braddy's property. Another concern was
the proposed size of home being less than any other home in Candy Cove and that it
would not conform to the rest of the neighborhood. He also questioned the additional
noise from Highway 13 with the bluff impacted. Thomas suggested the Commissioners
go out and see the property before they make a decision.
L:\02 FILES\02planning cornm\02pcmin utes~vlN042202.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
Shelly Hines, 5540 Candy Cove Trail, stated he was not clear on the plan from the
drawings. His concern was for noise coming offthe highway with the bluff being shaved
off. He also felt the driveway would be a blind curve.
Art Shoot, lives two houses down fi-om the property, felt that originally Mr. Braddy's
property as well as this property would be unbuildable. Noise is also an issue. He
cannot open his windows until the leaves come out on the trees. This house will not
impact the noise.
The public hearing was closed.
Kansier pointed out the City has a Tree Protection Ordinance. The Shoreland District
also restricts the type of clearing permitted on a bluff. It is not clear-cutting. The other
issue is there is no minimum size for a house or garage building pad. The applicant is
proposing a modest house that fits the limitations of the lot.
McDermott stated the Engineering Department reviewed the runoffvery carefully. The
design will minimize runoff to Braddy's property. The road was recently reconstructed
and problems should not occur. Parking will only be allowed on one side of the street.
Kansier addressed Mr. Shoot's concern regarding subdividing two adjoining lots. The
other lots have been addressed. These lots are under separate ownership and not
combined. The lots were all platted long before the current ordinance.
Stamson asked staff to address the neighbor's concern for buildable lots. Kansier
explained the ordinances and property lots. Most of the lots on Candy Cove would not be
permitted under today's ordinances. She also said it takes pretty extreme conditions to
say a lot was unbuildable. Any application would be asked to provide an Engineer's
Report with a variance application to ensure the conditions on the lot would not preclude
a building.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Questioned staff on the streets. McDermott explained the right-of-way obtained from
MNDOT. Part of the easement was granted to Dale Braddy. If this is application is
approved, staff will take this before City Council for easement approval. McDermott
explained the potential access to the other lots.
· Questioned the access and land locking the properties. Kansier responded there
would be easement accesses recorded.
· Can understand this applicant requesting access but concerned for the other adjoining
propcxties.
· Kansier explained why the City requested Mr. Toohey to have an engineering report
up front.
· Questioned why the driveway would be 28 feet wide instead of 24 feet. McDermott
said it would be 24 feet at the roadway.
L:~02FILESX02planning eomm~02pcminutesWiN042202.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
Has been at the sight, the applicant has done his best to comply.
· It would not interfere with the quality of the lake.
· Questioned the zero lot line. Kansier explained the measurement from the bluff.
They were minimizing the effect as best as they could.
· Good application. In favor.
Lemke:
· Questioned staffwhat would happen if the surveyor was off a few inches. Kansier
explained private use of public property. It has happened before and that is how it is
addressed.
· McDermott said property boundaries are marked clearly and wilI make every effort to
make sure it does not happen.
· Agreed with Criego, it is a good application.
· Clarified he had been to the site.
Atwood:
· It is a good use of the property. Approve.
Ringstad:
· It meets all 9 hardships. Approve.
Stamson:
· This lot is clearly unbuildable without variances.
· Support the variances as proposed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02-
007PC APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO THE LOT WIDTH AT
THE OHW, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, THE BLUFF SETBACK AND THE
DRIVEWAY WIDTH.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier explained the appeal process.
D. Case File #02-029 Steven & Patricia Mosey are requesting variances to
permit a garage and room addition to be setback less than 25 feet to front lot line;
less than 5 feet to side lot line; a sum of side yards less than 15 feet; eave
encroachment less than 5 feet to front and side lot line; a 63.8 foot building wall
setback to side lot line less than required; and a driveway setback less than 5 feet to
side lot line for the property located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue SE.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 22,
2002, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from the property owners for
the construction of an attached garage and second story addition to an existing single-
L:\02FI LES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~MN042202 .doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
family dwelling on a nonconforming platted lot of record located at 14620 Oakland
Beach Avenue. The applicant is requesting the following Variances:
1. A 24-foot variance to permit a 1-foot structure setback to a front property line,
rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks.
2. A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42-feet on a
nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet.
3. · A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1-feet between all
structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the
minimum required 15-feet.
4. A 4.7-foot variance to permit an cave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet
from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback.
5. A 5-foot variance to permit an cave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the
front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback.
A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-
feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building
walls over 50-feet.
4
A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12-foot
to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls
over 50-feet.
8. A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather than-the
minimum required setback of 5-feet; and,
9. A 4' variance to permit a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather than
the maximum allowed 24'.
Lot 14, Oakland Beach, was platted in 1926. The subject property is a legal
nonconforming platted lot of record. The property is located within the R-1 District
(Low Density Residential) and Shoreland District (SD). The subject lot has dimensions
of 40' front & rear lot lines, by 100' side lot lines, for a total lot area of 4,000 square feet.
According to Scott County land records, the applicant does not own the adjoining
properties
Staffreceived a letter from the adjoining property owner in support of the variance
requests.
The City Engineering Department noted the existing gravel road is on the property east of
the platted R-O-W, along with the sanitary and water utilities. If the road were tO be
L:~02F1LES\02planning ¢omm\02pcminutes~MN042202.do¢ 9
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
moved to its platted location as depicted on the survey, the R-O-W would be 1' from the
proposed structure.
The Department o£Natural Resources responded that as long as the impervious surface
area is OK, the DNR is not opposed to the side and front yard setbacks. They alone will
not have measurable negative impact to the lake.
The staffbelieves all of the variance hardship criteria have been met with respect to
variance requests 1, 2, 5, & 7, but the criteria is not met for requests 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. A
legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot to allow for a garage
addition because of the location of the existing structure on the nonconforming platted lot
of record.
In addition, staff felt the garage and room additions may be redesigned and reduced in
size to eliminate Variance requests 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. Therefore, the variance hardship
criteria have not been met with respect to 4 of the variances as proposed by the applicant
and staff recommends denial of these requested variances.
Staff recommended the following conditions be included with approval of any variances
deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
1. The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the
acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey depicting the approved
additions location, and the subject site shall be developed as shown on the survey to
ensure additional variances are not required.
3. The building permit is subject to all other city ordinances and applicable county and
state agency regulations.
Staff recommended approval of variances #1, 2, 5 & 7, with findings and deny variances
3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. This action will require the applicant to submit a revised survey and plan.
Stamson questioned staff's recommendation for leaving a vestibule, addition of a garage
and second-story room. Horsman explained the applicant's architect felt the vestibule is
needed to get around the stairway.
Criego felt there was confusion regarding the road. Horsman explained the 20 foot
platted road and where the road actually exists.
Kansier said the roads were private and designed on paper in the 1920's. The actual
roads were always on private property.
L:\02FlLES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN042202.do¢ 1 0
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
Lemke questioned the ownership of Lot 14. Horsman explained the ordinance for a
private road between single lot ownership.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Steve Mosey, explained the changes on the survey and the platted road and the
actual road. Others had built on the mad therefore Causing the problems. He also
explained the proposed garage and entryway. If he didn't have a vestibule he wouldn't
have a front door - all access would be through the garage. Mr. Mosey has worked with
staff and will reduce the driveway making as little pavement as possible.
Stamson questioned the proposed entry. Mosey explained the problem with the stairway.
Criego questioned why the stairway was on that side of the house. Mosey responded
there were trees on the property lines and the close location of the neighbors' homes.
Criego questioned the slab on the lakeside. Mosey said it is an existing patio.
The hearing was closed at 7:59 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Refreshing to see someone reducing his impervious surface.
· A vestibule is need.
· Will support based on the fact it is reducing impervious surface.
Atwood:
· Questioned the impervious surface. Horsman said a reduction is permitted.
· Would like to see a revised survey and other options.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with Lemke's comments.
· Reduction of impervious surface is important.
· The vestibule is necessary for safety.
· Support request.
Criego:
· There are a lot of variances requested. Do we want to let a property go on a zero lot
line? Looking at the adjoining properties, it will be sticking out from the other
homes.
· Concern for safety pulling out of the garage. Even though there is 20 feet, it is not the
applicant's property.
· Overall opposed to adding to the home in this method. If additional space does not
solve the parking problems. The previous owner used the garage across the road.
· Hard time allowing construction of a building to the property line.
L:~O2FILES~02planning comrn~02pcminu tesWIN042202.doc 1 i
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 2002
Stamson:
· Concurred with Criego, pushing the building up to the property line does not warrant
approval.
· Not sure the current configuration is the only option.
· The hardship criteria had not been met.
· Another concern is the staff report is different than what is in from of them.
· Does not support a two-car garage sitting on a right-of-way.
· The adjoining properties are setback 20 to 25 feet.
Open Discussion:
· Lemke questioned if a private right-of-way is so different from a public right-of-way.
There is not a lot of traffic.
· There has been a past tradition to allow a two car garage. Realize it is up the edge of
the platted fight-of-way, but it is not a whole lot different than the Candy Cove
property.
· Stamson said it is different from Candy Cove. That property was off 90 feet from the
road.
· The adjoining property leaves enough room for the road to be moved.
· By creating a building like this is eliminating the neighbor's ability to reclaim his
property. It is creating a problem.
· The Cormnission has allowed a two car garage when space allows it.
· Atwood felt this will limit the person across the street by allowing construction to the
edge of the right-of-way. Would like to see a revised plan.
· Lemke questioned staff on the existing road and what problems it would cause. Rye
responded it is a platted right-of-way intended as a private street. Do not know if an
individual could claim it.
· Kansier said in redoing the Candy Cove road, there was a similar problem. Although
there was no platted road, there was an established right-of-way because of use.
