Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-98REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, February 23, 1998 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: January 26, 1998 and February 9, 1998 4. Public Hearings: A. Case File #98-022 Consider a lot width variance for Charles and Sandra Furlong, 4231 Quaker Trail. B. Case Files #98-016 to 98-018 Consider an Amendment to the original Windsong on the Lake Planned Unit Development and a Preliminmy Plat to be known as Windsong on the Lake 3rd Addition. C. Case Files #98-010 to 98-012 Consider a Zone Change request, a Conditional Use Permit and a Preliminary Plat for the project to be known as Glynwater. 5. Old Business: A. Case File #97-132 Continuation of the Burdick Properties variance request. 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondenc, e: 8. Adjournment: :/9 F ~98P CO C G022398 C 16200 Ec~m~re[~ ~eve, ~.,~rior La~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Pla. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61.2) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1998 1. Call to Order: The January 26, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Kuyke~!~e::Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Jenni Tovar, City Engineer Greg Ilkka Assistant City Engineer Sue M~rmntt and Vonhof Present ..::?:::!i? .... ..::~[ Kuykendall Pr e s ent::~i::ii}ii?~;i ~i ~i::~:. · Cfiego Ab s eff~i::~?'i::::ii~!!i!i!iii}iii::~ ...... ~iiiii!ii:~ii~i:~:~?~ili~ Cramer Present ....i?:i?~}i?~ii~,~ii::::~i::ii? Stamson Present ....%~iiiiii~i::::~ 3. Approval of Minutes: :~ ~{::~:i::::}~::::iiiii!?~i~:!}!~i? :::: ~ ....... ' ' ii~[~!?~}iii?::? Page 6, Kuykendall statement "Concern the:~cu~hi~::~?~ drawn to scale." Page 1, Vonhof arrived, at 6:3.6~[~,~.. :~[~ .... .:~ii¢~ Page 5, Vonhof stated Th~::ii~i~ading d~s not match the approved plan.'' ..::ii?:i? "::!~!}:: ::::ii,ii The Minutes from th~!ii~uary 12, :t:~98 Planning}i~mmission meeting amended. 4. PubH~.~gg[ings: A. were approved as ~mng Ordinance for the City of Prior Lake for j~!}i:Co~ication Towers and Antennas, and Architectural presented the Planning Report dated January 26, 1998. a public hearing on September 22, 1997, to discuss the and zoning map. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on November 24, 1997, and further discussed the ordinance on December 8, 1997. After that discussion, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to City Council on the information included in the proposed ordinance. Tonight's public hearing is to discuss additional items which were not included in the draft of the proposed zoning ordinance. Specifically, these items are additional architectural design requirements currently found in the Building Code chapter of the City Code, provisions for Antennas and Towers, and provisions for Sexually Oriented Uses. 1:\98file$\98plcomm\pcminXmn012698.doc I There are currently architectural requirements located in the Building Code Section of the City Code (Section 4-7-1 to 4-7-6). Since the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes architectural design requirements, it makes sense to incorporate these existing provisions into the Zoning Ordinance, and delete them from the Building Code provisions. The staff reviewed the existing provisions and determined only a part of the requirements are relevant. Portions of Section 4-7-I have been incorporated into the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Sections 4-7-2 through 4-7-6 can be deleted, since these provisior!s are already covered in the new Ordinance. ..,:~??~::i!i!iii!i!?i::::!?:!i::::i:.i? Section 510.100 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance outlines "Uses.:8~3~[~i![~ Change", such as antennas and towers and sexually oriented businesses. D~?~io the'::~tive nature of these uses, they are often subject not only to local zoning [ggg!~ns, but ~i:~i~late and Federal regulations as well. '::~::::ii~{i!ii?!!!?ii?iii~ii:~ii!i!ili!ii?. The Towers and Antennas prows~ons outhne where t~se uses aro~allowed w~th sp~c~fic criteria. Briefly, they are permitted in all use Distri~:~ses ~i~ted With Conditions. Height and setbacks are more restrictive in ~?~eni~i Use Districts than in the Commercial and Industrial Districts. The regulations'::~::discuss amateur radio antennas, which are primarily regulated l~:Federal Comm~gi~gs Commission. Vonhof questioned if water towers were respS~led water towers are public utilities and explained how antennas ~.w~ tc~i~:i-egulated. Cramer questioned the nu~:~nnas on :~ water towers. Kansier explained the provisions. .:~??~ :~iil ilii ¥'::i ii~ .:~: While the need to is apparent it is important the regulations are not so se¢~?[i~iii~;:~i~::~i::::~::~ses or regulate free speech. The uses are permitted in ~h~.:.~.}.(Speci~)!~:}g~siness) C-4 (General Business) and I-1 (Industrial) d~stncts a~:m':~h*:i~:: :~ cul~: :.district The uses are subject to a 350 d~stance separa[i~fi:'from any ~i~ntial u~?:~d from other uses associated with children such as pl~x~nnds, schools a~ii~ibrade§!::"The uses are also subject to a 1,000' separation from a~[~$~::similar use. In:i~ A district, the uses require a minimum 40 acre lot area, and a 500' ld~?~. The Ordinance also restricts the size of these uses, and applies regulations to the op~ of the~es of businesses. Kuykendall quO~d why square footage was regulated. Kansier explained the control. Vonhof commented on the adult uses and questioned control on the licensing. He thought the requirements should include background checks before issuance. Kansier said a more appropriate place to put the license provision is in the City Code. The staff can have that provision ready to go before the City Council as part of the Code. Kuykendall commented on regulating new technology. Cramer gave some background on the issue. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn012698.doc 2 Cramer questioned violations. Kansier explained most violations are civil, not criminal. There were no comments fi'om the public. The public hearing was closed at 6:59 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · This is under permitted uses with conditibns. Would it be conditional uses? Kansier explained it was difficult to deny l~ii~his m~,:, There is a great number of conditions that need to be met It woulabe ¥~s subjei~ii~i::'' peal · I will make a companion motion for a recommendatiQ~i~¥:'ii~:ghsing to go · Supported recommendations. ~i:?":":~i::!i!iiii!i::i!::?:i~ .... COUNCIL APPROV~:::~ESE SE~IONS AS :~r OF THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AS g~QSED...:~iiii!!i!i!;:.'' Vote taken signi~ed ayes':~iiig~i'_m~::.... sEc'o ig CP, XUER, SEXU LY ORI~ED BUSINE~g~ BE h~gNSED AND THAT meRO~'m~WE S~ARDS BE D~ UP ~ER THE LICENSING ORDINANCE TO COVER Tm:'~e~T OF BACKGrOUnD n',WESTIGAT~ONS AS WELL AS THE ONGOING RE~pNS OF T~E TY~ES OF ~USINESS. ~nVD nLSO nLLOW FOR ON- SITE INS~m~IONS.~ PROVISIONS FOR REVOCATIONS OF THE LICENSE. Discussion: ':?~i~ii? .... Kuykendall - thi~"would exclude the reservation. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\rrm0 12698.doc 3 5. Old Business: A. Case #97-132, Continuation of Burdick Properties variances for rear yard setback and berm slope for 14162 Commerce Avenue and 14180 Commerce Avenue properties. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report. On January 12, 1998, the Planning Commission heard the request for v~=:~::ii~h the respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances relat~=:~ii~o existing commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. 14180 Co ...... =:, .=::.:gnue was built in 1994 and 14162 Commerce Avenue was built in 1997. At that hearing, the applicant stated he is not applying for.gii~' to berm fence height. The Staff had asked for this in writing ar[¢i~ ye[:.~o receive anythi iiiiigi ff had also asked the applicant to submit a revised con~l~d lanti~pe plan for revi~"and to address the issue of the trash enclosure on the e~!~::.Th~=::~gd landscape plan is still outstanding. In a telephone conversation with Mr. K~!::~Splic~t's representative) on January 21, 1998, the submittal of a revised landscape pl~?:i~!~ending specific feedback from the adjacent residential pr~g~g~ owners. A memorandum from City Attorney Sues~il~a~i::::i~i~g:[9 the ~i[~iory of James 1st Addition and Burdick #3 discusses the legai~ii!h~u~i~.i!~ii~appened with respect to the Zoning Ordinance. This ~;~ndum h~?~ necess~=:related minutes and documentation relating to~i:=~}~?~brought u~ihy residents and information as requested by the Planning Comm~h. '~?:?i!:i!?!!:i:: As stated in the staff'i~ gat~c[it~::[~::l~8 staffhas concluded the hardship criteria have been met, cd~fing'iti~:':§'~s are existing and both sites are at maximum bui!O:::O~ with re§~::~to parking and setbacks. Due to lack of pertinent informati~[ii~i::i¢~ requ;~i~:::=~:~ slope should be continued. Considering the trash ~g~sure is 10~=~ the d~e and utility easement, staff recommends a "Use of ]~]ic Easement" a~ent b~::=~igned and recorded by the applicant (as amended in K~on 98-01PC). Stamson ~d0ned all~ible tolerance of grading. Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermoti::~:~i~n~i~e elevation allowed is a plus or minus .3 (three-tenths) of a foot. Comments fro~:the Commissioners: Kuykendall: · Attorney Mark Kelly (applicant's representative) clarified the intent was to complete the berm as designed. The slope on the berm is a 2 to 1 ratio. Another layer of retaining wall will make up the 1 to 1 1/2 foot difference. · Concerned all the information was not obtained from the developer. · Would like to see the line of site information. The drawings are not drawn to scale. Would like to see the landscape plan. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn012698.doc 4 · Feels all action on this matter should be continued. Cramer: · Has enough information to address the variances. There are some separate issues. · The landscape plan is needed. · The trash enclosure is a concern. · With all the mistakes made hopes people learn a lot of lessons from tl~i!i~i~iiiii~, .. · Separate all three variances into separate items. Vonhof: · Until the criteria is corrected, the Commissioners cannot property is not in compliance. · .... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The trash enclosures are 1,~cated where they sh,o, uld ~!?:~. · Admittedly the City said We made a mistake. Hi~i::~pinioai~s the developer s~id know where to put things. The developer faile~fii~e is n~g from the de~eloper saying he will comply with the existing grading'pl~!iiil}iii!iiiii!::i~::.::?:~?::~:~::ili · The property is not conforming by applicant's own de~::~i?