HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/2002REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JULY 8, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case #02-068 Dennis & Karen Perrier are requesting variances for front, side,
sum of side yard and rear setbacks for the construction of a new single family
dwelling on the property located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle.
Case #02-075 Bernard Carlson is requesting a variance to the required rear yard
setback to allow the constrUction of an addition to Carlson Hardware Store located
at 16281 Main Avenue SE
Case #02-076 Hillcrest Homes, Inc. is requesting variances to allow grading, fill
and excavation within the bluff impact zone on property located at 14764
Rosewood Road.
Case #02-072 Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.400 Definitions and
1104.308 (4) Water Oriented Accessory Structures of the Zoning Ordinance.
Old Business:
Case Piles #02-024 and #02-025 - Consider a Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plat to be known as Timber Crest Park. The proposal includes 28.19
acres to be subdivided into 162 townhouse units located in the southeast quadrant
of the intersection of County Road 21 and Highway 13, on the north side of
Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail.
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the June 24, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning
Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Absent
Lemke Absent
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes fi-om the June 10, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Consent:
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case File #02-070 - Consider an Amendment to Section 1102.1403(6)
(Gymnastic Schools in the C-5.Zoning District) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report on file in the office of
the City Planning Department.
In June of 1998, the City Council adopted an amendment to the zoning ordinance
permitting gymnastics schools in the C-5 (Business Park District) as conditional uses.
Three conditions were included as conditions of approval.
1. The use occupies no more than 4,000 square feet in the principal structure.
2. Hours of operation are limited to 5:00PM to 11:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays,
and 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM on Saturday and Sunday.
3. A minimum of one parking space per 300 square feet of floor area is provided.
Subsequent to the adoption of this ordinance amendment, a conditional use permit was
approved for Gleason's Gymnastics School in a building on Fish Point Road in the
Business Office Park. Recently, Mr. Gleason contacted the City because his lease is up
and he is looking for new space. He also indicated he needed more room and expanded
hours of operation.
L:~)2F1LES~02planning comm~02pcminutesWIN062402.doc
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 2002
When the original ordinance was adopted, there was considerable discussion about the
appropriateness of the use in the C-5 district. The staff concluded at that time the use was
not appropriate for the zoning district but the Planning Commission felt it was. The
conditions that were attached were felt to be appropriate for the use. When the school was
originally opened, there were complaints fi.om other tenants about parking and noise.
These issues were addressed by signing parking for the school and adding sound barriers
to the space occupied by the school. The school has lost its lease at the present location
and has been looking at occupying 10,000 square feet in another building in the Business
Park. However, due to the size limitations and hours of operation as well as problems
with the TIF district on the proposed property, they have been unable to move in.
Ringstad asked Kansier to expand on the initial problems with the school being located in
a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. Kansier explained the situation and limitations
on the types of permitted uses. TIF is intended for manufacturing, office and industrial
uses. Uses that do not fit that criteria spelled out in the State Statutes are limited to 15%
of the building. Gleason's Gymnastic School was at 15% at the previous building and
not allowed any more than that. 10,000 square feet would put them over in any other
building.
Stamson asked if the City had an opinion on this issue. Kansier said they didn't.
Whoever occupies the building and is not meeting the statutory requirements would result
in the City having no choice but to de-certify.
Atwood questioned the length ora TIF District. Kansier responded anywhere fi.om 9 to
11 years. Most tenants are halfway through their district. Each lot has its own district.
Atwood questioned if the owner was aware of the TIF situation. Kansier said he was
very aware of the potential for losing TIF.
There were no comments fi.om the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· The gymnastic school is currently in the C5 district and currently occupying less than
the 10,000 square feet they propose. Did not have a problem with this moving
forward.
· Decertification of the TIF District is a natural event to take place.
· Support the relocation.
Atwood:
· Agreed, if that helps Gleason to stay in Prior Lake.
· Remove restrictions on the hours of operation is a great idea.
L:\02F1LES\02planning ¢omm\02perainutes\MN062402.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 2002
Stamson:
Disagreed. When this issue was first brought forward there was a lot of discussion if
this was an appropriate use for the district. The concern was compatibility with
surrounding uses and safety for the kids in an industrial setting.
· Initially there were a number of problems, some have been fixed.
· Generally the industrial area is not compatible with a lot of children moving around in
their parking lots. It makes me nervous sending so many kids around .in an industrial
use area.
· Another big issue was the parking with the large number of cars going in and out.
· Not sure it wasn't a mistake to allow it in the first place. Some of the issues have
been addressed.
· Not comfortable with the expansion.
· Savage has that use in their industrial park but the building is freestanding and
separate from other buildings.
· Atwo0d questioned who the other tenants were. Kansier responded.~
· Stamson explained the initial CUP was for a starting place and then the school would
find another place to build a freestanding bnilding. That is why the condition was for
4,000 square feet. Long term the school was not to be in the C5 District.
· That is also why the hours of operation were limited - to avoid being in the same
joint location.
· Now they are talking l0,000 sq feet. Maybe it would work in this building but in
many buildings in town it would not work. It is not generally appropriate for a C5
District.
Larry Gleason, of Gleason Gymnastic School, said the building he was in had some
problems and were very specific. Limited parking and only one route for trucks to come
in. He has two other gymnastic schools and both are in industrial districts. Gleason felt
there would be more parking in the new building. He also felt the hours of operation
limited him to evening hours. Most of the classes are after school. There would not be a
lot of traffic during the day.
Stamson:
· Gleason is right that the conditions are specific to that building, but the ordinance is
for the entire C5 District. Just because Gleason is moving to a bigger building does
not mean the next guy would do the same.
· Disagreed Gleason's problems were unique to that building. Most of the buildings in
town have that problem.
· It is a district-wide issue. Prior Lake does not have a lot of big indhstrial space.
· Parking and traffic was a big problc~n.
Atwood:
· Can see where parking.was a huge problem. Having children enrolled was a problem.
· This site is well suited for it.
· Stamson pointed out the discussion is the district and city as a whole, not Gleason's
proposal.
L:~O2FILES~O2planning comm~O2peminu~es~lN062402.do¢ 3
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 2002
· Does not see a problem with other applicants and supported.
Ringstad:
· Gathered in reading the report, that parking was a big concern. Parking in the new
location will be much better.
· His daughter was in the program a few years ago and it was a nightmare with people
coming and going with no place to park.
· The new building is laid out better where the parking is in front with the docks in the
back.
· It will be a great addition to the school itself.
· Supported.
Stamson:
· If the size and hours are going to be relaxed, maybe tighten the parking and the
amount of space where the kids are dropped off.
· Kansier said it could be done but to keep in mind, this does not remove the
requirement for a Conditional Use Permit. Any kind of proposal that comes in would
be reviewed on a site-specific basis. Another option would be to tighten the parking.
Maybe add a provision for drop-off. Or limit number of students to some function of
the park.
Kansier went on to explain the Conditional Use Permit could allow for some kind of
annual review.
Stamson:
· Would like to see some of the past problems addressed up front.
· Designate a drop-off to keep separate from the school and business.
· Kansier said you want requirements to be general enough but could add the minimum
parking with a drop-off area/pickup area designated.
Atwood:
· Did not feel there had to be such specific language when there is not going to be large
competition.
Stamson questioned Gleason on how many children are in a class. Gleason said they
generally have around 8 to 9 students and sometimes with a full program going on - 3
classes. Maybe 24 to 25 kids. With this additional space, the amount of classes could
double, but they would all come at different times.
Kansier said there could a condition for minimum of 1 parking space per 2 students in the
larger class or whatever is greater.
Atwood felt it was not necessary. Ringstad said he would approve with conditions.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWiN062402.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 2002
Kansier suggested requiring a designated drop-off and pickup area with a physical
separation between pedestrian and truck loading. Then review it as part of the
Conditional Use Permit. It is made aware there is a separation of traffic.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE AMENDMENT WITH THE 3 CONDITIONS AS STATED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier recapped the conditions:
· The use would be limited to 10,000 square feet;
· A minimum of 1 parking space per 300 feet of floor area; or 1 space per 2 students
whichever is greater; and a
· Designated drop-off/pickup area that physically separates pedestrian and truck
loading.
This item will go before the City Council on July 15, 2002.
B. Case Files #02-024 and #02-025 - Consider a Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plat to be known as Timber Crest Park. The proposal includes 28.19
acres to be subdivided into 162 townhouse units located in the southeast quadrant of
'the intersection of County Road 21 and Highway 13, on the north side of Franklin
Trail and Bluff Heights Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report on file in the office of
the City Planning Department.
Ray Brandt has applied for approval of a development to be known as Timber Crest Park
on the property located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH
13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and BluffHeights Trail. The property owner, Prior
Lake Apartments, has also signed the application.
The application includes the following requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
This property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The proposal calls for a
townhouse development consisting ora total of 148 dwelling units on 28.19 acres. The
development also includes parkland and private open space.
This original proposal involved filling a large portion of the wetland on the site. The
Wetland Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) subsequently advised the developer that the
proposal was inconsistent with the Wetland Conservation Act, and could not be
approved.
L:\02FILES~02planning comm~02pcmin u teshMN062402 .doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24. 2002
As a result of the TEP decision, the developer submitted new plans on June 11, 2002.
Because of the timing of this submittal, the staff did not have the opportunity to review
the new plans. In addition, the developer must submit a revised wetland mitigation plan
and revised storm water drainage calculations. However, since the public hearing had
already been published and notices sent, the staff had no choice but to place this item on
the agenda. Staff recommended continuing this item to the July 8, 2002 meeting.
Comments from the public:
Gary Grant, applicant for Pulte Homes, said he could wait until the next meeting to do a
presentation. Ray Brandt from Brandt Engineering was present to answer any questions.
Leo Fecht, 15475 Franklin Trail SE, questioned if they would be getting revised
information in the mail. Kansier said they wouldn't send new notices but the neighbors
did receive the revised plan with the notice.
Suzanne Sharpe, 16483 Franklin Trail SE, said she and her neighbors were concerned
with the additional traffic on Franklin Trail. Adding 148 townhomes brings an additional
300 cars to Franklin Trail. They would like to see some kind of diversion to traffic off
Franklin Trail. People use Franklin Trail as a cutoff between Highway 13 and County
Road 21. There is a lot of speeding.
Karen Lantz, 5200 Credit River Road, said her concern is traffic. She felt the traffic has
doubled in the two years she's been in the house and her property value has dropped
because of it. By increasing traffic on a 50 mph road without stoplights will be madness.
She felt they can't stop the developers but the Commission should address the traffic
problems first.
Linda Micko-Rasche, 16461 Franklin Trail, explained her problem getting out of her
driveway with the existing traffic. She did not think it is a good idea to have another
driveway on the proposed plat. Suggested slowing down the traffic on Franklin Trail
might help. Would like to see the proposed driveway changed for safety reasons.
Irene Mangan, 4810 BluffHeights Circle, attended the meeting on BluffHeights
Apartments, and stated the neighbors were concerned with the traffic and additional
children. Now another addition of homes is proposed with more traffic.
Suzanne Sharpe, questioned the townhome price range. Gary Grant explained there
would be two different owner-occupied housing units. The Village Homes (48 units) will
be starting around $115,000 to $130,000 range. The Manor homes (100 units) will be in
the $160,000 to $185,000 range.
