HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-97REGULAR PLANNI3IG COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, Jane 23, 1997
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
A. Case #97-050 Variance Request by Bryan and Phillip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Rd.
A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF ~ REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE OHW OF
SPRING LAKE (912.8); RELATED TO TH~ CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND A NEW
GREENHOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBLrRBAN RESIDENTIAL AND
SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS
B. Case #97- 053 Variance Request by Brian Mattson, 16575 lnguadona Beach Circle
SW.
A 24% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 54% INSTEAD
OF TFIE PERMITTED 30%; A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 1 FOOT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET
FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE; ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
DETACHED GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS
5. Old Business:
A. Continuation of Northwood Oaks Estates Preliminary Plat.
B. Review outstand'mg Zoning Ordinance issues.
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 E~3t~(~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota $8~72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4474245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYF~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 9, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The June 9, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson, Wuellner
and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistant
City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Absent
Stamson Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
Wuellner Present
Commissioner Vonhof arrived at 6:34 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes:
The May 27, 1997 Minutes were approved as submitted.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #97-042 Consider a preliminary plat for the project known as
"Northwood Oaks Estates", consisting of 34.15 acres to be subdivided into 47
lots for single family residential dwellings.
Commissioner Criego read a public hearing statement and opened the meeting to the
public. A sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report.
Applicants Kurt Larson and Douglas Pietsch are applying for a preliminary plat for the
34.15 acre site located directly west of Northwood Road, south of Arctic Lake, and east
of Spring Lake Regional Park. The preliminary plat is to be known as "Northwood Oaks
Estates".
The preliminary plat identified proposed lot locations, areas and dimensions, road
locations, storm sewers, grading, location and grade of sewer and water, landscaping and
tree replacement plans, and other improvements to the undeveloped site.
MN060997.DOC
The proposed preliminary plat meets most of the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance
and Zoning Ordinance. There are some engineering and ordinance requirements which
still must be addressed prior to approval of this preliminary plat. One of the outstanding
issues which must be addressed is the disturbance of the slopes on this site. This plat has
several locations in which slopes of 20% or greater are disturbed, either for the placement
of roads and utilities or the placement of homes. It may be possible to minimize this
disturbance by redesigning the plat in some way or a different type of development on
this site may be possible i.e., a townhouse style of development could utilize the flatter
portions of the site and still minimize the impact on the slopes. In its recommendation to
the Council, the Planning Commission should address the impact of the development on
the natural features of the site.
Another issue which must be addressed is the length of the Oakcrest Circle cul-de-sac.
The maximum length of a cul-de-sac is 500', based on the requirements of Section 6-6-2
E of the Subdivision Ordinance. A variance to this provision may be granted, according
to the criteria listed in Section 6-9-1 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Planning
Commission must review the length of this cul-de-sac, and make a determination about
whether or not it meets the criteria. The Commission's recommendation to the Council
must include a statement of its findings based on these criteria.
If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions:
1. The lot area and frontages on Lots 6, 7, 8 and 10, Block 2, and on Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 10,
12, 13, and 15, Block 3, must be revised to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
2. If the Council does not approve a variance to the tength of the cul-de-sac, the length
of Oakcrest Circle must be reduced to 500' or less.
3. A revised tree preservation showing the changes and additions outlined in this report
must be submitted. If necessary, a replacement plan must be submitted and approved
prior to final plat approval.
4. A revised landscaping plan showing the changes outlined in this report must be
submitted.
5. The name of Pond View Lane must be changed to a name which is unique to the
street naming system in the City of Prior Lake. There is already a Pond View Trail
located in the City.
6. A pedestrian trail along Pond View Lane must be provided. The width of the right-
of-way must be revised to accommodate this trail.
7. The developer must dedicate drainage and utility easements over all the wetlands,
stormwater ponds, and all sewer, water and storm sewer lines located outside of the
MN060997.DOC 2
dedicated right-of-ways. The developer must also obtain easements for all utilities
located outside of the boundaries of the plat.
8. The issues outlined in the memo from Sue McDermott, dated May 29, 1997, must be
addressed in the final plat.
Comments from the public:
Applicant, Kart Larson, 14500 Kipling Avenue, Savage, stated they put together the plat
based on a number of factors. After meeting with some of the neighbors and looking at
the surrounding lake neighborhoods they felt the best use of the property was for single
family homes and proceeded along those lines. The cul-de-sac design eliminates frontage
along Northwood Road and provides nice housing sites. The size of the lots can be
adjusted. The 575 foot length culdesac is critical for the number and quality of the lots.
He understands they would have to apply for a variance. Mr. Larson felt the other
conditions can be met. He felt it would be a nice quality home sites with price ranges of
$200,000 to $275,000, which is consistent with the neighboring homes.
Andy Buesgens, 15995 Fremont Avenue, feels there is a problem with traffic and the
construction tracks in the area. Mr. Buesgens explained an accident which occurred the
day he received his notice. He would like to see stop signs or speed bumps to prevent
some of the speed.
Roberta McDonald, 16207 Northwood Road, would not like townhomes in the area and
would prefer single family homes. She is concerned with the snow removal and having
to pay for someone to come and remove the city's snow. She also felt the police will
have to patrol the area more often.
Joe Passafaro, 16077 Northwood Road, would rather see the single family homes than the
townhomes. He is concerned with the traffic. There are many children in the area and
agrees with the neighbors testifying to the speed. Mr. Passafaro feels there should be an
adult and/or young adult park in the development. There is a tot lot and a few small parks
that are not maintained. There is no place to play ball or tennis in close proximity. This is
the last chance to get any kind of park and he strongly recommends a facility for the
young adults. In his opinion he does not feel it is very good park management.
There has been no petition to the City requesting speed bumps or other traffic control.
John Tielborg, 14358 Rutgers Street stated he owns approximately 15 acres of property
north of the development. His first concern was for tree removal at 8 or 9 percent. He felt
there were many significant trees and there would be maybe 30 to 40 percent removal.
His other concern is with the 20% grade and major erosion and nmofftoward Arctic
Lake. He suggested putting in a right turn lane to help with traffic.
MN060997.DOC 3
Bruce Myrvold, 16618 Northwood Road stated he and his neighbors are opposed to
multiple development.
Stacey Spencer, 15880 Arctic Circle, questioned rezoning. Her concern is for the 10 acre
lots. She spoke on the preservation of the wildlife and wetlands. She would prefer 10
acre parcels. Trespassing and destruction of property has been a problem.
Jeanne Kane, 16286 Northwood Road, had concerns for the cul-de-sac and the snow
removal. She would like to make sure the snow does not end up in her property. Mrs.
Kane suggested an environmental impact study.
Richard Lindman, 15880 Arctic Circle, questioned what would serve the community
better, another housing development or a park?
John Tetzloff, 16337 Northwood Road, wanted to reiterate the speeding problem, the
multiple family dwelling and parks. He questioned sidewalks in the development.
Dan Westergren of Westergren and Associates, prepared the plans and addressed some of
the concerns. The applicant has worked with staff to preserve many of the trees. He
explained lots with the steep slopes and preserving the woods. The development will
remove 9 percent of the trees when the allowance is 25 percent. They want to bring in
quality homes and preserve the wilderness as do the neighbors. He feels the snow
removal will not be a problem. Mr. Westergren met with the Park Department and
followed their recommendation.
Roberta McDonald, 16270 Northwood Road, questioned the safety with the traffic flow
on the intersection of Northwood Road and their private driveway. She would like to see
where the road is being removed and reconstructed.
John Champine, 3192 Butternut Circle, stated his concerns for parking on Northwood
Road for the new development. The sidewalks and median are not clearly shown on the
map. Another concern was for the assessments made to the developer for last year's
street improvements. Mr. Champine questioned how the developer was going to proceed
with the house building. The neighbors would like to get a sense of the development.
Mr. Larson said the time table for the project is about 2 and one-half years, with 4 to 6
builders and the market value of lots would be.$40,000 to $60,000.
Jeanne Kane 16286 Northwood Road, questioned the road to Bud Cooks' 20 acres.
Kansier explained the property is in Spring Lake Township and the City does not regulate
development in the township.
John Sweeney, 16109 Northwood Road wondered if there was any additional access to
the lake.
MN060997.DOC 4
Rye said no.
Mr. Larson commented the additional traffic would be a city issue rather than a developer
issue. There is an unresolved issue with the cul-de-sac and asked if the commissioners
would table that matter to give them time to review.
Joe Passafaro, 16077 Northwood Road, said it was prudent for the quality of life for the
people who live in the development and the existing residents to provide a park. This is
the last chance to have a park.
The public hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m.
Comments by the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· The Parks Advisory Council mapped out a park plan and this property was not
designated as a need at this time. Spring Lake Park is next to the development.
· The snow removal should not be a problem. The City would be responsible.
· The slopes might be a problem. Would prefer to see lower density. There is a pay
off, preserve slopes or lower density?
· The variance will be addressed.
· The 12 lots will be modified to meet the ordinance.
Wuellner:
· The general layout of the property is difficult.
Six cul-de-sacs is not a good plan.
The road is too narrow for the traffic and safety vehicles.
Sympathetic to the neighbors concerned with the park. Would like to see the issue
addressed.
Overall the treatment of trails and park, street length issue, slopes and tree inventory
is not complete. He would rather see it go back to the drawing board.
Vonhof:
· How many ADT's (Average Daily Trips) would 47 families affect the development.
Kansier said the maximum would be 14 trips per day per home.
· The traffic issue is an off site problem.
· Agreed with Commissioner Wuellner with an inadequate tree survey.
· Would favor custom grading over 20%.
· Overall is against streets which do not end in cul-de-sacs. Maintenance would be
difficult. The City should not have to pay to have trucks drive back and forth down a
stubbed street.
· There are problems with stubbed off streets. Not in favor.
· The good thing is there is no housing fronting Northwood Road.
· Will not support a variance on the culdesac length.
MN060997.DOC 5
· Concern for drainage to the wetlands.
· Sidewalks and trailways are absent. Provisions should be made to the County park.
Does not feel anyone should walk on the street.
· Would like to see more of an explanation from the Park Department. There are no
other parks serving this area. You cannot count a County park.
Kuykendall:
· Concurred with the Commissioners.
· Would like to see larger scale plans.
· The snow removal should have a bump out area in the cul-de-sac.
· Concern for the length of the culdesac. Looks like a through street. It is a negative.
· Many issues are dealing with traffic engineering which is not the developer's
responsbility.
· It is important to have sidewalks.
· The park is not totally the responsibility of the developer.
· The alternative of not wanting single family homes could be townhouses. There are
trade offs.
· Stop signs and clear vision design will be addressed.
· It may be appropriate to table the matter.
· Staff should raise the traffic enforcement and park issues and respond. Most issues
have been addressed. Compromises are to be made.