~i~:Cannot support the requested variances. ..::?::::?:~:~ ...... ":: ~?ii?~i~:i! ili~ii::::~ · The developers have made mistakes ~i~:::::~i~:~ ..... · Upon reading the brief, fett:::mre was · Agreed the garbage enc!~ii~ould be ~!i~parate issue. It is one of the biggest problems. , ~[i:::::::::~ .... *~*::~* '?:i::::} ...... · Supports the 2 ~}}height. ~ hardship c~ has been met. · Variance of lar~:':¢~::~.D~ii~t:::~O~$~at~e of 3.1. There are other ways to meet the screening. ::~::i:{!iii!!iiiiiii~iii!?:}~: ................ ~:~:~:~:~:~:~i~:?:[::i::i::~iiiii~i::i::::i![::i~ · If this · Other issues Vonhof: enclosures. The building codes should be met. information in front of the Commissioners. day rule will mn out on February 21, 1998. be worked out. · Not opposed on acting on the variances tonight. Kuykendall: · Feels the right information has to be available and would like to continue the meeting. · If the developer cannot meet the requirements all variances should be denied. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\rrmO 12698.doc 5 Mr. Kelly pointed out the grading plan before the Commissioners is 2 to 1. The applicant has been waiting for a response from the neighbors on the proposals. He stated the applicant would like to work out an amicable resolution with the neighbors. To date there has been no comments from the neighbors. Discussions continue on what happened in 1979 when the applicant did not own the property and does not know what happened back then. His client is being held responsible to activities of City Council members, neighbors and prior owners. Mr. Kelly said they will submit a new landscgg~!an but feels the applicant had been forthcoming with information. They want a.:¢~rtg~t landscaping plan across the lot line. Mr. Kelly asked the Commissio~ to point out exactly what they want and they will provide the information. Vonhof: ...... .... ~ . The reason for the variances is because o f the applican~i?::?~:~:'~?'::::?::? · The plans dated 1997 are not complete. ::~i::~i::~i~:::~::!::~: ':~iiii~;::)i::::~ · Plans should be drawn to scale. ::~5~{iii?i?:~?~:i::ii? · Assure the landscape architect has the appropriate ~nfonnah~ll. Direct line of site. Understands it will not be a clear. ::?~?~?siiiiii::?:~ ..... * The neighbors are most concerned wi~}i~{}i~e:.::s~e. · Applicant'"s screening proposal is reas0~le. Cramer: · Asked for a line of si~:::5::¢0~i~i~ tree hei~, Give an idea of what the blockage would be. Right x~:~eople a[~i~uessing w~:.~e line of site would be. Mr. Kelly asked 60 day deadline. .... :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:~ Maureen ~siii~g~ 51 Ti~..A~fnue, commented everyone keeps on talking about building!~3C'The'fi~rs wani!si~i::g~e thing done on building #2. KU'r L, CP- UER, TO CONT THE ~0 UNTIL THE~BRUARY 23, 1998, MEETING. Vote take~;i~i:~ed }~::i~s and 1 nay. MOTION CARRIED. .... ~i!::i::iii::!::!i!:?:i,: . ::i!::!i!?:::~i .... PRIOR TO FE~:. ~)kRY 23, 1998, THE DEVELOPER SHOULD IDENTIFY THE LOCATION ~ HEIGHT OF THE BERM AND FENCE ON THE SITE BY USING POSTS AND STRING OR SOME OTHER SIMILAR MEANS TO GIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THE APPROXIMATE LEVEL OR ELEVATIONS OF THE TOP OF THE FENCE AND THE BERM. A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE FENCE AND BERM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF PRIOR TO THE MEETING. A recess was called at 7:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:04 p.m. I :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn012698 .doc 6. New Business: A. Case #97-118 Potential sale of City Property - Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center First Addition. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated Januaxy 26, 1998:i:::?:~:~ ...... The City of Prior Lake received a request to sell a piece of property lo~d at the south east comer of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue, legally describec[ [~i::::~(!i~::~llock 3 Brooksville Center First Addition. State Statute requires the PlUg Co~ion determine if such a sale of property is consistent with the C~[~sive el~:ii!ii!i}iiiiiiii~ The Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan designates th~i::~rop~3' as Residential Density. While the future land uses of a private dey~:? are t~gwn, it is kno~:'the City has no immediate or long range plans to devel~::[~iig[gp~iii~:~iOigh density residential. The City purchased this property for the cobWeb"of T6ronto Avenue to property now known as Woodridge Estates. The City held ~i~perty with the idea the remaining parcel to the east of Toronto g,~ could be used f~?~i~::i~e dance studio. However considering the recent referend~!::i~:~l~g:~ion of the ~' dance studio downtown, the need for the City to hold tl~!i~r0~ili~::!::~n ~i~inated. While the request was from ~::~? personi::ii~:~roperty:[~uld be sold through the bidding process. The De~ii~gview C~ittee has reviewed the request. .... i!~ii!ii .... ::::::::::::::::::::::: The Planning Cornm/,q~n finding~::~ll be forw~'to the City Council. The City Council will need t~?'::~ne ~o~!~O~:~::?~roceed with the sale of the property and to direct staff accorc~gi? Vo~!~:" questioned if ~:is an~ing in the Comprehensive Plan addressing this issue? ~11 asked if the ~ney would go into the capital improvement fund. Rye responsible sale woulct~i~b into the general fund. Cramer and":~f~:g~ented on the high density and commercial property. The size of the propert~?~?~t 1.7 acres. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO FIND THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY BE DIRECTED TOWARD OTHER STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. I :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn012698 .doc 7 Announcements and Correspondence: There was a brief discussion on the County Road 42 access and Timothy Avenue. Discussed a Scott County Planning Commissioner workshop. Tovar gave an update. Tentative dates are March 24, March 30 or March 31, 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Find out concerns of the other cities - take time to discuss. The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~n012698.doc 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1998 1. Call to Order: The February 9, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego,;~gykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye Planning Coordinat0[::~sier, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Co~ Carlson 2. Roll Call: Kuyk endall Present .... Cfiego Present Vonhof Absent ................... Commissioner Vonhof arrived at 6:34 p.~;ilili:i:~;~ ......... 3. Approval of Minutes: (The minu~ o~:~i;~$. PlUg Commission Meeting were not available at this time.) ':::::iiiii[~i::~: 4. Pubhc' Hearings: ..::iiiii?::i::[i;?=::?:ii;{:iiii!i!iiiii}~!i~ A. (Case #98-00 i onsider of a Plat to be as Woodridge Estates:~i~fiog,?~$i~=:~ii~} acres to be subdivided into 2 lots for single family dwellings ~!!!~}~:~:~tliS{: .................. Planmng~:~ih~}i:=~e Kans!~ii~[~nted the staff report dated February 9, 1998. Th~=~i~='received an ap¢i{~on by ~}enbrink Construction for a preliminary plat for the 2.79 a~¢i~ii!ocated at the inte~tion of Mushtown Road and Ridgewood Court, just west of The pandg== c Complex a ii ast of e rkwood r ve. The preliminary plat, to be known as Woodrid~ii~tes 4th A~iion, is the final phase of the Woodridge development. The site is fairl~il~}i~d contains a wetland approximately 1.5 acres in size. The existing significant trees d~i~ site are located along the southern boundary of the plat, adjacent to Mushtown Road?~e property is zoned R-1 (Suburban Residential). The 2010 Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as R-LIVID COrban Low to Medium Density Residential). The proposed plat consists of 2.79 acres to be subdivided into 2 lots for single family dwellings and one outlot. The total density of this development is 1.4 units per acre, which is well below the maximum permitted density of 3.5 units per acre. The proposed lots are 22,258 square feet and 17,408 square feet in area, and the frontage on the lots is also at least 86 feet. The minimum lot size in the R-1 district is 12,000 square feet and l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\rrm020998.doc I the minimum frontage requirements is 86 feet. Both of the proposed lots are consistent with these standards. Outlot A is 1.88 acres in area, and primarily consists of wetlands. There are no new streets located within this plat. Access to the lots is from Ridgewood Court, which was platted as part of Woodridge Estates 3rd Addition. The only grading on this site is for the house pads on Lots 1 and 2. The applicant has submitted a preliminary grading plan which, for the most part, meets City standards. The grading plan also indicates each of these lots will be custom graded, meaning more detailed grading plans will be required at the tim~:~!i~ng permit is obtained. There is a 1.5 acre wetland located on this site, in Outlot A. The deve!~t~¢~2~i!~ intend to disturb this wetland. Sanitary sewer service and water service are located along the ~ii~hndary of t~?~!at i~ Ridgewood Court. There are three existing service lines to ~!~?:~¢operty, two serving one serving Lot 2. One of the service lines to Lot 1 must.~i~bandor/~ The Developer ~[t'be required to dedicate drainage and utility easements ove~ii~::i!~,lands:?{ii~ii~i}ili~i!?:~ ' This development is subject to the provisions of Section 6.16 ~i}~/'eservation) of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has provided an im(entory as required ~};~ ordinance which s~h,o, ws the majority of significant trees located alon~[[~::~uth boundary o[:~ii~tgl;iii~: There is one 6 maple on Lot 1 which will be removed for th~i~!~::on the site. ~::'6 caliper inches total 2.2% of the total caliper inches on the site. Tl~i~:iTre~ ~i:~p 0rd~nce allows removal of 25% of the caliper inches, so no tree This development is also subj:~::~f$::::~i~equireme~{~ o'f Chapter 7 of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires one (1) strs~::i~e pei';~{!i~ontage a~:~i~?n~. (1) front yard tree per lot. The applicant has submitte(~;~i~ndscaping¢i~l~n showing {~foposed location of the required trees, as well as the minim~::i!~g~::~nd ty~:.;i:.~.