· Lemke said the big hang-up is taking something away from the adjoining property
owners. This matter should be continued and get an opinion from the City Attorney.
· Criego felt there were alternatives without infringing on the zero lot line. The
Commission cannot make things worse when there are alternatives. It is a small piece
of property.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DENY THE APPLIATION
AND HAVE STAFF PREPARE A RESOLUTION iNDICATING THE LACK OF
HARDSHIP. THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE METHODS BY NOT INCEASING THE
NUlVlBER OF VARIANCES.
Vote taken ayes by Stamson, Criego and Atwood, nays by Ringstad and Lemke.
MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN042202.doc 12
Planning Cornmi~sion Me. ting
April 22, 2002
A recess was called at 8:17 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:21 p.m.
6. Old Business:
A. Case #02-021 (Continued) Donald B. Scherer is requesting a variance to
structure setback to the ordinary high water mark to allow an existing deck to
remain on the property at 3894 Green Heights Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Donald B. Scherer
(applicant/owner) to allow an existing deck to remain on the property located at 3894
Green Heights Trail. The deck was constructed in the year 2000 without a required
building permit.
The applicant requested a 23-foot variance to allow a structure setback of 52-feet from
the ordinary high water mark. OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the minimum
required setback of 75-feet.
On May 8, 2000, The City received a complaint regarding the construction of a deck on
the subject property. Upon inspection it was noted a new deck was under construction
and measured 16' x 16'. The applicant was notified of the building and zoning code
violations after which he applied for a building permit on June 8, 2000. Upon review of
the application staff determined a certificate of survey was required for this project and
notified the applicant. The applicant was given two written notices regarding denial of
the permit as submitted, and the additional information staffrequested. When the
applicant did not respond, he was given a final notice and the case was then forwarded to
the prosecuting attorney for court action. The applicant/owner eventually submitted a
variance application for the deck as a result of a negotiated settlement with the attorney
for the ordinance violation.
The City Engineering Department felt the variance would promote "lake creep", the
encroachment of buildings and impervious areas toward the lakeshore.
The Department of Natural Resources concerns include the hardship for a 16' deep deck
versus a 12', and a wider deck such as 20' to accommodate more area and less of a
setback encroachment. If the Planning Commission approves a variance, the DNR
suggested a condition be the removal of the existing shed located near the lake. In
addition, the DNR is not supportive of issuing an after-the-fact variance for the deck
setback.
The staff concluded all of the required variance hardship criteria have not been met, and
the variance hardship was created by the owner when the deck structure was constructed
in violation of the zoning ordinance and without an approved building permit. Staff
recommended denial of the variance request.
L:\02FILES~02planning ¢omm~02pcminutesXMN042202.doc 13
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
Comments from the public:
Attorney Frank Muelken, represented the applicant Don Scherer, distributed letters and
pictures from adjacent neighbors. (Commissioners took time to review material)
Muelken noted the new construction covers an existing slab of concrete. Impervious
surface is not an issue. The new construction is the same as the concrete slab. He is
aware this matter has been going for some period of time and hoped for some form of
closure. Muelken said Scherer admitted he should not have gone ahead and constructed
the deck. Muelken suggested a fair compromise would be to grant the variances, remove
the storage shed and improve the view of the property.
John Granlund, 3893 Green Heights Trail, said he has been attending the last couple of
meetings and has learned a lot. He felt the Scherer deck poses no problem. Setbacks and
allowances have been allowed for other lake homes and referenced other variances. The
deck would not reduce the value of surrounding homes. Requested the variance be
approved.
Horsman clarified the existing deck was over the slab.
The public hearing was closed at 8:38 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· Cannot support the additional lake creep for the deck that currently exists.
Criego:
· As it relates to past variances, the Commissioners feel strongly about staying outside
the 75 foot boundary. Most decks already exist and people are asking for 3 season
porches.
· The question that comes before the Commission is what if this request came before
the deck was built? The existing deck was in the setback, but because it was there the
applicant could replace it. It should not have been extended.
· The applicant should have brought this matter forward, but I would have voted to
keep the existing deck and not allow the extension.
Lemke:
· Clarified the slab and deck as existing structures.
· Pointed out that Captain Jack's deck extends to the water. Horsman explained the
setback averaging. The adjoining structures did not allow the applicant to go past
what he has.
· Rye stated Captain Jack has been operating under a conditional use permit.
· Would have gone with the DNR compromise.
Atwood:
L:\02 FILES\02plannin g coram\02pcrainules~vlN042202.doc 14
Planning Commission M~ting
Aptq122. 2002
· Not a fan of after-the-fact variances.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
· Not all neighbors agreed the deck was okay. Someone called and complained.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Commissioners, a building permit should have been applied for first.
· The Commissions has approved variances in the past, but some deck is necessary,
however, what is allowed is very minimal.
· The hardship does not warrant a 16' deck.
· Captain Jack's is a totally different use of property. It is a marina. Just because a
marina is built to the property line, a home does not have to be.
· Oppose the variance.
· Questioned staff if the applicant needs a variance to replace what was there. Horsman
said he could go back and replace the existing size deck.
Lemke:
Appreciate the point of view on Captain Jacks,
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
02-003PC DENYING A 23 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process.
7. New Business:
A. Case File #02-041 Petition to vacate drainage and utility easement located
over the common area added to the lots in Deerfield 6th Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
D. R. Horton, Inc. has filed an application to vacate a 5' wide portion of the drainage and
2 Addition, ~mmediately adjacent to the
utility easement located on Lot 45, Deerfield ,d . · .
properties at 17252, 17254, 17256 and 17258 Deerfield Drive. This 5' strip of land is to
be added to these properties, in the plat ofDeerfield 6th Addition. The easement must be
vacated in order to allowed the placement of decks on these units.
There is no need for the retention of an easement on this 5' strip of land. The Planning
staff therefore recommended approval of this request.
There were no comments fi'om the applicant.
Comments from the Commissioners:
L:~02FILES~02planning commX02pcminutesXMN042202.doc 1 5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 20O2
Stamson:
Agreed with staff, it is in the public's interest and a better use of the property.
Criego, Lemke, Atwood and Ringstad agreed.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED VACATION OF THE EASEMENT AS
PRESENTED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The Long Range Planning meeting is scheduled for Wednesday night.
Reminder the City Council/Planning Commission workshop on the Jeffer's property is
Monday April 29, 2002.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m,
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\02FI LES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vl N042202,doc 16
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MULTI-FAMILY
DWELLING IN THE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT (CASE
FILE #02-026)
BLUFF HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
MAY 13, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Bluff Heights Apar~ents, Limited Parmership, represented by Gregory McClenahan, has
filed an application for a Conditional Use PenvJt (CUP) to allow a multifamily dwelling
on the property located on the north side of Franklin Trail, east of TH 13 and west of
Bluff Heights Trail. The property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential) and is guided
as R-HD (Urban High Density) on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. Multi-family
dwellings require a CUP within the R-4 Zoning District.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Zoning: This property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential).
Adjacent .Land Use, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation: To the north of
this proper~y is vacant land, zoned R-4, and designated for High Density Residential uses.
To the west of this property are two commercial buildings, including an office buildin~g
and animal clinic, zoned C-4 and planned for Community Retail Shopping uses. To the
east is a townhouse development, zoned R-4 and planned for High Density Residential
uses. ~ t~'..
Access: This property is accessed from Franklin Trail.
Density: The plan proposes 49 units on a total of 3.62 acres, or on 2.67 net acres. The
maximum density permitted for this use is 30 units per acre. The overall density
proposed in this plan is 18.35 units per acre.
l:\02files\O2cup\bluff heights~bluff pc,doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (9S2) a,47-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4265
AN EQUAL OPI~ORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Ground Floor Area Ratio: Maximum coverage is .35. The footprint of the building is
25,987 square feet. The result is a .16 ground floor area ratio.
Building S.tyle: The proposed plan calls for 3-story building. Included within the
building are 5 one-bedroom apartments, 31 two-bedroom units and 13 three-bedroom
units. The building will also include some community facilities, possibly including a
community room, game room, exercise room and/or laundry room. There will be one
interior garage and one exterior parking space for each unit. The interior garage spaces
are located on part of the first level of the building, and within a detached garage.
Setbacks: Required setbacks in the R-4 district are as follows:
Required Proposed
Front 30' or building height, whichever is 35'
greater
Side 15' + 2" per linear foot of building wall 35'
length over 50'
Rear 25' 140'
Detached Garage No closer to the front lot line than the 35'
front building wall (42')
Parking (front) Same as building 35'
Driveway 5' 5'
The principal structure meets the setback requirements of the R-4 district. The detached
garage must be setback at least 42' fi.om the front lot line in order to meet the required
setback. Also, in order to meet all setback requirements, no parking will be permitted in
front of the garage doors in the building at any time.
Height: The proposed building height does not exceed 35 feet.
Architectural Materials: The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 60% of the
exterior of a building consist of Class I materials, such as glass, brick or stucco. The
building elevations do not identify the exterior materials proposed for this building.
The exterior materials of the detached garage must be compatible to the materials used on
the principal structure.
Parking: Parking for multifamily housing is required at a rate of 2 spaces per unit. This
development requires a minimum of 98 parking spaces. The proposal provides a total of
102 spaces, with 43 parking spaces in the building, 7 spaces within the detached garage
and 52 surface spaces.
Landscaping: Section 1107.1900 lists the landscaping requirements for this
development, Perimeter landscaping for this development is required at a rate of 1 tree
l:\02files\02cup\bluff heights\bluff pc.doc
per unit or 1 tree per 40' feet of perimeter, whichever is greater. In this case, a minimum
of 49 trees must be provided. The landscaping plan submitted by the developer does not
meet the minimum requirements, either in the number of trees or in the variety of sizes
required. A total of 50 trees are shown on the landscaping plan. Eighteen of the trees are
ornamental trees (1 V4"). The Zoning Ordinance allows the substitution of ornamental
trees for full-size trees at a ratio of 2 ornamental trees for 1 canopy tree. Based on this
formula, the number of trees proposed on the site is 41 trees. The plan also does not
indicate whether an irrigation system will be provided. A registered landscape architect
must also sign the plan.
