HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-97REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
A. Cases #97-082 & 97-083 Consider a proposed Amendment to the City of Prior Lake
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and a zone change request for the recently annexed
area owned by Deerfield Development.
B. Case #97-080 Amendment to The Wilds Planned Unit Development known as
Sterling South.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Appoint representative to Downtown Redevelopment Steering Committee.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
AG090597 DOC PAGE I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 11, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The August 11, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Cfiego, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Stamson Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
Crarner Present
Vonhof Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE THE JULY 28,
1997 MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Criego, Cramer and Stamson. MOTION
CARRIED.
Commissioner Vonhof arrived at 6:37 p.m.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #97-061, #97-062 and #97-063 Consider a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Preliminary PUD Plan and the Preliminary Plat for the Eagle
Creek Assisted Living facility located on the corner of Five Hawks Avenue and
Priorwood Street.
The hearing was opened and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the StaffReport dated August 11, 1997.
Eagle Creek Villas LLC has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a
Preliminary PUD Plan and a Preliminary Plat for the property located just north of the
intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and PriorWood Street. The City Council approved
the Schematic Plan for an amendment to the Priorview PUD to add approximately one
acre of land (Lots 2, 3 and 4, Holly Court) to the original PUD site, to allow the
L:\97FIL E S\97P LCOMIvISPCM1NSMN081197.DOC I
construction of a 61 unit assisted living building and a 28 unit market rate senior rental
building on the vacant portion of the site on June 2, 1997, through Resolution 97-48.
These applications are the next step in the approval process for this project.
The original PUD was approved in 1983 and the development to date has occurred prior
to 1991. The Pfiorview PUD was preceded by Council action in 1981 which rezoned the
subject property to R-3, High Density residential. This would have permitted 210 units
on the I5.05 acres ofbuildable land on the site. In December of 1982, the Council
approved a Schematic PUD plan which provided for 106 units, a street connection from
Five Hawks Avenue to Cates Street and preservation of site amenities. In September of
1983, the Council approved the first phase of the development consisting of 48
townhomes. Pfiorview Second Addition consisting of 20 units, was approved in 1991.
There has been no construction activity on this site for several years. In September, 1996,
the Council approved Resolution 96-90, approving an amendment to the Schematic Plan
for the Priorview PUD, to allow a 61 unit assisted living facility. This amendment was
subject to the eight conditions. The developer never submitted the necessary documents
for preliminary plan approval of this PUD. In June, 1997, the Council approved
Resolution 97-48, approving an amendment to the Schematic Plan to allow a 61-unit
assisted living facility and a 28-unit senior rental facility subject to conditions.
Comments from the pubic:
Charles Cappachino, 4206 Cates Street, felt the grading site for the project has been
followed very closely without disturbing the area. He went on to express his feelings
regarding the wetland. It was his understanding no more than 50% of the trees would be
removed, when in fact, nearly every tree has been removed. There is a proposal for 102
parking spaces. A year ago there was a major parking concern for a 61 facility and now
an additional 28 units are being considered. He is not in favor of the additional units and
the runoffimpact to the wetland. Mr. Cappachino stated he asked his neighbors to ask to
sign a petition against the additional units. He said the neighbors felt it was useless.
Debra Rose, 7725 Jennifer Lane, addressed Mr. Cappachino's concern. A market
research study was done indicating the Prior Lake area is lacking in a senior health care
facility. The number of units are based on the zoning ordinance of Prior Lake. The
parking would be for workers and visitors. The majority of residents would not be using
the parking facilities.
The public hearing was closed.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN~TN081197.DOC
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott explained the engineering conditions and
grading site. They are looking at the erosion control until vegetation is established.
The wetland plan shows impact to the wetland. She feels confident the proposed
berm with help improve the water quality in the creek and wetland.
· Rye addressed the parking issue. The ordinance states one parking place per unit.
The parking for an assisted living is greater than the demand and will be allocated.
· Concern was for over parking. Proposal does not sound excessiYe.
· Supports the assisted living accommodations and the additional apartments.
Kuykendail:
· Generally supports staff recommendations.
· Parking spaces are reasonable. They are not excessive. The engineer felt the design
is adequate.
· Support no change in the parking.
· Questioned the grading permit before approval. Kansier and McDermott said it was
approved at the earlier proceeding.
· Trails are addressed.
Vonhof:
· Supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and feels it is in line with the goals
and objectives.
· The Preliminary PUD - Confident is a good PUD plan for the site. There was a lot of
discussion on many issues.