Criego:
· Agreed with the Commissioners.
· This is the type of development the City would like to see. The following issues have
to be addressed:
· The Engineering Department should come forward and tell what can be done relating
to some of the speeding.
· Would like to hear from the Parks Department regarding this development.
· The cul-de-sac is too long. It is a fire hazard. It is a problem for fire trucks.
· Engineering should come up with a recommendation for tum-arounds for City tracks.
· What is the impact to a new developer with the assessments from last year's
improvement?
· Concern for slopes and maintaining the wooded area. He would like a general idea of
what the developer will take out with those lots.
· Take a better look at the sidewalks and trails.
Developer, Kurt Larson requested a continuation of the hearing.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE
HEARING TO THE JUNE 23, 1997 MEETING.
Vote taken signified ayes by all.
MN060997.DOC 6
A recess was called at 8:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:13 p.m.
5. Old Business: None
6. New Business: None
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
The commissioners recapped their tour of Lakefront Park and down town. Rye explained
some of the possible study money available to help cities with demonstration projects.
This would address some of the City's Livable Community goals. The Commissioners
would like to try to meet the requirements and deadline.
The Commissioners discussed an action plan.
1. Need City Council approval to dedicate funds to expand the current public projects, in
the early development stages. Integrate current approved public projects - the library,
Lakefront Park, the TIF District and Priordale Mall. Those public projects will provide
an opportunity to have a significant impact on the ability to develop.
2. Why now? Timing element. Develop a time line. Name it "Plan for the City Core"
3. Develop an overall theme for the community. How do we want to be perceived? What
is our image?
4. Hold joint public meetings with the EDA to allow the public to generate ideas of what
they would like to see in the down town area.
Contact City Council with the Commission's intentions and ask for their continual
support. Copy EDA.
The second stage is to start working on the image. The Commissioners will talk to five
people about Prior Lake's image and bring back their comments for the next meeting.
The 1984 study included many appropriate ideas.
The July 14, 1997 meeting will be canceled. No quorum.
The boat tour is scheduled for Thursday, June 19.
MN060997.DOC 7
8. Adjournment:
MOTION TO ADJOURN BY STAMSON, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL.
The meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
MN060997.DOC 8
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FROM OHWL FOR
PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES, Case File #97-050
2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
JUNE 23, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Phillip and Bryan
Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger
deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. No previous variances have
been granted. The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring
Lake Townsite.
The house is setback 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of
Spring Lake of 912.8 and the existing deck (24 by 8 feet) extends 8 feet beyond
the house, towards the lake, to be setback approximately 39 feet from the
(OHW) instead of the required 50 feet (Section 9.3 A of the Zoning Ordinance).
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a
larger deck, porch, and green house (Exhibit A). A portion of the new deck
and green house will extend closer to the OHW and will be located 30 feet from
the OHW. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 20 foot variance to the
OHW setback to permit a structure setback of 30 feet rather than the required 50
feet. The proposed porch and additional deck area will be located on the west
side of the dwelling and setback the same distance of the house (approximately
47 feet from the OHWL).
DISCUSSION:
The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite.
The house was constructed in 1967. The property is located within the R-1
(Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. This lot is
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
12,800 sq. feet and 100 feet wide at the street and approximately 100 feet wide
at the setback and at the OHW. Therefore, this lot is a substandard lot because
it does not meet the minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. feet for general development
lake riparian lots under the current Shoreland Ordinance. No previous variances
have been granted on this property.
The existing structure is situated in the center of the lot between the street and
the lake and towards the east side lot line (Exhibit B). The front yard setback is
approximately 25 feet. The eastern side yard setback is 7 feet and the western
side yard setback exceeds the required 10 feet. On the lakeside, the existing
house is setback 47 feet from the OHW and the existing deck extends 8 feet
towards the lake to be setback approximately 39 feet from the OHW.
The proposed porch will be "lined up" with the existing structure to be setback
from the OHW the same distance (47 feet). The proposed deck will be setback
30 feet from the OHW and the greenhouse will be setback approximately 37 feet
from the OHW. The legal building envelope (Exhibit C) sh~)ws that the proposed
porch and deck could be built on the west side of the existing structure.
The variance to the setback from the OHW could be eliminated if the applicant
moved the proposed additions to be within the legal building envelope. There is
approximately 1600 sq. feet available on the west side of the house which would
accommodate the size of the proposed addition. The existing deck can be
replaced to be of the same size and in the same location without a variance.
In a letter date June 19, 1997, the DNR has recommended denial of the variance
as requested. There is a legal building area that can accommodate the
proposed additions. The DNR is not opposed to the replacement of the existing
deck.
VAI~IANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. In this case, there is a legal alternative for
the applicant, and that is to build the proposed additions to meet the OHW
setback and to replace the existing deck to be of the same size and location.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-050\97-050PC.DOC Page 2
There are no unique circumstances in this case. The applicant is proposing
to build a porch and part of the expanded deck within the legal building
envelope. Considering that the existing deck can remain and be replaced to
the same size (outside of the legal building envelope), the proposed porch
and most of the greenhouse would fit into the area where the applicant
proposes to place the porch and expanded deck.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The lot is considered to be substandard. It is under 15,000 sq. feet in area
(12,800 sq. feet) and 100 feet wide. If the applicant reduces and/or relocates
the proposed additions and/or replaces the existing deck to same location
and size, the setbacks can be met and a variance will not be necessary. The
applicant has control over the proposed structure of which their size and
location are not hardships.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The size and location of the existing and proposed structures on the lot are
somewhat inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The
property to the east is setback 46 feet from the OHW and the property to the
west is setback 51 feet. The applicant can legally be setback 50 feet and
existing house is setback 47 feet and the existing deck is setback about 39
feet. To encroach any further into the required OHW setback would place the
proposed structures significantly closer to the lake than the adjacent
properties.
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose,
' 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded that there are legal alternatives for which the applicant could
build the proposed additions. A relocation of the additions to within the legal
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-050\97-050PC. DOC Page 3
building envelope and/or replacing the existing deck to be of the same size and
location are viable alternatives to the granting of a variance.
AC N R IR ·
A motion adopting Resolution 97-14PC.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-050\97-050PC.DOC Page 4
RESOLUTION 97-14PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 20 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A
30 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HiGH WATER MARK
OF SPRING LAKE (912.8 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT OF 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND
GREENHOUSE AND EXPANDED DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719
SPRING LAKE ROAD FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Phil and Bryan Hines have applied for a variance from Section 9.3A of the Zoning
Ordinance in order to remove an existing deck and permit the construction of a porch,
greenhouse, and deck on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District
and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
2719 Spring Lake Road, legally described as the westerly one half of Lot 3; and
Lot 4; and the easterly one half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of land
between said Lots and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring Lake
Townsite, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the
Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part or
portion of any street or alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott
County, Minnesota.
1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case//97-050 and held hearings thereon on June 23, 1997.
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, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that meets the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. $.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
There are no unique conditions applying to the subject property. Adjacent properties
are setback further, and legal alternatives exist. The existing encroaching deck can be
replaced in the same location of the same size, and the proposed porch and
greenhouse can be placed within the legal building envelope.
The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a
convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship
as legal alternatives exist.
5. The contents of Plarming Case 97-050 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 variance for the proposed porch, greenhouse, and new deck, as shown in
Exhibit A;
l. A 20 foot variance permitting a 30 foot setback from the OHW3L of Spring
Lake (912.8 El.) instead of the required 50 foot setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on June 23, 1997.
ATTEST:
William Criego, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\97var\97-O50va\97-O 14re.doc 2
PHIL HINES
2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
vu~ey ~urveylng (Jo., P.A.
SUITE 120-C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 55572
TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED ADDITIONS
928.1 Denotes existing gcade eL~vation
Denotes proposed finished gcade elevations
w Denotes p~oposed direction of finished surface drainage
The existing garage slab is at elevatic~ 928.38
The existing top block is at elevatic~ 928.7
The lowest flc~r ~.levati~t is at 920.37
Net Lot A~ea = 12,8(~} sq. ft.
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surfa ce Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address ~.q \ q ~ ee~ ~,__.~ k-~.-~-
Lot Area /'~-, ~oO Sq. Feet x 30% = ..............
ATTACHED GARAGE -J~ '~b.~x × Z~-,~ :.,
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE..' ....................
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage/Shed)
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS .......................
DRIVEWAY/PAVED AREAS
(Driveway-paved or not)
PATIOS~ECKS
(Open Decks 'A" min. opening between
boards, with a pervious surface below,
ate not considered to be impervious)
= I
TOTAL PAVED AREAS .........................................
OTHER
~f~o~)_ TOTAL DECKS ........................................................
~.-r~e~ ~ ~.S x
TOTAL OTHER....; ..................................................
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Prepared By
Company NOl~\\e~ S~a~x~ C~o, ~'~'
PHIL HINES
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUIT~ 120-C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONOOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570
EXHIBIT B
.... SHOWS EXISTING DECK
( SPR'Ii~i~ ~--.----._~___.~ ,
0 30 60
SCALE tN FEET
,L HINES
27~9 SPRING LAKE ROAD
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55572
Volley Surveying Co., P.A.
S ,TE ,2o-c, , 67o ANKL,N TRA,L EXHIBIT C
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447~2570
LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE
~04D) ~
BUlLDING
ENVELOPE
I~~REA FOR P.-o-
909 8
The westerly Cfle Half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and tile Saster]y (Ne I[aif of Lot
all in Block 46, and a strip of land between said Lots and [yil~ so~lthefly
thereof and the waters e~je of Spring lake, ~,n Spring Lake Townsite, according to
the plat thereof on file and of ~ecocd in th. office of the Registrar' of Deeds in
and fo~ said Scott County, Minnesota, including any [~n~t oc poction of any street
o~ alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County,
Minnesota. Also showing the location of the proposed
lqO~S' Bench~k~k Elevation 929.38 ~op of the existing garage slab on Lot 4.
92~8.1 Denotes existing grade e%,~vation
Denotes proposed finished grade elevations
w Denotes proposed direction o£ finished surface drainage
The existirg garage slab is at elevati~t 928.38
The existing top block is at elevatic~[ 928.7
~11e lowest floor e!evati~ is at 920.37
Net Lot Ar~ = 12,L~ sq. ft.
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
PROPERTY LOCATION
COUNTY
OF scOTT
,VD
Z
~f: DNR METRO; 6-19-97 10:34; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #1/2
Minnesota l)cpartmcnt o1' Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner I~ad, St. Paul, M_N 551.06-6793
.Telephone: (6t2) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
June 19,1997
Mr. D~rt l~.yc
plarmmg Director
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creak Avenue
Prior Lake, Mirmesota 55372-171 4
KE: Hi'NES SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST (SPRANG LAKE) AND MZTTSON SIDEYARD AND
iMPERVIOUS SUP.FACE COVERAGE VAR. lANCE iLEQU'EST
Dear Mr. Rye:
I have received the hearing notices for the subje~ variance requests wt,Jctx will be considered by the Prior Lake Planning
Commission on J'unc 23, 1997. Please include the following comments into the official record of thc hcaring.