The landscaping plan does not include any of the required bufferyards. A bufferyard type
"C" is required along the north and east property lines, where the parking lot is adjacent
to existing or future residential development. A bufferyard type "B" is required along the
front property line. Finally, the parking lot along the west property line must be
screened. Required buffcryard landscaping is over and above the required perimeter
trees.
Tree Replacement: The applicant has submitted an inventory identifying 177.5 caliper
inches of significant trees on the site. Based on the grading plan, the proposal removes
74.5 caliper inches, or 41.9% for grading purposes. The Zoning Ordinance allows
removal of 25% of the significant caliper inches. Any removal above the 25% must be
replaced at a rate of V2" caliper inch per 1 inch removed. In this case, 15 caliper inches,
or 6 trees (2.5 caliper inches each) must be replaced. The landscaping plan does not
identify any replacement trees.
Signs: This site plan includes one freestanding monument sign, located at the west
entrance to the site. This sign is consistent with the sign requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Lil~hting: The applicant has submitted a plan identifying the location of light poles
within the parking lot. However, a lighting distribution plan identifying the footcandles
at the property line has not been submitted. A maximum of 0.5 foot-candles on the
property line abutting residential and 1.0-foot candles abutting right-of-way is permitted.
Storm Water Runoff: The applicant has submitted storm water runoff calculations;
however, the information included within these calculations was not adequate to
determine if the proposed system will work properly. Additional information is required
before this system can be evaluated.
Engineering issues: Attached is a memorandum dated March 20, 2002 from City
Engineer Sue McDermott, outlining several issues to be addressed. Some can be
addressed prior to the building permit stage; however, others, such as the wetland
delineation and runoff issues, must be addressed before any approval.
1:\02filcs~02¢up\bluff heights\bluff pc.doc 3
Building Code Issues: Attached is a memorandum dated March 20, 2002 from Building
Official Robert Hutchins. Most of these issues can be addressed at the building permit
stage. Some may require revisions to the site plan.
REVIEW PROCE SS:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit should be reviewed in accordance with the criteria
found in Section 1108 of the City Code and Section 1102.703. Section 1102.703 is the
provision within the R-4 requirements relating to specific conditions for multi-family
dwellings. The criteria are discussed on the following pages.
City Code 1102.703 Uses Permitted With A Conditional Use Permit
(1) Multiple Family Dwellings. Conditions:
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a
collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided
without generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
The only access to this property is from Franklin Trail, which is classified as a
minor collector street.
b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space
per dwelling unit and no more than 1/2 can be located in the front yard.
Forty-nine dwelling units are proposed requiring 19,600 square feet of usable open
space. The site plan indicates 43,145 square feet located to the rear of the building.
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the
buildings.
This provision is not applicable, as there is only one building proposed.
d. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings are designed
to share common walls.
This provision is not applicable, as there is only one building proposed.
e. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curb
line of internal private roadways or parking lots.
There is no internal building setback because of the garage doors at the lower level
of the building. The ordinance did not anticipate this type of building design. A
single entrance to a lower level parking area is not required to meet this setback, so
the individual doors probably are also excluded from this requirement.
f. No portion of the required 20-foot road system may be used to satisfy the off-
street parking requirements.
The proposed internal drives are not being used for proposed parking. This
requirement has been met.
l:\02files\02cup\bluff heights~bluff pc.doc
4
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.
The applicable goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan include the following:
Objective #1 of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide opportunities for a variety of
affordable high quality housing. Objective #2 is to maintain a choice of and
encourage development of quality residential developments.
Page 101 of the Comprehensive Plan addresses housing analysis. The analysis
specifically states there is a gap in Prior Lake's housing in the area of newer
apartment units. Similar type communities are expected to maintain 25-30% of the
housing stock in apartments or multi-family dwellings. Prior Lake currently has
12.85% classified as apartments or multi-family dwellings. The addition of the
proposed units would complement the goal of providing opportunities for diverse
housing.
(2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare
of the community as a whole.
The proposed multi-family dwelling will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
morals and general welfare of the community as a whole. However, there are still
some issues that must be addressed before this plan can be approved.
(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 use requires a CUP within the zoning district. The property is zoned R-4 Multi-
family residential. The proposed site layout complies with some of the requirements
and performance standards of the Zoning District. However, there are still plan
changes that must be made before the CLIP can be approved.
(4) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services,
or improvements, which are either existing or proposed.
The proposed use as an apartment building will not have adverse impacts on
governmental facilities or improvements. The storm water runoff plan must be
revised before an adequate analysis can be completed.
(5) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the ese and enjoyment of
properties in close proximity to the conditional use.
The use is located adjacent to a public street and a townhouse development to the
east. The proposed use will not have adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties in close proximity. However, the storm water runoff plan must be revised
before an adequate analysis can be completed.
l:\02files\02cup\bluff heights~bluff pc,floc 5
(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
Council and incorporated as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the
City Council.
Several revisions are required before this plan meets the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(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.
A professional registered engineer prepared the drainage and utility plans. Additional
information is still required.
(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.
Several plan revisions are required before the staff can determine whether additional
conditions must be imposed.
CONCLUSION
At this time there are several significant issues to be resolved before the plan can move
forward. These include:
1. Storm water runoff calculations must be resubmitted and reviewed by the City.
2. The applicant must specifically identify the proposed architectural materials, and how
these materials will meet the ordinance requirements.
3. The landscaping plan must be revised to meet the ordinance requirements, including
bufferyards, tree replacement and perimeter landscaping. An irrigation plan must also
be submitted.
4. A lighting distribution plan must be submitted.
l:\02files\02cup\bluff heights\bluff pc.doc
The issued identified in the memorandum from the Engineering Department and the
Building Department must be reviewed and any required changes made to the site
plan.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the CUP with conditions as recommended or
any other conditions the Planning Commission feels are warranted.
2. Recommend denial of the request. In this ease, the Planning Commission should be
specific about findings of fact.
3. Continue the request to a specific date and direct the developer to provide the
necessary additional information.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends alternative #3. There are too many unresolved issues, listed above,
that may result in significant changes to the design. The plan is not ready to proceed at
this time.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to continue the public hearing and direct the developer to submit new
information addressing the issues listed in this report. In order to allow the developer
time to submit this information, and the staff the time to review it, the item should be
continued to June 10, 2002.
1:\02files\02cup~bluff height~\bluff pc.doc 7
Location IVlap
7
-- ANNA TRL SE FRANKLIN TRL SE
Bluff
rdale
N
400 0 400 Feet
BLUr's' HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
Introduction
Bluff Heights Apartments will be a 49-unit rental apartment comple, x located in the northeast
comer of the intersection of Franklin Trail and Highway 13 in Prior Lake, Minnesota. 39 units
will be financed by federal tax credits and private or state-sponsored fmancing. The other 10
units will be owned by Scott County HRA and operated as public housing. The development
is designed to provide housing to one to five-person families with incomes between $20,000
and $50,000, for whom there are limited housing alternatives. Other neighboring land uses
include retail, commercial, multi-family and single family neighborhoods. The apartment
complex will provide visual appeal, community atmosphere and outdoor recreational and
leisure opportunities.
Physical Develonment
The property will consist of a three-story apartment complex. The 49-unit mix will consist of
8 one-bedroom units (700 sq. ft.), 28 two-bedroom units (850 sq. ft.) and 13 three-bedroom
units (1,050 sq. ft.). Three of the units will be handicap accessible. Scott County HRA will
own 10 units. The building common area will have an open element from ground floor to
second floor and consist of a manager's office on the first floor and some combination of
community/exercise/game/laundry rooms on the second and third floors. One private garage
and one surface parking space will be provided per unit. There will be a resident
manager/caretaker. Unit density will be approximately 18 units per developable acre. The
property is zoned for 30 units per acre and contains 2.69 developable acres. An additional .95
acres contains a regional storm water pond and the land surrounding the pond is available for
use by the tenants.
The exterior will be maintenance-free siding and 60% class I materials. The units will have
separate heating and cooling systems. All units will have standard kitchen appliances, plus
dishwasher. A separate dining area will be provided. Each unit will have a balcony or patio
area. Tenants will pay gas and electric utilities. The owner will provide garbage service and
water and sewer. A central laundry will be located on the second floor.
Site amenities include an age-appropriate play area and walking paths throughout the
undeveloped area in the rear of the property. The grounds will be appropriately enhanced by
shrubs, deciduous and evergreen trees, perennial and annual flowering plants and landscaping
medium.
Location
The apartment complex will be located on approximately 3.62 acres of open land, which also
contains a regional storm water holding pond (.95 acres). The site is adjacent to a 3-story
professional building (west) and owner-occupied four-plexes (east). An apartment complex is
located across Fra.nklin Trail to the south. A wetlands abuts the property to the north. There
are similar multi-family uses in the proximate area. The aparanent complex will provide a
to the west. The location permits direct access to Highway 13.
Tenant Profile
Prospective tenant households' incomes must fall below the following limits:
Household size Income*
1 $31,380
2 $35,880
3 $40,320
4 $44,820
5 $48,420
6 $52,020
Maximum rents*, exclusive of estimated tenant-paid utilities, are as follows:
1 Bedroom Unit
2 Bedroom Unit
3 Bedroom Unit
$625-651
$772-794
$887-917
Tenants must also satisfy background checks regarding criminal activity and credit and
landlord-tenant history.