~, plan is:~hsistent with these requirements. The park dedication require~ii~ave be~"~i::::~0r this subdivision. A areas and dimensions, road locations, storm landscaping and tree replacement plans, undei~i:~ped site. A Woodridge Estates development was approved in 1991. This t included a cul-de-sac with seven lots, approximately 10,000 since a final plat for this site was not submitted within a year after approval the development became subject to current regulations, including In 1995, the developer submitted a proposal to subdivide this site into three lots and one outlot. While this proposal preserved the wetland and created lots meeting the minimum lot area, it also proposed two "flag" lots which did not meet the minimum lot frontage requirements. The City Council denied the preliminary plat in January, 1996. This proposal is different from previous proposals in that it complies with all current regulations. The wetland is not disturbed, and the proposed lots meet the minimum lot area and frontage requirements. No additional infrastructure is required to serve this plat. 1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn020998.doc 2 Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat of Woodridge Estates 4th Addition subject to the ownership and maintenance of Outlot A condition listed in the staff report. Comments from the public: The applicant was present to answer questions. Comments from the Commissioners: .... Kuykendall: · NOsidewalks.sidewalks- in the interest of public safety the applicant s~d c~;., Criego: ..~?:::i!i?.'::=. ~ .... · Agreed with staff's recommendation .... · Questioned the location of Lot 2 and the wetland, ran i piained. * Agreed with the staff's recommendati~i~ Questioned the improvements on Musht~ R~d. 'l~i?said the road was completed. · Agreed with staff's re~fi~0n. Ku Y k e n d a !~[ ?:~i?:~:~i?:~i~i~i~:~::~::~::~:~:~ ....... "::~::ili~??~}::i~~ · Que§~::::~l~ on M~ Road. McDermott said it is a township road. M bN vom c; iiiii CO BY C R, TO CIT¥ C~ APPROVE ~ P~L~Y PLAT OF WOOD,GE ESTA~S 4TH ~DI~S P~SE~ED S~CT TO CO~ITIONS SET FORTH ~ T~ Vote t~en si~::~yes by all. MOTION C~D. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. Review 1997 Variance Summary Report. Rye presented the annual variance summary report. Noted the lower number (17) of variance requests. Some of the changes are due to substandard lots allowing a 5' side 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcrain~nn020998.doc 3 yard setback and the change of the 50' ordinary-high-water level setback for decks. In the last 2 years there were 15 appeals to City Council with only 3 being reversed. In all other cases, City Council agreed with staff. Vonhof: · Should see the number of building permits for '95, '96 and '97. Are we getting more building permits? Could be new homes or build-ons. ~:~ ...... · There should be a base line. How many people need variances comg~=':=i~e number of people who can comply to the code. · Believes there will be more height variances as Commission![~ii~i~i::!~i::i~ne on impervious surface. :~ .... ~:~ .... Many applicants modified their requests before they apg~=~fore City'=~cil on appeals ..... ?:iii:.!?:!?::~::~ .... Kuykendall: .... ~:~,:~,~:~ · Given the City is dealing with a new zpging ordinance ~=~ii~e no recommendations. Commissioners h~:.~i~en using the cr/t~ · Commented on City Council's rationd~i~::::~g,appeal~i~:~:ili::~ · Felt City Council should provide the Plying ~a:=tl~$ir rationale for reversing the appeals. '~i?~i)::~: ..::?~ .......... ~::iiiiiiiii? · No further comme~!~:[ :~;:!::~: '~?~}~:~ii~!i7 * This information shoui~=:i!~?:~eviewed at the City Council workshop especially when dis cu S.~gii~p with"i~i?i~[~!~-high-water. ·Co~$hted on":~[~i!~ouncil~:~i~:bns for reversing appeals. Attended both appeals ~e additional ir/f~ation ~?6vided at the Council level that was not presented at ,:2iiiii~:~:[~:!auning Commi~n meetings. In both cases, the applicants changed their ' iri~.ation signific~i~ before the Council. Stamson: ============================ ..... · We shoul~:~iii~5 many building permits were in the Shoreland. How many needed variances? ,~i:? MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 1:\98files\98plcorram\pcmin\rrm020998.doc 4 B. Discussion on Proposed Official Map for the Ring Road between Franklin Trail and Tower Avenue. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staffreport. The City of Prior Lake has, for several years, anticipated the construction of a ring road between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. This road is shown on the Transportation M~g:.jp the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The recent construction of the Park Nicollet Clinic and t~?~l~s to the access points on Highway 13 has facilitated the need for this road. In order [Oi~:~tter plan for this road, the City staff have proposed an official map for the right-of-way...::?:::i??i::i~iiiiiiiiiilii?:? An Official Map is an ordinance in map form adopted by the City that'~bclusiv~]~i!~yes the location and width of proposed streets or future public land and ~i~i;.~i*:The requisites for an Official Map are identified in the State Statutes. The purp~::iB'F'ii~i':O'fficial Map is private development from encroaching on sites for proposeti:~lic improvements. The a~ion of an Official Map does not give the City any right, titl~.~!}~erest in':;~gs identified for':~blic but it does authorize the City to acquire such:~}~:.witl't~i:~gyjng compensation purposes, for buildings or structures erected in such areas without a pe~i~il~:'~iof~ion::::~:~*~ '~: "' of the conditions of an approved permit. The Official Map also governs the issua~i~f building permits in that it is not required to issue a permit for a stmcmr~,~thin the public ar~5~i~fined:by an official map. The statute also provides a property owner ~:i~!.~l process. "::~?:ii~i:i~i~??~ii?:~ The purpose of the proposed ring road is to pr~de ac~=:ii~}~e~:~¢o~rcial properties on the southwest side of Highway 13, and to reroute ~iii~i~" fro~:i~i~ay 13 to a local street. The proposed alignments will acco~l~i~ii~is by dire~ traffic fr~ Franklin Trail to Toronto Avenue, and provides acce§~!~i~:':~rties adja~t to Highway 13 and the properties to the At this time, the staft~ii:~"i~ th~::~:. ?.~::::i~0n to provide some direction about which alignment is most desirabl~:!::::i?~[::~{i~;~g~iSn, a survey of the property will be prepared, and a public healing schedule'3::;i~?iew the Official Map. The City Council will ultimately detennine..:[~i~I{~}:::ig,f the rSi~:i~:~e final approval of the Official Map. .... i[i::ii!i? ........ i~:{!iii!i!iii!i::ii::~i:: ============================== Co~$hts ~rom the ~missiOl~s: · Que~hed the wetl~s and potential redevelopment of Pnordale Mall. · What is the,~Sjected traffic? Kansier said they do not have exact numbers. · Rye explained the frontage road in front of Highway 13 is a private road. · What is the State's role in this? It is an impact on the City. · The State has an obligation. · Rye explained there is another option. Criego: · From a safety standpoint, a 30 mph speed limit would be acceptable. Option C would be the best alternative. 1:\98filcs\98pl¢omm\pcminXmnO20998.doc 5 · The landscaping will look nice. · The property with Option C would be less costly. Vonhof: · Why does it come in at an angle? Kansier explained the traffic flow process. · Recommend Option C. · Would the City end up buying the block building on Toronto. ~t~.: ~:,:..smd probably · The City could take out some of the curve. '*.iiiii::iii .... ~i::iii~iiiiiiiii~ii::::~ Option C will work ......... .::~ · Favors Option A. Concerned with the way Toronto is"~ted. Bring it in at 90 degrees. There should be a fight-of-v~$g,. "::~?:::iiiiiiiiiiiii::~ · Make it an attractive facility for peoP~ii~:!~::.:.prefers the · There should be a stop sign on Toronto ~yenu~iiii::~::'::::~:'::iiii::~ ~ Criego: · Option C goes into.~:~ropert~! By brining .~e road further south, the City would ly h d 1 '':'~ .... b ::':' 'ld ~i~ th k:.~U on ave to ea .: e nc 1 lng ~:~::~:~:~ · Go back and p~:~':~ii?:~n i[,~5:::::~o~[~:~::~hey can look into it. The commiss.(~g~r~.decided'::~ii~ye staffreview and bring back a new drawing. · .,~iiiii:?:~town Steering ~ittee meeting is scheduled for February 10, 1998. · K~s working ~ the City Attorney finalizing the Zoning Ordinance. The City · The joir~::i;~ ~ty Planning Commission meeting is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, IV~51, 1998. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:39 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary l:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcmin\mn020998.doc 6 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4A CONSIDER A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE FOR CHARLES AND SANDRA FURLONG, Case File #98-022 4231 QUAKER TRAIL . ._.,~.- JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATO~I/~-~ YES X NO FEBRUARY 23, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from Chades and Sandra Furlong who are proposing to remove an existing structure and construct a new single family residence. The lot is 49.89 feet wide at the 25 foot minimum required front yard setback. Section 5-8-12 of the City Code requires that substandard lots have a minimum lot width of 50 feet to be buildable. Because the City Code does not specify what measurement distances are in, the setbacks and other numerical ordinance requirements cannot be rounded. Thus, the existing lot width at the front yard setback is less than 50 feet requiring a variance. No specific house plans have been drawn up at this time. However, all setbacks will be met including bluff setback and imperious surface coverage. The lot is located in the Maple Park Shore Acres subdivision on Prior Lake. DISCUSSION: Lot 23, Maple Park Shore Acres was platted in 1922. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Oveday) district. There is a bluff on the property. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels. Lot attributes are as follows: Area (above 904 el) Lot Width (measured at setback) OHW Width Size Requirement to Variance be Buildable Requested (as a substandard lot) 7,952 sq. feet 7,500 sq. feet N/A 49.89 feet 50.00 feet .28 feet 50.06 feet N/A N/A (approx.) 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The legal building envelope is approximately 35 feet wide and 63 feet deep, resulting in an area footprint of approximately 2,205 sq. feet. The applicant does not have a house designed yet, but intends to comply with all building setbacks and impervious surface. The DNR has not commented on this request. VARIANCE 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. The variance request to lot width is an existing condition. There is a hardship with respect to the property because those dimensions cannot be changed to meet the criteria of the ordinance. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstance is the lot width. Considering that it is an existing condition created in 1922 and cannot be altered to meet the ordinance requirements, hardship does exist for lot width, The property was originally platted as 50 feet. 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. The lot area is 7,952 sq. feet, the lot width is only 49.89 at the required front setback. These are conditions which have been existing since the property was platted in 1922. The lot width is a hardship that is not the result of the applicant's actions. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The intent of a minimum lot width of 50 feet to be buildable is to allow for a structure that can meet the required setbacks and still be of a reasonable size. Considering that adjacent lots are of similar size and have existing structures upon them, the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. RECOMMENDATION: L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-022\98-022PC.DOC Page 2 Staff has concluded the variance request for lot width is substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no control over.. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. ACTION REQUIRED: Adoption of the attached Resolution #98-03PC. L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-022~98-022PC.DOC Page 3 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE BRADLEY CANAl)AY SURVEYING 6.~76 16TH 5TRF~ET COURT NORTH ~, OA~ALE, I~NEgOIA 5512g: (~1~)-779-6435 · u,,~ . l l,& 2 w..4 r~,e II {0 9 {998 Rood {0 ,~ PL2 ' 6 =L2 6 7 E664C~ 21067; F~786 cERT. 15165 .RT; 't2787 17 5 6 3,4. 7.7 196 RESOLUTION 98-03PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING A .11 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.89 LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS Charles and Sandra Furlong have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 4231 Quaker Trail, legally described as Lot 23, Maple Park Shore Acres, Scott County, MN. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #98-022 and held hearings thereon on February 23, 1998. 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 the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property, and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located. The unique cimumstances applicable to this property include the substandard lot size, the fact that the property was platted prior to the incorporation of the city. L:\98FILES\98VAR~-.E9803 PC.DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants, but are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors listed above do not allow for an alternative location of the proposed structure without variances. 7. The contents of Planning Case 98-022 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variances has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements including the future structure, yet to be designed. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and approves the following variance, as shown in attached Exhibit A, for future development on the lot meeting required setbacks; I. A .11 foot variance permitting a 49.89 foot lot width at the required front yard setback instead of the required 50 foot lot width. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on February 23, 1998. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 2 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A .'1'1 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.89 LOT WIDTH A T THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BE BUILDABLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 4231 QUAKER TRAIL. 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, February 23, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: Charles and Sandra Furlong 4231 Quaker Trail Prior Lake, MN 55372 PROPERTY Same OWNERS: SUBJECT SITE: 4231 Quaker Trail, legally described as Lot 23, Maple Park Shore Acres, Scott County, MN. REQUEST: The applicant is intending to remove the existing structure and build a single family detached house. The new house will meet all setbacks and impervious surface coverage. A house plan has not been finalized at this time. The existing lot of record is 49.89 feet wide at the front yard setback rather than the required 50 feet. The lot consists of 7,952 square feet. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-022PN.DOC 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave.S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 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 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: February 12, 1997 L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-022PN.DOC Planning Case File No. Property Identification No. ~-~--(-).~-d~ / - City of Prior Lake LAND USE APPLICATION L6200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 Type of Application: [] Rezoning, from (oresent zoning'~ to (orooosed zoning'} [] Amendment to City Code, Comp. Plan or City Ordinance [] Subdivision of Land [] Administrative Subdivision [] Conditional Use Permit  V ~ce Other: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional sheets/narrative if desired) Applicable Ordinance Section(s): Apphea.n.t(s). (.{%qCl~% O/fK{~ ~Pck~/~Ofi- Address. ~{ -~3~ ~t~. Home Phone: ~ I~ - ~ ~ -~ 19 Work Phone: Prope~ Owner(s) Jif different from Applicants]: Address: Home Phone: Type of Ownership: Fee __ Work Phone: Contract for Deed __. Purchase Agreement Legal Description of Property (ARa.ch a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): Lo-r 3, (Iq t OI2., ¢wceJ 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 ~p~ill ,~ot be prggesseg until deemed complete by the Planning Director or as~ign?~ o ~pplicant s Sig~a~re ~ 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 HEARYNG CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date lu-app2.doc PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4B CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN KNOWN AS WINDSONG ON THE LAKE AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS WINDSONG ON THE LAKE THIRD ADDITION JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATO~ X YES NO-N/A (! ~J FEBRUARY 23, 1998 INTRODUCTION: H & H Land Development has applied for approval of an amendment to the Windsong on the Lake Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat to be known as Windsong on the Lake 3rd Addition. The developer has also applied for approval of a final plat, which will be considered by the City Council along with the PUD amendment and the preliminary plat. The property in question is located west of CSAH 21 and south of Lords Street. The area to be added to the PUD is located along the east boundary of the existing PUD plan, immediately adjacent to Prior Lake at the southerly end of Edinborough Street. BACKGROUND: The original Windsong on the Lake PUD was approved in 1983 and consisted of 33.36 acres of land to be developed into 26 large, single family lots, a private equestrian club, and a private recreation area adjacent to the lake. The final plat for the original lots was approved in 1984. In 1988, the PUD plan was amended to eliminate the equestrian club and substitute 12 single family lots, for a total of 38 single family lots. A final plat, Windsong on the Lake Second Addition, consisting of 7 of the 12 new lots was approved in 1995. The remaining 5 lots have not been platted at this time. To date, approximately 12 of the 38 lots remain undeveloped. The Planning Commission is considering two applications at this time. The first application is a request to amend PUD Plan for this project. The second application is for approval of a preliminary plat for this site, to be known as Windsong on the Lake Third 1:\98files\98p. uds\w/ndson~\windpc.doc 16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., l~nor Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61Z) z~67-4245 AN EQUAL OF'POFtTUN[TY EMPLOYE[1 Addition. Each of these applications, as well as the physical site characteristics, is discussed in detail below. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Total Site Area: The original PUD area consists of 33.36 acres. The area to be added to the PUD is 0.97 acres, for a total PUD site of 34.33 acres. To~oeranhv: This site has a varied topography. The northerly portion of the site, Windsong on the Lake Second Addition, is relatively level. However, the remaining site has a fairly steep topography, with elevations ranging from 910' MSL to 980' MSL. The topography of the site to be added to the PUD is primarily steep slopes and bluffs, with elevations from 904' MSL to 940' MSL. There is no grading proposed as part of this plan. Vegetation: This existing portion of the PUD has been graded, and most of the original vegetation removed. The area to be added to the PUD is wooded, with the exception of the existing home site. Since no grading or land disturbing activity is proposed, a tree inventoE~ has not been prepared. Wetlands: There are no existing wetlands on this site. Access: Access to the Windsong development is from CSAH 21, via 154th Street, Windsong Circle, and Lords Street. Access to the existing Schricker home is from Edinborough Street. No changes are proposed to the access. PROPOSED PLAN This proposal adds a portion of the Schricker property to the Windsong on the Lake PUD. The Schricker property currently includes approximately 1.5 acres of land. This proposal subdivides the existing Schricker home on 0.56 acres leaving the remaining 0.97 acres as part of the PUD. The 0.97 acres is subdivided into two outlots. Outlot A is 0.57 acres in size, and is intended as common open space. Outlot B is 0.18 acres, and is also intended as common open space. The two outlots also provide an additional 165 feet of frontage on the lake. The remaining 0.22 acres will be combined with Lot 2, Block 1, Windsong on the Lake, to create a new lot 0.77 acres in size. This lot is the current site of the Metzger home, and the additional lot area will provide frontage on the lake. The proposed amendment does not provide any additional buildable lots to this development. What it does provide is an additional 165 feet of lakeshore frontage under common ownership. This additional frontage will allow more boat slips for the lot owners in the Windsong development. There are currently 26 boat slips located along the common area of this development. The additional frontage this proposal provides would allow up to 10 additional boat slips under the formula outlined in the City's Zoning Ordinance. According to the narrative submitted by the developer, all of the boat slips would be located in the vicinity of the 1:\98files\98puds\w/ndsong\windpc.doc Page 2 current docks. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources controls the actual location and configuration of the boat slips. The current DNR permit for this development must be amended to allow the additional slips. ANALYSIS: PUD Plan Amendment: 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. Based on these standards, the Windsong development should probably not be a Planned Unit Development. The issue of whether this development should remain a PUD was discussed by the Council when the previous amendment was considered in 1988, According to the April 4, 1988, City Council minutes, "extensive discussion occurred on the merits of retaining the PUD designation and whether or not }Vindsong zoning shouM be changed to R-1....It was generally agreed that the PUD zoning provided the Council with more controls over the subdivision than a typical R-1 zoning designation." For this reason, the PUD designation remains in place. As mentioned above, the primary effect of this amendment is the additional boat slips which would be allowed. The proposed outlots provide a common open space that is not easily accessible or very useable space. For example, Outlot A is accessible only from the adjacent lots. Both Outlot A and Outlot B are very steep, and do not provide good access to the lakeshore. The proposed amendment is consistent with the existing development of the Windsong on the Lake PUD. If the development is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1. No more than 10 additional boat slips shall be permitted. The Developer must provide a copy of the revised DNR permit allowing the additional boat slips to the City Planning Department. 2. The Homeowner's Association documents for Windsong on the Lake must be amended to include this area, and the amended documents must be recorded with the final plat documents. A recorded copy of the amended documents must be submitted to the Planning Department within 10 days after recording the final plat. 3. There shall be no filling or grading on Outlots A and B, as shown on the prelim'mary plat for Windsong on the Lake Third Addition without the issuance of a separate filling and grading permit. Any alteration to the existing vegetation on these outlots must also be consistent with the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ord'mance. 4. There shall be no filling or grading on Lot 1, Block 2, as shown on the preliminary plat for Windsong on the Lake Third Addition without the issuance of a separate filling and grading permit. Any alteration to the existing vegetation on this lot must also be consistent with the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. l:\98files\98puds\windsong\windpc.doc Page 3 Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat for this site, known as Windsong on the Lake Third Addition, consists of 2.08 acres to be subdivided into 2 lots and 2 outlets. Lot 1, Block I, is 0.56 acres and is the site of the existing Schricker home. Access to this lot is from Edinborough Avenue. Lot 1, Block 2, is 0.77 acres in size and is the site of the current Metzger home. Access to this lot is from Windsong Cimle. Outlets A and B are 0.57 acres and 0.18 acres respectively. These outlets are to be part of the common open space for the Windsong development. There is no public right-of-way or parkland dedicated in this plat. In addition, there are no require or proposed utilities, including sanitary sewer, water mains, or storm sewer proposed. The existing houses already have these services available, and there is no need to provide these services to the outlets. Since no utility improvements are required, no fees will be collected. However, a park land dedication fee will be collected for the final plat. The preliminary plat is consistent with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements. If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The Homeowner's Association documents for Windsong on the Lake must be amended to include this area, and the amended documents must be recorded with the final plat documents. A recorded copy of the amended documents must be submitted to the Planning Department within 10 days after recording the final plat. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the amendment to the PUD Plan subject to the above listed conditions, and the Preliminary Plat subject to the above listed condition. 2. Recommend denial of the request. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1. ACTION REQUIRED: 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 amendment to the PUD Plan, subject to the conditions listed in this report. 2. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat to be known as Windsong on the Lake Third Addition, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. 1:\98filcs\98puds\windsong\w/ndpc.doc Page 4 EXItlBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Reduced Copy of Overall PUD Plan 3. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. Developer's Narrative (2 pages) 5. Letter fi.om DNR l:\98files\98puds\windsong\windpe.doe Page 5 ill Proposed THIRD )N AREA ' WINDSONG on the Lake \ lAN 3 1/30/98 Windsong on the lake Third Addition Prior Lake, MN Proposed by H & H Land Development REQUESTS 1. P.U.D. Amendment 2. Preliminary Plat/Subdivision review and approval. 3. Final Plat review and approval. PROPOSAL In 1983, the original 33.36 acre Windsong on the lake P.U.D. was approved by the City of Prior Lake. It consisted of 26 single family detached home sites, a private equestrian club (8_+ acres) and private recreation areas (3.55_+ acres) including tennis, trails, docks, beach, shelter building, etc.. The private recreation areas have been built and most of the original lots sold. The P.U.D. was amended in 1987 by eliminating the 8-+ acre equestrian club and substituting 12 single family detached lots. Of these, 7 lots were developed in 1995 and 5 remain for a future final plat addition (subject to market demand and Co. Rd. 21 construction). The current proposal is to add an additional 1.53 acres (John and Jolene Schricker residence - 15371 Edinborough Avenue) into the project, amend the P.U.D. and resubdivide the property. The resubdivision would include the 0.45 acre Daniel Metzger residence (4130 Windsong Circle) bringing the total site to 2.08 acres. The subdivision would: 1. Create a new 0.56 acre parcel (Lot 1, Block 1) for the existing Schricker residence maintaining the same usable area as existing and providing 140 feet of lakeshore frontage. This residence would maintain its access from Edinborough Avenue. Since this lot is isolated from other lots within the project, it is not going to be included in the Windsong P.U.D.. It will just be part of the subdivision/plat process. 2. Enlarge the existing Metzger parcel to include a portion of the Schrieker property to create a new 0.77 acre parcel (Lot 1, Block 2) that has a 75' lakeshore frontage. The existing residence would remain. The additional land provides visual lake access for the land owner. The P.U.D. will limit boat dockage to the common dock area maintained by the homeowners association. 3. Provide 2 parcels (Outlot A 0.57 acres and Outlot B 0.18 acres-total 0.75 acres) that will be incorporated into the common private open space area of the P.U.D.. No improvements are planned at this time for these areas. This brings the total P.U.D. open space to 4.3+ acres to provide 13% park area within the 33+ acre overall P.U.D. (total P.U.D. area excludes the 1.3 acre Hennen residence from the original P.U.D. and the existing 0.56 acre Schricker residence form this proposal). This proposal involves only an amendment to the P.U.D. and land subdivision. All public improvements (street, utilities, etc.) are already in place. No site grading or other improvements are proposed and therefore existing tree cover will remain undisturbed. All boat slips within the P.U.D. will be through common dockage controlled by the homeowners association and covenants and will be based solely from the existing Outlot C in Windsong on the Lake or Outlot B, Windsong on the Lake Third Addition. The additional land provides 385' of lakeshore frontage. Of this, 140 feet will remain with the existing Schricker parcel and 75 feet will be added to the Metzger parcel. This leaves a net 170' oflakeshore which will allow an additional 15 boat slips. Proposed Outlot A of the third addition will have conservation easements based on review with the Mn DNR. . DNR METRO; 2-17-98 13:24; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #2/2 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ! '"Z-77 - -? y'ro PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4C CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS GLYNWATER FOR A TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO-N/A FEBRUARY 23, 1998 INTRODUCTION: Wensmann Realty has applied for a Zone change, a Conditional Use Permit and a Preliminary plat for the property located on the south side of CSAH 82, just west of Fremont Avenue and directly south of the entrance to The Wilds. This property is currently zoned A-1 (Agriculture) and C-1 (Conservation). Much of the property is also located within the Shoreland District for Prior Lake and Arctic Lake. The applicant is requesting the property be rezoned to the R-2 (Urban Residential) district. The application also includes a request for a conditional use permit to allow the development of the property with 121 townhouse units, and a preliminary plat consisting of 109 lots for the townhouse units and open space. BACKGROUND: In December, 1997, the applicant filed an application for a Schematic Planned Unit Development for a townhouse development on this property. On January 5, 1998, the city Council denied this application based on the fact the proposed Schematic PUD Plan was inconsistent with the stated purposes and intent of the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance in that the same proposal, with the exception of the private streets, could be accomplished through the Conditional Use Permit Process. The developer then filed these applications to develop the property. The Planning Commission is considering three applications at this time. The first application is a request to rezone the property from the A-1 (Agricultural) and C-1 (Conservation) districts to the R-2 (Urban Residential) district. The second request is to approve a Conditional Use Permit for this project. The third application is for approval of a preliminary plat for this site, to be known as Glynwater. Each of these applications is discussed in detail below. 