Kathy Blonigan, 5210 Credit River Road, said her biggest concern was traffic. She has
been in contact with County Commissioner Barb Marschall regarding the traffic
problems long before this proposal. It is very hazardous. Suggested reducing the speed
L:\02FILES\02planning comrn\02pcminutes~V~N062402.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
Jun* 24~ 2002
limit and adding turn lanes. The road issues need to be addressed first before adding all
the proposexi townhomes,
Starnsun pointed out the City was working on the ring road. Kansier said they would ask
a representative from the Scott County Engineer's office to be at the next meeting to
answer any questions.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO THE JULY 8, 2002, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Reminder of the joint City Council/Planning Commission/Lake and Parks Advisories
bout tour on July 29, 2002.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
LS02F1LESX02planning corran~02pcminute s~MN062402 .doc 7
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE
SETBACK LESS THAN 75 FEET FROM THE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK, A FRONT YARD
SETBACK LESS THAN REQUIRED FOR SETBACK
AVERAGING, A SUM OF SIDE YARDS LESS THAN 15
FEET, A REAR YARD SETBACK LESS THAN 25
FEET, AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A
BUILDING WALL GREATER THAN 50 FEET, Case file
#02-068PC
DENNIS & KAREN PERRIER
16502 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES . NO
JULY 8, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Dennis & Karen
Perrier for the construction of a single-family dwelling and attached garage on
nonconforming platted lots of record located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle.
The applicant is requesting the following variances:
1. A 1.8-foot variance to permit a 25-foot structure setback to a front
property line, rather than 26.8-feet as required by setback averaging
[Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (4)].
A 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23~foot rear yard setback, rather than
the minimum required 25 feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional
Standards (4)].
A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the
Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum
setback of 62.5-feet as required by setback averaging [City Code
Subsection 1104.308(2)].
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4. A 0.7-foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of 14.31-feet,
rather than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum of side yards on a
nonconforming lot [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open
Space (8)].
5. A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback
7-feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for
building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 (6)].
DISCUSSION:
Lots 17, 20, & 21, Inguadona Beach, were platted in 1924. The subject lots are
legal nonconforming platted lots of record. The property is located within the R-1
District (Low Density Residential) and Shore~and District (SD). The subject lot
has dimensions of 37.7' + 22.33~ (front) by 112.51' (east) by 60.31' (rear) by
107.59' (west), for a total lot area of 6,400 square feet, including the recently
acquired 10'strip of the originally platted 20' easement adjoining the east side lot
line. The applicant also owns Lot 20, and part of 21, with a combined lot area of
5,804 square feet. These lots are located across the private street from the
proposed building site. According to Scott County records, the applicant does
not own any other adjoining properties (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey).
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and construct a new
larger dwelling in its place. The proposed building footprint is approximately 75'
deep by 40' wide for a total footprint of approximately 2,655 square feet,
including a 904 sq. ft. attached garage. The main level floor plan includes a
kitchen, ¼ bath, dining and family rooms, and main bedroom with a full bath.
The lower level includes a full bath, two bedrooms, family room, and wet-bar
area (Attachment 2 - Building Plans).
The proposed structure includes a front setback of 25' which requires a 1.8'
variance, because setback averaging requires a minimum 26.8' setback. The
proposed west building wall is 74' long. City Ordinance requires that two inches
per foot be added to the side yard setback for walls over 50' long (74' - 50' = 24'
x 2" -- 48" or 4'). This requires a 2' variance to permit a 7' side yard setback as
proposed rather than the minimum required 9'. The combined side yards total
14.3', and requires a 0.7' variance, as the minimum sum of side yards allowed is
15' on nonconforming lots. A proposed setback of 50' from the OHWM rather
than a 62.5' setback as determined by averaging the existing structures east and
west of the subject lot.
The applicant submitted an impervious surface worksheet with a proposed 4,104
square feet of coverage area or 27% of the total area of the combined lots,
including the common area between the rear lot line and shoreline of Prior Lake.
L:\02 FILES\02va rian ce$~02-068\VarRpt.doc Page 2
The proposal is less than the maximum allowable area of 30% or 4,546 square
feet. The applicant did not submit an existing impervious surface area for the
current conditions on the subject property. Staff inspected Lots 20, and 21, and
it appears a large portion of the area is covered in class 5 gravel that is
considered impervious and would exceed the allowable 30%. The applicant is
proposing to remove any gravel/class 5 area and will seed/sod this area to
become non-impervious. The City Code requires all front and side yards to be
sodded (Attachment 3 - Proposed Impervious surface Area).
The submitted survey depicts an existing non-compliant water oriented
accessory structure (boat house) located beyond the subject properties
boundaries and on the common shoreline property that is jointly owned by the
property owners of the Inguadona Beach subdivision. The structure is currently
used by the property owners of Lot 16, and lot 17, for the storage of water
oriented accessory equipment.
The City Engineering Department has determined the survey must be revised to
include 2' contours for drainage and grading purposes to be submitted with a
building permit application for review.
The Department of Natural Resoumes has responded to this variance request
and the comments are attached (Attachment 4 - DNR Comments).
Due to the depth of the lot, it appears some form °f front yard setback variance
and some form of rear yard setback variance are necessary to allow a building
pad. However, the proposed dwelling can be redesigned to meet the side
setbacks and the setback from the Ordinary-High-Water-Mark (OHWM). Pulling
the house back to meet the OHWM setback will also reduce the variance
required to the rear yard setback.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record and an existing
condition over which the applicant has no control. Some form of front and
rear yard setback variances will be 'required to build a reasonable single
family dwelling for this site. However, the applicant can control the design
L:~02FILES\02variances\02-068\VarRpt.doc Page 3
and size of the proposed structure and eliminate the need for all variances as
requested, specifically #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5.
2. Cond'itions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
Plats of this era (1924) crreated lots with smaller dimensions than are
required today, and are peculiar to the lot and adjoining properties of the
Inguadona Beach Subdivision. In addition, the substandard lot depth
precludes the ability to build a dwelling without some form of front and rear
yard setback variances. However, as requested, Variance #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5, do
not meet the hardship criteria because a redesign can reduce or eliminate
these variances.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
Front and rear yard setback variances appear necessary for construction of a
dwelling of reasonable size and preserve a substantial property right of the
owner. However, as requested the setbacks to the OHWM, sum of side
yards, eave encroachment, and building wall, may be reduced or eliminated
with a revised building plan.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The granting of front and rear yard setback variances will not impair these
stated values. The granting of the requested Variance #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5
appears to impair these stated values but does not appear to endanger the
public safety or increase the danger of fire.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the front and rear yard setback variances for a future dwelling
will not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood, or diminish
property values or impair health, safety and comfort of the area. However,
the granting of the requested Variance #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5 will unreasonably
impact the character and development of the neighborhood.
L:\02 FI LES\02variances\02-068\VarRpt. doc Page 4
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
· of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Since this is a substandard platted lot of record, the granting of the front yard
setback as requested, and a reduced rear yard setback variance is not
contrary to the intent of the Ordinances or the Comprehensive plan. Variance
requests #'s 2 - 5, can be eliminated with a redesigned building plan and
therefore they are contrary to the intent of these Ordinances and the
Comprehensive Plan.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
A hardship exists with respect to the front and rear yard setback variances to
alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty to build a single-family
dwelling. No hardship exists pertaining to variance request #'s 2 - 5, with
design modifications.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of
the owners of the property.
A hardship results from the provisions of the Ordinance with regards to front
and rear yard setbacks for the construction of a single family dwelling
structure. However, the applicant can reduce the size of the proposed
building to eliminate the remaining variance requests.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone are not grounds for the granting of variances.
In this case financial considerations are in addition to the other 8 hardship
criteria for a front and rear yard setback variances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff believes that all of the variance criteria have been met with respect to
the requested front yard setback variance #1, and some form of rear yard
setback variance, such as,a rear yard setback of 15.73-feet in order to meet the
minimum OHWM setback average of 62.5-feet. Due to the depth of the
substandard platted lot of record and the required front and OHWM Setback
averaging, a legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot to
allow for a single family dwelling of reasonable size for this use district.
L:\02FILES\02vadanoes\02-068\VarRpt.doc Page 5
However, staff feels the proposed dwelling may be redesigned and reduced in
size to reduce or eliminate variance requests 2, 3, 4, & 5. Therefore, the
variance hardship criteria have not been met with respect to variance request #'s
2, 3, 4, & 5, as proposed by the applicant and staff recommends denial of these
requested variances.
Staff recommends the following conditions be included with approval of any
variances deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission:
1. The resolution as 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 to depict the
approved variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the
Commission, along with the proposed finish grades with drainage and an
erosion control plan.
3. The applicant shall submit an application for a Lot Combination of Lots 17,
20, & P.O. 21, and create one legally transferable document (Deed), and
shall record said document at the Scott County Land Records Office.
4. The applicant/owner shall remove all existing impervious surface areas on
the combined lots to create a total impervious surface area equal to or less
than 30% of the total lots area.
5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state
agency regulations.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances, in this
case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings approving the variance requests.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
L:\02 FI LES\02variances\02-068~VarRpt.doc Page 6
The staff recommends alternative #1, approval of variance request # 1, and
approval of some modified form of variance request # 2. Staff also recommends
alternative # 3, denial of the requested variance #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5, for a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. This requires the following
two motions:
'i. Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-008PC approving a variance
request to allow a 25' front yard setback rather than the minimum required
26.8' setback as required for setback averaging.
2. Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-009PC denying a 21.77-foot
variance request to permit 3.23-foot rear yard setback; a 12.5-foot
variance to permit a 50-foot setback to the OHWM; a 0.7-foot variance to
permit a sum of side yards of 14.31-feet; and a 2-foot variance to permit a
building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet to a side lot line.
L:\02FiLES\02vadances\02-068\VarRpt.doc Page 7
RE~;OLUTION 02-008PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 1.8-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 25-
FOOT FRONT SETBACK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Dennis & Karen Perrier (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a new single family dwelling on
property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland
Overlay) District at the following location, 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, and
legally described as follows;
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the
South line of said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point
on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in
INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with
that part of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat of INGUADONA BEACH,
adjacent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 0i degree 26
minutes 27 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west
line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36
seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds
East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly
line of said Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees I4 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of
10.31 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along
the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #02-068PC and held hearings thereon on July 8, 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
l:\02files\02variances\02-068\aprvres2.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Drior Lake. Minnesota S5372 1714 / Dh. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNiT~ EMPLOYER
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 not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or
impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the
Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
A legal building envelope does not exist on the nonconforming subject lot that
eliminates the need for the requested variance to a front yard setback. The structures
front yard setback is such that the hardship has not been created by the applicant.
There is justifiable hardship caused by the topography of the lot, and the required
front setback averaging, as reasonable use of the property does not exist without the
granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance to a front yard setback, as requested, is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. The contents of Planning Case 02-068PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following variances for a future single-family dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 -
Certificate of Survey;
1) A 1.8-foot variance to permit a 25-foot structure setback to a front property line,
rather than 26.8-feet as required by setback averaging.
Approval of this variance is subject to the following conditions:
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.
The applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the approved
variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, along
with the proposed finish grades with drainage and an erosion control plan.
l:\02files\02variances\02-068Xaprvres2.doc 2
3. The applicant shall submit an application for a Lot Combination of Lots 17, 20, &
that part of 21, and create one legally transferable document (Deed), and shall record
said document at the Scott County Land Records Office.