The apartment complex will provide affordable housing opportunities for low and moderate
income families. Tenants may continue to live at Bluff Heights Apartments after their incomes
exceed the initial income guidelines, but it is anticipated many tenant households will move to
single-family homes in Prior Lake and the surrounding area.
* effective as of November I, 2001
Narrative.wpd
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
The proposed site is zoned R4, which allows up to 30 units per acre. The 3.62 acre, rectangular
site surrounds a storm water drainage pond, which occupies a .95 acre easement, yielding 2.67
developable acres. The proposed site layout surrounds the pond and utilizes the pond and
undeveloped northeast portion of the property as a site amenity and nature resource. The site rises
gradually from the water level of the drainage pond. The building pad elevation will be
established sufficiently above the pond 100 year high water mark. The site is lightly to
moderately wooded with small to medium-sized softwood trees.
The building footprint has been located in such a fashion so as to satisfy various setbacks from
the perimeter boundaries and interior easement boundaries and to minimize proximity to less
desirable soils near the drain pond and former drainage swale that diagonally crossed a portion
of the property. Extensive soil analysis has been performed.
The property is located in an area containing a mix of land uses within a 500 foot radius,
including owner-occupied and rental multifamily residences, single family residences, a medical
clinic, a gas station,-a two-story professional building and a veterinary clinic. All the surrounding
buildings and businesses are well maintained and provide a pleasant neighborhood. The proposed
development is similar in character to and compatible with the multiple surrounding uses.
DescrpfionSite. Surrounding. LandUse.wpd
i\
Mar" 29 O~ 11:3'~a R. I·M.S· ?B3-533-?';:'98
03/20/2002 ll:3B 5515533575 ELENENTS INC P.~GE 82182
/
/
X
m
\
Memorandum
DATE: March 20, 2002
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
FROM: Sue McDermott, City Engineer
RE: Bluff Heights (Project #02-36)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject preliminary plat and has the
following comments:
'1. The plans must show the two driveway entrances to be installed using a concrete apron
per MnDOT standard plate no. 7035K.
2. The height of the proposed retaining wall near the northwest corner of the proposed
building must be shown on the plans.
3. Note that the existing storm manhole located northeast of the proposed basketball
court is to be adjusted to grade (approx. +2.0') in accordance with City standards.
4. Hydrant spacing must conform with the Public Works Design Manual.
5. Proposed slopes around the existing pond exceed 4:1.
6. Proposed retaining walls are located within easements.
Attached is an additional memorandum prepared by WSB & Associates addressing WCA
comments and storm wateffgrading. Let me know if you have any questions.
G:~P RO JECTS',2002',36blu ffhts'~RE VIEW 1 .DOC
&Aa*ociat~,lne.
Memorandum
From:
Date:
Re:
Sue McDermott, P.E., City Engineer
City of Prior Lake
Andi Moffatt, Biologist
WSB & Associates, In~
March 15, 2002
Review of Bluff Heights Development Plans
WSB Project No. 1430-03
As requested, we have completed our water resource review of the Bluff Heights
Development Plans dated February 22, 2002. Based on our review, we offer the
following comments:
Wetland Conservation Act Review Comments
1. The development proposes to fill 225 sfofwetland. This wetland was delineated as
part &the Timber Crest Development. It is anticipated that this fill will be exempt
under the de minirnis of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Application for
exemption should be provided by the developer.
It is our understanding that the wetland delineation has not been reviewed by the City.
We recommend this delineation be reviewed as soon as the weather conditions allow.
This review can be completed by WSB. The developer does not necessarily need to
be present for this review unless questions are raised during the delineation review.
Item 1.26 of the Prior Lake Public Design Manual states that a 30-foot average .buffer
(minimum of 20 feet) needs to be maintained around the perimeter of all wetlands.
This buffer with associated monumentation needs to be added to the plans.
Hvdrologic/Hvdraulic~ Water Qualitv~ and Grading Comments
1. The existing and proposed hydrologic/hydraulic calculations for2, 10and 100year
storms should be provided by the developer. This should show the sizing of pipes,
ponds, emergency overflow spillways, and catch basin interception analysis.
2. The existing and proposed drainage boundaries need to be included with the plans.
Sue McDermott, P.E.
March 15, 2002
3. Additional information should be provided from the City regarding the current storm
sewer drainage to the regional pond. The existing information on the plan sheets does
not correspond to the City's Local Surface Water Management Plan. We can further
review the capacity of this system once this information is obtained from the City.
4. Based on Item 4.26 in the Public Works Design Manual, 3-foot sumps must be
constructed as the last structure which is road accessible prior to discharge to any
water body. This would apply to Manholes #2 and #8. These structures should be
changed on the plans.
5. It is recommended that the minimum parking lot grade should be 1%.
6. The retaining wall that is proposed west of the pond should be designed by an
engineer and include a fence at the top. These details should be provided for review.
7. The overflow drainage for the parking area adjacent to Franklin Trail should be
redirected east onto the parcel rather than overflow onto Franklin Trail.
8. The overflow drainage for the west parking area should be redirected east to the pond
rather than overflow outside the parcel.
9. The 2' contours a minimum of 200 feet beyond the property boundary in accordance
with the city's 2002 Public Works Design Manual must be sho~vn on the plans.
10. Sheet 5 states that 1.2 acre-feet of floodplain will be filled and 1.32 acre-feet of
floodplain storage will be created. Details regarding the floodplain fill and mitigation
calculations associated with volumes shown on Sheet 5 must be provided.
11. A transition detail from B612 curb to B618 curb at catch basins should be provided
by the developer.
12. A skimmer structure should be used at the outlet of the pond.
This concludes our review of the Bluff Heights Development plan. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please feel free to call me at (763)287-7196.
c. Dave Hutton, P.E., WSB
G:lPROJECTS~2002136bluffl~rslwsbreview. doc
Memorandum
DATE: March 20, 2002
TO: Jane Kansier, Planner
FROM: Robert D. Hutchins, Building Official
RE: Site plan review for BluffHeights
Following are the results of the preliminary Site plan review for the Bluff Heights
building. Our review was based on the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) which
adopted with amendments the 1997 Uniform Building Code CL1BC) with handicap
regulations of the Minnesota Accessibility Code Chapter 1341. Also requirements of the
1998 Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) which adopted with amendments the 1997
Uniform Fire Code (UFC).
1. Complete a Building Code analysis. UBC Chapter 5. Include the following:
a. Occupancy Classification. Note: If Garages designated as S-3, provide a 3-hour
occupancy separation between R-1. If designated as U-l, provide 2-hour area
separation eyeD' 3000 s.f. from floor to roof deck. UBC Table 3-B and UBC 312.2.2.
b. Type of Construction.
c. Location on Property.
d. Allowable Floor Area. Note: a NFPA 13 system is required for fire department
concerns.
e. Height and Number of stories.
f. Exiting.
2. Structural engineer to design retaining walls over 4'-0" in height.
3. Relocate the site fire hydrant south to the West peninsula by the West drive entrance.
4. Provide a Post Indicator Valve (PIV) on sprinkler supply line into buildings. Locate a
minimum distance away the height of the building.
5. Provide fire lanes for fire apparatus response. Signage to read:" No Parking Fire Lane
by order of Fire Department". Indicate on Site plan. Locate by Fire Hydrant and East
parking lot and North Parking lot. UFC 1001.7.1.
6. If provided, indicate means of lawn irrigation. May use separate service and metering
for billing purposes.
7. Siamese connection and enunciator panels to be located by front entrance.
The following are building plan comments:
8. Submit signed architectural, structural plans and a Certificate of Survey before building
permit. Submit signed HVAC, plumbing, fire/smoke alarm, emergency lighting/exit
signs and sprinkler plans. May be submitted at a later date.
9. Provide detail of lawn sprinkler service stub valve and backflow prevention details.
I 0. Provide HDCP signage details.
11. All Units not HDCP accessible must be HDCP adaptable and on a HDCP accessible
route. MSBC 134I Table 16.2
t2. Provide two parking spaces for commuter van. MSBC 1300.4100.
13. Submit Energy Envelope Calculations. MN Energy Code 7670.0100
14. Submit a soils report.
15. An S.A.C. determination must be completed by the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission. Contact Jody Edwards at 651.602.1113.
16. Provide testing documentation indicating that exterior and interior walls, elevator
walls, corridor floors, floor trusses/joists, and roof truss construction meets One hour
fire resistive construction. UBC 703.
17. Provide documentation listing that construction (floors and walls) meets Sound
Transmission Control ratings. UBC Appendix Chapter 12.
18. Submit the Structural Engineers requirements for Special Inspections UBC 1701.5.
19. One hour fire-rated Elevator Lobbies required. An elevator lobby must be separated
from a corridor. UBC 1004.3.4.5
20. Stairways and landscaped area must be in Rated Shafts. Two floors are allowed to be
open to each other. UBC 711.3 or an Atrium must be provided as per UBC 402.
21. Interior family rooms must be furnished with natural light. UBC 1203.2
22. Ventilation for the building must meet UBC chapter 12. Provide 15 CFM of
ventilation per occupant in the corridor.
23. State of Minnesota Building Codes and Standards Division must inspect Elevator.
MSBC 1307.0035.
24. Provide a Class III standpipe in each stairway. UBC 904.5.3
25. Provide fire extinguishers minimum 2A10BC rated, within 75 feet travel distance of
all areas. UFC 1002.