1:\98files\98subdiv\pmplat\glynwat¢\gly~pc.doc Page 1 16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E.,Prior Lal~e, Minnesota 5.5372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) ~47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Total Site Area: The total PUD area (less the CSAH 82 right-of-way) consists of 41.57 acres. Tono~rauhv: This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from 970' MSL at its highest point to 910' MSL at the lowest point. The site generally drains towards the wetlands located along the easterly portion of the site, the southerly portion and the center of the site. There are also steep slopes, or slopes in excess of 20%, located on this site. These slopes are generally located on the eastern half of the site. There are several areas in which the steep slopes will be disturbed by the placement of building pads and utilities. Vegetation: This vegetation on this site consists of vacant cropland. The eastern and southern boundaries of the property are wooded, as is the area adjacent to the wetlands. The project will be subject to the Tree 'Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted an inventory of the significant trees on the site which indicates a total of 203 caliper inches of significant trees. Based on the development plan, 29% of the caliper inches will be removed for grading and utilities, and 5% will be removed for building pads. The development will require replacement of 4.38 caliper inches. Wetlands: There are three wetlands located within this site, with a total area of 9.45 acres. The wetlands are located in the southeast comer of the site, along the southern boundary of the site, and in the center of the site. The plans indicate only a small area of wetlands will be filled to allow a road connection. This site is subject to the wetland mitigation requirements. Access: Access to the site is from CSAH 82, on the north. CSAH 82 is identified as a Minor Arterial street in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The County Engineer has noted an access permit will be required for each opening onto CSAH 82. PROPOSED PLAN 2010 Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for Urban Low to Medium Density Residential uses on the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The easterly portion of the property is located within the 2010 MUSA boundary. The westerly portion of the property is still outside of the MUSA. Zoning: The developer has filed an application to rezone this property to the R-2 (Urban Residential) district. The R-2 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Density: The plan proposes 121 units on a total of 41.57 acres. Density is based on the buildable acres of the site, or in this case on 32.12 net acres. The overall density proposed in this plan is 3.7 units per acre. The R-2 district permits a density of 5.5 units per acre through the CUP process. l:\98files\98subdiv\preplat\glynwate\glynpc.doc Page 2 Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 109 lots for the townhouse units and open space. There are 103 lots for the buildings, and 6 lots for common open space. The plat also includes parkland, and an outlet, located at the intersection of CSAH 82 and Glynwater Trail for a sign. Building Styles: The proposed plan calls for a townhouse style development consisting of 2-, 3-, 4-, 5- and 6-unit buildings. Sample floor plans of these buildings are attached to this report. There are 18 2-unit buildings, 2 3-unit buildings, 17 4-unit buildings, and 1 each of the 5- and 6-unit buildings. Each of the buildings is designed with an attached garage. Setbacks: The plan proposes a 25' setback from the front property line, and the side street lot line, a 25' rear yard setback from any common lot line, and a minimum 20' separation between the buildings. This is consistent with conventional setbacks. Lot Coveraee: The R-2 district allows a maximum lot coverage of 20% for a townhouse PUD. The proposed plan indicates a lot coverage of approximately 14%, which is consistent with the proposed plan. Streets: This plan proposes 4 new public streets. The major street, named Glynwater Trail, starts on the east side of the site, directly opposite Wilds Parkway, loops through the site for 2,650' and exits back onto CSAH 82. This street is designed with a 55' wide right-of-way and a 32' wide surface. The second street, Bayview Drive, is located on the east side of the site, and extends 625' from Glynwater Trail to Fremont Avenue. This street is designed with a 50' wide right-of-way and a 32' wide surface. The third new street is a 600' long cul-de-sac identified as Spring Glen Circle. This street is located on the east portion of the site, and on the west side of Glynwater Trail. It is designed with a 50' wide right-of-way and a 32' wide surface. Finally, there is a 130' long stub street located on the west portion of the site which provides future access to the property to the west. This street is identified as Spring Glen Road and is designed as a 50' wide right-of- way and a 32' wide surface. Sidewalks/Trails: There is a sidewalk located along the north end of Glynwater Trail from CSAH 82 to the park trail on the east, and from CSAH 82 to Spring Glen Road on the west. A sidewalk is also proposed along the north side of Bayview Circle from Fremont Avenue to Glynwater Trail. The plan also identifies a pedestrian trail starting at CSAH 82, winding through the proposed park, and connecting to the 16.5 foot wide access owned by the City on the west boundary of this site. Parks: This plan identifies a park along the south boundary of the property. The total park site is 11.91 acres; however, much of the area consists of wetlands and ponds and steep slopes. The parkland dedication requirements for this site is 4.2 acres, consisting of dry upland with undisturbed soils. If the land area to be dedicated does not include 4.2 acres of this type of land, the remaining dedication requirements will be made as a cash dedication. 1:\98files\98subdiv\preplat\glynwate\glynpc.doe Page 3 Sanitary Sewer: The plan proposes the extension of an 8" sanitary sewer line from the existing line located on the north side of CSAH 82 at Fremont Avenue. The development will actually be served by parallel sewer lines. The main sewer line is located in Glynwater Trail on the west side of the site, to the park, and then runs through the park behind the townhouse units to Fremont Avenue. The second line is located on the east side of Glynwater Trail and flows from Spring Glen Circle west to the park, where it connects to the main sewer line. The reason this development is designed with the parallel lines is the fact that a single line would have to be about 45' deep in some locations. At this depth, it is more cost effective to rrm the parallel lines. Maintenance of a 45' deep sewer line is also difficult and expensive. Water Main: The plan proposes to extend an 8" water line from the existing service located in CSAH 82, down Glynwater and the other road right-of-ways to serve the units. There will be 4 service lines extended from the main in CSAH 82 to serve the units along Bayview Circle. Storm Sewer: The plan proposes two NURP ponds, one located on the east side of the site, just south and west of the Spring Glen Circle cul-de-sac, and the other located on the west side of the site, just south and east of Spring Glen Road. Storm water runoff is directed to these ponds through a series of catch basins and storm sewer located in the Glynwater Trail and Spring Glen Road. The developer is also proposing to direct runoff from Bayview Drive to the wetland to the south through a storm ceptor pipe. A storm ceptor is a pipe which filters the sediment and eliminates the need for a NURP pond. The use of this pipe must be approved by the Watershed district prior to approval. Landscal~in~/Tree Replacement:. The developer has submitted a landscaping plan which identifies a total of 206 new trees on the site. Most of the trees will be located in front of the units along the new road right-of-way. The plan also identifies several plantings and a berm adjacent to CSAH 82 to provide screening from the road. Finally, the plan identifies the two replacement trees required as part of the tree preservation plan. Sienaee: This proposal identifies 9 development signs. The Zoning Ordinance allows 2 freestanding subdivision identification signs at each principal entrance. The signs may not exceed 50 square feet in area, with a maximum of 2 sides. This development consists of 3 separate association, so it is probably reasonable to allow a total of 6 development signs, rather than the 9 proposed. The signs are within the allowable area. The plan, however, should be revised to identify where each type signs will be located. Phasine: Since not all of this site is located within the present MUSA, the development will be phased accordingly. The first phase will be that portion within the MUSA, and includes 82 units. There will be a temporary turnaround located at the westerly end of Glynwater Trail until the remaining area is added to the MUSA and is developed. ANALYSIS: 1:\98files\98subdiv\preplat\glynwate\glynpc.doc Zone Chance Reouest: The applicant is requesting a zone change to the R-2 district to allow for development of this site. The criteria for granting a zoning change include the following: 1. There was a mistake in the original zoning 2. Conditions have changed significantly since the current zoning was adopted. 3. The Comprehensive Plan has been amended. Any of these criteria can be used to evaluate a request for rezoning. The "Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan" for the City of Prior Lake, adopted in 1982, designated this area as "Agricultural". The A-1 and C-1 districts are appropriate for that designation. However, with the adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan in June, 1996, this area was added to the Municipal Urban Service Area and designated as R-L/MD. The R-2 district is an appropriate zoning district for the R-L/MD designation. Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat for this site, known as Glynwater, consists of 42.04 acres to be subdivided into 109 lots, parkland and an outlet. 