4. The applicant/owner shall remove all existing impervious surface areas on the
combined lots to create a total impervious surface area equal to or less than 30% of
the lots total area.
5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 8, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\02files\02variances\02-068\aprvres2.doc 3
INNE~(~
RESOLUTION 02-009PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 21.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 3.23-
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR LOT LINE; A 12.5-FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 50-FEET TO THE OHWM; A 0.7-
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 14.2-FEET; A 2-
FOOT VARIANCE FOR A 7-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK OF A BUILDING
WALL 74-FEET LONG
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Dermis & Karen Perrier (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family residence on property
located in th$ R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay)
District at the following location, 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, and legally
described as follows;
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the
South line of said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point
on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in
INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Mirmesota, together with
that part of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat of INGUADONA BEACH,
adjacent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26
minutes 27 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west
line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36
seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds
East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees ~¢1 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly
line of said Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of
10.31 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along
the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point of begirming.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #02-068PC and held hearings thereon on July 8, 2002.
l:\02files\02varianees\02-068Xdnyres,doc 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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.
A legal building envelope exists on the subject lot that meets or reduces the requested
variances for setbacks to the Ordinary High Water Mark, side yard, and sum of side
yards. The applicant has control over the house design and shape, such that the
hardship has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists
with a smaller building footprint.
There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required setbacks and impervious
surface coverage area as reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of
the variance.
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 02-068PC 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;
1) A 21.77-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot structure setback to the rear property
line, rather than the minimum required 25-feet.
2) A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Mark, rather than minimum setback of 62.5-feet as required for
setback averaging.
l:\02files\02variances\02-068\dnyres.doc 2
3) A 0.7-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 14.3-feet rather than the
minimum required 15-feet on a nonconforming lot.
4) A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet
to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for building walls over
50-feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on June 8, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
I:\02files\O2variances\02-068~dnyres.doc 3
BUILDINC PERMIT SUR',~Y
PREPARED FOR:
DENNIS PERRIER
16502 INGUADONA BEACH
PRIOf~ LAKE MN. 5,5572
PH. (g§2) 447~6012
FAX (651) 645-8518
VALLEY SURVEYING CO., P.A,
16670 FRANKLIN ~RAIL SE. SUIT 220
PRIOR LAKE MN. 65372
PH. (g52) 447-2570
FAX (952) 447-2571
ATTACHMENT I - CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
I
II '
I
//
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distri'c~ [SD).
The Nlaximum Impervmus Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percem.
Lot~ea I~, IGq Sq. Feet x 30% =. .............
Ceo ¢.~eJ ~ LENGTH W~D~ SQ. FEET
HOUSE x =
A~AC~D G~'GE x =
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTDYLE ...................... '2-h~ ~- ~
G~e o,~ Plo m
DETACHED BLDGS 104- o
(Garage/Shed) [O ] °- OOo&~'g
TOTAL DETACHED B~LD~GS .......................
DRgVEWAY/PAVED A:R.E AS
CDriveway-paved or not)
(Sidewalk/Parking Areas)
roTAL PXVE A_P ^S ......................................... 1061
PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS
(Open Decks V," min. opening oe~veen
boards, with a pervious surface below,
arc not considered to be impervious)
TOTAL DECKS ........................................................
TOTAL OTHER. ......................................................
OTHER
TOTAI, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
VER
Prepared By
m
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
CC:
Subject:
Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn,us]
Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:59 AM
Shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com
JKansier@cityofpriorlake.com
Perrier setback variances, 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle
I have been out to this property. My recommendation would be to slide
the house towards Inguadona Beach Circle 5 feet, modify the home design
to meet setback averaging (with Lots 16 and 18), and recommend removal
of the old boathouse as a condition of any variance approval. It
appears that if the house is pulled back slightly to the street and
setback averaging is utilized, the lake setback variance could be
eliminated. Sideyard could also be eliminated with slight redesign.
Was there a narrative describing the hardship included with the
application?
Pat Lynch
DNR South Metro Area Hydrologist
phone 651.772.7917
fax 651.772.7977
pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us
ATTACHMENT 4 - DNR COMMENTS
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5B
CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO STRUCTURE SETBACK
FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE FOR A NEW
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING IN THE C-3
SPECIALTY BUSINESS DISTRICT (File #02-075)
16281 MAIN AVENUE SE
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
JULY 8, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Mr. Bernard
Carlson (applicant/owner) to allow the construction of an addition to an existing
commercial building on the property located at 16281 Main Avenue. The
proposed addition will be attached to the side of the existing building and extend
to the rear lot line. The Main Avenue street side is determined to be the "Front
Lot Line" as defined in Ordinance Section 1101.400.
The following ,variance is requested:
1. A 10-foot variance to permit a O-foot structure setback from a rear
property line rather than the minimum required 10-feet (Ord. Sec.
1102.1105: Dimensional Standards).
DISCUSSION:
The property was originally platted in 1934 as Cates Addition to Prior Lake.
Another portion of the property was platted in 1977 as Langhorst 1st Addition.
The property was again platted in the year 2000 as Lot 1, Block 1, Carlsons
Hardware Addition. Mr. Carlson is the business owner, applicant, and property
owner, along with Wallace & Delores Langhorst according to Scott County
records. The lots dimensions are 135.31' (front) x 119.45' (front/side) x 76.98'+
3'+ 56.47' (rear) x 112.26' (side) (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey).
1:\02files\02vadances\02-075\varrpt.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 subject building is attached to the building due east of the subject lot with a
common exterior wall or 0' rear yard setback. The proposed addition is irregular
in shape and is an extension of the existing west wall by 26' to within a couple
feet of the side lot line, then turns 90 degrees east for 18.54' to within 9" of the
side property line, and follows the side lot line for 56.9'+ 3' + 55.89' to the East
lot line, then turns 90 degrees north for 19.8' along the rear lot line and
terminates at the existing building wall. The addition includes a full basement to
match the existing basement level. The delivery access is through an 8'
overhead door on the east end of the addition with driveway access.
(Attachment 2 - Building Addition Plans).
The addition's exterior walls consists of 8" masonry walls to match the materials
and design of the existing structure. The proposed building materials do not
meet today's requirements for new structures, but are permitted for additions to
existing buildings under the Section 1102.1407 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance.
This request was referred to applicable City departments and utility companies
for comment. The City Building Department noted, in part, that the applicant
must provide soils and structural engineers' plans on the method of protecting
the adjacent buildings. The City Engineering Department commented that the
existing manhole is under the concrete of the loading dock, and a new manhole
outside of building slab envelope must be built. In addition, the line from the new
manhole to the existing becomes a private service. Integra Telecom noted that
existing telephone lines that service building will need to be relocated.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
The existing lot can accommodate a revised and scaled down building
addition without the setback variance.
Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
The conditions that apply are not peculiar to the property or adjoining
property, and do apply, generally, to other land or structures in the C-3
l:\02files\02varian ces\02-075\varrpt, doc Page 2
District. There appears to be a legal alternative for a redesigned addition that
meets code requirements.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
By redesigning the configuration of the addition, it can be built without the
requested variance.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The granting of the variance appears to impair the supply of light and air to
the adjacent property. The addition will not significantly impact the public
streets or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
Staff is of the opinion that granting this variance will not impact the above
stated values.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of these variances is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan, which is to provide ordedy development and prevent
over crowding of land and undue concentration of structures in relation to the
land surrounding them.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
The proposed addition can be redesigned to eliminate the need for the
requested variance. The granting of the variance is not necessary to alleviate
a demonstrable hardship existing today, but for the proposed future addition.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of
the owners of the property.
1:\02flies\02variances\02-075\varrpt.doc Page 3
The applicant is proposing the addition, and therefore the result is a required
variance request. The variance would not be necessary with a redesign of
the addition.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Redesigning the addition will eliminate the need for the requested variance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff has determined that the variance request for the rear yard
setback does not meet the nine hardship criteria, since it is a business decision
to expand the existing building due to economic growth and the need for
additional space for storage and display of materials. The applicant can
redesign the addition to meet the required 10' setback with a comparable yet
smaller addition. The staff therefore recommends denial of the requested
variance.
If the Planning Commission finds the variance request meets the hardship
criteria, it should be subject to the condition that no outdoor storage of
equipment or dum 2sters will be allowed without providing screening from public
view.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this
case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings approving the variances requested.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends Alternative #3. A Motion and second adopting
Resolution 02-011 PC denying the requested variance to the 10' minimum
building setback from a rear property line for the addition to the existing building
as shown on Attachment 1.
1:\02files\O2vada nces\O2-O75\varrpt.doc Page 4
RESOLUTION 02-011PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF
0' FEET FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED
~ 10 FEET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Mr. Bernard J. Carlson has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of an addition to a commercial building on property located in the C-
3 District (Specialty Business) at the following location, to wit;
16281 Main Avenue SE, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Carlsons Hardware
Addition, Plat 25369, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#02-075PC and held hearings thereon on July 8, 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.
An alternative legal building addition location that meets the required setback for the
structure exists on the subject lot. The applicant has control over the plan design and shape,
such that the hardship created has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the
property exists without the building addition as proposed.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required rear yard setback, as reasonable use of
the property exists without the granting of the variance.
The granfmg 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.
l:\02files\02variances\02-075~dnyres.doc l
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota ,5,5372-1714 / Ph. (9,52) 447-4230 / Fax (9S2) 447-424,5
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
8. The contents of Planning Case 02-075PC 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 building addition to a commercial building as shown in Attachment 1;
1. A 10-foot variance to permit a structure setback of O-feet from a rear yard property line,
rather than the required minimum of 1 O-feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 8, 2002.
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
Anthony Stamson, Commission Chair
l:\02files\02variances\02-075\dnyres.doc 2
rtl
ITl
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5C
CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO ALLOW IMPORTED
MATERIALS WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE, FOR
HILLCREST HOMES, INC., Case File #02-076
14764 ROSEWOOD ROAD NE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
JULY 8, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Hillcrest Homes,
Inc., (applicant/owner/Chris Deanovic) to permit a boulder retaining wall to
remain on the property located at 14764 Rosewood Road. The boulder wall and
fill were installed during the construction of a single-family dwelling that was
approved under Building Permit # 01-1206. The applicant had submitted a
building permit application and survey for the project, but the submitted materials
did not include the retaining wall and the grading/filling work conducted within the
bluff impact zone as part of the proposed project. Thus this work was done
without a permit. An inspection of the project by staff discovered the work.
(Attachment I - As Built Survey).
The applicant requests the following variance:
1) A variance to permit the import of materials and grading/filling
within the bluff impact zone (Ordinance Section 1104.402:
Topographic Alterations/Grading And Filling).
DISCUSSION:
Lot 7, Block 12, Knob Hill, was platted in 1995. The subject property is located
within the (R1) Low Density Residential, and (SD) (Shoreland Districts). The lot
is riparian with a bluff impact zone. The platted dimensions of the lot are
approximately 115' wide by 300' long for a total lot area of 34,678 square feet.
The lot area above the 904-foot ordinary high water elevation is 27,151 square
feet (Attachment 2 - Approved Survey).
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372~1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
According to the attached survey, the top of bluff starts at the west lot line and
follows the 930-foot elevation contour to approximately the center of the lot. The
dashed line indicates the minimum 25' structure setback line from the top of bluff.
The bluff impact zone is defined as "a bluff and land located within 20' from the
top ora bluff'. The top of the bluff begins 5' inside of the setback line and
continues lakeward through the bluff to the toe of the bluff or 904' contour.