26. Automatic garage doors ~to comply with State of Minnesota Statutes. MSBC
1300.5900
27. Post occupant load sign in Party Rooms. UBC 1007.2.6.
28. Provide maneuvering clearances and landings at the top and bottom of ramp in HDCP
garages. MSBC 1341..0442 Subpart 6
29. Garage service doors must not swing over the step. UBC 1003.3.1.6 Exception 1.1
This is a preliminary review only on conceptual plans. Other code items will be addressed
when the prelimina~ plans are submitted. The building plans must be reviewed by the
Cities Developmental Review Committee (DRC) which consists of representatives of
Planning, Engineering, Parks, Finance, and Building Departments. The DRC must
approve the site plans before a building permit can be issued.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DENYING A STRUCTURE
SETBACK OF 1' TO A FRONT LOT LINE; A 1.3'
SIDEYARD SETBACK; A BUILDING SEPARATION
LESS THAN 15'; A SUM OF SIDE YARDS LESS THAN
15 FEET; AN EAVE ENCROACHMENT INTO A SIDE &
FRONT YARD; A 63.8' BUILDING WALL SETBACK TO
SIDE YARD; AND A DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND
SETBACK TO THE SIDE YARD (Case file #02-029PC)
STEVEN & PATRIClA MOSEY
14620 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
MAY 13, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department held a public hearing on April 22, 2002, to consider a
vadance application from the property owners for the construction of an attached
garage and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling on a
nonconforming platted lot of record located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue.
After review of the applicants' request with respect to the vadance hardship
criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft Resolution 02-004PC
denying the following Variances:
A 24-foot variance to permit a 1-foot structure setback to a front property
line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks [Ordinance
Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (3)].
A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42-feet on a
nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet
[Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1-feet between all
structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than
the minimum required 15-feet [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required
Yards/Open Space (8)].
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EHPLOYER
A 4.7-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within
.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet
setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments (1)].
A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0'
of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback
[Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments (1)].
A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be
setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required
7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405
Dimensional Standards (6)].
A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback
10.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for
building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional
Standards (6)].
8. A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather than
the minimum required setback of 5-feet; and,
A 4' variance to permit a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather
than the maximum allowed 24' [Ordinance Section 1107.205 Driveways
(1)1.
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached Resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction
for the denial of 9 variances for the construction of an entryway, garage and
room addition to an existing single family dwelling.
For your information, on April 29, 2002, the applicant submitted to staff a letter
dated 4/27/02 as notice of appeal to the City Council of the Planning
Commissions decision to deny the above described variances as requested by
the applicant. The appeal is scheduled for hearing before the Council on May
20, 2002.
ALTERNATIVES:
Adopt the attached Resolution 02-005PC denying the 9 variances as
requested by the applicant because the Planning Commission finds a lack
of demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Code Criteria.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-029\CnsntAgndRpt.doc
Page 2
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends alternative # 1:
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-005PC denying the 9
variances as requested by the applicant.
L:\02FILE$\02variances\02-029\CnsntAgndRpt.dec Page 3
RESOLUTION 02-005PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 24-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 1-FOOT FRONT
SETBACK; A 3.58-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 11.42-
FEET; $.9-FOOT VARIANCE TO BUILDING SEPARATION OF 9.1-FEET; A 4.7-FOOT
AND 5-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EAVE/GUTTER ENCROACHMENT IN
FRONT AND SIDE LOT LINES; A 6-FOOT AND 2.18-FOOT VARIANCE FOR
BUILDING WALLS OVER 50-FEET LONG; A 3.7-FOOT AND 4-FOOT VARIANCES
TO PERi'IT A DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND SETBACK TO A FRONT AND SIDE LOT
LINES
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Steven W. & Patricia J. Mosey (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a garage and room addition to a single
family residence on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and the
SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue
SE, and legally described as follows;
Lot 14, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#02-029PC and held hearings thereon on April 22, and May 13, 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 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.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the proposed
variance will 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 applicant proposed a garage/room addition with a zero setback to the front lot line and
platted road right-of-way, this creates a potential safety issue for the subject property and use
of the right-of-way.
A legal building envelope for a garage addition exists on the subject lot that meets or reduces
the requested variances for setbacks to the front and side yards, sum of side yards, eave
encroachment, building walls over 50-feet, and driveway location. The applicant has control
l:\02files\02variances\02-029\dnyres2.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Pr. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITy EMPLOYER
over the garage and room addition design and shape, such that the hardship has been created
by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists with a smaller building footprint.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required building setbacks as reasonable use of
the property exists without the granting of the variances.
The granting of the variance, as originally requested, 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. The factors above allow for an alternative structure to be permitted with a reduced
variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 02-029PC 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 denies the following
variances for a future garage and room additions to a single-family dwelling as shown in
attached Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey;
A 24-foot variance to permit a 1-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than
25-feet as required for front yard setbacks [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional
Standards (3)].
A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42-feet on a nonconforming lot of
record rather than the minimum required 15-feet [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required
Yards/Open Space (8)].
A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1-feet between all structures on the
nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required 15-feet
[Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
A 4.7-foot variance to permit an cave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side
lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard
encroachments (1)].
A 5-foot variance to permit an cave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line
rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard
encroachments ( 1 )].
A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a
side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet
[Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (6)].
A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12-foot to a side lot
line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet Ordinance
Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (6)].
l:\02files\02variances\02-029~tnyres2.doc 2
8. A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather than the minimum
required setback of 5-feet [Ordinance Section 1107.205 Driveways (I)].
9. A 4' variance to permit a 28' driveway width at the right-of-way line rather than the
maximum allowed 24' [Ordinance Section 1107.205 Driveways (1)].
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 13, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Community Development Director
l:\02files\02variances\02-029\flnyres2.doc
STEVE MOSEy '-
Volley S~irVeying Co., PA
III
I,U
0
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
SB
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE WILDS NORTH
PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP
115, RANGE 22 (Case File #02-045)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
MAY 13, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Shamrock Development has filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for the property located on the south side of CSAH 42, east of CSAH 83 and north of The
Wilds. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the
current C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R-ItD (High Density
Residential) designation on approximately 20 acres of vacant land.
BACKGROUND:
This property is presently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-4 (General
Business) and is designated as C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. At this time, the applicant is planning to develop
this entire 70 acre property to the east and the west of this site. The proposed
development would include single family lots to the east, commercial lots to the west,
and a townhouse style development on the area in question.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site consists of approximately 20 acres.
Topol~raphy: Most of the site drains west and north towards the wetland at the southeast
comer of CSAtt 42 and CSAH 83. A portion of the site also drains to the wetland to the
east.
Vegetation: This property has been cropland for several years, although there are some
existing trees located on the east side of the site.
1:\02files\02compam\02-045 the wilds north\02-045 pc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Wetlands: The site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act.
A specific delineation will be required as part of the development application.
Access: Access to this property is presently from CSAH 83. The site will be developed
in conjunction with the property to the west and the east. The access roads will be a part
of this development.
Utilities: Sewer and water services will be extended to this site as pan of the CSAH 42
project, scheduled for 2002 or 2003.
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: To the north and west of this property is vacant land,
currently zoned C-2 and designated for Community Retail Shopping uses. To the south
is The Wilds, presently zoned C-4 and R-1 PUD, and designated as C-CC and R-L/MD.
To the east is vacant land, zoned R-1 and designated as R-L/MD.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to develop approximately 70 acres of land located south of
CSAH 42 and east of CSAH 83. The proposed development includes single family
homes, commercial uses, and some townhouse style or higher density residential
development. The request to amend the Comprehensive Plan would accommodate the
higher density development. The R-HD area would serve as a sort of buffer between the
commercial areas and the single family area.
The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives that are applicable to this request are as
follows:
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 R-HD designation is consistent 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. Furthermore, the designation is consistent with the City's
Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing.
1:\02files\02cornpam\02-045 the wilds north\02-045 pc.doc Page 2
The question here is whether the supply of land planned for future cormmercial uses
should be reduced. There are several large tracts of undeveloped land located both north
and south of CSAH 42 planned for commercial and office park. The elimination of this
area will not significantly reduce that supply. This site still retains the commercial areas
adjacent to the major roads.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as requested.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staffreeommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
the R-HD designation.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
1:\02files\O2compam~02 -045 the wilds north~02-045 pc.doc Page 3
u)
o
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5C
CONSIDER A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE REQUEST
BY SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF
THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP
115, RANGE 22, AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING HASS LAKE
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
MAY 13, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Shamrock Development and Wesley Langhoff have filed an application for a Zone
Change for the property located on the south side of CSAH 42, approximately ½ mile
east of CSAH 83 and directly west of Hass Lake. The request is to rezone the property
from the A (Agricultural) District to the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District, and to
change the designation of Hass Lake from a Natural Environment Lake to a Recreational
Development Lake.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site area consists of approximately 20.04 acres.
Topoeraph_~: This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from 907' MSL
at the east side of the site to 960' MSL at the center of the site. The area immediately
adjacent to Hass Lake on the east side of the property is classified as a bluff under the
Shoreland Ordinance.
Vegetation: There is an exist'rog 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: The wetlands on the site are a part of Hass Lake.
1:\02fiSes~02rezone\024)44 stanton\02-44 pc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave~ S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. 1952) 447-4230 / F~ (952) 4474245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Access: The current access to this site is from CSAH 42. The site will be developed in
conjunction with the property to the west. The access roads will be a pan of this
development.
Zoning and Land Use Plan Designation of Adjacent Proper .ty:
The property to the north, across CSAH 42, is zoned R-1 and is designated for R~HD uses
on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The property to the east is zoned A, and is designated
for R-L/MD uses. The property to the west and the south is zoned R-1 and PUD, and is
designated for R-L/MD uses.
ANALYSIS:
Zone Change Request (A to R-l):
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the following policies for
amendments to the Official Zoning Map:
· The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical
or administrative error, or
· The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of
the area. or
· The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will be appropriate on
the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood
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.
Hass Lake Designation:
Hass Lake is currently classified as a Natural Environment Lake. The applicant is
requesting that the designation be changed to a Recreational Development Lake.