· Preliminary Plat - Kasier explained the City requires underground watering systems.
· Supports staff recommendations on all three requests.
Cramer:
· Questioned property to the east. Rye explained the area was covered in the Eagle
Creek Villa Plat. Drainage is directed to the larger wetland.
· The concept of the plan meets the city's objectives.
· Supports staff's recommendation along with the conditions.
Criego:
· Questioned the bridge over the wetland. City will work with the developer on an
arched bridge. Should be one of the conditions of the approval.
Kuykendall:
· The bridge should be able to accommodate safety equipment. He felt this was
discussed earlier where a police car or fire track should be able to use the bridge.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN~MN081 ! 97.DOC 3
A discussion followed regarding the bridge. Kansier said the City would be willing to
work with the developer to pick up some of the extra cost between a culvert and the
bridge.
Vonhof:
,, The parks department can design the bridge consistent with other bridges in the City.
Cramer:
· ADA requirements would have to be met.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM THE URBAN LOW TO
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO THE URBAN HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION FOR THIS SITE.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN, WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF A BRIDGE.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS EAGLE CREEK
ESTATES, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken signified ayes by ail. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go to City Council on Tuesday, September 2, 1997.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #97-066 (Continued) Conditional Use Request for C. H. Carpenter, 16450
Anna Trail SE.
The City received an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from C.H.
Carpenter Lumber on July 3, 1997. The applicant proposes to construct two pole type
building in a phasing plan. The property is zoned B-2, Community Business. The Prior
Lake Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit for this type of use in the B-2
district. The applicant obtained a conditional use permit in 1976 for the original building
to allow "Supply Yards" in the B-2 zoning district (CLIP 76-02). The applicants are
substantially increasing the structure beyond original approval, thus an amendment to the
original CUP is necessary.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMIVBPCMIN\MN081197.DOC
The applicant has withdrawn their application at this time. Applicant indicated the
landscape requirement to the project has forced them to withdraw.
A. Case #9%053 (Continued) Brian Mattson request for a side yard setback and
impervious surface variance for the property at 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle.
On June 23, 1997 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Brian Mattson
who is proposing to construct a detached garage with driveway. The applicant had
originally requested a variance to allow impervious surface coverage on the lot to be 54%
and the driveway to be setback 1 foot from the property line.
Upon request of the applicant, the Planning Commission continued the discussion to July
28, 1997. This was to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed additions to
reduce/eliminate the variance request. The applicant had requested an extension to the
August 1 i, 1997. On July 28, 1997 the Planning Commission made a motion continuing
the hearing until August 11, 1997.
The Planning Department has received a written request from the applicant requesting
another extension until August 25, 1997. The applicant has significantly reduced the
impervious surface on the site and is awaiting completion of final survey.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE
MEETING TO AUGUST 25, 1997.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A. Zoning Ordinance Discussion.
September 22, 1997 will be the hearing date scheduled for the new zoning ordinance
public heating. All commissioners will be available.
6. New Business:
The Request for Qualifications (RFQ's) for the library will be going out next week.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Reminder of the EDA meeting August 18, 1997. There was a short discussion on the
down town issues.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMYPCMINkMN081197.DOC 5
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~081197.DOC
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND A ZONE CHANGE
REQUEST FOR THE RECENTLY ANNEXED AREA
OWNED BY DEERFIELD DEVELOPMENT
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
Deerfield Development has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zone
Change for the property located directly south of the Waterfront Business Park and
Wilderness Ponds, east of the Ponds Athletic Complex and west of CR 21 and Revere
Way. The 260 acres involved in this request was annexed to the City in July, 1997, and is
currently zoned A-1 (Agricultural). The developer is proposing to amend the 2010
Comprehensive Plan to include this property within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area
(MUSA) boundary, and to designate 62 acres, located in the northwest comer of the site
to the Urban Low to Medium Density Residential (R-L/MD) designation, 140 acre to the
High Density Residential (H-DR) designation and 58 acres to the Plarmed Industrial (I-
PI) designation. The developer has also requested a rezoning of the easterly 58 acres
from the A-1 district to the I-2 (Light Industrial) district.
This property was annexed by order of the Minnesota Municipal Board on July 9, 1997.
During initial discussions with the City staff and the City Council, the developer
indicated he was interested in a mixed use type development which would include an
expansion of the Waterfront Passage Business Park on the east side of the site, and a
combination of residential uses on the remainder of the property. These discussions
indicated the residential portion of the site would be developed at a total density of about
5 units per acre, which would equal about 700 units. The developer proposed to develop
the property as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which would allow the mixed use
development. The School District has also indicated an interest in a portion of this site as
a potential high school location.