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 appears the only way to avoid theses slopes is to eliminate buildings. It may also be necessary to relocate some of the utility lines to avoid 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. Conditional Use Permit Plan: The proposed CUP must be reviewed in accordance with the criteria found in Section 7.5(C) of the Zoning ordinance. Section 7.5(C) provides that a conditional use shall be approved if it is found to meet specific criteria. These criteria and the staff analysis of compliance with these criteria are set forth below. 1. The proposed use conforms to the district permitted and conditional use provisions and all general regulations of this Ordinance. The proposed use is consistent with the conditional use provisions for the R-2 Multiple Residential zoning district and conforms to all general regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (upon satisfaction of conditions). 2. The proposed use shall not involve any element or cause any conditions that may be dangerous, injurious, or noxious to any other property or persons, shall comply with the performance standards listed below. 1:\98files\98subdiv\preplat\glynwate\glynpc.doc Page 5 The proposed development is designed to provide safe access to adjacent roads, and is adequately screened from adjacent properties. 3. The proposed use shall be sited, oriented and landscaped to produce harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds adjacent to buildings and properties. The landscaping plan submitted with this proposal meets the provisions of the ordinance. Additional landscaping is provided to screen the development from CSAH 82. 4. The proposed use shall produce a total visual impression and environment which is consistent with the environment of the neighborhood. The size and types of buildings proposed are consistent with the adjacent development. 5. The proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic congestion within the neighborhood. The plan provides at least 2 parking spaces for each unit. In addition, in order to minimize traffic onto Fremont, the access is defined as a "right-in/right-out" turn, with a median. 6. The proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this Ordinance and shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation and the provisions of the R-2 district. The performance standards are set forth in Section 7.5(D) and relate to the following factors; · Fire protection · Electrical disturbance · Noise · Vibrations · Odors · Air pollution · Glare · Erosion · Water pollution. The proposed project is not expected to result in any of the nuisance factors set forth in the performance standards and is thus consistent with these standards. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed zone change request, the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use Permit. 1:\98files\98subdiv\preplat\glynwate\glynpc,doc Page 6 If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1. Change the name of Bayview Drive. ]"here is already a Bayview Circle in the street system. In addition, change the name of Spring Glen Road or Spring Glen Circle so there is only one Spring Glen. 2. Outiot B must be identified as Outlot `4. 3. Provide the following information on the Engineering Plans: a) Show all utilities in the profile view. b) Show size of all existing utilities in the area. c) Include insulation detail to be used on sanitary sewer. d) Provide calculations showing that the pavement section is adequate (see plate #501 in the Public }Forks Design Manual). e) Street grades within l OO feet of intersections cannot exceed 2.0O percent. JO Provide design and profiles for the median and the street improvements to Fremont. The CiO~ may be willing to share in the engineering costs for this design as per the City oversizing policy. g) Show the construction limits on the grading plans. The grading and installation of the sanitary sewer will impact the 20% slopes. h) Indicate on theplan areas where slopes are greater than 5:1. i) The wetland report indicates a wetland "water course" flowing south from basin B to basin `4. `4 road and grading is proposed over this water course. The wetland report must be revised to address the impact of this filling and grading on the water course. j) NURP ponds shah have 6:1 slopes below the NWL, and 4:1 slopes above the NWL. lc) Show the grading detail for the Ramble Walkout. There is a 10' grade difference for Lots 1-6, Block 1. l) Spot locations and elevations must be called out for all high points of emergency overflow swales. m) .4 notation should be added to the plan requiring periodic inspections under the NPDES permit. If 10 or more contiguous acres of exposed soil are draining to the same area, a temporary sedimentation basin is required under NPDES rules. n) If construction traffic will be allowed at the right-in/right-out off of Fremont, a rock construction entrance is required. o) The use of the storm ceptor must be approved by the Watershed District. Calculations to determine if the pipe is sized adequately to handle the flows must also be provided. l:\98files\98subdiv\preplat\glynwate\glynpe.doc Page 7 4. p) Consider revising the storm sewer layouts on sheets 8 and 16 to reduce the length of pipe needed to serve the project. q) Catch basin intercept calculations will be required before final plat approval. r) Set the outlet elevation for Pond 4 at the fiood storage level required for two back to back l OO year storms. s) The outlet for NURP #2 is 2. S feet lower than the elevation of t~etland Basin "A" (Pond 5). ~4dditional survey shots are required to verify the bottom elevations of YYetlands/Pond 4 and 5. 0 The stage/storage curve for Pond 5 should be checked, The area for elevation 902.1 should be 0.0 acres, and the area for 904 should be 1.5 acres. u) Continue to look at alternatives other than the parallel line to provide sanitary sewer. If the parallel lines are the best alternative, a heavy duO: trail to maintain the sewer in the park area is required. This trail and access must be shown on the plans. Define the easements in the common lot area to cover the appropriate areas; the easements should not cover the entire lot area~ .4n access permit from the Scott CounO~ Engineer is required for each location connecting to CS~4H 82. This permit must be supplied prior to final plat approval. The sanitary sewer crossing under CS~IH 82 must be bored and placed in a steel casing..4 utili~y permit will be required prior to installation. .4ny grading or utilitg work within the Coun(y right-of-way will require a permit prior to construction. Evidence of this permit must be submitted to the Ci~y prior to final plat approval. It should be noted that revised plans were submitted which may address some of these issues. However, these plans were not submitted in time to allow a detailed review. If the Conditional Use Permit is approved it should be subject to the following conditions: 1. Six identification signs will be permitted on the site. The signage plan must be revised to identify the locations of these signs, and to clarify the location of each O~pe of sign. If a sign is located adjacent to the park access on the east side of Glynwater Trail, no portion of the sign or fence is permitted in the parkland, 2. Theplan mustprovide a calculation showing the impervious surface, not including road right-of-way, on the portion of the site located within the Shoreland District. The impervious surface of the site in the Shoreland District may not exceed 30% of the site area, less right-of-way. 3. The plan must identify Phase I and Phase H of the development. The plan must also note that Phase II will not be allowed to develop until the property is included within the MUS/I, and services can be extended. 1:\98files\98subdiv\preplat\glynwate\glynpc.doc Page 8 4..4 letter of credit for the landscaping and tree replacement must be submitted prior to approval of the final plat documents. 5. The homeowner's association documents must be revised to include the correct legal descriptions for each association. These documents must be recorded with the final plat documents. 6. ~4 new set of plans, showing all of the revisions, must be submitted prior to final approval of the conditional use permit. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the Zone Change, the Preliminary Plat subject to the above listed conditions, and the Conditional Use Permit subject to the above listed condition. 2. Recommend denial of the request. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1. It may be appropriate, due to the number of outstanding engineering issues, to delay action on the preliminary plat until the major issues are addressed. ACTION REQUIRED: Since this request includes three separate applications, separate motions are required for each application. These include; 1. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Zone Change request from the A- l and C-1 districts to the R-2 district. 2. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat to be known as Glynwater, subject to the conditions listed in this report. 3. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Reduced Copy of Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat Plans 3. Developer's Narrative 4. Comments From Scott County Engineer 5. Comments from Ralph Teschner, Finance Director 1:\98files\98subdiv\pgplat\glynwate\gly~pc.doc Page 9 ZZZ zzz z z~z Z :::::: :::: ::: : ::::::::::::::::::: : ::: ::::: :: :::: :[ ii '1 -- L! '/ J r~TM, III /~/ .I JlJltl iii]Ii ~ IJllll Jlllllq Jilil~ll I ~.. JliltllliJlJiJllllilllglllljj§l§jJJllilJJll I LJ Jefferson Commons TOWNHOMES End Unit FUTURE BEDROOM 9x106 .... FUTURE %_ _,, FAMILY ROOM , 13 X 136 Ili;.[ '3~,: FUTURE,) ,~: ),. ',, ,~-.,8ATH~_ GARAGE 20×20 Lower Level DECK 10x10 DINING 11x10 S~XCK B~ : KITCHEN ,, 116x12 ,, BEDROOM 116x12 OPT. GA5 FIREPLACE & ENTERTAJNMENT CENTER LIVING 14X136 MASTER BEDROOM 13 X 156 Upper Level 423-4884 Modet Center 423-1179 Corporate Office (WE 'N~'MANN") Jefferson Commons TOWNHOMES Inside Unit FUTURE FAMILY ROOM 13x136 GARAGE 20 x 20 Lower Level (Opt. Plan--See End Unit [_zm,¢r L~,el Plan) SNACK BA~ DECK 10x10 DINING 11 × 10 LIVING 14 × 13 DN- BEDROOM 116x12 MASTER BEDROOM 13 × 15" Upper Level 423-4884 ModeZ Center 423-1179 Corporate Office F[oor plans and dimensions ate subject to WINSLOW GREEN LOWER COACH HOMES MASTER BEDROOM 126x 14 BEDROOM , 10' x 12 4',. DECK 10X8 GREAT ROOM 17x18 DINING 10x12 GARAGE 18x22 MAIN LEVEL FUTURE FAMILY ROOM 18 x 17" STORAGE LOWER LEVEL FUTURE BEDROOM ':- 10X14 ':' ?.. *::. STORAGE CON~'I HOME STORAGE UNEXCAVATED 423-4884 Model Center 423-t179 Corporate Office WINSLOW GREEN UPPER COACH HOMES DECK 13x10 DINING 10x9 KITCHEN 12x9 FOYER ON BEDROOM 14 x 12" STANDARD FLOOR PLAN GREAT ROOM 24" x 16 WALK-IN CLOSET MASTER BEDROOM 17"x 13 BEDROOM 10~x12 PORCH 13x10 DINING 12x9 KITCHEN 12x9 OPTIONAL FLOOR PLAN GREAT ROOM 24~ x 16 LN.J(-IN CLOSET MASTER BEDROOM 17"x 13 BEDROOM 14X12" BEDROOM 10" x 12 423-4884 Model Center 423-1179 Corporate Office WENSMAN Floor plans and dimensions are subicct to change wilhout notice. ~Maple FUTURE BEDROOM ~ ~ FUTURE, s BEDROOMx ~4 PATIO FAMILY ROOM 24 x 20 (~),~ STORAGE LOWER LEVEL Dimensions are approximate. Builder reserves Ihe right la alter plans, [eatures and speci[icafians withaul nafice. GARAGE 22xZ2 MAIN LEVEL Signature Townhomes By Wens~.