The applicant installed the boulders between the 908' and 910' contours and
then backfilled behind the boulders to create the retaining wall. The length of
boulder wall within the bluff impact zone is approximately 120' long. The wall
appears to be less than 4' in height of unbalanced backfill.
In addition the applicant placed a boulder retaining walt along the east lot line
from the 929' elevation to below the 904' contour at the shoreline. A portion of
the wall actually encroaches over the lot line and onto the adjoining property.
The applicant must remove all portions of the wall that encroaches over the lot
line, and the 5' drainage utility easement that runs inside of the lot line. In
addition, no portion of the retaining walls may exceed 4' in height of unbalanced
back fill or the wall is defined as a structure and must meet the required
setbacks. Staff has posted a "Stop Work Order" on the project until all necessary
corrections have been made.
The applicant submitted a narrative titled Description Of Project for this variance
request. In essence, the applicant claimed to be unaware of the ordinance
violation when placing a row of landscape boulders and backfilling. Also, the
applicant denied cutting into the base of the slope (Attachment 4 - Applicant
Narrative).
The applicant also submitted an engineer's letter by GEO Engineering
Consultants dated June 14, 2002. The report addressed the impact the
placement of the boulders and backfill will have on the site. The letter stated in
part "In maintaining global slope stability, it is most important that soil is not
excavated from the toe of the slope, as this will reduce the resistance against
sliding of the soil mass. Conversely, by placing additional weight at the toe, such
as boulders and additional soil, will increase sliding resistance of the soil mass'".
The report also included recommendations regarding slope stability and surface
erosion by not disturbing existing surface vegetation and trees so the site
development will not interfere with adequate drainage for the site or adjacent
properties (Attachment 3 - Engineers Site Observation Letter).
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for this project, the owner must
provide certification from a professional engineer that the final grading of the site
was completed in compliance with an approved grading plan, and that all
conditions of the engineers report have been adhered to.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02~076\VarRpt. doc
Page 2
The City Engineering Department reviewed this variance request and has no
comment.
The Area Hydrologist with the Department of Natural Resources submitted
comments on this request. The DNR visually inspected the site and directed the
applicant to correct the dprap boulders placed along the shoreline. He reserved
judgment on the work in the bluff impact zone until an engineers report was
submitted, but commented that removing the boulders and imported fill at this
point may have greater potential for erosion and slope failure.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
There is no question regarding the exceptional topography for this lot and the
existence of a bluff impact zone. However, the applicant created the situation
by constructing the boulder wall and backfilling in violation of the Shoreland
Ordinance. Therefore, staff feels the vadance as requested does not meet
this hardship standard due to the applicants unapproved land alterations.
e
Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
The bluff topography is a unique condition of the property and the immediate
adjoining property, and does not apply, generally, to other land in the
Shoreland District.
The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner because the owner
created his hardship by changing the existing conditions of the bluff impact
zone with the boulder wall and back filling.
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-076\VarRpt.doc Page 3
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The granting of the variance for the importing of materials in the bluff impact
zone should not impair adequate light and air to adjacent properties, nor
increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety provided a bluff
failure does not occur.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the variance does not appear to unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood. However, should a bluff
failure occur, this may impair the health safety of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variance request for importing material in the bluff impact
zone is contrary to the intent of the City Ordinance, which is to prohibit the
importation of materials in the bluff impact zone.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
The requested variance appears to serve as a convenience to the applicant
because the applicant created the need for the variance by importing
materials into the bluff impact zone without authorization.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of
the owners of the property.
The requested bluff variance is a result of the property owner's actions, and
could be eliminated by correcting the violation and removing the imported
materials and restoring the area to its original condition.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
L:\O2FILES\O2variances\O2-O76\VarRpt,doc Page 4
Financial considerations alone are not grounds for the granting of a variance
request, but appear to be a consideration in this case due to the expense of
removing the boulders and fill.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that all nine-hardship criteria have not been met with respect to the
requested variance to permit the import of materials and grading/filling in a bluff
impact zone. The applicant created the hardship when the boulder retaining
wall and fill were installed on the subject property. The site was not developed
as approved under Building Permit # 01-1206. The staff therefore recommends
denial of the requested variance as proposed by the applicant.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this
case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings approving the variance requests.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative #3.
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-010PC denying the variance to
permit the importation of material into a bluff impact zone as requested by.the
applicant.
L:\02 FILES\02variances\02-076\VarRpt.doc Page 5
RESOLUTION 02-010PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO PER3$IT THE IMPORTATION
OF MATERIALS WITHIN A BLUFF IMPACT ZONE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Mi~mesota;
FINDINGS
Hillcrest Homes, Inc. have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order
to permit the construction of a boulder retaining wall and filling within the bluff
impact zone to remain on the property located in the Low Density Residential (R1)
and Shoreland Districts (SD) at the following location, to wit;
14764 Rosewood Road NE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot
7, Block 2, Knob Hill, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #02-076PC and held hearings thereon on July 8, 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, a legal alternative does exist by
removing the imported materials placed within the bluff impact zone, 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 proposed variance request is a result of the property owners actions by importing
materials and grading/filling within a bluff impact zone. The applicant has control
over the grading and filling work completed, as such, the hardship has been created
by the applicant.
l:\02files\02variances\02-076\dnyrs.doc 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Pr. (952) 447 4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
While there is an existing structure on the lot, there is not justifiable hardship caused,
and that reasonable use of the property does exist without the granting of the variance.
There is a legal alternative solution for a revised grading and filling plan, and to
correct the existing ordinance violation without the requested variance.
The granting of the variance, as determined by the Planning Commission, 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.
8. The contents of Planning Case #02-076PC 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 denys the
following variance to allow the importation of materials within a bluff impact zone as
shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey):
I. A Variance to permit the importation of materials and grading/filling within a bluff
impact zone.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 8, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\02files\02variances\02-076\dnyrs.doc 2
Survey for:
A = 34,678 sq. f'~.
AREA = 884 sq. ft.
PATIO = .54 sq ft.
Y AREA = 2,730 sq, ft.
;E =15%
-1-02 AS-BUILT
- 20 Feet
~,~oo
/
/
x
/
/
/
/
HILLCRE$1' HOblE$
Certificate of Survey for:
IIOUSE AREA = 1,534 sq. It. ~,~
GARAGE AREA = 884 sq. fL ~
DRIVEWAY AREA = 2,730 sq, fl. ~
ExIStING COH 1OURS
PER GRAOING PLAN
($YPICAL)
BENCI-I MARK
APPROVED '"',
ENGINEERING DEFrr
L~LEC.
,' I
WALL
cq
..... RETAINING WALLS
m
~?ROP~_SEI) I IO~S~.]~E~A iloN
~eO En~ineerln~ Consultants ~hc
P o Box ~400
Minneapolis, MN 55421
Phone '/63 502-9945
Fax 763 502-9946
Juael 4, 2002
Mr. Chris Deanovic
Hillcrest Homes, Inc.
P.O. Box t*56
PHor Lake, MN 55372
Site Observation
Proposed House
Lot 7, Block 2, Knob Hill
Prior Lake, Minnesota
Project Number: 001-0071-5372.2A
This report presents the results of sit~ observatious at the property in Prior Lake, Minnesota. You
authorized our service on March 4, 2002. The scope of service consisted of observing and
documenling the eondRions after recent landseaping al the site.
On March 4, 2002, we observed the condition of c. xistlng slope at the rear of the property,
between the house under constmc~iun and the lake. Il appears thc steepest portion of the slope
has been reimively undisturbed. At the taller portion of the slope, the natural access and
drainage to the lake was improved. We understand this access was improved primarily by
placing landscape boulders and some additional fill on the lakeside of the accel. This was
placed to level the access and provide surface drainage to the lake and away from adjacent
properly. In addition, boulders were placed on the inside (house side) of the access at the toe
(boltom) oftbe slope. At this lime, the boulder wails are on the order of 2 to 5 feel high, with
final grading yet lo he completed,
In maintaining global slope stability, it is most important that soil is not excavated from the toe
of the slope, as this will reduce the resistance against sliding of the soil mass. Convci'sely, by
placing additional weight at the toe, such as boulders and additional soil, will increase sliding
resistsnee of the soil mass.
It did not appear that soil had been removed bom the toe of the slope, based on our observations.
The new fill and boulders placed at the toe should aid in global stability.
Another aspec~ of slope stability is surface crosion. Thc existing surface vegetation and trees
should not be disturbed to minimize the potential for surface erosion. The surface of the steep
slope appeared lo be undisturbed, based on our visual observations. We recommend the existing
trees and surface vegetation remain undisturbed to minimize the erosion potential,
m
Z
m
m
0
m
Z
Project Number: 001-0071-$372.2A Psge 2
With ~ants to the improved lake aw. ess, we recommend the surface be seeded ~vith gra~s, or a
sut'faoe layer of compacted ~ravel ot other sur~ be pla~ed lo minimize the potential for
erosion.
In our opinion~ th~ recent landecaping should not influence the em~bili~ of the existing slope.
This judgcn~n is based on our ob.~rvation of existing comtitions, thc previous subsurface
exploration results, and our expcricncc.
It should be noted, to properly analyze slope stability requires subsurface exploration at th~ top,
midway, and at ibc toe of the slope. In lgidition, sophisticated triaxial tcsting of rcpresenlatlve
undisturbed samples should be performed. This data should then be analyzed using applicable
computer nnnllais t~chniques. This is beyond fha work scope for this project.
If you havc any questions or if we can be of further service, please call us at (763) 502-9945.
Geo Engineering Consultants, Inc,
Steven $. Olson, P.E.
Oeotechnieal Engineer
~eo Engineering Consultants Inc
HILLCKEST
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
"A Builder Driven By Quality Craftsmanship and Vctlue."
During placement of rip-rap along the shoreline of this property, we also placed a row of
landscape boulders along the base of the slope. The placement of these boulders was two
fold. First, was to provide a landscape definition between the landscaped area near the
lake and the natural area on the hill. Second, was to provide an area for any washed
sediment from the slope to accumulate without washing into the landscaped grass area
near the lake. The placement of these boulders was not intently done to violate the
ordinance. I honestly did not think what we were doing was going to cause a problem.
However, upon investigation of this placement it is determined that part of the area where
we placed the landscape boulders is in a bluff impact zone. Current ordinance does not
allow for any grading or importation of fill in the bluffimpact zone. We have graded and
imported fill in this area when we placed and backfilled behind the rocks placed at the toe
of the slope.
A few items of importance. When installing the landscape boulders at the toe of the
slope we did not cut into the base at any point in time. Nor did we create a flat yard area
near the lake with the placement of the boulders. We merely placed them at the toe of the
slope and backfilled behind. All previous survey show the fiat area existed prior to any
work we have done.
At this point in time we would like to leave what work has been completed. We do not
believe we have impacted the slope in any way, and in fact believe we helped the
situation in regards to the drainage and slope stability. We had an engineering report
completed, and it is attached.
Builder License #20036544 · Member of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities
P.O. Box 456 · Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Office: 952-898-7663 · Fax: 952-898-3364 · Web: www. hillcresthomesinc.com
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5D
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO
WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
JULY 8, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to water-oriented accessory structures. The Planning
Commission initiated this amendment on June 10, 2002.