HINES OltW SETBACK VARIANCE REOUEST
Thc city of Prior Lake recently amended their ordln,'mce to reflect a relaxation o£the lake setback standard for Prior
and Spring Lakes. The required sctback is 75'. It is recommended thc varizmc~ as requested bc denied. The deck size
depicted on thc survey which accompanied the hcaring notice appears to have placed little regard for thc setback
requirement in its design. [ note thc structures on ekher side of thc t'lines' property arc setback at 51' zu~d 46'. Thc
DNR. rex:ommonds the applicant m-design thc proposed improvements to meet the required setback. There appears
ample huildable area to thc west and north of the existing structure. In addition, thc property currently has a deck. If
d~c e.v, Lsti~g d~k is in a state o£dixrcpair, the DNR. is not opposed to reconstruction at the existing location, and to rt~e
existing dimensions of the current deck. It will be difficult to argue hardship in this case.
MATTSON IMPERVIOUS SI. TRFACE COVERAGE AND SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANC~
The subject lot is very small (5,607 square feet), and is relatively narrow. The potential for additional development
on the lot without thc need for multiple variances is lh~zired. T'ae DNR. ia not oppos~l, to the eonatructien ora garage
at the proposed [ocation, provided an equal amotmt of impervious stu"~3ce is removed. It appears that there is a
significant amount of concrctc on thc west sid~ of fl'~e property wixich could be removed to balance thc additional
impervious of the proposednew garage. A~other option, perhaps more suitable in terms of impervious surface, would
be to construct a garage on the existing concrete slab, This would result in the elimination of the need for variances
from impervious surface and fi.nm the si&yard setback. It would, however, most likely require a variance from the road
setback. T~e DNR would not be opposed to the road setback variance. As proposed, tixc DNR, recommends denial
of tho variance for impervious surface coverage or 54"/o.
SENT BY: DNR METRO; 6-19-97 10:35; 6127727573
Jung 19, 1997
page 2
Please cn~.'r th~:s¢ DNI,I. objections into dm hcaring r~cord. If you have any questions or cmmncnts regarding DNR
review of tbs pending shorela~d issues, plcasa call me at 772-7910,
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Lynch Ili
Ama Hydrologist
Property Identification No. a~/-~O ~ ~ (~
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application:
[] Rezoning, from (present zoning/
to (pronosed zoning/
[] Amendment to City Code, Comp. Plan or City Ordinance
[] Subdivision of Land
[] Administrative Subdivision
[] Conditional Use Permit
[] Variance
[] Other:
Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
sheets/narrative if desired)
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
Applicant(s): ~r'.~
Home Phone: q~/9 ~ff-09~ Work Phone:
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
790 -
Home Phone:.
Type of Ownership: Fee ~
Work Phone:
· Contract for Deed I Purchase Agreement
Legal Description of,Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and andemtand that!
applieatio~ ~t be~ propessed ~until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
I Applica~gnature
Date
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date
lu-app2.do¢
City Planning Staff/Planning Commission,
We are proposing to make some additions and changes to our home located at 2719
Spring Lake Road South West. Despite the fact that the majority if the proposed
construction does not occur closer m the lake than our existing structure, with the present
changes to the setback requirements the project will require a Variance to meet current
Ordinances. We are proposing to add 16 feet to the West End of the house. The lower
(ground) level o f the structure to be used for storage of recreational equipment (canoes,
life preservers, ski equipment, etc.). The upper level is to be an entry porch facing the
north and a screened porch facing the lake. The second part of this proposed building
project would be the replacement and updating of the existing deck. The existing deck is
24 feet along the south side if the house and extends 8 feet toward the lake. The existing
deck is structurally over spanned with most of the members substantially rotted. When it
was built I am sure that 8 feet was the standard, but by today's standards 8 feet is an
impractical size with limited use. As is the case with many aspects of house design, over
time the normal uses ora structure change. When this deck was built it was common to
pull a couple of chairs out on the deck in the evening and spend an hour or so enjoying
the weather (until the mosquitoes chased you away). Today the deck is a family
gathering place and the focal point for most recreational activities on the lake. Its
structure is far more substantial and its size increased to accommodate meals and
permanent seasonal furniture. We are proposing to increase the depth of the deck toward
the lake by an additional 8 feet and the length of the deck along the house to the other
side if the windows that open from the living room (14 feet). The design oftbe addition
and deck was done with our neighbors in mind for both privacy and Lake Ascetics. The
enclosed structure has been designed to the West Side of the house, where it is behind the
line of site to the lake. The house to the West would only have partial view of the
structure through a single window on their Easterly side, a view that is obscured by a
large pine tree. The deck once constructed will also fall behind the line of site to the lake.
The view from the east is blocked by an out building and a large oak tree existing on the
neighbor's property and the view from the west is blocked by the location of the home
itself and a large pine tree on our property. The f'mal part of this proposed building
project would be to attach a small Green House on the South (lake) side of the house.
This structure would be glass over a aluminum frame extending approximately 10 feet
toward the lake and would be six feet behind the proposed deck.
We would ask you to consider, when reviewing our request, that a large portion of the
area between our home and the lake is unusable. It consists of fairly steep grades or is
encompassed in the retaining system currently in place to help counteract the shore line
erosion conditions experienced on the north side of this lake. We have been in contact
with the DNR in an attempt to determine what other methods of shoreline restoration
have been approved for this area, but to date the most reasonable course of action seems
to be to create level recreation space next to the house. We would also ask you to
consider the following four responses to the Ordinance criteria: outlined in the (Planning
Commission Review/Decision) section of the Variance Procedures / Land Use
Application.
We thank you for your consideration of our request.
Our home is situated on a substandard lot (Less Square Footage than standard lot).
The home was constructed approximately 47 feet from what is now considered the
(OHW). The setback requirements as they exist today do not allow any improvement
to the lakeside of our home, All will require a variance.
Our lot is at the apex of the shore line arc which makes our home closer to the lake by
inherent geometry even though our house falls on a strait line with our neighbor to the
east.
When this home was constructed I can only presume it met all the building codes and
zoning requirements. Today however the Ordinance has been changed to the extent
that this house no longer complies with the standard.
4. The change we are requesting will significantly improve the use and enjoyment of our
home. And because of the topography and location of other existing structures on and
around the area, there will be no reduction of views and no other reduction of use or
enjoyment of the adjoining properties that we can foresee.
16'
24'
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES;
A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) SETBACK
VARIAxNCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF
THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE OI-IYV OF SPRING LAKE
(912.8);
RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND A NEW
GREENHOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN
RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, June 23, 1997, at 6:30 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT:
B~an and Phillip Hines
2719 Spring Lake Rd.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
Part of Lot 3, Lot 4, and part of Lot 5, Block 46, Spring Lake
Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as 2719 Spring
Lake Road.
REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the re-construction of an existing deck to
be larger than the original deck and a new greenhouse to be
constructed in the rear yard of the subject property. The proposed
construction will result in the following requested variances;
A 20 FOOT OHW SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 30 FEET iNSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 50 FEET.
The Plarafing Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance
against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property..
~62~F.~&C~.e~A~g~S~.~`P~}~P~i~a`~3~-r~4~.`~"~-~°`~`~`~`"~`- .~,,,~,-,,, ,,- -,.~,~,~,-~,~ · ~-~ / Pr. {612)447-4230 / Fax (612)-~447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNFf~ EMPLOYER
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this
hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning
Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: June 10, 1997
Revision Mailed: June 16, 1997.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-050\9750VAPN.DOC9750VAPN.DOC
2
SURVEY PREPAREO FOR:
PHIL HINES
2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD
PRIOR LAKE ~ r'~H. 55372
Volley Surveying Co., PA.
SUITE 120-C ~ 15670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447 - ,~570
CAKE
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
CONSIDER SIDE YARD SETBACK AND IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE VARIANCES FOR BRIAN MATTSON, Case
File #97-053
16575 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ..~tc~r''
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATO~~-
YES X NO
JUNE 23, '1997
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian Mattson
who is proposing to construct a new detached 480 square foot garage and
access driveway. There is no existing garage on the property. No previous
variances have been granted.
The existing house with deck is setback approximately 22 feet from the front
property line, 9.8 feet from the side property line to the north, approximately 10
feet from the side property line to the south.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot detached garage in
the rear yard with a bituminous access driveway located along the side of the
principle structure to the garage in the back (Exhibit A). Existing impervious
surface is 28%. The proposed additions will create an impervious surface of
54%. The Shoreland Ordinance allows a maximum impervious surface coverage
of not more than 30% (Section 5-8-3). The proposed driveway will be located
'1 foot from the property line. The City Code requires a minimum driveway
setback of 5 feet from the side yard property line (Section 5-5-5). Therefore, the
applicants are requesting a 24% variance to impervious surface coverage
maximum to permit coverage of 54%, rather than the maximum allowed of
30% and a 4 foot variance to the driveway side yard setback to allow a 1
foot driveway setback rather than the required setback of 5 feet.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION:
The lot is located in the subdivision known as Inguadona Beach (1924) and is a
non-riparian lot. The house was constructed in 1977 and a deck was added in
1989. The original house building permit does not indicate if a garage was part of
the structure (Exhibit B). The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban
Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. This lot is 5,607 sq. feet,
55 feet wide at the street and 51 feet wide at the rear lot line. Therefore, this lot
is a substandard lot because it does not meet the minimum lot area of 12,000 sq.
feet and lot width of 75 feet for general development lake non-riparian lots under
the current Shoreland Ordinance. No previous variances have been granted on
this property.
The proposed garage will be within the building envelope (Exhibit C) however,
the driveway will be 1 foot from the property line. Generally, the city maintains a
5 foot drainage and utility easement on side property lines. However, such
easements were not granted when the property was platted in 1924. Such is
usually the case in older plats. The issues of drainage onto the adjacent
property is a concern. Although, the adjacent property to the north is vacant
now, there is no guarantee that it will continue to be vacant in the future. Also
snow storage will be a significant problem for a driveway located 1 foot from the
property line.
The variance to impervious surface and driveway setback could be eliminated if
the garage was located on the existing driveway, or under the deck. In this case
a variance to front yard setback would be required. If variances are granted, a
reduction of the existing impervious surface by removal of the concrete area
should be considered. This has been suggested to the applicant. Verbally, the
applicant has stated that he has a great need for the concrete drive and would
not be willing to remove a portion or all of it.
The DNR has responded to the variance request in a letter dated June 19, 1997.