According to the State Shoreland Rules {}6120,3000, "natural environment lakes are
generally small, often shallow lakes with limited capacities for assimilating the impacts
of development and recreational use. They often have adjacent lands with substantial
constraints for development such as high water tables, exposed bedrock, and unsuitable
soils. These lakes, particularly in rural areas, usually do not have much existing
development or recreational use." Riparian lots adjacent to a natural environment lake
have a minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 125 feet.
Nonriparian lots must be at least 20,000 square feet in area and 100 feet wide.
l:\02files~02rezone\02-044 stanton\0244 pc.doc
Page 2
Recreational development lakes, on the other hand, are defined as "generally medium-
sized lakes of varying depths and shapes with a variety of landform, soil, and
groundwater situations on the lands around them. They are often characterized by
moderate levels of recreational use and existing development. Development consists
mainly of seasonal and year-round residences and recreationally-oriented commercial
uses. Many of these lakes have capacities for accommodating additional development
and use." The minimum lot area and lot width for a riparian lot adjacent to a recreational
development lake is 15,000 square feet and 90 feet. The minimum lot area for a
nora/parian lot is 12,000 square feet with 86 feet of frontage at the front building line.
When Hass Lake was originally classified, it met the criteria for a natural environment
lake. At that time, the area was primarily rural, with limited adjacent development. The
potential for development would remain limited until public sewer and water were
extended to the area. Since that time, however, there has been a substantial change in the
surround'mg area. CSAH 42, a major arterial, directly abuts the lake. A significant golf
course and residential development is also adjacent to the lake to the south. In addition,
sewer and water services have been extended to this area, and any development will be
connected to these services. The steep slopes and bluff around the lake will also limit the
development directly adjacent to the lake.
The DNR has met with the developer and the staff to discuss the proposed
reclassification. As noted in the attached letter from Pat Lynch, Area Hydrologist, the
DNR is generally supportive of this reclassification, based on the understanding that the
area directly adjacent to the lake will be preserved and be dedicated to the City. This
dedication would be accomplished at the time of platting.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Zone Change and the reclassification of Hass Lake as
proposed.
2. Recommend denial of the request..
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1. The Planning staff finds the proposed R~l
district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The proposed classification
of Hass Lake to a recreational development lake is also justified based on the existing
development surrounding the lake, the availability of public sewer and water services,
and the abutting major arterial roadway. The staff therefore recommends approval of this
request.
ACTION REQUIRED:
I:XO2files\O2rezone\02-044 stanton\02-44 pc.doc Paso 3
This proposal requires two separate motions. The following motions are appropriate for
this action:
A motion and second to recommend approval of the zone change request to the R-1
district on 20.04 acres.
A motion and second to recommend approval of an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance reclassifying Hass Lake to a recreational development lake.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
Letter fi:om DNR
4, Applicant's Narrative
5. Aerial Photograph
1502files\O2rezone\02-044 stanton\0244 pc.doc Page 4
Loc~tion Map
0
60 Feet
IBBB~BB~!
April, 2002
Minnesota Department of Natural Reso
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651)
Ms. Iane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Boulevard SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
RE: I-Iass Lake Reclassification, DNR Unnamed Basin #70~78W
Dear Ms. Kansier:
I am in receipt of the notification you sent regarding the rezoning of the 20 acres immediately west of Hass
Lake (#70-78W) form agricultural to low density residential, and the reclassification of Hass Lake from a
Natural Environment to Recreational Development shoreland classification.
I have met with you and the developer, and indicated willingness to support the lake reclassification, with
the understanding that the riparian (abutting the wetland) portion of the adjacent 20 acres would be in the
city's ownership, and thatthe wooded hillslope west o£the basin would be maintained in tree cove~.
To formally propose reclassification of the shoreland status, the city must write to me requesting same, and
provide written justification as to why the reclassification is warranted. Once I receive this written request
and justification, I formulate a recommendation to the DNR Waters Perm/ts and Land Use Section
Administrator for final action. This process may take two-four weeks for when I receive such a request
from the city.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 651-772-7917.
Sincerely,
Patrick I. Lynch III
Area Hydrologist
DNRInformation: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TrY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity C~ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Minimum of 20% Post-Consumer Waste
Amendment to Zoning Map - Brief description
We would like to change the zoning of Hass Lake to recreational environmental as the
area around this is being developed, and by changing this we would then be able to
develop lots with 20,000 square feet making the installation of sewer and water more
feasible. We are able to preserve the bluff area and are willing to convey to the City of
Prior Lake a strip of land along the lake so as to preserve the lake and limit homeowner
access.
We are prosing to change agriculture land to residential, along with R5 as a buffer
between single family construction and commercial.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5D
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A
REZONING FROM R-1 TO R-2, AN AMENDMENT TO
WENSMANN Is'r PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS
WENSMANN 3m~ ADDITION AND THE VACATION
OF EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS OVER THE COMMON LOT AREA
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
MAY 13, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Wensmann Realty, Inc., has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Wensmann 3e Addition on the property located north of CSAH 82, west of Fox Tail Trail
and Wensmann 2"~ Addition. The application includes the following requests:
· A rezoning of approximately 0.53 acres from the R-1 (Low Density Residential)
district to the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) district;
· An amendment to the Wensmann 1't Addition Planned Unit Development Plan;
· A Preliminary Plat;
· The vacation of the existing drainage and utility easement over Lot 39, Block 1,
Wensmann 2"~ Addition.
The proposal adds 0.53 acres to the east side of the existing PUD, extends the private
streets and adds 4 townhouse units to the existing development.
BACKGROUND:
In November 2000, the City Council approved the PUD Plan for Wensmann 1" Addition.
The final PUD plan included 178 units on a total of 60.93 acres, or 52.43 net acres. The
overall density of this plan was 3.4 units per acre. The plan included a mixture of single
family homes and townhouses consisting of 3- and 4-unit buildings. The mix included 49
single family homes and 129 townhouse units. At the same time, the City Council
approved the final plat for Wensmann 1N Addition. This final plat included all 49 of the
16200
1A02files\02subdivisions\02prelim platsXwensmann 3rd\wens3 pc.doc
Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Page 1
single family lots and 63 of the townhouse units. The remaining area was platted as
outlots for future development.
In September 2001, the City Council approved the final plat of Wensmann 2nd Addition.
This plat included the remaining 66 townhouse units and the common open space for
those units.
In 2002, the developer purchased 0.53 acres of the adjacent Kuper property, located
directly east of Wensmmm 2~d. The developer is proposing to add this property to the
original PUD. The proposal extends the existing private street about 75' to the northeast,
and adds 4 townhouse units to the PUD plan. The following analysis deals strictly with
the additional 0.53 acres to be added to the PUD plan. Where appropriate, the analysis
includes a comparison of the approved plan and the proposed addition.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site consists of 0.53 acres.
Topography: The high point of this site is 936' MSL. The site slopes towards the
wetland to the southeast, to a Iow point of 922' MSL.
Vegetation: There is one existing tree on this site, which will be saved.
Wetlands: There are no wetlands located within this site. There is a wetland to the
southeast, but it is not included within the plat boundaries.
Access: Access to the site is from the private drive offofFox Tail Trail.
2020 Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for Urban Low to
Medium Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The
entire site is located within the current MUSA boundary.
Zoning: The 0.53 acres is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). The applicant
is requesting a rezoning to the R-2 district. The R-1 district permits a maximum density
of 3.6 units per acre, while the R~2 district permits a density of 7.2 units per acre.
Shoreland District: The southeast comer of this property is also located within the
Shoreland District for Prior Lake, which is classified as a General Development lake.
The proposed lots within the Shoreland District are townhouse lots. The allowable
number of units in this case is based on a tier system, with the number of units increasing
as the distance from the lake increases. The maximum number of units on the portion of
the site within the Shoreland District is 54 units. The approved PUD included 43 units
within this area. This proposal adds an additional 4 units, for a total of 47 units within
the Shoreland District. The impervious surface of the site located within the Shoreland
District does not exceed 30 percent.
l:~02files\02subdivisions\02pr¢lira plats\wensmann 3rd\wens3 pc.doc
Page 2
PROPOSED PLAN
Density,: The original plan included 178 units on 58.64 net acres. The overall density in
~this plan was 3.04 units per acre. With the addition of the 0.53 acre parcel and 4 units,
the plan will include 182 units on 59.16 net acres, and an overall density of 3.08 units per
acre.
Lots: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 5 lots and 1 outlot. Lots 1-4 are the
envelope lots for the townhouse units. Lot 5 is the common open space, both for
Wensmarm ya and Wensmarm 2"d. Outlot A is the extension of the private street,
Building Styles: The proposed townhouses are consistent with the style and design of
the townhouses approved as part of the original PUD plan.
Setbacks: The plan proposes a 25' setback from the front property line, a minimum 25'
rear yard setback, and a minimum 20' building separation (foundation to foundation)
between the townhouses. The plan also notes a 30' setback from any wetland.
Lot Coverage: The original ground floor area approved in the townhouse portion of the
PUD was 0.279. With the additional land and 4 new units, the ground floor area is 0.278.
Useable Open Space: The proposed common area provides the minimum open space for
this development,
Parking: The proposal provides at least 2 spaces per dwelling unit, which is consistent
with the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Landscaping: Landscaping for this development is based on the perimeter of the
development. The developer has submitted a landscaping plan indicating 9 new
perimeter trees within the new area. These trees, added to the approved landscaping plan,
exceed the required landscaping for the overall development.
Tree Replacement: There is one significant tree on this site, which will be saved. No
tree replacement is required.
Signs: No new signs are proposed.
Lighting: The developer also plans to provide streetlights on the private streets.
Streets: This plan includes one new street, which is an extension of the existing private
street about 75' to the east. This street functions more as a driveway, and is designed
with a 24' wide surface.
Sidewalks/Trails: No additional sidewalks or trails are proposed.