DISCUSSION:
The Zoning Ordinance currently defines water-oriented accessory structures as
follows:
A building of 120 square feet or less used to store boating accessories and
equipment located on lakeshore lots that contain steep slopes equal to or greater
than 20% which because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature
reasonably needs to be located closer to the lakeshore ordinary high water mark
(OHW) than the normal structural setback requirement.
Section 1104.308 (4) regulates the use and location of these structures. This
sections currently reads as follows:
(4) Water-Oriented Accessory Structures: One water-oriented accessory
structure may be allowed per lot on General Development (GD) lakes that
have Municipal sewer and water, provided a building permit is obtained from
the City and the following criteria are met:
a. The lot contains a slope equal to or greater than 20% measured from the
front of the principal structure to the ordinary high water mark; and
1:\02flles\O2ordamend~zoning\O2-O72\pc report.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
b. The structure shall not occupy an area greater than 120 square feet, and
the maximum height of the structure must not exceed 10 feet, including
the roof; and
c. The structure shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous portion
of the lot as viewed from the surface of the lake, assuming summer, leaf-
on conditions. The minimum setback requirement must be at least 10 feet
from the ordinary high water mark and must meet the other applicable
side yard setbacks. The slope shaft be verified by a certificate of survey
prepared by a registered surveyor; and
d. The structure shaft not be designed or used for human habitation and
shaft not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. However,
the structure may contain electrical and mechanical systems; and
e. The structure shaft be constructed of treated wood and/or block that is
compatible with the principal structure and designed to reduce visibility as
viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation,
topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on
conditions; and
f. If the proposed structure will be located below the regulatory flood plain
elevation, the structure shaft be built compliant with applicable flood-
proofing requirements of the Building Code and Section 1105 of this
Ordinance; and
g. Trees that are 4 inches in caliper or larger should not be removed for the
erection of a water-oriented accessory structure. If removal is necessary,
replacement with like trees shall be made with the approval of the Zoning
Administrator. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and aft
disturbed vegetation replaced with sod or suitable landscaping materials;
and
h. The structure shaft be attached to a permanent foundation so as to be
immovable from its approved location.
Both the definition and the regulations for these structures are more restrictive
than the existing language in the Minnesota State Shoreland Rules. The
additional restrictions are intended to limit the number and size of accessory
structures on the lot, while at the same time allowing property owners with
access and storage of recreational equipment on riparian lots with steep slopes.
On June 10, 2002, the Planning Commission initiated an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance as follows:
· An amendment to the definition of a water-oriented accessory structure to
include gazebos, screen houses and detached decks.
· An amendment to Section 1104.308 (4) that would reduce the setback for
water-oriented accessory structures to 50' on lots without steep slopes. The
1:\02files\02ordamend~.oning\02-072\pc report.doc Page 2
setback for these structures on lots with slopes greater than 20% would still
be 10 feet from the Ordinary High Water Elevation.
The attached draft ordinance includes the specific language for this amendment.
The proposed amendment is still more restrictive than the Minnesota Shoreland
rules, which include a much broader definition for water-oriented accessory
structures, and fewer limitations on setbacks.
The Lake Advisory Committee considered this amendment at its meeting on
June 18, 2002. The LAC recommended approval of the amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states specific findings that must be
met to change the ordinance. These are:
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this
Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the
City.
3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal
requirements.
Whether or not a water-oriented accessory structure should be allowed on all
riparian lots is a policy issue. The current ordinance provisions were generally
intended for aesthetic purposes. Earlier platted riparian lots tend to have smaller
dimensions and less total area than is required for lots today. There has also
been concern about the encroachment of structures on the lake.
The staff has no objections to the proposed amendment. The proposed
amendment will allow additional storage on riparian lots, and will still limit the
encroachment of structures on the shoreline.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendments as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
1:\02files\02ordamend~zoning\02-072\pc report.doc Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment as
recommended by staff and indicated in the attached draft ordinance.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Amendment
h\02files\02ordamend~.oning\02-072\pc report.doc Page 4
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 02- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1101.400 AND 1104.308 OF THE
PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
Section 1101.400 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
Water-Oriented Accessory Structure. A building of 120 square feet or less used to store
boating accessories and equipment located on lakeshore lots that contain steep slopes equal
to or greater than 20% which because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature
reasonably needs to be located closer to the lakeshore ordinary high water mark (OHW) than
the normal structural setback requirement. Examples of such structures include
boathouses~ gazebos, screen houses, and detached decks.
Section 1104.308 (4) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
(4) Water-Oriented Accessory Structures: One water-oriented accessory structure may be
allowed per lot on General Development (GD) lakes that have Municipal sewer and
water, provided a building permit is obtained from the City and the following criteria are
met:
a. The lot contains a slope equal to or greater than 20% measured from the front of thc
principal structure to the ordinary high water mark; and
b. The structure shall not occupy an area greater than 120 square feet, and the
maximum height of the s~ructure must not exceed 10 feet, including the roof; and
c. The structure shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous portion of the lot as
viewed from the surface of the lake, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. The
minimum setback requirement must be at least 10 feet from the ordinary high water
mark and must meet the other applicable side yard setbacks. The slope shall be
verified by a certificate of survey prepared by a registered surveyor; and
d. The structure shall not be designed or used for human habitation and shall not
contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. However, the structure may
contain electrical and mechanical systems; and
e. The structure shall be constructed of treated wood and/or block that is compatible
with the principal structure and designed to reduce visibility as viewed from public
waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or
color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions; and
f. If the proposed structure will be located below the regulatory flood plain elevation,
the structure shall be built compliant with applicable flood-proofing requirements of
the Building Code and Section 1105 of this Ordinance; and
l:\02files\O2ordamend~zoning\O2-O72\draflord.doc PAGE 1
g. Trees that are 4 inches in caliper or larger should not be removed for the erection of
a water-oriented accessory structure. If removal is necessary, replacement with like
trees shall be made with the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Erosion control
measures shall be implemented and all disturbed vegetation replaced with sod or
suitable landscaping materials; and
h. The structure shall be attached to a permanent foundation so as to be immovable
from its approved location.
i. On riparian lots containing slopes less than 20 percent, one water-oriented
accessory structure meeting the criteria listed in paragraphs b-h above is
permitted with a setback of not less than 50 feet from the Ordinary High Water
Elevation.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this day of ., 2002.
ATTEST:
City Manager Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
day of ., 2002.
1:\02 files\02ordamend~zoning\02 -072~dra ftord.doc PAGE 2
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN AND A
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS TIMBER
CREST PARK
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
JULY 8, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Ray Brandt has applied for approval of a development to be known as Timber Crest Park
on the property located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH
13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail. The property owner, Prior
Lake Apartments, has also signed the application.
The application includes the following requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
This property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The proposal calls for a
townhouse development consisting of a total of 148 dwelling units on 28.19 acres. The
development also includes parkland and private open space.
On May 21, 2002, the applicant submitted a complete application that called for a
development consisting of 170 units. Since the application was complete, the staff
scheduled a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Notice of this heating was
published in the Prior Lake American and sent to owners of property within 500' of the
site.
This original proposal involved filhng a large portion of the wetland on the site. The
Wetland Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) subsequently advised the developer that the
proposal was inconsistent with the Wetland Conservation Act, and could not be
approved.
16200
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\timber pc2.doc Page 1
Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax {952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
As a result of the TEP decision, the developer submitted new plans on June 1 I, 2002.
Because of the timing of this submittal, the staff has not had the opportunity to review
these new plans. In addition, the developer must submit a revised wetland mitigation
plan and revised storm water drainage calculations. However, since the public hearing
had already been published and notices sent, the staff had no choice but to place this item
on the agenda.
The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on June 24, 2002, and accepted
limited testimony. The Plarming Commission then continued the public hearing to July
8, 2002, to allow staff time to further review the revised plans.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site .Area: The total site consists of 28.19 acres. The net area of this site, less
County road right-of-way and wetlands, is 21.87 acres.
Tol~oeral~hy: This site is fairly hilly, with elevations ranging from 976' MSL at its
highest point at the southeast comer of the site to 922' MSL at the lowest point in the
wetland on the northwest side of the site. The entire site generally drains towards the
wetland located along the northwest side of the site.
Vegetation: This site includes a large number of trees and wetland area. The size and
species of the majority of the trees on the site, such as box elder and elm trees, are not
considered significant under the City tree preservation ordinance. The applicant has
submitted an inventory of the significant trees on the site, which identifies 791 caliper
inches of significant trees. The Tree Preservation Ordinance allows removal of 25% of
the total caliper inches for grading and utilities, and removal of an additional 25% of the
total caliper inches for building pads without tree replacement. Removal of additional
caliper inches requires replacement at a rate of 1/2 caliper inch for each caliper inch
removed. Initial calculations indicate no tree replacement is required.
Wetlands: There is one wetland located within this site, with a total area of 5.05 acres.
The proposal impacts 0.41 acres of this wetland for the creation of a storm water pond
and grading for building pads. The disturbed wetland will be mitigated on the site.
Access: Access to the site is from Bluff Heights Trail on the southeast side and Franklin
Trail on the southwest side of the property. Although the property is adjacent to TH 13
and CSAH 21, there will be no access to either of these roads.
2020 Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for High Density
Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The entire site is
located within the current MUSA boundary.
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\timber pc2.doc Page 2
Zoning: The site is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The applicant is not
requesting a rezoning as part of this application. The R-4 district permits a maximum
density of 30 units per acre.
PROPOSED PLAN
Densi .ty: The plan proposes 170 townhouse units on a total of 28.19 acres.
based on the buildable acres of the site, or in this case on 21.87 net acres.
density proposed in this plan is 6.77 units per acre.
Density is
The overall
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 148 lots for the townhouse traits. There are also
three lots for the common open space. The proposal also includes three outlots. Outlot A
is the private street system. Outlot B, located at the southwest comer of the site is
intended as parkland. Outlot C is the wetland area.
Building Styles: There are two different townhouse.building styles proposed. The first
style, called Village Homes, is a 2-story, attached single family style dwelling with tuck-
under garage. These buildings are located on the south side of the site. The plan includes
48 of these units in 6- and 8-unit buildings. Each of the units in these buildings includes
a 1-car garage and approximately 977 square feet of living space on the upper two floors.
The buildings are 35' high at the front, with vinyl siding exteriors and brick face and
vinyl shakes for accents.
The second building style, called Manor Homes, is a 2-story attached single family
dwelling. There are 100 units in 25, 4-unit buildings. These buildings consist of a lower
level, 2-car garage, rear yard decks and 1,595 square feet of living space. These buildings
are 29' high, with vinyl siding exteriors and brick face and vinyl shakes for accents.
Building elevations and sample floor plans for each of these buildings are attached to this
r~port.
The Zoning Ordinance requires 60% of the exterior build'mg materials for townhouse
buildings with more than 4-units consist of Class I materials, such as brick or cement
stucco. The developer is requesting a modification to this requirement as part of the PUD
plan for the 6- and 8-unit buildings.
Setbacks: The plan proposes a 25' setback from the from property line, a minimum 30'
rear yard setback, and a minimum 25' building separation (foundation to foundation)
between the townhouses. The plan also notes a 30' setback from any wetland.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a min'maum setback between buildings equal to ½ the
sum of the height of the buildings. In this case, the minimum distance between buildings
would be 35' for the Village Homes and 29' for the Manor Homes. The developer is
requesting a modification to this requirement as part of the PUD.