The DNR is not opposed to the location of the proposed garage, and
recommends removal of the existing concrete drive to reduce the impervious
surface. The DNR suggests a more suitable option of locating the garage on the
existing drive, as not to increase impervious surface. This would required a front
yard setback variance. As proposed, the DNR recommends denial.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97*053\97-053PC.DOC Page 2
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Qrdinance is literally enforced. In this case, the lot does have existing off-
street parking but no garage. As proposed, there is a legal alternative for the
reducing the variance request to impervious surface by removing existing
concrete.
Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are unique circumstances in this case. The size of the lot is
considerably smaller than the ordinance requires and was platted in 1924.
However, if the applicant utilizes the existing driveway and places the
proposed garage in the front yard, the variance to impervious surface and
driveway setback will be eliminated. This would result in the need for a front
yard setback variance. There appear to be alternatives that reduce the
hardship which should be considered by the applicant.
The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The lot is considered to be substandard. It is under 12,000 sq. feet in area
(5,607 sq. feet) and 86 feet wide. If the applicant moves the garage to the
front of the house and places it on the existing driveway the two variances
required would be eliminated. However, a variance to front yard setback
would be required. The hardship is caused by the provisions of the
Ordinance and is the result of the applicants proposed building and drive
locations.
The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The spirit and intent of the impervious surface maximum in the Shoreland
District is to reduce storm water run-off, which will eventually drains into the
lake. The intent of the 5 foot side yard setback for driveways is to protect
drainage and utility easements and to allow for snow storage and automobile
overhangs. The granting of the requested variances are contrary to the intent
of the Ordinance and is no.t in the best interest of the public. Staff concurs
with the DNR and as proposed, recommends denial of the variances.
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-053\97-053PC. DOC
Page 3
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded that the intent of the applicant to construct a garage
certainly is reasonable, the proposed location and variances requested are
contrary to the intent of the ordinance. There does exist hardship based on the
size of the lot and the non-existence of a garage. However, there are
alternatives which reduce the variances necessary and the overall impact on the
lot would be decreased.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 97-15PC.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-053~97-053PC.DOC Page 4
RESOLUTION 97-15PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 4 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A
1 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT OF 5 FEET AND A 24 PERCENT VARIANCE REQUEST TO
PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 54 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 30 PERCENT FOR A PROPOSED GARAGE AND
DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16575 INGUADONA BEACH
CIRCLE FOR BRIAN MATTSON.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Brian Mattson has applied for a variance from Section 5-5-5 and Section 5-8-3 of the
City Code in order to permit the construction of a 480 square foot detached garage
and bittuninous access driveway on property located in the R-1 (Suburban
Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following
location, to wit;
16575 Inguadona Beach Circle, legally described as Lot 29, Inguadona Beach,
Scott County, MN
1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #97-053 and held hearings thereon on June 23, 1997.
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.
The existing impervious surface coverage is 28 percent including a paved drive area
and concrete area below the existing deck towards the front-yard. Use of the existing
driveway results in an alternative that eliminates the requested variances.
4. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OP[~ORTUNITY EMPLOYER
convenience to the applicants, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship
as alternatives exist.
5. The DNR has recommended denial of the variances as proposed.
6. The contents of Planning Case 97-053 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 the proposed garage and driveway as shown in Exhibit A;
1. A 4 foot variance permitting a 1 foot driveway setback from the side yard
instead of the required 5 foot setback.
2. A 24 percent variance to permit impervious surface coverage of 54 percent
instead of the maximum allowed of 30 percent.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on June 23, 1997.
ATTEST:
William Criego, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\97var\97-053va\97-015re.doc 2
SENT BY: DNR METRO; 8-19-97 10:34; 6127727573 => 8124474245;
Minnesota l)epartmcnl o1' Natural l ,cSOUl-ces
Metro Water, - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 77:2-7977
Stmelg, 1997
Mr, l~n P, ye
Pl~nmg Director
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, Mirmesota 55;372-171 4
POBt-lt'~ Fax Note 7671 oare
RE: HINES SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST (SPRING LAKE) AND M, ATTSON SIDEYARD AND
IMP£R. VIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE VARiANCE REQUEST
Dear Mr. Rye:
I have received the hearing notices for the aubje~--t variance mqucst~ which u.511 be considered by the Prior Lake Planning
Commission on June 23, 1997. Please include thc following comments into thc official record of'thc hear/ne.
HINES OllW SETBACK VARIANCE REOUEST
The city of Prior Lak~ r~cenfly amended their ordin,'mce to reflect a relaxation o£tlm lake setback standard for Prior
and Spring Lakes. The requital setback is 75'. It is recommended the variance as requested bc denied. The deck size
depicted on thc survey which accompanied thc hearing notice appears to have placed little regard for thc setback
requirement in its design. 1 note thc structures on either side of the Hbaes' property arc setback at 51' and 46'. Thc
DNR recommends the applicant re-design thc proposed improvements to meet the required setback. There appears
ample huildable area to thc wcst and north of the existing structure. In addition, thc property currently has a deck. If
the ex/sting deck is in a S,~.~ ofdiawepair, the DNP, is not opposed to reconstruction at the existing location, and to the
existing dimensions of the eurrcnt desk. It will be diflicult to argue hardship in this case.
MA'FTSON IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND STDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCb~~,
The subject lot is very small (5,607 square leer), and is relatively narrow. The potential for additional devclopmem
m~ the lot wi[hoot thc need for multiple variances is lh~ited. The DNR is not opposexl to thc construction ora garage
at the proposed location, provided an equal antoum of impervious stu'facc is removed. It appears that dm'e is a
significant amount of concrctc on thc wes~ side of thc property which could be removed to balance thc additional
impervious of thc pmposa:l new garage. Another option, perhaps more suitable in terms of impervious surface, would
be to construct a garage on the existing ccmcrete slab. This would result in the elimination of the need for variances
from impervious surfar~ and from the sidcyard setback. It v,~uld, however, most likely require a varirmee from the road
setback. The DNR would not be opposed to the road setback varianec. As proposed, the DNR. recommends denial
of thc varianec for impervious surface coverage of 54%.
~NR METRO; 6-19-97 10:35; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #2/2
Don Bye
luno 19. 1997
page 2
Please cnl~'r Lhcs¢ DNR objections mt/) th~ hearing record. If you have My qucsLions or con~ncnt$ rel/~rdinl/DNR
rcvicw ofth~ pending shoreland is.~uas, plcas¢ call me at 772-7910.
Sincerely,
Pit[rick l, Lynch I11
Ama Hy~ologist
BRIAN MATTSON
)6575 INGUAOONA BEACH CIRCLE
PRIOR LAKE~ MN. 55372
Valley Surveying Go., P.A.
SUITE 120-C ~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE ( 612 ) 447 - 2570
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 29, "IN(TJADONA BEACH", ScoOt County, Minsesota. Also ~howing th~ location of
the existing impfove~.~ s and proposed addition, this 16th day of Feb. 1996.
Nf~ES' Benchmark 936.15 walkout elevation of the existing house.
Net lot acea = 5,607 sq. ft.
Net existing, lot coverage = 28.0 %
Pcoposed ~et lot coverage = 538°/°
DENOTES PROPOSEO FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION
OENOTES PROPOSED DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE
0 20 40
SCALE IN FEET
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Lot Area <~, ~,c>"'/ Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. ~ h,~5'z, D
LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
HOUSE
ATTACHED GARAGE x =
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE ......................
DETACHEDBLDGS Zc' x ~O
(Oara~ ~ x !"&
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS .......................
D~_.~EWAY~/PAVED AREAS ~, ~ x Z.~
(Driveway-paved or not) .~..O, x ~)
(Sidewalk/Parking Areas)
--
~..6 x B =
TOTAL PAVED AREAS .........................................
PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS
(Open Decks %" min. opening between
boards, with a perVious surface below,
are not considered to be impervious)
TOTAL DECKS ........................................................
TOTAL OTHER .......................................................
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UND 0~.
Prepared By~ ~.\\-~ .c<~, ~.~
Company ~_~. 0¢o ~(~--~',4 ¢,~
Date % - 7--<-X- W'-[.
Phone # ~,.~-~_v__%-~ b
~RIAN MATTSON
16575 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
Volley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE 120-C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570
EXHIBIT C
LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE
to
/
/
~01~ $~' SET GARAGE SLAB AT EL 94034
0 ZO 40
SUBJECT LOT:
LOT 29, INGUADONA BEACH
- 44
2
9
2
5
8
I0 2
21
4TH
2O
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application:
[] Rezoning, from (nresent zoning)
to (pronosed zonin~
[] Amendment to City Code, Comp. Plan or City Ordinance
[] Subdivision of Land
[] Administrative Subdivision
[] Conditional Use Permit
Variance
[] Other:
Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
sheets/narrative if desired)
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
Applicant(s):
Address:
Home Phone:
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:.
Address:
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee
Work Phone:
Contract for Deed __ Purchase Agreement
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applications will not be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
Applicant's Signature Date
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of planning Director or Designee
Date
lu-app2.doc
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR TI-IE FOLLOWING VARIANCES;
1. A 24% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE OF 54% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%;
2. A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 1 FOOT INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 5 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE;
ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE
AND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN
RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, June 23, 1997, at 6:30 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT:
Brian Mattson
16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
Lot 29, Inguadona Beach, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as
16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW.
REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the construction of a new detached garage
to be located in the rear yard of the subject property. The proposed
construction will result in the following requested variances;
1. A 24% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE OF 54% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED
30%;
2. A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDEYARD SETBACK
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SIDEYARD
SETBACK OF 1 FOOT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5
FEET;
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance
against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
16200 E~}~7~:~.~x~[~1~,7~l~9I~,'alC~&9~7~-~5131~C/ Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to tiffs
hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Depattanent by calling 447-4230
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Plarm/ng
Corm-nission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written cormnents should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: June 10, 1997
Revision Mailed: June 16, 1997.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-053\9753VAPN.DOC9753VAPN.DOC 2
S89~18'08"B
/
/
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 29, "INGUADCNA BEACH", Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing th~ location of
the existing improve~~- s and pro.~sed addition~ this 16th day of Feb. 1996.
NC~ES' Benchmark 936.15 walkout elevation of the existing house.
Net loc area = 5,607 sq. ft. 9~.7
X
Net existing io~ coverage = 28.0 %
Proposed net lot coverage =
DENOTES EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
DENOTES PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION
DENOTES PROPOSED DIRECTION OF SURFACE ORAINAGE
SET GARAGE SLAB AT EL. 940.341,
SET TOP OF BLOCK OF GARAGE AT EL. 947.82
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
P NI P
5A
CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT
TO BE KNOWN AS NORTHWOOD OAKS ESTATES
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO-NIA
JUNE 23, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
On June 9, 1997, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an
application for a preliminary plat for the 34.15 acre site located directly west of
Northwood Road, south of Arctic Lake, and east of Spring Lake Regional Park. The
preliminary plat is to be known as "Northwood Oaks Estates". After closing the public
hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the issues relative to this preliminary plat.