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\wensmann 3rdXwens3 pc.doc Page
Parks: The original plan included a 12 acre park. No additional parkland will be
required. Parkland dedication for the 0.53 acre parcel will be satisfied by a cash
dedication of $1,685.00 per new unit.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main: Sanitary sewer and water main will be extended
from the existing utilities located in the private street.
Storm Sewer: Storm water runoff from this site will be directed to the existing storm
sewer system in Wensmann Ist Addition. In addition, the developer has granted a
drainage and utility easement over the wetland area to the east. Although this is off-site,
the wetland may be impacted by runoff from the development.
ANALYSIS:
Rezoning .from R-1 to R-2: Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the
following policies for amendments to the Official Zoning Map:
· The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical
or administrative error, or
· The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of
the area, or
· The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will be appropriate on
the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
The property is designated as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The R-2 district is consistent with this designation.
The R-2 district is also consistent with the zoning and development of the adjacent
property.
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 ora 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 developer is also requesting approval to
custom grade the more difficult single family lots in order to save more trees and
preserve more slopes.
(2) Higher standards of site and building design.
1:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\wensmann 3rd\wens3 pc.doc Page 4
The density o£this overall site is clustered around the wetland, and is located closer to
the major roads adjaeeut to the site. The utilization of private streets in the
town_house 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.
The homeowners association does ma'mtenance of private streets, including plowing
and future repairs. This reduces City costs in providing services to these homes.
Also, the addition of this 0.53 acre parcel allows access to what would otherwise be a
landlocked parcel.
(4.) Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space components in the
development which may be made more useable and be more suitably located than
would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures.
The existing park and trails create a public trail system around the pond, which
provides an amenity that can be utilized by both the future and the existing
neighborhood.
(5) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows modifications to the strict
application of regulations within the various Use Districts that are in harmony with
the purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The use of the PUD allows the higher density to be clustered around the pond and
adjacent to the major roads. 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 townhouse units are sited to take advantage of the natural views of the wetlands.
(8) Allows the development to operate in concert with a Redevelopment Plan in certain
areas of the City and to insure the redevelopment goals and objectives within the
Redevelopment District will be achieved.
This criterion is not apphcable.
l:\02files\O2subdivisions~O2prelim plats\wensmann 3rd\wens3 pc.doe Page 5
(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 streets.
(JO)Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over and above required
dedications, by allowing a portion of the density to be transferred to other parts of
the site.
The existing park and trail dedication will help facilitate the creation o£a trail corridor
along the natural areas on this site and on adjacent sites.
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. The
landscaping plan will also enhance this area.
(2) The design of a PUD shall optimize compatibility between the project and
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential
adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse
effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD.
The use of the PUD will allow the extension of the single family homes adjacent to
the existing residences, and the clustering of the townhouse units.
(3) 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.
There are no additional phases proposed.
(4) Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one building on a lot.
This is not applicable.
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\wensmann 3rd~wens3 pc.doc
Page 6
(5) A PUD in a Residential Use District shah 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 shah 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 ~sed in calculating required
off-street parking spaces.
The modification requested by the developer include the following:
· The use of private streets
This modification is permitted under the PUD provisions at the discretion of the
Council. The proposed street is an extension of an existing private street.
Prelimina~. Plat: The attached m.morandum from the City Engineering Department
lists several revisions required to the preliminary plat. These issues are relatively minor
and can be addressed at the final plat stage.
Vacation: When Wensmann 2"d was platted in 2001, Lot 39, Block 1, was platted as
common area for the townhouse development, and as such, was covered by a drainage
and utility easement. The developer is requesting the vacation of this easement at this
time because one of the new townhouse units will be located within this area. A new
common lot, with a new easement, will be included as part of the final plat of Wensmann
3rd.
Staff Recommendation: The proposed rezoning, PUD amendment, preliminary plat and
vacation are consistent with the existing development of Wensmarm lSt~ The staff
therefore recommends approval, subject to the following conditions:
The resolution vacating the easement will not be recorded until the final plat of
Wensmann 3rd has been approved and signed by the City.
Provide an irrigation plan for the new area.
Address the following Engineering issues in the final plat plans:
a. For all watermains the depth~of cover shall be a m'mimum of 8' to top of pipe and
maximum of 10' of cover. Also 10' of horizontal separation shall be provided
from other parallel utility alignments.
b. Note to provide a minimum of 18" vertical separation for all waterma'm crossings
with sanitary sewer.
1:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\wensmann 3rd\wens3 pc.doc Page 7
c. Check the sanita~y service invert elevations for Lots 3 and 4. Does the
documented building elevation justify the sanitary service invert elevation depth
being greater than 10' for Lot 1 ?
d. Minimum grade for sanitary service stubs shall be ¼" per foot (2%).
e. Delete or verify curb & gutter detail on page 4 meet the requirements of City of
Prior Lake Public Works Design Manual Plate # 507 on page 8.
f. Signature of company responsible for erosion and sediment control plan
preparation, implementation and maintenance.
g. Extend existing 2'contour lines a minimum of 200' beyond the property boundary
to accurately depict the existing drainage patterns.
h. Note for all silt fence to be installed by the contractor and inspected by the City
prior to any site work.
i. Delete or verify silt fence detail on page 5 meet the requirements of City of Prior
Lake Public Works Design Manual Plate # 602 on page 8.
Slopes greater than or equal to 4:1 shall have erosion control blanket installed
immediately after finished grading.
k. Organize plan sheets in the following order: Title sheet, Detail sheets, Grading &
Erosion Plan, Sanitary Sewer & Watermain sheets, Street sheets
1. Existing utilities shall be shown and labeled as existing.
m. All streets shall be clearly labeled.
n. Bench marks shall be placed on all sheets.
o. Title Block shall include horizontal and vertical scales, and City project number.
p. Verify Location Map and Overall Plan specific requirements on Title sheet.
q. Stationing of water curb box shall be indicated by "W" in front of stationing.
r. The street construction plans shall show the centerline curve data.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
PUD Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and easement vacation.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the rezoning from R-1 to R-2, the amendment to the
Wensmann 1st PUD Plan, the preliminary plat and the easement vacation 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.
l:\02flles\02subdivisions\02prelim platsXwensmann 3rd\wens3 pc,doc
Page 8
3. Recommend denial of the request.
4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the following requests:
· Rezoning 0.53 acres from the R-1 district to the R-2 district;
· Approval of an amendment to the Wensmarm 1st Planned Unit Development subject
to the above conditions;
· Approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as Wensmarm's 3~, subject to the above
conditions.
· Approval of the drainage and utility easement over Lot 39, Block 1, Wensmann 2"a,
subject to the above condition.
EXHIBITS:
1. Reduced Copy of PUD and Prel'Lminary Plat Plans
2. Developer's Narrative
3. Engineering Comments
4. Finance Director Comments
1:\02filcs\02subdivisionsX02prclim plats\wcnsmann 3rd\wens3 pc.doc Page 9
NOI~IaOV 0~1~ NNYrtSN3M
Z
OZ
Z
I1
,t I
Wensmann Third Addition
Revised PUD Application
March 6, 2002
Developer:
Wensmann Realty, Inc.
Terry Wensmann/Kelly Murray
1895 Plaza Drive, Suite 200
Eagan, MN 55122
Engineer
Pioneer Engineering
Nick Polta
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Proposed Request:
Wensmann Realty, Inc. is seeking approval for a second revision to the PUD oftbe Wensmann
Addition that received final PUD approval in the fall of 2000. The reason for the request, is there
was a .53 acre "triangle" piece of pruperty owned by Douglas and Barbara Kuper that became
essentially land locked with the approval of both the Wensmann Second Addition plat and the
Regal Crest plat. Wensmann Realty, lnc has entered into a purchase agreement with the Kupers to
acquire this parcel and have designed an additional four units that would fit right in to the
development. The Declaration for the association was modified to include this land as possible
additional real estate, and they will belong to the Wilderness Ridge II Association. A copy of the
association documents has been included.
In addition to the purchase of the property, Mr. and Mrs. Kuper have agreed to grant a drainage
and utility easement in favor oftbe City of Prior Lake across the entire wetland area on the
Kuper's west property line. This is an area that has been a concern for engineering staffand the
watershed district.
Impact to existing vegetation is minimal. Most of the area was underbrush, high grasses and non-
significant trees. There was one existing significant oak tree that has been preserved as shown on
the landscape plan.
The comprehensive guide plan has designated this area as urban IowfMedium Density. The area
would need to be re-zoned to R-2 PUD. In reviewing the PUD Density calculations, this proposal
actually slightly decreases the density calculations. We are also staying under the allowed
impervious surface coverage and increased the open space impervious surface coverage.
This request is a benefit for all parties involved, the property owner, the city, and the developer.
June 24,2002
City of Prior Lake
Atm. Ms. Jane Kansier
14200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: Wensmann Third Addition
Dear Jane;
Please accept this letter as clarification that the same building style, colors, materials, etc as approved with
the Wensmann 1" Addition PUD will be built in the proposed Wensmann Third Addition.
This letter is being provided in lieu of submitting additional sets of the building plan akeady approved.
If you have any questions or need additional information regarding th!s issue, please feel free to contact me
at our administrative offices 651406-4400.
Sincerely,
Assistant Vice President
1895 Plaza Drive
Suite 200
Eagan. MN 55122
612/423-1179
Fax 612/905-3678
DATE: April 19, 2002
TO: Sue McDermott, City Engineer
FROM: Kevin Kleist, Engineering Tech iV
RE: Wensmann 3rd Addition (Project #02-37)
I have reviewed the Grading & Erosion Control plans for the subject project and have the
following comments:
1. For all waterrnains the depth of cover shall be a minimum of 8' to top of pipe and
maximum of 10' of cover. Also 10' of horizontal separation shall be provided from
other parallel utility alignments.