1:\97files\97rezone\97-083\97083 pc.doc Page 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Dh. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
This proposal is the first step in the development of this site. Once the property has been
added to the MUSA and designated for general use types on the Land Use Plan Map, the
developer can begin designing the specific development for the site.
The Planning Commission is considering two applications at this time. The first
application is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to include this
site within the City of Prior Lake MUSA boundaries, and to designate the property as R-
LMD (Urban Low to Medium Density Residential), R-HD (Urban High Density
Residential), and I-PI (Planned Industrial). The second request is to rezone the east 57.76
acres of the property from the A-1 district to the I-2 district.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site area consists of approximately 260 acres.
o_T_qp_.qgrnp_h~. This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from 940' MSL
to 950' MSL. The site generally slopes from the outer boundaries inward towards the
wetland on the site.
Vegetation: Much of this site has been cropland over the past several years. The
western portion of the site is very wooded, with a large number of significant trees. Any
development on this site will be subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Wetlands: There are several wetlands located within this site, although they have not
been specifically delineated at this time. Any development of this site will be subject to
the wetland mitigation requirements, which means that any disturbed wetlands must be
mitigated.
Access: There are three existing access points to this site. On the north side are Fish
Point Road and Wilderness Ponds. On the east side is Revere Way (CR 87). The
developer has also indicated his intent to extend Adelman Street from Cottonwood Lane
through the industrial portion of this site.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan has three parts. The first is the addition of
the entire site to the City MUSA boundary. The second is the designation of the west 202
acres to Low-Medium Density Residential (R-LMD) and to High Density Residential (R-
HD). The third aspect of the proposal is the designation of the east 58 acres to Planned
Industrial (I-PI). Each aspect of this request is discussed below.
l:\97files\97rezone\97-083\97083 pc.doc Page 2
~l~S~Exl~l~lm The City originally proposed to include this site in the expanded
Metropolitan Urban Service Area when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 1996;
however, the acreage was removed from the MUSA when the Metropolitan Council
allowed fewer acres in the MUSA than the City had originally proposed. Prior to the
annexation of this property, the City had some preliminary discussions with the
Metropolitan Council staff who indicated the area may be included in the MUSA if some
of the new development can be used to satisfy some of the City's Livable Community
goals. These goals specifically encourage the development and maintenance of a variety
of housing types, from starter homes to senior housing.
The City Engineering staff has also estimated sewage flows for this property if fully
developed. The staff concluded the existing MCES lift station and interceptor can
accommodate these flows.
Residential Designations: The Low to Medium Density Residential Designation is
characterized by a low to medium range of residential densities that provides for a variety
of housing options. The R-LMD designation permits densities up to 10 units per acre
under a Planned Unit Development. The High Density Residential designation is
characterized by dwellings other than single family detached dwellings; the dominant
construction form is attached homes and apartment buildings. The R-HD designation
permits densities up to 30 units per acre under a Planned Unit Development.
The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives which are applicable to this request are as
follows:
GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT: Encourage the development of
suitable housing in a desirable environment.
OBJECTIVE No, 1: Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality
housing.
OBJECTIVE No. 2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality
residential environments.
OBJECTIVE No, 3: Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the
natural environment and the enjoyment of residents.
The proposed designations are consistent with the above stated goals and objectives in
that it offers a variety of housing, and it provides open space and the preservation of the
natural elements of the site. Furthermore, this development is consistent with the City's
Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. However, it is the
staff's opinion that these same goals can be accomplished by designating the entire site as
Low to Medium Density Residential.
1:\97 files\97rezone\97-083\97083 pc.doc Page 3
Planned Industrial Designation: The purpose of the Planned Industrial designation is
to establish an industrial base that will utilize appropriate sites for development which
will support both local and regional employment and economic needs. This classification
is characterized by developments in industrial parks with high standards of development,
and allows uses such as manufacturing, storage and distribution of materials.
The Comprehensive Plan goal applicable to this request is the goal of "Economic
Vitality" which states "pursue a prudent use of available resoumes and the optimum
functioning of economic systems." The objectives associated with this goal are listed
below:
OBJECTIVE No. 1: Determine and strive for a balance of commerce, industry and
population.
OBJECTIVE No. 2: Encourage a diversified economic base and a broad range of
employment opportunities.