The Planning Commission decided to continue discussion of this preliminary plat to the
next meeting in order to obtain additional information from the applicant and the staff.
REVIEW:
The specific information requested by the Planning Commission is listed below, with the
response shown in bold lettering.
1. Address the speeding on Northwood Road (City Engineering)
See attached memo from Sue McDermott, Assistant City Engineer.
The Prior Lake Police Department will also be conducting speed surveys on
Northwood Road over the next few days. We will have the results of this
survey available at the meeting.
2. Plans for a neighborhood park in the area (Park and Recreation Department)
See attached memo from Paul Hokeness, Park and Recreation Director.
3. The Oakcrest Circle cul-de-sac is too long; redesign the cul-de-sac so it does not
exceed 500 feet (Developer)
The developer submitted a revised preliminary plat on June 16, 1997. The
length of the Oakcrest Circle cul-de-sac has not been reduced to less than 500
feet.
4. Provide some turnarounds at the dead end streets (Developer)
The revised preliminary plat submitted by the developer shows 45' diameter
temporary cul-de-sacs at the end of the dead end streets in this plat.
1:\97fiies\97subdiv~replat~no rth oak\n o roak2.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
According to the memo from Sue McDermott, the temporary turnarounds
should be increased to a 60' diameter and set back 10' from the plat boundary.
5. What is the developer's responsibility or assessments for the improvements on
Northwood Road (City Finance Department)
The attached memo from Ralph Teschner, Finance Director, lists the total
present assessment liability as $324,490.04. This includes $191,630.88 for a
sewer and water project completed approximately 20 years ago. It also
includes $132,859.16 for the street paving project completed in '1996.
6. Address the need for sidewalks and trails on all of the streets (City En~lineering,
Parks and Recreation and Developer)
Section 6-7-3 of the Subdivision Ordinance lists the requirements for
sidewalks. This section states, in part, that "sidewalks shall be required for all
new projects where a means of pedestrian access from the development to
schools, parks, churches, business or industrial developments, adjacent
neighborhoods, transportation facilities, or for unusually long blocks is
necessary..." In this development, all of the streets are local streets providing
access to Northwood Road. There is a sidewalk along the entire length of
Northwood Road adjacent to this property. The Park and Recreation Director
has also requested a trail along Pond View Lane to allow future pedestrian
access to Spring lake Regional Park. No additional sidewalk is required,
based on the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance.
7. Revise the substandard lots to meet ordinance requirements (Developer)
The revised plans show all lots meeting ordinance requirements.
8. Provide some general grading information on the steep stopes to address the impact
of the building sites on these slopes and to address the potential erosion from these
slopes (Developer)
This information has been submitted and is attached for your review.
The revised plans have addressed some of the questions asked by the Planning
Commission. The staff also reviewed these plans with respect to the conditions listed in
the Planning Report dated June 9, 1997. The revisions have addressed some, but not
all, of the proposed conditions. Specifically, the revisions did not reduce the length of
the cul-de-sac, did not include revisions to the tree preservation or landscaping plans,
and did not address the issues outlined in the memorandum from the Assistant City
Engineer. The revised plans did change the name of Pond View Lane to Lakeview
Circle; however, there is already a Lakeview Circle in the City.
The outstanding issue in this preliminary plat is still the disturbance of the slopes on this
site. This plat has several locations in which slopes of 20% or greater are disturbed,
either for the placement of roads and utilities or the placement of homes. While the
Subdivision Ordinance does not specifically prohibit the disturbance of these slopes, it
does state that, whenever possible, these slopes should not be disturbed.
1:\97files\97subdiv\preplat~nort hoak\n o roak2.doc Page 2
The general grading information submitted by the developer indicates the greatest
impact on these slopes occurs in the area of Lots 8, 16 and 19. The house locations on
these lots are almost entirely within the areas of 20 to 30% slopes. The cul-de-sac for
Oakcrest Circle is also within an area with 20% slopes.
It may be possible to minimize this disturbance by shortening the cut-de-sac. This
would result in a different lot configuration, and might provide alternative house locations
on the lots with the steepest slopes. In its recommendation to the Council, the Planning
Commission should address the impact of the development on the natural features of
the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions:
The length of Oakcrest Circle must be reduced to 500' or less.
A revised tree preservation showing the changes and additions outlined in
this report must be submitted. If necessary, a replacement plan must be
submitted and approved prior to final plat approval.
3. A revised landscaping plan showing the changes outlined in this report must
be submitted.
The name of Lakeview Circle (previously shown as Pond View Trail) must be
changed to a name which is unique to the street naming system in the City of
Prior Lake. There is already a Lakeview Circle and Pond View Trail located in
the City.
The developer must dedicate drainage and utility easements over all the
wetlands, stormwater ponds, and all sewer, water and storm sewer lines
located outside of the dedicated right-of-ways. The developer must also
obtain easements for all utilities located outside of the boundaries of the plat.
6. The issues outlined in the memo from Sue McDermott, dated May 29, 1997,
must be addressed in the final plat.
7. The temporary turnarounds at the end of the dead-end streets must be revised
to meet City standards.
ALTERNATIVES:
Recommend the Council approve the preliminary plat of Northwood Oaks Estates as
presented and subject to the conditions listed above, or with specific changes
directed by the Planning Commission. In its motion the Planning Commission must
also make a recommendation on the variance to the length of the cul-de-sac.
1:\97files\97su bdiv\preplat\nort hoak~noroak2.d oc
Page 3
2. Table or continue the public hearing to a date and time certain and provide the
developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future
Planning Commission review.
3. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific findings of fact.
C D T ·
Staff recommends Alternative #1
A T N :
A motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat of Northwood Oaks Estates,
subject to the listed conditions, is required.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Revised Plans
2. Memo from Sue McDermott, dated June 19, 1997
3. Memo from Paul Hokeness, dated June 19, 1997
4. Memo from Ralph Teschner
5. Planning Report dated June 9, 1997
1:~97files\97subdiv',preplat~northoak\noroak2.doc Page 4
DATE: June 19, 1997
TO:
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
FROM: Sue McDermott, Assistant City Engineer
RE:
Planning Commission Request on
Northwood Oaks - Project #97-42
In your June 10th letter to Kttrt Larson, the Engineering Department was requested to
provide additional information to the Planning Commission on the following items:
Speeding on Northwood Road. This is not an engineering issue. Enforcement of the
speed limit is the only answer, along with voluntary compliance. The posted speed
limit on Northwood Road is 30 mph with maximum recommended speeds of 25 mph
posted in conjunction with curve warning signs at two locations.
Sidewalks and Trails - A proposed trail is shown on Lakeview Circle and there is an
existing sidewalk on Northwood Road. The existing gravel road which extends west
of the plat line from Pioneer Lane is a private road outside of Prior Lake city limits.
We have also reviewed the temporary turn arounds at the end of Pioneer Lane and
Lakeview Circle and request that they be increased to a 60 foot diameter and set back 10
feet from the plat line.
INNE$O
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
Paul Hokeness, Parks and Recreation Director
Park Dedication Requirements for Northwood Oaks Estates
June 19, 1997
The Developer shall comply with the park dedication and contribution requirements as defined in
the City Code. Due to the close proximity of Northwood and Island View Park it has been
determined that the park dedication for this plat would be cash in lieu of land. In the future there
will be a trail connection to provide access from Northwood Road to Spring Lake Regional Park.
I would recommend that the development include an eight foot wide bituminous trail on the
south side of Pond View Circle extending to the west property line.
The park dedication will be satisfied by a cash dedication which is determined by multiplying
the gross acreage of land which is 34.15 acres by 10% which equals 3.415 acres multiplied by
the market value of the land ($13,000.00) = $44,395.00. Payment is due prior to the release of
the final plat.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
^n eQU^L o~,Por'runrrv
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDLr~I
TO: PLANNING
FROM: Ralph Teschner
RE: Northwood Oak~ Estates
(assessmenfffee review)
DATE: May 16, 1997
The Dunn property comprising the following parcel numbers is proposed to be platted as
Northwood Oaks Estates:
PINg 25 141 086 0
PIN# 25 141 086 1
PIN# 25 903 002 0
PIN# 25 903 002 1
The property was originally served with municipal sewer and water utilities and I00% assessed
under Project 82-3. The initial two assessment installments were paid with the property taxes and
in 1981 the land was enrolled under Green Acres. The present assessment liability is
$324.490.04 which will be required to be paid at the time the developer's agreement iS
executed. The balance of special assessments are detailed as follows:
PIN Number Code Type Amouot
Outtot A, Northwood
24.01 acres 3-114-22
25 141 086 0 47 S&W $32,179.27
9l Paving $88,812.16
25 903 002 0 47 S&W $159,451.61
91 Paving $44.047.00
Total ... $324,490,04
Since utiIities 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:
Stormwater Management Fee
Collector Street Fee
16.8 cents/sq.ft.
$1500.00/acre
The application of these City charges would generate the following costs to the developer based
upon a net lot area calculation of 29.88 acres of single family lots (1,301,607 sq. ft.) as provided
within the site data summary sheet of the preliminary plat description:
Storm Water Management Fee:
1,301,607 sf~ 16.8/sf= $218,670.00
Collector Street Fee:
29.88 acres ~ $I500.00/ac = $44,820.00
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Pr. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY F-MPLOYER
These charges represent an approximate cost of $5600 per lot for the 47 proposed lots within
Northwood Oaks Estates. Assuming the initial net lot area of the plat does not change, the above
referenced storm water, collector street, trunk and lateral sewer and water charges would be
determined and collected '/~ithin 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.
MEMO
CC:
From:
Date:
Jane K,xnsier
City of Prior Lake
Dan R. Westergren
June 16, 1997
Subject: Sidewalk/trailway of Northwood Oaks Estates
We have reviewed the proposed pedestrian traffic use of each of the six proposed streets.
In each case we have not found the need for a sidewallqtrail system. Three of the cul-de-sac's only
have four houses not located adjacent to the existing sidewalk along Northwood Road. One street
has five houses, one has 6 houses, and the largest number is Oakcrest Circle with nine homes. In
the case of Oakcrest Circle, a proposed sidewalk will only increase the areas of construction and
related tree removal.
D~,/q R. WESTERGREN
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR
WESTERGREN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
8500 210TH STREET WEST
LAKEVILLE, MN 55044
(612) 469-1899
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS NORTHWOOD
OAKS ESTATES
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
JUNE 9, '1997
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary plat for
the 34.15 acre site located directly west of Northwood Road, south of Arctic Lake, and
east of Spring Lake Regional Park. The preliminary ptat is to be known as "Northwood
oaks Estates".