2. Note to provide a minimum of 18" vertical separation for ail watermain crossings
with sanitary 'sewer.
3. 'Check the sanitary service invert elevations for Lots 3 and 4. Does the documented
building elev..ation justify the sanitary service invert elevation depth being greater than
10' for Lot 17
4. Minimum grade for sanitary service stubs shall be ¼" per foot (2%).
5. Delete or verify curb & gutter detail on page 4 meet the requirements of City of Prior
Lake Public Works Design Manual Plate # 507 on page 8.
6. Signature of company responsible for erosion and sediment control plan preparation,
implementation and maintenance.
7. Extend existing 2'contour lines a minimum of 200' beyond the property boundary to
accurately depict the existing drainage patterns.
8. Note for all silt fence to be installed by the contractor and inspected by the City prior
to any site work.
9. Delete or verify silt fence detail on page 5 meet the requirements of City of Prior Lake
Public Works Design Manual Plate # 602 on page 8.
10. Slopes greater than or equal to 4:1 shall have erosion control blanket installed
immediately after finished grading.
1 I. Organize plan sheets in the following order: Title sheet, Detail sheets, Grading &
Erosion Plan, Sanitary Sewer & Watermain sheets, Street sheets
G:~PROJECTSk2002k37wensmann3hREVIEW 1 .rtf
12. Existing utilities shall be shown and labeled as existing.
13. All streets shall be clearly labeled.
14. Bench marks shall be placed on all sheets.
15. Title Block shall include horizontal and vertical scales, and City project number.
16. Verify Location Map and Overall Plan specific requirements on Title sheet.
17. Stationing of water curb box shall be indicated by "W" in fi:ont of stationing.
18. The street construction plans shall show the centerline curve data.
G:~PROJECTS~2002~37 wensmann3~O,.EVIEW 1 .nf 2
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
Ralph Teschner. Finance Director
WENSMANN 3RD ADDITION Preliminao, Plat
(assessment/fee review)
April I 1,2002
A .53 ac parcel in 34-115-22 (PIN # 25 934 002 1) is being combined with Lot 39 Block 1,
Wensmann 2nd Addition and is proposed to be developed as Wensmann 3rd Addition. This area
has received no prior assessments for City municipal utilities. The acreage associated with Lot
39, Block I Wensmann 2nd Addition has paid for its development fees under a prior
development agreement.
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
$2983.00/acre
$3500.00/acre
The application of applicable City development charges would generate the following costs to
the developer based upon a net lot area calculation of .53 acres of townhouse units as provided
within the site data summary sheet of the preliminary plat description:
Collector Street Fee:
.53 acres (~ $1500.00/ac = $795.00
Storm Water Management Fee:
.53 acres ~ $2943/ac = $1,560.00
Trunk Sewer & Water Charge:
.53 acres ~ $3500.00/ac = $1,855.00
NOTE: (Excludes Lot 39 Block [ Wensmann 2nd Addition which has been previously charged)
These charges represent an approximate cost of $1,053 per lot for the 4 proposed to;vnhouse
units located on the.53 acre portion of Wensmann 3rd Addition. Assuming the initial net lot area
of the preliminary plat does not change, the above referenced storm water, collector street and
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 status of the property is cra'rent with no outstanding delinquencies.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. MinneSota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447~4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEAR.lNG:
DATE:
6A
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE
KNOWN AS RED CEDAR HEIGHTS
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
MAY 13, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Tom Holme Construction, Inc. has applied for a preliminary plat for the property located
n the north side of Mushtown Road, directly west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook
Drive. The preliminary plat consists of 4.34 acres to be subdivided into 7 lots for single
family residential development.
The Planning Commission considered this item at a public hearing on April 22, 2002.
The major issue pertaining to the plat is the storm water runoff management ponds. The
Engineering Department has reviewed the storm water ranoffplan and has determined the
second pond, located on the north end of Lots 3 and 4 may be acceptable, but is not the
most desirable plan. It was noted that the staff and the developer are reviewing other
options to manage some of this runoff. This solution would not be available before City
Council review of the preliminary plat, so the developer agreed to a condition that would
not allow a grading permit on the site until final plat approval. Other potential options
would not substantially affect the other design parameters of this plat.
The Commissioners felt the runoff issues should be addressed and the matter should be
open for the neighbors to review the plans. THe Commission therefore tabled action on
this matter until May 13, 2002.
ANALYSIS:
The staff discussed the various options for storm water runoff management ponds with
the Watershed Dislrict, and forwarded the results of these discussions to the applicant.
As of the date of this report, the staff has not received any additional information from
the applicant.
1:\02files\O2subdivisions\O2prelim plats\red cedar heights\pc report2.doc Page
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The Engineering Department has reviewed the existing storm water mnoffplan and other
potential options. The staff believes that the other options would not substantially affect
the other design parameters of this plat. The staff feels the plat can go forward to the City
Council, especially with the condition that no grading permit wilI be issued until final
plat approval. This condition will ensure that the runoff issues are addressed before any
work commences on the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
Preliminary Plat.
If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions:
1. There will be no grading permit issued until the final plat has been approved by the
City Council.
2. Identify the required buffer strip around the delineated wetland and the required
30' setback from the lO0-year flood elevation of the wetlands and ponds on the
grading plan.
3. Revise the tree inventory to identify the caliper inches of the significant trees.
Provide the calculations indicating the number of caliper incites to be removed for
development of roads, utilities and drainageways, and the number of caliper inches
to be removed for building pads and driveways.
4. Raise the garage floor elevations where possible at least 1' above the curb
elevations to provide positive drainage away from the house.
5. All improvements, including utilities, roads, storm water ponds and so on, must be
constructed in conformance with the Public }Forks Design Manual. All plans must
also be prepared itt conformance with the Public ~Vorks Design Manual.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the above conditions of
approval and forward this recommendation to the City Council.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Defer action on this preliminary plat to a date specific to allow the developer to
submit the required information. The 60-day deadline for action on this application
expires on June 30, 2002, This means the City Council must take action at its
meeting on June 17, 2002. In order to do so, the Planning Commission must take
action on this plat no later than May 28, 2002.
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\red cedar heights\pc report2.doc
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the listed
conditions is required.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat of Red Cedar Heights
1:\02files\O2subdivisions\O2prelim plats~red cedar heights\pc rcport2.doc Page 3
Location Map
I?OTH ST E
Location of
Red Cedar
40 0 40 Feet
Ill
Ii
Memorandum
DATE: March 28, 2002
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinatgr
/,
McDermott, City Engineer--
FROM:
Sue
RE: Red Cedar Heights (Project #02-32)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject preliminary plat and has the
following comments:
GRADING
1. Provide an erosion control plan.
SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN
2. Sanitary manholes are to be located on the centerline of the roadway. All City utilities
are to be located within the street section (between the curb and gutter on either side of
the street). Additional manholes will be necessary. Label manholes in plan view.
3. Provide a note for typical water and sewer service on the plan sheets.
4. Show all utility crossings in the profile view.
5. Maintain 10' separation of sanitary sewer and watermain.
6. Manhole 1 is too shallow. Can street grade be raised?
7. Add to note at connection to existing sanitary sewer "...with Engineer approval - Field
verified.
STREET AND STORM SEWER
g. Revise CB #2, #3, ;~4, #5 to CBMH.
9. Show profiles of all catch basin leads on the plans.
]0. Add structures as needed to maintain the storm sewer beneath the curb and gutter.
! !. Label structures, pipe length, class, size and grade in profile view.
12. Provide sump structure at CBMH ~ per Public Works Design Manual.
]3. Provide typical street section. Include pavement design or use minimum typical detail in
Public Works Design Manual.
14. Add City Project # 02-32 to all plan sheets.
G:\PROJECTS~2002x,32redcedar\REVl EW2.DOC
In addition, I have attached a memo from WSB with comments on the WCA review
and hydrology.
Please call me at 447-9831 if you have any questions.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
7A
REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON
LOT 1, BLOCK 2, WATERFRONT PASSAGE
ADDITION (Case File #02-043)
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO-N/A
MAy 13, 2002
16200
INTRODUCTION
The City of Prior Lake has filed an application to vacate a portion of the drainage
and utility easement located on Lot 1, Block 2, Waterfront Passage Addition.
This property is located on the southwest side of Cottonwood Lane, east of Fish
Point Road and west of Adelmann Street. The easement originally covered a
wetland area that has since been filled. Vacating the easement will facilitate
construction of the Norex office building on this site.
As required by State Statute 462.356 Subd.2, the Planning Commission is
required to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposal or
acquisition of public lands as it relates to compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate
easement or right-of-way by resolution. The statute also states "no such
vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the public interest to do so".
DISCUSSION
Waterfront Passage Addition was originally platted in 1993. The easement area
in question was platted over an existing wetland. That wetland has since been
filled, and the easement is no longer necessary for drainage purposes.
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of
the existing easement comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public
need or anticipated future need for the dedicated property?
l:\02filcs\O2vacations\02-43 watt. font\02-43 pc ~por~.doc 1
Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Comprehensive Plan Review
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss utility easements, other
than as a function of ensuring access to public utilities. The vacation of this
easement is not inconsistent with any specific goal or objective of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Public Need
Once this portion of the wetland was filled, the need for a drainage and utility
easement ceased to exist.
RECOMMENDATION
There is no need for the retention of an easement on this land. The Planning
staff therefore recommends approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES:
Recommend the City Council approve the proposed vacation of the
easement as presented or with changes recommended by the
Commission.
Continue the discussion to a date and time certain to allow the staff to
provide additional information specifically requested by the Planning
Commission.
Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny
part or all of the applications based upon inconsistency of the proposal
with specific regulations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and/or
specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the vacation of the
easement.
l:\02files\O2vacations\02-43 waterfront\02-43 pc r~port.doc 2
Valley Surveying Co.,