OBJECTIVE No. 3: Promote sound land use.
OBJECTIVE No. 4: Maintain high standards in the promotion and development of
commerce and industry.
The proposed designation is consistent with the above goals and objectives. However,
the developer previously stated his intention to develop this site as an extension of the
Waterfront Passage Business Park. In that case, the property should be designated as
Commercial-Business and Office Park (CBO). The CBO classification is characterized
by high amenity planned developments which have a low traffic generation rate and a site
utilization that is compatible with natural features. This designation is also consistent
with the designation of the existing business park.
Zone Change Request:
At this time, the applicant is only requesting a rezoning of the east 58 acres to the I-2
(Light Industrial) district. The remaining portion of the property will remain A-1
(Agricultural) until the applicant submits a rezoning application.
The proposed I-2 district is consistent with the proposed I-PI designation. However, as
noted above, if the applicant is intending to develop this site as an extension of the
existing business park, it would be more appropriately zoned B-P (Business Park). This
zoning is consistent with the existing business park and the CBO designation.
1. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zone Change as
requested.
1:\97files\97 rezone\97-083\97083pc.doc Page 4
2. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to include this site
within the City MUSA boundary, to designate the westerly 202 acres as Low to
Medium Density Residential, and to designate the easterly 58 acres to the
Commercial Business Office Park designation, and recommend approval of rezoning
this property to the B-P (Business Park) district.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative 2.
ACTION REOUIRED:
Since this request includes two separate applications, separate motions are required for
each application. These include;
1. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Amendment to include this area within the City's MUSA Boundary and to designate
the westerly 202 acres as Urban Low to Medium Density Residential and the easterly
58 acres as Commercial Business Office Park.
2. A motion and second to recommend approval of the zone change request from the A-
l district to the B-P district.
1. Location Map
2. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
3. MUSA Maps
4. Applicant's Proposal
5. Staff Recommendation
1:\97files\97rezone\97-083\97083 pc.doc Page 5
i
z_z oz~;
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE STERLING
SOUTH AT THE WILDS PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW DETACHED
DWELLINGS
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
Shamrock Development has applied for an amendment to The Wilds PUD to allow single
family detached dwellings in Sterling South at The Wilds instead of the approved
twinhomes.
The Wilds PUD was originally approved as a mixed use development in 1993. In
August, 1994, the Council approved the final plan for Sterling South at The Wilds. This
final plan allowed 88 single family attached units in 44 buildings. In January, 1995, the
Council approved an amendment to the Sterling South plan was approved. This
amendment pertained to the setbacks for this development. To date, eight (8) of the
approved 88 units have been constructed. These units are located on Lots 1, 2, 51, 52 53,
54, 61 and 62.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed amendment will replace the remaining 80 attached units with 80 detached
single family dwellings. The density of the development remains the same since no
increase or decrease in the number of units is proposed. The proposed units will also fit
onto the existing lots, so replatting the property is not necessary. The yards and common
space in the development will be managed by a homeowners association in the same
manner as the townhouse development.
The developer is proposing three different housing styles. Plan #1, described as a two
bedroom unit with a porch, includes 1,558 square feet of living space, a 168 square foot
l:\97files\97puds~sterling~sterlpc.doc Page 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake~ Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY' EMPLOYER
porch, and a double garage. Plan #2 is a three bedroom trait with a porch, and includes
1,626 square feet of living space with a 168 square foot porch and a double garage. Plan
#3 is a two bedroom unit without a porch, and it includes 1,188 square feet of living
space and a double garage. All three units will have brick fronts and vinyl siding on the
remaining three sides.
The approved PUD plan specifies the setbacks for each of the lots as shown on the
attached table. The amendment proposes a standard front yard setback of 25' from the
back of the curb, a 5' rear yard setback, and minimum 10' separation between buildings.
In order to accomplish these setbacks, and to ensure the units will fit on the existing lots,
the developer has specified which plan may be placed on each lot. This list is attached as
Exhibit D.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The purpose of a Planned Unit Development is to allow flexibility, in residential land
development, variety in the organization of the site, higher standards of site and building
design, preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics, and more efficient
and effective use of land. Section 6.12 of the Zoning Ordinance lists the requiremems for
a PUD (see attached). This proposal is consistent with the purposes of a PUD.
If approved, the amendment should be subject to the following conditions:
1. The single family housing styles permitted in the development are as shown on
Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C.
2. The housing style permitted on the individual lots is identified on the list attached as
Exhibit D.