ANALYSIS:
Applicant:
Kurt Larson & Douglas Pietsch
14300 Nicollet Court
Suite 300
Burnsville, MN 55337
Project Engineer:
Westergren and Associates, Inc.
8500 210th Street North, Suite 112
Lakeville, MN
Location of Property:
This property is located along the west side of
Northwood Road, about 1/4 mile north of Spring Lake
Road, directly south of Arctic Lake and directly east
of the homes between Spring Lake Regional Park
and the Prior Lake city limits.
Existing Site Conditions:
This property is presently vacant crop land and wood
land. There is a gravel roadway at about the center
of the site which provides access from Northwood
Road to the homes to the west. This roadway is
identified as a 66' wide strip for access on the
preliminary plat.
The site has a rolling terrain, including approximately
11 acres of steep slopes (20% or greater) in the
1:~97files\97s u bdiv\preplat~northoak\noroakpc.doc Page
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372~1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Zoning and Land Use
Designation:
Adjacent Land Use and
Zoning:
Proposed Development:
northwest corner of the site. The northwest portion of
the site is also very wooded.
The property is zoned R-1 SD (Suburban Residential
Shoreland District). The north half of the property is
located within the Arctic Lake Shoreland District,
although none of the lots directly abut Arctic Lake.
Arctic Lake is classified as a Natural Environment
Lake. The remainder of the property is within the
Prior Lake Shoreland District. Prior Lake is classified
as a General Development Lake. The 2010
Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as R-
LMD (Urban Low to Medium Density Residential).
North: Vacant land zoned C-1 (Conservation) and
designated as R-LMD.
South: A wetland zoned C-1 and designated as R-
LMD.
East: Single family dwellings across Northwood
Road, zoned R-1 SD and designated as R-LMD.
West: Single family dwellings on large lots, located
outside of the Prior Lake city limits. This property is
zoned "lnfilF on the Scott County Zoning Map for
Spring Lake Township, and is designated as "Urban
Transition" on the Scott County Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed plat consists of 34.15 acres to be
subdivided into 47 lots for single family dwellings, for
a total density of 1.37 units per acre. This density is
well below the maximum permitted density of 3.5
units per acre. The lots in this development range
from 12,428 square feet to 154,212 square feet.
The minimum lot size in the R-1 SD (Prior Lake)
distdct is 12,000 square feet, with 86' of frontage at
the front building line. This standard applies to Lots
1-3, Block 1, and Lots 1-13, Block 2. All of these lots
exceed 12,000 square feet; however, Lots 6, 7, and
8, Bloc 2, do not have 86' of frontage at the front
building line. In addition, the Subdivision Ordinance
requires that a corner lot must exceed the minimum
width and lot area requirements by twenty percent, or
in this case, be at least 14,400 square feet and 103'
width. Lot 10, Block 2, does not meet this
requirement.
1:~97files\97subdiv~preplat~northoak~oroakpc.doc Page 2
Streets/Access/Circulation:
The minimum lot size in the Arctic Lake Shoreland
District is 20,000 square feet with 100' of frontage at
the front building line. Corner lots must then be at
least 24,000 square feet with 120' of frontage at the
front building line. These standards apply to Lots 1-
31, Block 3. Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13 and 15, Block
3, do not meet one or both of these requirements.
The developer has not filed an application for
variances to these provisions at this time.
For a more detailed explanation of the proposed
development, see the attached narrative submitted
by the developer.
This plat dedicates right-of-way for six new public
streets. The first street is called Pond View Lane,
and is located on the south end of the plat. This
street extends 350 feet from Northwood Road to the
west boundary of the plat. This street may
eventually be extended to serve the property to the
west. This street is designed with a 50' wide right-of-
way and a 32' wide surface.
The second street, Pheasant Ridge Circle, is located
to the north of Pond View Lane. It is a 150' long cul-
de-sac, providing access to six lots. This cul-de-sac
has a 6% grade.
The third street is located just north of Pheasant
Ridge Court, and is called Pioneer Lane. This street
extends 430' from Northwood Road to the west
boundary of the plat. This street will serve as the
access road to the properties to the west. It is also
designed with a 50' wide right-of-way and a 32' wide
surface.
To the north of Pioneer Lane is the fourth new street,
a cul-de-sac called Rolling Hills Circle. This cul-de-
sac is 360' long and provides access to 8 lots.
North and east of Rolling Hills Circle is a cul-de-sac
called Oakcrest Circle. This street is 575' long, has a
7.24% grade, and provides access to 10 lots.
The final street is a 245' long cul-de-sac called
Oakview Circle. This cul-de-sac provides access to 6
lots. There are two lots located north of Oakview
Circle which take their access from Northwood Road.
1:\97files\97su bdiv\p replat~ort hoa k\noroakpc.doc Page 3
All of the proposed streets meet the minimum design
standards. However, Oakcrest Circle exceeds the
maximum length of 500' for a cul-de-sac, as stated in
the Subdivision Ordinance. The developer has not
filed an application for a variance to the length of the
cul~de-sac.
Grading/Erosion Control:
This site requires considerable grading to meet City
standards for roads and house pads. The applicant
has submitted a preliminary grading plan which, for
the most part, meets City standards. Some
modifications, however, will be necessary to this plan.
Several of the lots, Lots 8, 9, and 16-21 ,, Block 3, are
identified as custom graded lots, to take advantage of
the existing topography and trees on the site. A
separate grading plan for these lots will be submitted
with the building permit application.
Drainage/Storm Sewer/
Water Quality:
The majority of this site is designed to drain to
Northwood Road, which then drains south to a
stormwater retention pond located just south of this
site. The northern portion of this site is designed to
drain to the north and west to a NURP pond located
on Lots 9 and 17, Block 3. There is also storm sewer
directing runoff between Oakview Circle and
Oakcrest Circle and then to the NURP pond.
Wetlands:
There are two wetlands on this site totaling about
2.33 acres. Both wetlands are located in the
northwest corner of the plat. The largest wetland is
about 2.06 acres in size and is located on the
northwest end of Lots 17 and 18, Block 3. The 0.26
acre wetland is located on the northwest corner of
Lot 8, Block 3. The developer is not proposing to fill
or disturb the wetlands at this time.
Sanitary Sewer:
Sanitary sewer service will be extended to this site
from the existing line in Northwood Road. The sewer
line will be extended in the right-of-way for the new
streets. In order to serve the lots adjacent to Rolling
Hills Circle, Oakcrest Circle and Oakview Circle, the
developer is proposing to extend a sewer line along
the north boundary of this plat. This sewer line is 25'
deep in some locations.
Watermain:
Watermain service to this property will be extended
from the existing line located in Northwood Road
along the east boundary of this plat and in the street
right-of-way.
k\97files\97subdiv\preplat~no~hoak\noroakpc.doc Page 4
Easements:
The Developer will be required to dedicate drainage
and utility easements over the wetlands, stormwater
detention ponds, and over all sewer and water lines
constructed outside of the dedicated right-of-way.
The developer will also be required to obtain
easements for the utilities located outside of the
boundaries of this plat, and for the maintenance of
the sewer line located on the north boundary of this
plat.
Tree Preservation:
This development is subject to the provisions of
Section 6.16 (Tree Preservation) of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant has provided an inventory
as required by this ordinance, but it will require some
revisions. First of all, the tree inventory does not
specify which type of Basswoods are on the site;
some Basswoods are listed as a significant trees in
the tree preservation ordinance. Second, the
developer is proposing to submit separate tree
preservation plans for the custom graded lots. In this
case, the significant trees on these lots must be
excluded from the total caliper inches. However, it
appears that several trees on these lots will be
removed for road construction, utilities and
stormwater detention structures. The plan also
seems ignore trees, which appear to be of significant
type and size, and which are located near or between
other trees which will be removed.
The ordinance allows up to 25% of the total caliper
inches of the significant trees to be removed, without
replacement or restitution, as a result of initial site
development and anther 25% to be removed for
home placement. In order to determine if a
replacement plan will be necessary, the plan
submitted must be refined to reflect the questions
listed above.
Landscaping:
This development is also subject to the requirements
of Chapter 7 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which
requires one (1) street tree per lot frontage and one
(1) front yard tree per lot. The applicant has
submitted a landscaping plan showing the proposed
location of the required trees, as well as the minimum
size and types. Some changes are also required to
this plan. For example, the submitted plan does not
identify at least two front yard trees on each lot, and
four front yard trees on corner lots.
1:\97files\975ubdiv\preplat~northoak~noroakpc.doc Page 5
Parkland Dedication:
The Developer shall comply with the park dedication
and contribution requirements as defined in the City
Code. This plat does not indicate any land
dedication. The Park and Recreation Director has
indicated that a trail along Pond View Circle to the
west lot line is desirable. This trail can then be
extended at some point in the future to provide
access to Spdng Lake Regional Park. The remainder
of the dedication requirements will be satisfied by a
cash dedication calculated by multiplying 10% of the
gross acreage (34.15 acres less the land dedicated
for trail) by the market value of the land ($13,000).
Finance/Assessment Fee
Review:
This subdivision will be subject to a stormwater
management fee and a collector street fee. Sewer
and water were extended to the site in 1982. The
present assessment liability is $324,490,04 which will
be required to be paid at the time the developer's
contract is executed. A summary of the charges is
shown on the attached memo from Ralph Teschner,
ANALYSIS:
A preliminary plat identifies proposed lot locations, areas and dimensions, road
locations, storm sewers, grading, location and grade of sewer and water, landscaping
and tree replacement plans, and other improvements to an undeveloped site. Once
preliminary plat approval is granted, the property owner has a vested interest in the plat.
For one year following preliminary plat approval, no ordinance amendment shall apply to
or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout, dedication required or
permitted by the approved preliminary plat.
In general, the proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision
Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. There are some engineering and ordinance
requirements which still must be addressed prior to approval of this preliminary plat.
One of the outstanding issues which must be addressed is the disturbance of the slopes
on this site. Section 6-6-6 E of the Subdivision Ordinance states "whenever possible,
slopes of twenty percent (20%) or greater should not be disturbed and should be
retained as private or public open space." This plat has several locations in which
slopes of 20% or greater are disturbed, either for the placement of roads and utilities or
the placement of homes. It may be possible to minimize this disturbance by redesigning
the plat in some way. For example, the length of some of the cul-de-sacs, especially
Oakcrest Circle, can be reduced to provide lots with more buildable area outside of the
slopes. Furthermore, a different type of development on this site may be possible. For
example, a townhouse style of development could utilize the flatter portions of the site
and still minimize the impact on the slopes. In its recommendation to the Council, the
Planning Commission should address the impact of the development on the natural
features of the site.
1:\97flles~97subdiv~oreplat\northoak\noroakpc. doc Page 6
Another issue which must be addressed is the length of the Oakcrest Circle cul-de-sac.