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\timber pc2.doc Page 3
Lot Coverage: The R-4 district allows a maximum ground floor area of 0.35. The
ground floor area proposed in this plan is 0.125.
Traffic Impact Report: The developer has submitted a traffic study for this
development. This study indicates the proposed development will generate a total of 868
trips. The TIR also indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of TH 13
and CSAH 21, and at CSAH 2i and Franklin Trail, would not fall below the existing
LOS as a result of the trips generated by this development. The report also compares the
number of trips generated by this development to the number of potential trips generated
by the number of units permitted by the R~4 zoning. A copy of the submitted TIR is
attached to this report.
Streets: This plan proposes a private streets system for this development. There are two
private streets designed to serve the townhouse development. The first is an extension of
Bluff Heights Trail, 1,450' to the east where it intersects with Franklin Trail. This
intersection is located 260' from the intersection of CSAH 21 and Franklin Trail. While
not ideal, it is the only possible location for the intersection. The second private street is
called Timber Crest Drive, and it extends 1,000' from the west leg of Bluff Heights Trail
to the east leg of Bluff Heights Trail. Both of the private streets are designed with a 32'
wide surface, and adjacent easements. The private streets meet the requirements of
Section 1004.415 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
The developer is also requesting a modification as part of the PUD plan to allow private
streets.
Sidewalks/Trails: The plan proposes a sidewalk on the north side of Bluff Heights Trail.
Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer will be extended from the existing sewer main which is
located on this site. A portion of the existing sewer line must be relocated and the
easement across the property vacated.
Water Main: Water mains will be extended from the existing lines in Bluff Heights
Trail and in Franklin Trail.
Storm Sewer: The plan proposes a series of catch basins and storm sewer pipe to handle
the storm water runoff on this site. The system will direct runoff to the north to a NURP
pond on the north side of this site. The Engineering Department has noted the entire site
drains to catch basins located at a low point on Bluff Heights Trail, in front of units 38
and 39. The Engineering Department feels storm drainage is concentrated in too few
places on this site and the system should be redesigned so it is disseminated to more catch
basins. The Engineering Department also noted that revised storm sewer and hydrology
were submitted on June 26, 2002. Further review of this submittal is required.
Parks: This plan includes a 2.72 acre park site, located at the southwest comer of the
site. This is the best location for a park on the site, in that it is accessible to both this
]:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelira pla[q\timber crest\timber pc2.doc Page 4
development and other developments in the area. The site must be graded to meet
minimum standards.
Useable Open Space: The R-4 district also requires 600 square feet of useable open
space per unit for cluster developments. Although this proposal is a PUD, it must also
comply with that requirement. The required open space for this development is 88,800
square feet; the plan indicates a total of 115,909 square feet.
The staff has some concerns about the useable open space on this site. The Zoning
Ordinance defines Useable Open Space as "a required ground area or terrace on a lot
which is graded, developed, landscaped and equipped and intended and maintained for
either active or passive recreation or both, available and accessible to and usable by all
person occupying a dwelling unit or a rooming unit on the lot and their guests. Usable
open space has a minimum dimension of 3O feet. Roofs, driveways and parking areas do
not constitute usable open space." The largest area of open space, located in the center of
Block 3, will have slopes of 16-29% after the site is graded. The question is whether or not
this area can really be considered usable.
Parking: The proposal provides at least 2 spaces per dwelling unit, which is consistent
with the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. Each the 100 Manor Home units
have two car garages; each of the Village Home units have a one-car garage. The plan
also provides 62 off-street parking spaces in the townhouse area for guest parking. A
total of 310 off-street parking spaces are provided. The proposed private streets will not
provide any on-street parking.
Landscaping: Section 1107.1900 lists the landscaping requirements for this
development. Perimeter landscaping is required at a rate of 1 tree per unit or 1 tree per
40' feet of perimeter, whichever is greater. Our calculations indicate a total of 148 trees
are required for this site.
The developer has submitted a landscaping plan that identifies 315 trees, which exceeds
the proper number of trees for the development. This plan is also consistent with
ordinance requirements for size and species of the plantings. The plan does not indicate
whether an irrigation system will be provided. The plan also has some discrepancies
between the key and the actual trees shown on the site. These discrepancies should be
corrected.
Tree Replacement: The applicant has submitted an inventory identifying 791 caliper
inches of significant trees on the site. The Zoning Ordinance allows up to 25% of the
significant caliper inches to be removed for road and utility purposes, and up to 25% for
building pads and driveways. In this case, the proposal removes 29.4% for road and
utility purposes and 14.5% for building pads and driveways. Tree replacement is
required at a rate of ½ caliper inch per 1 caliper inch removed. In this case, replacement
of 17.125 caliper inches, or 7, 2 V2 inch trees, is required. The landscaping plan includes
more than adequate numbers oftreas to meet this requirement.
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\timber pc2.doc Page 5
Signs: There are no signs identified for this project.
Lighting: The developer has not indicated whether or not street lights will be provided
on the private streets.
Phasing: No phasing plan has been submitted for this project.
ANALYSIS:
PUD Prelimhtarv Plan: The PUD must be reviewed based on the criteria found in
Section 1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 1106.100 discusses the
purpose of a PUD. These criteria are discussed below.
(1) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, materials, construction
and land development.
The developer is utilizing standard construction and design practices for the
townhomes. The lookout style of the buildings in some areas utilizes the natural
grades of the site where possible. A similar development, without the private streets
and setback modifications, is possible as a conventional development in the R-4
district.
(2) Higher standards of site and building design.
Same as above.
(3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support
high quality land use development at a lesser cost.
Maintenance of private streets, including plowing and future repairs, is done by the
homeowners association. This reduces City costs in providing services to these
homes.
(4) Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space components in the
development which may be made more useable and be more suitably located than
would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures.
The common open space on the site will be available to all residents of the
development as passive open space. However, it is questionable as to how much of
this area is useable based on the grades of the site. The same amount of common
open space is required as part of a conventional development.
(5) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows modifications to the strict
application of regulations within the various Use Districts that are in harmony with
the purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
1:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\timber pc2.doc
Page 6
The density and variety of housing units is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
goals to provide a variety of housing styles.
(6) Encourages a more creative and efficient use of land.
The use of the private streets allows for fewer driveway openings on the public
streets.
(7.) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including flora and fauna,
scenic views, screening and buffering, and access.
The town_house units are sited to take advantage of the natural views of the wetlands.
The plan provides screening from the adjacent County road.
(8) Allows the development to operate in concert with a Redevelopment Plan in certain
areas of the City and to insure the redevelopment goals and objectives within the
Redevelopment District will be achieved.
This criterion is not applicable.
(9) Provides for flexibility in design and construction of the development in cases where
large tracts of land are under single ownership or control and where the 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.
(10)Encourages. the developer to convey property to the public, over and above required
dedications, by allowing a portion of the density to be transferred to other parts of
the site.
There is no park dedication or open space dedication over and above that required
under conventional procedures.
Section 1106.300 states the quality of building and site design proposed by the PUD will
enhance the aesthetics of the s~ite 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 in that all of the buildings will be
constructed of similar materials. The extension of the existing private street allows
for efficient movement of traffic. The landscaping plan will also enhance this area.
l:\02flles\O2subdivision$\O2prelim plats\timber crest~timber p¢2.doc Page 7
(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 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.
This project will be constructed in a single phase.
(4) Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one building on a lot.
This is not applicable.
(5~ A PUD in a Residential Use District shall conform to the requirements of that Use
District unless modified by the following or other provisions of this Ordinance.
a. The tract of land for which a project is proposed shall have not less than 200feet
o f frontage on a public right-of-way.
b. No building shall be nearer than its building height to any property line when the
property abutting the subject property is in an "R-1" or "R-2" Use District.
c. No building within the project shall be nearer to another building than ~ the sum
of the building heights of the two buildings, except for parking ramps which may
be directly connected to another building.
d. Private roadways within the project site may not be used in calculating required
off-street parking spaces.
The modifications requested by the developer include the following:
· The use of private streets. Normally, a development of this type would
require a minimum right-of-way width of 50' and a 28' to 32' wide surface.
The developer is requesting a 32' wide private street. The additional 18' of
right-of-way would be accommodated by the use of easements adjacent to the
private road.
· Reduced setbacks between buildings. The required separation between
buildings under the PUD provisions is ½ the sum of the heights of the
buildings, or 29' and 35' in this case. The developer is requesting a 25'
separation between the buildings.
· Exterior building materials. The Zoning Ordinance normally requires Class I
building materials on buildings with more than 4 units. Class I materials
1:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber cresfltimber pc2.doc Page 8
primarily consist of brick, marble, granite, textured cement stucco and glass.
On buildings with 4 or fewer dwelling units, vinyl siding is a Class I material.
These modifications are permitted under the PUD provisions at the discretion of the
Council.
Prelimina~. Plat: The primary issue relating the preliminary plat is the design of the
storm water system. The Engineering Department has concerns about the workability of
the proposed design. The Engineering Department has recommended the system be
redesigned to disperse the catch basins throughout the site, and to eliminate the rear yard
drainage.
Staff Recommendation: One of the major issues pertaining to this development is
whether or not the plan meets the PUD criteria. The primary justification for a PUD
appears to be the use of the private streets. A cluster development of this type is
permitted in the R-4 district, so a similar development with public streets, and meeting
the required setbacks could be done without a PUD. The plan is consistent with the
requirements for a conventional cluster development.
The other major issue pertaining to this development is the design of the storm water
runoff system. There are several issues pertaining to the proposed design that must be
addressed. It is more than likely that the system will need to be redesigned entirely.
This site is zoned R-4, and is appropriate for a higher density residential development.
Some consideration should be given to the use of this site for multi-family buildings. It
may be possible to develop a similar or greater number of units on the site in fewer
buildings. Fewer buildings would also potentially disturb less of the site.
If the Planning Commission finds that the PUD process is appropriate for this
development, the staffwould recommend the following conditions be attached:
1. The developer must address all of the issues in the memorandum from the Cio~
Engineer dated July 3. 2002.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat subject
to the above conditions.
2. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the
issues that have been discussed.
1:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\timber pc2.doc Page 9
3. Recommend denial of the request.
4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #3. There are several major issues on this
site that must still be resolved.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending denial of the following requests:
· Approval of a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan to be known as Jeffers
South subject to the above conditions;
· Approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as Jeffers South, subject to the above
conditions.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photo
3. Reduced Copy of PUD and Preliminary Plat Plans
4. Developer's Narrative
5. TIR
6. Engineering Department Comments
7. Finance Director Comments
8. Scott County Highway Department Comments
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\timber pc2.doc
Page I0
Location Map
0
40 Feet
1'4
Ii
( ]
REVISED
NARRATIVE
TIMBER CREST PARK
(updated I l June 2002, by Ray Brandt)
TIMBER CREST PARK is a Planned Unit Development proposed for the
property on the southeasterly comer of State Trunk Highway 13 and County Road
Number 21 in the City of Prior Lake. The property is zoned for High Density Multiple
and the proposal is for the construction of 148 townhome units to be sold which is
allowed in the zoning..The minimum property size for a PUD is 10 acres. This site
contains 28.19 acres although 1.27 acres was taken a number.of years ago by the County
for County Road No. 21 and Franklin Trail although title was not takem The PUD
ordinance requires the site to front on at least 200 feet ora public street and this site
fronts on more than 1900 feet of public street on the County Road No. 21 side alone plus
the State Trunk Highway No. 13 side has an additional 1000 feet of frontage. There is a
significant wetland (5.05 acres) located on the property that will be somewhat altered and
a mitigation plan is included in the proposal. The property title is abstract and none is
torrens. There are 72 trees that fall within the City standards for significant trees of which
40 will not be removed. The tree replacement plan more than replaces the amount of trees
removed.