3. The required setbacks for each unit are as follows:
Front Yard: 25' from back of curb
Rear Yard: 5' from the lot line
Side Yard: 10' separation between buildings
1. Recommend approval of the PUD amendment as requested, subject to the above
conditions, or with other conditions as required by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1.
1:\97files\97puds~sterling~steflpc.doc Page 2
ACTION REOUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend approval o£the amendment to the Sterling South PUD,
subject to the above listed conditions.
l:\97files\97puds~terling~sterlpc.doc Page 3
STERLING SOUTH MINIMUM SETBACKS
Approved January, 1995
LOT 1
Rear setback
South and East setbacks
LOTS 2-25; 83-87
Rear setback
Front setback
Side yard setback
LOTS 26 and 28
Rear setback
Front setback
Side yard
LOT 27
From setback
Side and rear setback
LOTS 28-29; 49-51
Front setback
Rear setback
Side yard setback
LOT 30
North setback
East setback
South yard
LOT 31
Front setback
Rear and side setbacks
LOTS 32-40; 73-82
From setback
Rear setback
Side yard setback
LOTS 41-43; 64-72
From setback
Rear setback
Side yard setback
5 ft. from property line
25 ft. from back of curb
5 ft. from property line
25 ft. from back of curb
15 ft. separation between buildings
5 ft. from property line
25 ft. from back of curb
2.5 ft. from property line
30 ft. from back of curb
2.5 ft. from property line
30 ft. from property line
2.5 ft. from back of curb
15 ft. separation between buildings
30 ft. from back of curb
25 ft. from back of curb
15 ft. separation between buildings
25 ft. from back of curb
2.5 ft. from property line
25 ft. from back of curb
2.5 ft. from property line
15 ft. separation between buildings
25 ft. from back of curb
40 ft. separation between buildings
15 ft. separation between buildings
L:\97FILES\97PUDS\STERLING\STERSET.DOC I
LOT 44
Front setback
Rear setback
Side yard setback
LOTS 45-47
North setback
South setback
Side yard setback
LOT 48
North setback
South setback
West setback
LOTS 52-61
Front setback
Rear setback
Side yard setback
LOT 62
Front setback
Rear setback
East setback
LOT 63
South and East setback
Rear setback
25 ft. from back of curb
40 ft. separation between buildings
2.5 ft. from property line
30 ft. from back of curb
25 ft. from back of curb
15 ft. separation between buildings
30 ft. from back of curb
25 ft. from back of curb
25 ft. from back of curb
30 ft. from back of curb
40 ft. separation between buildings
15 ft. separation between buildings
30 ft. from back of curb
40 ft. separation between buildings
25 ft. from back of curb
25 ft. from back of curb
40 ft. separation between buildings
L:\97FILES\97PUDS\STERLING\STERSET.DOC 2
,..,h,So
3200 Main Street Suite 300 Coon Rapids, Minnesota 55448
Jane Kansier
City o f Prior Lake
Planning Coordinator
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake MN 55372
(612) 421-3500 Fax (612)
,..:_
:,. ,",UG '~ 7 i997
I--
42 ~ 105
Dear Jane,
This is a proposal to amend the Sterling South PUD to accommodate single family
townhomes (commonly referred to as GolfVillas).
All of the buildings will have brick fronts as per the plans provided to your office. The
plan number is refercnced on each lot that it will fit on; this will still leave 10 feet
between any building point.
We feel this is a superior product compared to what was originally approved.
SHAMROCK 'BUILDERS INC.
~6-1997 08:48 PLANC~, INC.
1 Gl2 452 5659
EXHIBIT A
P.04/07
EXHBIT B
SHAMROCK BUILDERS C ~____
A
EXHIBIT .B
'3NI '03N~qd 4~' :80 ~66I-9~-9F~
EXHIBIT C
Ir, x ~ RESIDENCE FOR:. '
I ~1 SHAMROCK BUILDERS INC.