The maximum length of a cul-de-sac is 500', based on the requirements of Section 6-6-
2 E of the Subdivision Ordinance. A variance to this provision may be granted.
according to the criteria listed in Section 6-9-1 of the Subdivision Ordinance. This
section reads as follows:
"The Council may grant a variance from these regulations upon receiving a report from
the Planning Commission ion any .particular case where the subdivider can show by
reason of exceptional topography or any other physical conditions that strict compliance
with these regulations would cause exceptional and undue hardship, provided such
relief may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without impairing the
intent and purpose of these regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend
variances from the requirements of this Chapter in specific cases which, in its opinion,
would not affect the intent of the Comprehensive Plan or this Chapter. Any variance
thus recommended shall be entered into the minutes of the Planning Commission,
setting forth the reasons which justify the variance. A variance application shall be filed
with the subdivision application."
The Planning Commission must review the length of this cul-de-sac, and make a
determination about whether or not it meets the criteria in the above paragraph. The
Commission's recommendation to the Council must include a statement of its findings
based on these criteria.
If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions:
The lot area and frontages on Lots 6, 7, 8 and 10, Block 2, and on Lots 2, 3, 4,
5, 10, 12, 13, and 15, Block 3, must be revised to meet the Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
2. If the Council does not approve a variance to the length of the cul-de-sac, the
length of Oakcrest Circle must be reduced to 500' or less.
A revised tree preservation showing the changes and additions outlined in
this report must be submitted. If necessary, a replacement plan must be
submitted and approved prior to final plat approval
4. A revised landscaping plan showing the changes outlined in this report must
be submitted.
The name of Pond View Lane must be changed to a name which is unique to
the street naming system in the City of Prior Lake. There is already a Pond
View Trail located in the City.
6. A pedestrian trail along Pond View Lane must be provided. The width of the
right-of-way must be revised to accommodate this trail.
7. The developer must dedicate drainage and utility easements over all the
wetlands, stormwater ponds, and all sewer, water and storm sewer lines
1:\97files\97su bdiv~replat\nor~ho ak\noroakpc, doc
Page 7
located outside of the dedicated right-of-ways. The developer must also
obtain easements for all utilities located out=ide of the boundaries of the plat.
8. The issues outlined in the memo from Sue McDermott, dated May 29, f997,
must be addressed in the final plat.
Recommend the Council approve the preliminary plat of Northwood Oaks Estates as
presented and subject to the conditions listed above, or with specific changes
directed by the Planning Commission. In its motion the Planning Commission must
also make a recommendation on the variance to the length of the cul-de-sac.
2. Table or continue the public hearing to a date and time certain and provide the
developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future
Planning Commission review.
3. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific findings of fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat of Northwood Oaks Estates,
subject to the listed conditions, is required.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Applicants' Narrative
4. Memo from Sue McDermott
5. Memo from Ralph Teschner
1:\97files\97su bdiv\preplat~northoak~noroakpc.doc Page 8
,. I!II
?
O>
0 ~
I , I I[.
,D
Westergren & Associates, Inc.
8500 210t~ Street West · Lakeville, MN 55044 · (612) 469-1899 · F~x: (612) 469-1899
NORTHWOOD OAKS ESTATES
PROJECT OVERVIEW
This 47 lot single family project is located in an existing R-1 zoning, it meets the
requirements of this zoning; thus re-zoning or variances are not needed.
Proposed lots in the subdivision fall w/thin the designation of general development
waters, minlmnm lot area of 12,000 square feet and natural development water with a
minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet. The ~mallest lot area in thla subdivision is
12,428 square feet and the largest lot is 154,212 square feet. With a total acreage of
34.15 acres, the average lot area is 27,806 square feet, or a density of 1.37 lots per acre.
The tmique shape ofthig parcel which leads ks design to a series of short cul-de-sacs,
makes this proposed subdivision a desirable combination of non-thru streets, large lots
~ a ll~nimal envilOlllllental impact and a wonderful location w/thi~ the westerly end of
the City of Prior Lake.
PIETSCH
Builders · Inc.
20830 HOLT PO BOX 218 LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 (612) 469-3044
Proposed housing elements within
NORTltWOOD OAKS ESTATES
Proposed houses to have a variety of elevations. As a developer it will be important not to
build the same house with the same exterior side by side. The same floor plans can be
built next to each other, but with a change in the exterior elevation. The design of the
houses will depend on the lot in which it is built on. On wooded lots~ care will be taken to
customiTe the house elevation to match the existing contours of the wooded terrain.
TYPES OF HOUSES: Tiffs project will consist of 2 stories, ramblers, modified 2 stories,
and side to side splits. Given today's lot prices, one can expect a fair amount of 2 stories
and modified 2 stories. This style is a consumer's best buy per square foot price. Rambler
plans in the last 5 years has made a strong come back. I expect to see quite a few
ramblers built in this project. All house types will correspond with graded house pads as
shown on the Grading and Development Plan.
EXTERIOR: I anticipate that 90% of all houses built in the project will have maintenance
free siding. On the front of the houses we expect to see a fair amount of brick, stucco,
and a detailed front elevation to all the houses. With the demand for maintenance free
siding, we will allow maintenance free front elevations. With thi~ type of from we will
request a si~nificant amount of brick on the fi'ont. No masonite siding will be allowed on
any of the houses.
LANDSCAPING: With the layout of the lots, we feel that it will require on all the court
comer entrance lots to have some type of landscaping. Ifthi~ is done properly, thi~ will
create a private neighborhood setting for each individual court. Enhancing each court
entrance will create a higher standard within the project. We would like to see grouped
mailboxes w~thin the project. This type ofmailbox would include a spot for the mail and a
spot for papers to be put in. These would be constructed of cedar and designed to consist
of 2 to 4 boxes per cluster. Allowable fencing would be regulated by the covenants. We
prefer that all fencing to be constructed out ora wood material and that it has to be
approved by the governing architectural committee.
SITE FEATLrRES: With the views that some of the lots will have, we anticipate many
homes with much glass on the fronts and backs of the houses. Buyers will demand unique
views, the proper use of the lot and most of all the right setting of the house to the lot.
Types of houses to be bulk on a given lot w~l be controlled with great interest. It can
happen where a builder/resident will try to build the wrong style of house for a certain lot.
This will not take place, as being an experienced developer and builder, our expertise and
insight will be given to each lot and style of house to make sure it fits within the
neighborhood and surrounding drainage patterns.
ARCHITECTURE (EXTERIORS): Today's market trends will be used greatly within the
project. Homes wffi consist of traditional, soft contemporary, and special design that may
be customized to the site. Homes will have to follow the covenants that will be recorded.
Areas of concern as a developer to the project wffi be, ,ilnirm~m roofpkches, 3 car
garages, and the use of natural earth tone colors.
UTILITIES: Sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer shall be installed underground
within the road right-of-way or within dedicated utility easements. Telephone, gas,
electric and cable TV shall be installed underground within the boulevard area of the road
right-of-way.
Westergren & Associates, Inc.
8500 210th Street West · Lake~lle, MN 55044 ® (612) 469- i 899 · F~x: (612) 469- i 899
NORTHWOOD OAKS ESTATES
PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY PLACEMENT STATEMENT
All public utilities (i.e., gas, electric, telephone, cable television) shall be coordinated
with each utility to be placed underground and w~thln the easements as shown on the
final plat.
Westergren & Associates, Inc.
8500 210~ SiTeet West · Lakeville, MN 55044 m (612) 469-1899 · Fax: (612) ,+69-1899
NORTHWOOD OAKS ESTATES
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
STAKTI2qG DATE - EROSION CONTROL
STARTING DATE - GRADING
GRADING COMPLETION
START UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION - COMPLETION
START - STREET CONSTRUCTION
vIKST LIFT - STREET CONSTRUCTION
FINALIZE EROSION CONTROL AREAS
MAY 26, 1997
JUNE 1, 1997
JULY 1, 1997
JUNE 15, 1997
JULY 21, 1997
JULY 21, 1997
JI3'LY 31, 1997
AUG. 10, 1997
DECLARATIONS OF COVENANTS
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF
SUrBDI¥1SION
This Declaration made on the day of ,19 , by Pietsch Builders, Inc., a
Minnesota Corporation7 hereinafter referred as "Declarant", witnesseth'
WHEREAS Declarant is the owner of real estate situated in Scott Count3',
Minnesota. which is described in "Exhibit A" atlached hereto and made a part hereof,
which Declarant proposes to develop as an exclusive residential area and tbr the
prese~watton of the value and amen/ties on the premises and the maintenance of facilities.
is subjecting said property to the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions hereinafter set
forth for the benefit of said propemes and the owners thereof':
NOW, THEREFORE. Declarant hereby declares that all of the property described
herein shall be held, sold and convey, cd subject to the following easements, restrictions.
covenams and conditions which are for the purpose of protecting the value and
desirability of each building site and shall run with thc real property and be binding upon
all persons or pames having any fight, title, lien upon or interest there/rt, their heirs,
successors and assign.s, and shall inure to the benefit of owners of any lot or portion
thereot~
ARTICt, E I
DEFINI'1'IONS
For the purpose of this Declaration, the following mrms shall have the meanings hereby
ascfibed to thcm
Section I: "Living Unit" shall mcan and refer to each single family residence
situated upon the property designed and intended for use and occupancy ora single
family
Section 1'[: "Owner" shall mcan and refer to owner, whether one or more persons
or entities, ora fee simple title to a lot which is a part of the property, includ/ng conl~act
vendors and vendees, and their assigns, but excluding those having such interests merely
as security for the performance of an obligation, and excluding those having a lien
thereon by provisions of. or by operation of law
Section IV: "Property" shall mean and refer to the real property described herein.
or any part thereo£
ARTICLE ti
BUILDING AND USE RESTRICTIONS
Section I: Residential Usc: no Lot or Living Unit shall be used except t'or
residential purposes for ocoupancy ora single family.
Section !ri: Ac6vity Use: No business or profession shall be conducted on any lot
or living un/t, nor shall any nox/ous or offensive activity be conducted, nor shall anything
else be done thereon or therein wix/ch may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to
other owners or occupants. No public sales or auctions nit any kind shall be permitted.
Each lot shall at all t/roes, be kept in a clean, sightly and wholesome condition.
No trash~ litter, junk, boxes, containers, bottles, cans, implements, machinery, lumber, or
other building materials shall be permitted to remain exposed on any lot so as to be
visible to any n¢ighborin~ lot or road except as is necessary during the per/od
construction.
Section II1: Temporary StTucturcs: No StTUCtUr¢ ora temporary_ character, mobile
home, trailer, bus, or tent. shall be placed or erected on any lot nor used 0.6 a residence,
except during construction, altenng, or r~modeling ora dw¢llinj/, and then only as
reasonably necessa-,3, in such construc6on. All construction shall be pursued diligently
and be completed w/thin 1 g0 days after thc issuance of'the building permit.