A variance from the Zoning Ordinance is being requested for 25 foot setbacks
between the 4-unit buildings and for 30 foot setbacks between the buildings with 6 and 8
units. The Zoning calls for 30 foot and 35 foot setbacks respectively A variance from the
Zoning Ordinance regarding the exterior finish is also being requested from the 60%
Class I material requirement for the buildings that have more than 4 units. It is requested
that the exterior finish as presented in the plans be allowed. These variances will help to
make this a housing-affordable project.
The land use currently is just vacant land. The zoning is for multiple family and
this proposal is for multiple family albeit lower density than the maximum allowed under
the ordinance. The adjacent property to tbe.South consists of apartments, condominiums
and several three-unit and four-unit residential buildings. A vacant piece of property is
adjacent and southerly ofth6 southwestern portion of this development. A proposal is
before the City for the construction of a 49-unit apartment building to be known as Bluff
Heights Apartments. The zoning is the same as this project.
I believe that the PUD allows for this project to be a much more desireable
development than an apartment project. The topography slopes from the south to the
northwesterly and the wetland. Much more site grading would be needed to construct
apartments. The flow of the topography will be maintained to drain in the same general
direction. The Village Homes along the southerly side of the property substantially
reduce the grading required as they are tuck-under style and provide an approximate 8
foot drop along the southerly area of the project. Access to the project from County Road
No 21 was part of the process when the land was taken from the current fee owners some
years ago. It has been requested by the County Highway Department to eliminate this
access and we have agreed to do so. The current owners are very much against this but
that will become a'gr~ot poinf'ifthe project becomes a reality.
There is a substantial area of 9.23 acres in OUTLOT C that will become an area
for casual walking around the wetland. This will be an amenity for the residents for bird
watching and other nature activities. Most of the trees along the westerly side of the
wetland will be removed to make way for wetland mitigation activities. None of these
trees falls into the category of the trees that the City Ordinance determines to be
significant. This will enhance the view for townhome owners and for the public walking
or driving by.
The streets serving the townhomes are private and a sidewalk is planned along the
northerly side of BluffHeights Trail. Sanitary sewer and city water will be included with
the construction. A sanitary sewer currently crosses the property of which part will be
relocated to better serve the proposed layout. Natural gas, electricity, telephone and cable
will be part of the development of the project. The ordinance requires 296 parking spaces
and the proposal provides 310 spaces. No parking along the street has been used in
calculating the 310 spaces.
Park dedication in the amount of 10% of the property requires that 2.69 acres be
set aside. OUTLOT B contains 2.72 acres and will be deeded to the City.
The existing zoning is R-4 (High Density Mukiple) and the proposed zoning is
Planned Unit Development R-4 (High Density Multiple). The Comprehensive Land Use
Plan indicates Urban High Density. The allowed density is 30 units per net acre which is
for apartments. This project proposes 13.55 units per acre. There will be two styles of
townhomes. Along the southerly border will be units that are the Village Homes which
are tuck-under design to better fit the sloping topography fi`om the southerly property
line. The rest of the units are Manor Homes which are split-entrys, some being walk-outs
and others being look-outs. The look-out unit has the same £mished grade elevation at the
rear as at the front of the unit but it functions as a look-out because the unit is a split-
entry. None of the lots will be further subdivided so a future concept plan is not
necessary. There are no irregular shaped lots that would require a modified unit plan to
assure it will fit on the lot. The minimum separation between the buildings is 25 feet for
the 4 unit buildings and 30 feet for the 6 and 8 unit buildings. The minimum setback to
the adjacent property to the south is 25 feet which also is in excess of the zoning
ordinance. The minimum setback to County Road No. 21 is 30 feet.
The townhome units being proposed are similar to those built and being built in a
number of communities in the metropolitan area which have been very-well received.
These style of homes allow for more flexibility in the engineering design of the property
and make it possible that the existing terrain will not have to be as massively adjusted as
would be needed with an apartment building project.
I am not aware ora Redevelopment Plan in this area but if there is one the
proposed park area should fit very nicely into such a plan.
The total ground floor area for all of the units is 126,125 square feet. This
calculated to a Floor-area Ratio of 0.623.
The open space calculation was made by determining the areas for Lot 53, Block
1, Lot 49, Block 2 and Lot 49, Block 3. The drainage and utility easements that are on
these lots was subtracted from the areas to net an available open space area of I 15,909 sq.
ii. The required open space is 600 sq. ft. per unit or 88,800 sq. ii.
Attached Exhibit F is a copy of permeability tests that were taken in the area of
the proposed infiltration pond. The results are that there is adequate permeability to allow
storm water to seep into the soil.
There will be streetlights along the private streets. There also will be a subdivision
monument at the entrance from Franklin Trail.
The construction will be done without phasing. It is possible that the utility
construction could go into the 2003 construction season but the grading is planned to be
completed in the 2002 season assuming that this approval process and the weather allow
for an adequate construction season~
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
REVISED
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 3, 2002
From: Allan Klugman, P.E., PTOE
Re: Timbercrest Park Traffic Study, Revised July 3, 2002
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum summarizes the results of a traffic analysis conducted for the proposed
Timbercrest Park Townhouse development in Prior Lake, Minnesota. The proposed
development will contain 148 residential townhome units. The development is located south of
Scott County Road 21, east of T.H. 13 and northwesterly of Franklin Trail. The site has two
access points, both to Franklin Trail to the south.
The remainder of this memorandum contains sections describing:
· Existing Conditions
· Trip Generation
· Traffic Assignment
· Traffic Analysis
· Conclusions
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Westwood Professional Services collected data for, and analyzed, the two nearby signalized
intersections of T.H. 13 / County Road 21 and County Road 21 / Franklin Trail. The data
collection consisted of turn movement counts at each intersection for a two-hour A.M. peak
period and a two-hour P.M. peak period. From these data sets the one-hour peak volumes
were extracted. Figures 1 and 2 show the current A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic counts for
each intersection. With the peak hour data, Westwood conducted intersection Level of Service
analysis (for signalized intersections) using the procedures outlined in The Highway Capacity
Manual. The results of the Level of Service analysis are summarized below.
Existing Intersection Level of Service (LOS) & Vehicle Delay
Location
T.H. 13 / County Road 21
County Road 21 / Franklin Trail
A.M. Peak Hour I P.M. Peak Hour
DelayNeh. LOS
8.2 A
4.9 A
DelayNeh. I LOS
10.5 B
5.7 A
Memorandum: Timbercrest Park Traffic Study
Revised July 3, 2002
Page 2
TRIP GENERATION
The expected trip generation for the site was computed using the standard rates contained in
the reference Tdp Generation, 6th Edition, 1997, published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers. The table below summarizes this trip generation.
Trip Generation for 148 Townhouse Units
Trips
Period Rate % In - % Out In Out Total
Daily 5.86 / unit 50% - 50% 434 434 868
A.M. Peak Hour 0.44 / unit 17% - 83% 11 54 65
P.M. Peak Hour 0.54 / unit 67% - 33% 54 26 80
The project property is currently zoned for apartment use. This zoning would allow 500
apartment units to be constructed on the site. As a comparison to the traffic generation for the
proposed townhouses, a trip generation was also computed for the allowable apartment use.
The table below summarizes the trip generation that would be dedved from the allowable 500
apartment units.
Trip Generation for 500 Apartment Units
Trips
Period Rate % In - % Out In Out Total
Daily 6.63 / unit 50% - 50% 1658 1658 3316
A.M. Peak Hour 0.51 / unit 16% - 84% 41 214 255
P.M. Peak Hour 0.62 / unit 67% - 33% 208 102 310
As shown in the above tables, the allowable apartment use Would generate almost four times as
many trips as will be generated by the proposed townhouse development.
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
The projected trip generation for the proposed townhouse development was assigned to the
surrounding roadway network based on the site orientation, existing traffic patterns and
judgment on the destinations of residential generated traffic in this portion of Prior Lake. It was
assumed that about:
· 55% of site traffic would be destined northwesterly (to T.H. 13 or County Road 21),
· 35% would be destined easterly on County Road 21, and
· 10% southwesterly on T.H. 13.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
To analyze the potential impacts of the Timbercrest Park development on the surrounding
roadway network in the near-term future, the following future volumes were developed: existing
Memorandum: Timbercrest Park Traffic Study
Revised July 3, 2002
Page 3
counts increased by 10% plus Timbercrest Park traffic. Figures 3 and 4 show these volume
conditions. With these volume conditions, the Level of Service for the peak periods was again
computed. These results are summarized in the table below.
Future (with Development) Level of Service (LOS) & Vehicle Delay
A.M, Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Location Delay/Veh. LOS Delay/Veh. I LOS
T.H. 13 / County Road 21 10.9 B 17.9 B
County Road 21 / Franklin Trail 6.4 A 6.9 A
CONCLUSIONS
The Timbercrest Park Townhouse development will generate approximately 870 trips on a daily
basis, with 65 A.M. peak hour and 80 P.M. peak hour trips. The surrounding roadway network
is currently experiencing good levels of service and traffic operation. The addition of
Timbercrest Park traffic will not cause impacts to the surrounding roadway network and nearby
intersections. The proposed townhouse development will cause about one-quarter the amount
of traffic that would be expected to be generated by the approved use of 500 apartment units.
37 (61)
222 (417)
14 (69)
t 52 (50)
"~ 357 (339)
Jr 86 (156)
County Road 21
Figure 1
Existing Peak Hour Traffic Counts
xxx = A.M. Peak Hour
(xxx) = P.M. Peak Hour
Source:
Westwood Professional Services Count,
February 2002
18 (46)
318 (458)
2(12)
'~ 85 (82)
· 468 (495)
44 (80)
County Road 21
Figure 2
Existing Peak Hour Traffic Counts
xxx = A.M. Peak Hour
(xxx): P.M. Peak Hour
Source:
Westwood Professional Services Count,
February. 2002
41 (67)
246 (470)
15 (78)
71 (62)
404 (379)
95 (172)
County Road 21
Figure 3
Future (with Development) Peak Hour Traffic Counts
xxx = A.M. Peak Hour
(xxx) = P.M. Peak Hour
2o (51)
350 (504)
7 (38)
94 (90)
515 (545)
52 (107)
County Road 21
Figure 4
Future (with Development) Peak Hour Traffic Counts
xxx = A.M. Peak Hour
(xxx): P.M. Peak Hour
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
July 3, 2002
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
Sue McDermott, City Engineer
Timber Crest (Project #01-45)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary plat submittal for the subject
project and has the following comments:
Grading and Erosion Control Plan
1. Emergency overflows must be shown on the grading plan.
2. Extraordinary erosion control measures shall be required at numerous swales on this
design.
3. Show rough grading for the park (Outlot B). City staff will provide information.
Sanitary Sewer
1. Provide 10" trunk sanitary sewer along Timber Crest Trail from MH8 to Franklin.
City will pay for oversizing through Development Contract.
2. Show class of pipe. See Public Works Design Manual.
3. The profiles on Sheet 12 are very difficult to read (SMH1 through SMH9). Show
detail of service connections to RCP.