LO/LO'd 6S9£ ES~ EI9 I '34I 'ODNbr~d
6~ :80 L66~
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
LOTS AND HOUSING STYLES
1 I NA 2932 Wilds LaneNW
2 1 NA 2930 Wilds LaneNW
3 1 1,2 2910 Wilds Lane NW
4 I 1,2 2908 Wilds LaneNW
5 1 1,2 2892 Wilds LaneNW
6 1 1,2 2890 Wilds LaneNW
7 1 1,2 2868 Wilds LaneNW
8 I 1,2 2866 Wilds LaneNW
9 I 1,2 2846 Wilds LaneNW
10 I 1,2 2844 Wilds Lane NW
11 1 1,2 2824 Wilds Lane NW
12 1 1,2 2822 Wilds LaneNW
13 I 1,2 2802 Wilds Lane NW
14 1 1,2 2800 Wilds Lane NW
15 1 1,2 2792 Wilds Lane NW
16 1 1,2 2790 Wilds Lane NW
17 1 1,2 2776 Wilds Lane NW
18 I 1,2 2774 Wilds Lane NW
19 1 1,2 2752 Wilds Lane NW
20 1 1,2 2750 Wilds Lane NW
2l 1 1,2 2732 Wilds Lane NW
22 1 1,2 2730 Wilds LaneNW
23 I 1,2 2712 Wilds LaneNW
24 1 1,2 2710 Wilds Lane NW
25 1 1,2 2692 Wilds LaneNW
26 1 1,2 2690 Wilds Lane NW
27 1 1,2 2707 Wilds Lane NW
28 l 1,2 2709 Wilds LaneNW
29 I 1,2 2711 Wilds LaneNW
30 1 1,2 2713 Wilds LaneNW
31 1 2,3 14999 Hillside CircleNW
32 I 2,3 14997 Hillside CircleNW
33 I 2,3 14995 Hillside Circle NW
34 1 2,3 14993 Hillside CircleNW
35 1 2,3 14985 Hillside Circle NW
36 1 2,3 14983 Hillside Circle NW
37 1 ,2,3 14977 Hillside CircleNW
38 I 2,3 14975 Hillside CircleNW
39 1 2,3 14957 Hillside CircleNW
40 1 2,3 14955 Hillside CircleNW
41 I 2,3 14953 Hillside CircleNW
42 1 2,3 14951 Hillside Circle NW
43 I 2,3 14945 Hillside CircleNW
44 1 2,3 14943 Hillside CircleNW
45 1 1,2 14950 Hillside Circle NW
l:\97files\97puds\sterling\exhibd.doc Page I
EXHIBIT D
LOTS AND HOUSING STYLES
46 1 1,2 14952 Hillside CimleNW
47 1 1,2 14964 Hillside CircleNW
48 1 1,2 14966 Hillside CircleNW
49 1 1,2 2801 Wilds LaneNW
50 1 1,2 2803 Wilds LaneNW
51 1 NA 2805 Wilds LaneNW
52 I NA 2807 Wilds LaneNW
53 I NA 2831 Wilds LaneNW
54 I NA 2833 Wilds LaneNW
55 I 1,2 2835 Wilds Lane NW
56 1 1,2 2837 Wilds LaneNW
57 1 1,2 2839 Wilds LaneNW
58 1 1,2 2841 Wilds Lane NW
59 1 1,2 2843 Wilds Lane NW
60 1 1,2 2845 Wilds Lane NW
61 1 NA 2847 Wilds LaneNW
62 I NA 2849 Wilds LaneNW
63 l 1,2,3 14942 Summit Circle NW
64 1 1,2,3 14944 Summit Circle NW
65 1 1,2,3 14946 Summit Circle NW
66 1 1,2,3 14948 Summit Circle NW
67 1 1,2,3 14952 Summit CircleNW
68 I 1,2,3 14954 Summit CircleNW
69 1 1,2,3 14956 Summit CircleNW
70 1 1,2,3 14958 Summit CircleNW
71 I 1,2,3 14960 Summit Circle NW
72 1 1,2,3 14962 Summit CircleNW
73 I 1,2,3 14993 Summit CircleNW
74 1 1,2,3 14991 Summit Circle NW
75 1 1,2,3 14987 Summit CircteNW
76 I 1,2,3 14985 Summit CircleNW
77 I 1,2,3 14983 Summit CircleNW
78 1 1,2,3 14981 Summit CircleNW
79 1 1,2,3 14973 Summit CimleNW
80 l 1,2,3 14971 Summit CircleNW
81 I 1,2,3 14965 Summit Circle NW
82 1 1,2,3 14963 Summit CircleNW
83 1 1,2,3 14947 Summit CimleNW
84 I 1,2,3 14945 Summit CircleNW
85 I 1,2,3 14923 Summit Circle NW
86 1 1,2,3 14921 Summit CircleNW
87 1 1,2,3 2961 Wilds LaneNW
88 1 1,2,3 2963 Wilds LaneNW
l:\97files\97p uds\sterling\exhibd.doc Page 2