In the event that a structure is deslroy¢cL, wholly or partially by fire or other
casualty, said slructure shaJl be properly rebuilt or repaired to conform to this declaration
or all of'the remaining structure including the £oundat/on and all debris shall be removed
from thc Int.
SecTion/V: Easements: Easement for installation and maintenance o£utilities
and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded plat and within these
easement no structure shall be placed or permitted to remain wkich may damage or
inlerf'ere with the installation and ma.intenance of utilities or may obsLruct or change the
direction or flow of drainage or th.rough drainage channels. The easement area shall be
maintained by the owner of the lot. except tbr such m&/ntenance for which a public
authority or utility company is responsiblc
Section V: UtililT Serv/ce: All ut/lity serv/c~ including ¢t~ctr/c, natural gas,
telephone, cable television, etc. shall be placed underground.
Sect/on VI: Towers, antennas~ etc.: No pol~s, posts, tow=rs, antennas, or similar
structure shall exceed six feet in height above grade, no television antenna may be placed
, upon the roof ora r~idence, except dishes I~ss than two feet in diameter a~achecl
directly to thc home.
Section VII: Fences and Walls: No fences or walls other then such as are an
integral part of a residence, garage or other enclosure covered structure shall exceed six
fee~ above grade level at any point and shall bc constructed of wood with a stained or
natural finish, brick, or stone
Section Viii: Signs: No signs of any kind shall be displayed to public view on
any lot except one sign not exceeding five square feet in ~rea advertising a home or lot
for sa[e after complet/on of initial construction of the residence or sale of lot by the
developer and builder All such signs shall require thc approval of the architectural
committee Prior to erection.
SeC'non X: Animals: No horses, cattle, sheep, goat~, pigs, poultry, or other live
animal .shall be kept or maintained on any lot, other than domesticated animals that are
bona fide household pets, and to not make objectionable noises or other~nse constitute a
nuisance, physical threat, or inconvenience to any resident of thc development and shall
not be kept for breeding or commercial purposes. Construct/on of'dog runs or pens shall
not be permitted.
Section XI: Vehicles~ No buses, trucks, house trailers, mobile homes, motor
homes, motor campers, trailers, licensed or unlicensed automobiles, aircraft, tractors, or
watercraft shall be parked on the property unless such vehicles are stored inside the
structure.
ARTICLE III
HOME CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPING
Section [: Criteria for Home Construction: Architectural quality, distinction,
creatw/ty and compatibility is deemed ofpthme importance. Harmony in external design.
location upon thc lot and in feint/on to surrounding structures and topography, as well as
the height, shape and exterior materials, finish and quality are all matters to be
considered. Ail house fronts shall be constructed of natural mater/als such as wood,
native stone, brick, or such materials as are approved in writing by the amhitectural
control committee. Wood finishes are to be in natural earth tone or gray stains and
paints. Sides and rears of all homes are to be constructed of compatible quality
materials, including aluminum, v/nyl or cedar. No pr~fab, modular or factory built
structure will be permitted, All residences must be stick-built on site, All roofs shall be
constructed at not less than 7/12 pitch.
Sect/on LI: Structures: No structure other than one single family residence shall
be erected on any lot together with a garage at least two cars in size constructed as a
integral part of thc residence.
Section IH: Landscaping: A lawn and plantings plan that shall include at lea.st two
trees of an approved
species and size shall be submitted to the architectural committee for approval. All
landscaping shall be completed w/thin nine months after issuance ora building permit or
60 days after home completion, whichever is sooner. Wooded areas are to be preserved
and no trees exceeding six inches in diameter at the base shall be removed unless
diseased, severely damaged or deteriorated or hazardous except where necessary for
building or to comply ~ith landscaping plan as approved. Planting or trees which can
cause a public nuisance, such as cotton producing trees, or can be a public hazard, such
as bug infestanon or weak bark, are proh~ited All lawn areas from rear of structure and
side lot lines to curb must be sodded at owner's expense
Section IV: Surfacing: Motor vehicles driveways and parking areas shall be hard
surfaced with asphalt, concrete, brick or similar materials. Driveways, par'Ling and lawn
areas shall conform to grades established by development plan with wooded areas
prese~ed and native undergrowth protected it'at all possible
Section V: Size of Residence: No residence shall exceed two stories in height
above front ground level. One story and multi-level residences shall have above grade
finished [iv/ng area of no less than 1.500 square feet; and two-story residences no less
than a total of 2,000 square feet. in each instance excluding garages, unheated porches,
and accessory structures thercto.
ARTICLE IV
ARCHITECHTI, rRAL COMMITTEE
Section l: Membership: An architectural committee is hereby established for the
purpose of carrying out the provisions of these covenants, conditions, and restrictions.
and the enforcement or compliance therewith to consist of Douglas Pietsch and Kart
Larson, or their nominces until the last 16t in the development is conveyed in fee to a
third part~'.
Section II: Vacancy: ha the event of a resignation, or if any member of the
committee is unable to continue serving as such, or for the purpose of increasing the
number of members on the committee, the remaining member or members shall appoint
or elect such replacement or ~dditioual member.
Section rll: Variances: the architectural committee shall be entitled to grant
variances as to any requirement of these covenants if in their opinion the variance has
sufficient architectural and esthetic merit to be approved or would cause an undue
hardship if not granted. No application to the City of Prior Lake for any variance from
ci~ zoning ordinances shall be filed w/thom first obtaining the approval of the
architectural committee.
ARTICLE V
FUNCTIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL COMMITi
Section I: Plans and Specifications: Prior to the application for building permits
and commencement of construction, two complete sets of plans and specifications for the
construction of any residence or other building, or a aw/mining pool, wall, fence, mailbox
or storage structure shall be submitted to the architectural committee and no work
preparatory to construction thercof shall b~ commenced undl the same are approved in
writing by the committee:
(a) The committee shall take action upon the appl/cation for approval thereof
w/thin 14 days from receipt thereof and if' di~pproved the committee shall
advise the applicant of the reason for disapproval and what changes it deems
necessary for compliance with thc covenants.
(b) Ifthe committee fails to take actmn upon an application w/thin 14 days the
plans and spocificatiora shall be deemed approved and shall be strictly
followed in construction.
(c) The decision of the architectural committee ia these matters shall be final.
No member of the committee shall be subject to any penalty, or liable for any
damages by reason of any action they may take, or failure to act, or error in
judgment, negligence or nonfeasance, in actions of the committee or in
serving as a member thereot~
ARTICLE VI
TERM AND ENFORCEMENT
· Section I: Life of Covenants: These covenants and restrictions shall run with the
land and all conveyances shall be subject thereto, whether specifically so stated in the
conveyance or not, and shall be binding upon all persons and partics owning any interest
in any lot in this development, and upon all occupants thereof, for a period of 20 years
from the date hereof, after which time they shall be automatically extended for
successive periods of 10 years, unless the owners of two-thirds of the lots in this
development agree or vote to terminate them. or to alter or amend them in whole or in
part.
Section II: Invalidation: Invalidation of any portion of these covenants and
restT/ctions, by judgment, court order or otherwise, shall not affect any other provision,
all of which shall remain in full force and effect.
Sect/on I'[I: Enforcement: Any person, or combination ofporsons having any'
owmership interest in any lot in this development shall be entitled to enfome these
covenar~ts and restrictions in any legal manner including proceedings at law or in equity
to restrain violations thereof or to recover damages sustained by reason of violations
thereof
Sect/on IV: Amendmenls: The architectural committee is hereby empowered to
amend any po~on oftlae Declaration that may ~ objectionable or in conflict with rules
and regulation of the Federal Housing Authority or the Veterans Administration, or
necessary to qualit~ for mortgage financing.
Sect/on V: City Ordinances: In addition to this Declaration of Covenants,
Condit/ons and Restr/ct/ons, all ordinanee~ of the City of'Pr/or Lake, Minnesota. shall be
binding on all lot owners.
[n ,,~-imess whereot'~ the undersigned. ~ing the Dcclarant herein, has caused this
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions ~nd Restrictions to be executed in its name by its
duly authorized person on the day and yea~ first above written.
Pietsch Builders, inc.
Douglas Pietsch
President
State of Minnesota
Dakota County
On this cl~y of ,19 , before me, a notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared Douglas Pictsch, President of Pietsch Builders, Inc.,
a corporation named in the foregoing instrument on behalf of said corporation and
acknowledged this instrument to be the fr~ act and deed of said corporation.
Notary. Public,
My Commission Expires
Count~?
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
May 29, 1997
Jane Kansier , ,' .~, ,..~.~"~
Sue McDermott ~ ~
Northwood Oaks - Project #97-42
The Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for the subject project
and have the following comments:
1. Address utility easements along the north property line where sanitary sewer is
proposed.
2. Provide storm sewer calculations for drainage, NURP ponds, etc.
3. Include a project location map on sheet 1.
4. Label street names on the site plan.
5. Show all easements and direction of sanitary sewer flow on the site plan.
6. The details are at a scale that is too small for half-size plans.
7. All grading must occur within the parcel boundary unless easements are obtained.
Proposed contours are shown to the centerline of Northwood Road. Match grade at
back of existing sidewalk.
8. Show all drainage and utility easements, right-of-way lines, existing street names,
proposed street names, a legend and existing contours and features 200 feet beyond
property lines. Identif7 the plat to the east. The grading plan is hard to follow
without a legend. Contours must be connected on the grading plan (i.e. Northwood
Road).
9. Show contours representing swales from. front to rear of all side lot easements.
Maintain all drainage within easements. Show drainage arrows.
10. Show NWL, HWL, and contours of the NURP ponds. A skimmer is required at the
outlet of the NURP pond.
I 1. Use different line types on the drainage/erosion control sheet so it is easier to read.
Some of the sheets have fonts that are too small to read (sheet 8), notes are upside
down on sheet 14. In general, too much information is provided on some sheets, not
enough in others.
12. On the sanitary sewer and water plans, use different line types to distinguish sewer
(arrows) and water (dashed). Length and type of pipe need only be shown in profile.
Show more detail where connections to existing utilities are made. All sanitary sewer
pipe between 16 feet to 26 feet deep must be SDR 26. Round pipe lengths to the
nearest foot. It appears that the sewer could be shallower in areas if minimum slope
is used ( between MH 11 and 16) or outside drop manholes (MH 23). Insulate
sanitary sewer at depths less than 8 feet.
13. On the storm sewer sheets, show existing storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain
in the profile view. Show all storm sewer easements. Drainage at the west end of the
north through street must be addressed.
14. Show spot elevations on the cul-de-sacs (street plans) with drainage arrows. Show
valley gutter at all Northwood Road connections. Provide pedestrian ramps at all
g:\proj ects\ 1997\42nowdok\prelrev.do¢