4. Provide details on location, size and type of sewer services. There are no services
shown to Lot 4, Block 1.
51 Remove the note on Sheet 11 and Sheet 14 showing sanitary sewer to be removed.
This appears to be shown in the wrong location.
Water Main
1. Proposed gate valves must be shown on the plan sheets.
2. Show class ofwatermain pipe as Class 52 DIP (typical).
3. Provide details on location, size and type of water services. There are no services
shown to Lot 4, Block 1.
4. Lacking all watermain details: no tee, bend or valve locations or sizes are shown.
G:~PROJECTS~2001 \45timbercrest~-.EVIEW3 city.doc
5. Provide hydrant details for all hydrants
Storm Sewer
1. Move the low point on BluffHeights Trail so that it is not in front of any buildings -
possibly in between lots 36 and 37. The entire site drains to this point. Storm
drainage is concentrated in too few places; it needs to be disseminated to more catch
basins.
2. Show pipe class on all RCP. (See Public Works Design Manual).
3. The streets and storm sewer system are proposed as private facilities. The storm sewer
and all NURP, infiltration and quantity control drainange ponds shall be the
responsibility of the homeowners association for perpetuity. A drainage and utility
easement will be required on the wetland areas only.
4. See attached memorandum from WSB dated June 26, 2002 for additional comments.
Streets/Sidewalk/Trail
1. Provide a trail connection to CSAH 21 through Outlot C.
2. See Plate #702 for sidewalk design requirements.
3.The streets and storm sewer are proposed as private. Drainage and utility easements
should be adjusted to utility easements accordingly in areas where storm drain is
collecting onsite drainage.
The majority of the comments listed above can be addressed with final plat with the
exception of the storm water issues, in particular Item 1 in the above Storm Sewer
comments. In addition, the developer provided revised storm sewer and hydrology dated
June 26, 2002. This submittal has not been reviewed to date.
GSPROJECTS~2001 \45timbercrestLREVIEW3city.doc 2
& Y~t~, Inc.
Memorandum
Date:
Re:
Sue McDermott, P.E., Ci(g Engineer
City of Prior Lake
Andi Moffatt, Biologist
WSB & Associates, Ina
June 26, 2002
Review of Timber Crest Development Plans
WSB Project No. 1430-02
As requested, we have completed our water resource review of the revised Timber Crest
Development Plans dated June 11, 2002. Based on our review, we offer the following
comments:
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Review Comments
1. A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) meeting was held June 6, 2002. This meeting
discussed the revised wetland impact and replacement plan received May 23, 2002.
The findings of the TEP are attached. The recommendation of the TEP was to deny
the WCA application based on the May 23, 2002 plans. Since that time, the
developer has revised the plans to reduce the wetland impact.
2. The revised June 11th development plan and letter from SER dated June 11, 2002
shows 0.41 acres of wetland impact associated with the construction of the storm
water treatment basin and grading for the townhomes. This is a reduction from the
0.87 acres of wetland proposed in the previous plan. By removing the storm water
pond from the wetland to the maximum extent feasible as requested by the TEP, the
developer has demonstrated adequate sequencing of avoidance and minimization
based on the WCA.
3. Mitigation is proposed through the following:
X Creation of 0.42 acres of New Wetland Credit (NWC) through the expansion
of the existing wetland on the western edge. This wetland creation shows
Sue McDermott, P.E.
June 26, 2002
Page 2 of 3
irregular edges and an undulating bottom as requested by the City to the
extent necessary to replace the existing functions and values of the wetland.
X
Creation of 0.36 acres of Public Value Credit (PVC) through the infiltration
basin. As required by the WCA, the plans and letter show 75% of the one-
year design pool area of the infiltration basin to be used for PVC.
X
Establishment of 2.21 acres upland buffer around the wetland. The WCA
allows upland buffer to be used for PVC for up to 75% of the NWC area.
Since the NWC area is 0.42 acres, 0.32 acres of the upland buffer can be used
for PVC. The June 11, 2002 SER letter is in error as it states that 75% of 2.21
acre the buffer (1.66 acres) can be used as PVC. The WCA allows only 0.32
acres of the buffer to be used for PVC. This needs to be corrected in the
wetland replacement calculations by the developer.
X The creation of 0.42 acres of NWC and 0.68 acres of PVC meets the
requirements of the WCA for wetland replacement for this project.
4. The sanitary sewer and other utilities need to be shown on the grading plans.
5. The revised wetland replacement information was received on June 12, 2002;
therefore, the 60-day timeline for the City to make a detennination regarding the
WCA application ends August 9, 2002.
6. The landscape plan (sheet 6) does not match the grading plan. This needs to be
corrected by the developer.
7. The mitigation and infiltration basin seeding information needs to be shown on the
plans.
Hydrologic/Hydraulic, Water Quality, and Grading Comments
1. Additional catch basins should be placed behind Lots 8 and 16 on Block 3, Lot 8 on
Block 1, and Lot 1 on Block 2.
2. The minimum grade for drainage swales and lot grading must be 2% or greater in
accordance with the City's 2002 Public Works Design Manual.
3. The storm sewer should be expanded on Bluff Heights Trail in front of Block 1 to
include two additional catch basins at station 3+00.
4. Additional catch basins to Timber Crest Drive should be included on the plans.
G:lPROdECTSI200II45timbercrestlO62602smTC. doc
Sue McDermott, P.E.
June 26, 2002
Page 3 of 3
5. The text Note 11 on page 5 should be changed from 3:1 to 4:1 in accordance with the
City's 2002 Public Works Design Manual.
6. The city should consider requesting that pipes be added to the inlet of the skimmer
structures. By extending pipes from the base of the skimmers and adding fill on top
of the pipes, the result would be a much more aesthetically pleasing structure. In
addition to this, there would be less accumulation of debris at the base of the
structure.
7. Please add spot elevations to the overflows between lots 40, 41, 36 and 37, on Block
1 in order to illustrate that there is 1' of freeboard between the overflow and the
building pad.
8. The city should evaluate whether increased access to the maintenance bench and
outlet structures is needed.
This concludes our review of the Timber Crest 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:lPROJECTSI2001145timbercrestlO62602smTC. doc
BRADLEY J, LARSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
June 21, 2002
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT · 600 COUNTRY TRAIL :~g:l:-rJORDAi% JviN DD6DZ-~66~
(952) 496-8346. Fax: (952) 496-8365 · www. co.scott, mn.us
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Preliminary Plat, Timber Crest -2nd Revision
Franklin Trail and TH 13
Dear Jane:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat as it relates to Highway Department issues and offer the following
comments or concerns:
The centerline of CSAH 21 should be identified on the preliminary plat so it is clear that the applicant
is dedicating 75 feet from the centerline.
All comments from previous letters from our department (March 21 st and May 16th) still apply to
this plat.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this revised preliminary plat. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.
Transportation Planner
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
May16,2002
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Preliminary Plat, Timber Crest -Revision
Franklin Trail and TH 13
Dear Jane:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat as it relates to Highway Department issues and offer the following
comments or concerns:
· During construction no vehicles shall be permitted to use CSAH 21 for direct access to and from the
property. All construction vehicles shall use Franklin Trail to access the property.
· No ponding, berming, or landscaping shall be permitted within the County right-of-way.
· A utility permit shall be required for any work within the County right-of-way.
· Any change is drainage entering the County right-of-way shall reqtfire detailed stormwater
calculations to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this revised preliminary plat. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Craig Jenson
Transportation Planner
March 21, 2002
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Preliminary Plat, Timber Crest
Franklin Trail and TH 13
Dear Jane:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat as it relates to Highway Department issues and offer the following
comments or concerns:
The development is proposing an access onto CSAH 21. It is County policy that when there is more
than one public roadway to serve the property, access shall be taken from the lower function or lower
volume roadway. Franklin Trail is the lower function/volmne road and Franklin Trail also provides a
controlled intersection with CSAH 21. CSAH 21 is designated as Minor Arterial. It is our
responsibility to preserve mobility along Minor Arterials as best we can. Traffic on CSAH 21 is over
14,000 vehicles per day and providing more access to CSAH 21 in this area would create more
conflicts on the road, and could therefore have an effect on the safety of motorists using CSAH 21.
· With the need for additional improvements such as tom lanes at CSAH 21 and TH 13 and CSAH 21
at Franklin Trail, we recommend 75 feet of right-of-way be dedicated.
· No ponding, berming, or landscaping shall be permitted within the County right-of-way.
Utility permit shall be required for any work within the County right-of-way.
· Any change is drainage entering the County right-of-way shall require detailed stormwater
calculations to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Craig Jenson
Transportation Planner
J/05/2002 1~:~5 ~5222B37~8 INTESRA TELECO~ PL PA~E 0~/01
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Timber Cresl; Park Preliminary plat
and preliminary PUD Plan) for the following;
Water City ~ode Grading
Sewer Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Le~lal Issues
Assessment Electdc Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System ' Gas Building) Code
Erosion Control X Other T~'~
Recommendation: Approval __ Denial " X Conditional Approval
Comments:
..,..' integra
TELECOM
~Den Barlage ,~0 C~mr~do S~L S.E.
0.S,R Engineering & Design ~,~: ~2~ 9~-~?
Signed:
Please return any comments by Thursday, March 2~; 2002, to
Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (952) 447-9812
Fax: (952_) 447-4245
1:\02files\02subdivislons~02prelirn plats\timber crest\referral.doc Page 2
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Timber Crest-P-ar-k-P4eliminary Plat
and Preliminary PUD Plan) for the following: I
Water City Code Grading
Sewer Storm Water Signs
Zoning Ftood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion Control Other
/~Conditional Approval
Recommendation: __ Approval __ Denial ,,,,/
Please return any comments by Thursday, March 21,2002, to
Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (952) 447-9812
Fax: (952) 447-4245
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\referral.doc
Page 2
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director
TIMBER CREST PARK - revised preliminary plat
(assessment/fee review)
June 12, 2002
A 28.19 acre parcel in 1-114-22 & 2-114-22 (PIN #25 901 007 0 & #25 902 019) is proposed to
be platted into Timber Crest Park. The property was initially served with sewer and water
utilities in the early 1960's. Under the original assessment roll this property was assessed for
sewer and water lateral charges only.
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:
Park Dedication
Collector Street Fee
Stormwater Management Fee
Trunk Sewer & Water Fee
$1685.00/unit if partial park land dedication
$1500.00/acre
$2943.00/acre
$3500.00/acre
The application of these City charges would generate the following costs to the developer based
upon a net lot area calculation of 13.64 acres of townhouse units (includes net deduction of 14.55
acres for street and wetlands row.) as provided within the site data summary sheet of the
preliminary plat.
Collector Street Fee:
13.64 acres ~ $1500.00/ac = $20,460.00
Storm Water Management Fee:
13.64 acres ~ $2943.00/ac -- $40,143.00
Trunk Sewer & Water Charge:
13.64 acres ~ $3500.00/ac = $47,740.00
Assuming the initial net lot area of the concept plan does not change, the above referenced
collector street, stormwater and trunk sewer and water charges would be determined and
collected within the context of a developer's agreement for the construction of utility
improvements at the time of final plat approval.
There are no other outstanding special assessments currently certified against the property. Also,
the tax status of the property is current with no outstanding delinquencies.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
H:~SPLIT$\TimlI~x~t doc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
i I