~a~_~.' Model 431-1939 Office 423-1179 Cardinal Townhomes FAMILY ROOM BEDROOM 14~ × 27* lPX13 STORAGE Standard End Unit RJ'TURE BEDROOM 11 x 15 STORAGE LOWER LEVEL MASTER BEDROOM 12x15 DECK 12x8 SOLARIUM ~ DINETTE LN1NG 12 X 14" 14 X 12 KITCHEN 13x 11'  I DINING 12~ x 16' DEN' 11 x 11' MAIN LEVEL GARAGE 21 x 21' NSMA'NN ) Model 431-1939 Office 423-1179 E~lerier j~ersp~YeS, fleor pram end ~mem/ens s~ow~ ~'e for illush'al~Ye purpmes only, subj~ to dKmge WJlNOU~ notice. Hease ~ our roles (onsuham for detmts.© Wensmafln Homes, Inc. 1997. All ilo~. plans and penp~iYes are ~u~lder's exdus~Ye properly. Copyright infdngemenl couN resuh i~ legal proseculian under JedetaJ copydghl I~. weOfiole lfimWoodlI Standard Inside Unit II BEDROOM i T R FUTURE L",_. %1 E^2J~%M B~DROOM ~TO~E SOLARIUM L GREAT ROOM 17x15 BEDROOM MAIN LEVEL GARAGE MASTER BEDROOM LOWER LEVEL Solarium Townhomes By YVensmalm Model 431-1939 OfFice 423-1179 © Wensmann I~omes, Inc. ]995 Dimensions are approximate. Builder reserves the righl lo alter All fl~ar plans and devotions are be exdudve properly of Wensmann Hames, Inc. plans, fealures end specifJcalJoe$ wilhaul notice. Copyright [nfringemem could result in legal prosecution under [ederaJ copyflghl Jaw. I]unt sWood . ?ownhon eS LEVEL II LEVEL I Model 431.1939 Office 423-1179 DECK 14x10 SOLARIUM 21 X 14 LIVING ROOM 21 × 14 FOYER GARAGE 22 x 22 FUTURE ,, FUTURE BEDROOM " REC ROOM 12'x13 " 28x13 UTILITY ,, e~. - .~ ~ STORAGE _ -:- "', ........ :;'! I~:""~ ~'~ LEVEL Ill NSMANNfl bfetiot perspectives, floe/pbns and dlmen~or~ s~ow~ ore for i]lusit alive purpose ~y, subject fo change wilhauf flarke. Moose see our sales consullonl for defaOs. © Wensmeen Home, ]nc 1997. MI [loot plans offal per~edive are builder's exclusive properl'f. Cop'pighf infthgement could tesulf in legal prosecution under fe'~etal copytighl law. ,Oak - Townhomes RJTURE BEDROOM .... :"'" '" '" fi"",¢' FUTURE BEDROOM 14×12 I FAMILY ROOM 21x28 STORAGE KITCHEN SOLARIUM ~ 14x17 LIVING DINING tSx~3 / DEN GARAGE __ , J MAIN LEVEL UNEXCAVATED LOWER LEVEL Model 43t-1939 Office 423-1179 [xterior petspedive% float glans and dimensions sho~m are for [llustrafi~e purp~ only, subied to change w~thaut notke. [~e~ set out sa[es cansultanl Jar ~elalls. © Wensmaml )~omes, Inc. 1997. ~ floor plans and per~ives are builder's exdusiYe properi'f. GlpyTighl in~ringernenS could ~esull ~ legal gtose{utian undo* [edetal copyrighl law. Aspen Btmt rs ood MAIN LEVEL SOLARIUM 20x13 GARAGE 2Ox24 DEN Model 431-1939 Office 423-1179 Signature Townhomes By Wensmann © Wensmgnn Homes, Inc. 1995 All fleer pJo~ and elevalions ate the exdu~ive property of Wen,mann Home, lflc, Cop'/righlin fringemenl could resuh in legal prose~ion under f~e~al copyright Jaw. UPPER LEVEL J ~.~ ~,~n~. ~, ~O,U, Sx?20u PATIO ?1 FUTURE BEDROOM FAMILY ROOM ,,"= .-_? Z ...... f-I : · ~ra 1~ STORAGE LOWER LEVEL Dimensions are approximate. Builder reserves the right Ia alter plans, [ealures and specifications wilhoul halite. Project Narrative for Glynwater January 21,1998 l-Zouing The site is currently zoned agricultural. Enclosed with this application is a rezonlng application to R-2 which is consistent with Prior Lake's current comprehensive plan designation. 2-Building Styles The proposed development consists of three building styles (See attached floor plans). Townhomes (split entry), Twin homes and Coach homes. Prices will range from $115,000-$350,000 with the average approx. $180,000. 3-Density The proposed development has 122 units on 41.57 acres. Densities are within the allowable limits for R-2 zoning and are also within densities in the governing shoreline districts that apply. 4- Design Features The site maximizes the use of the land away from the shorelines. Public streets service the site and a proposed trail system winds through the entire development. Developer will be dedicating approx. 11.69 as parkland of which 4.95 acres are usable and the balance wetlands and ponds. The developer does not plan to construct the trail system as part of this development it is shown for schematic reference only. The trail would be constructed separately as a Park & Recreation Dept. project. 5o Architecture Building designs have been created to maximize the natural terrain. Extensive landscaping along Co. 82 and a brick & wrought iron fence will accentuate the development. A community entry monument is plarmed just offthe main Co. 82 entrance. The proposed trail system will provide enjoyment for passive recreation. Side wall are proposed only at the Co. 82 entrances until they meet with the proposed trail system. 6-Covenants Protective covenants for the three townhome communities will be filed to provide continuity and control over the esthetics of the communities. Proposed documents are enclosed for city review and approval. 7-Utilities The development will be serviced with underground utilities. Gas meters will be located on the fronts on the homes with electrical services in the rear. The Townhomes and Twin homes will have individual water services and the coach homes will have one service per building. Engineering Project Summary for Glynwater in Prior Lake I. Description of Project The site is approximately 45 acres located south of Scott County Road 82 and west of Fremont Avenue, in the City of Prior Lake. The subject site is in the NE I/4, SW 1/4 of Section 34, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. The proposed project includes the grading, utility and street construction for 122 single family townhomes, and condominiums. The grading for the site will occur at one time with the streets and utilities constructed in two phases. The first phase is the eastern portion of the site up to the existing MUSA line to the west. The second phase will be the remainder of the site once it is brought within the City of Prior Lakes MUSA boundary. II. Project Manager The project manager and project engineer shall be responsible for various aspects of the construction and are as follows: Project Manaeer Terry Wensmann/'}~l~l& Wensmann Realty,~'~.~' 3312 151s~ Street West Rosemount, Mn 55068 423-1179 Project Engineer Nicholas Polta Pioneer Engineering 2422 Enterprise Drive Mendota Heights, Mn 55124 681-1914 III. Existing Site Conditions The site is currently undeveloped. The northern portion of the site is primarily cultivated cropland and upland forest. The sothern portion of the site is upland and lowland forest, wet meadow and shallow marsh. The southern parcel boundary follows a watercourse (seasonal flooded creek) that flows east connecting the two large basin portions of Wetland A with Prior Lake. A second basin ( Wetland B ) drains south into the western portion of Wetland A. Much of the site shows signs of disturbance particularily in the cultivated upland areas. The surrounding land uses are residential to the south, east, and northeast. North and west are in agricultural uses. IV. Soils and Slopes The United States Department of Agricultures Soil Survey identifies the onsite soils are primarily Hayden Series these soils are described as good for embankment and foundations. The lowlands and wetlands contain peat and Glencoe series soils that are not suitable for constructiom these areas will be avoided during construction. Comprehensive soil testing was performed onsite by Maxim Technologies (report inclosed), there analysis substantiates the suitability of the onsite soils for the construction purposes of the development. Topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled onsite to provide for six (6) inches of repsread across all turf areas after completed grading. The site has 5.33 acres of slopes in excess of 20 percent (%). These slopes are clustered near the wetlands and appear to have been disturbed or created during the construction of Co. Rd. 82 and Fremont Avenue. The construction of the project will disturb 1,64 acres (30.69%) of these slopes. Approximately 0.73 acres of this disturbance will occur in excavation areas ( where the slopes are flattened at the top for the construction of streets and building pads, matching back in further down the slope), these areas pose little concern in construction as long as the underlying soils are suitable for construction. During construction a geotechnical engineer will be onsite inspecting soil conditions and providing analysis of the soils. The remaining 0.91 acres of disturbed slopes are in embankment areas. In these areas unsuitable slope material will be removed and replaced with soils that can bear the load of streets and building footings. The embankment will be 'keyed' into the existing slopes and built up in layers to prevent embankment slipping over the existing slopes causing failure. This is standard construction practise and is further outlined in the Soils Report prepared by Maxim technologies. V. Erosion Control Measures Approved best management practices (BMP) of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as stipulated in Protecting Water Oualitv in Urban Areas shall be followed. These include but are not limited to the following: All denuded and stockpile areas shall not have a slope greater than 3:1 All disturbed area shall receive temporary seed, mulch and disc anchoring if no significant grading is to occur for 30 days. All finished grade area shall be seeded mulched and anchored within 14 days after complete grading. A seed mixture designed for the soil characteristics and area plantings shall be approved by r?,e City Eng:,nee:. A separate cool seed mixture will be designed for dormant seed planting in the fail. Peak Discharge from all storm sewers shall not exceed the original peak discharge from the watershed. All storm sewer outlets shall have rip rap outlets designed to City Standards. Ail Storm Sewer outlets shalI not have discharges greater than 4 feet per second. Gravel construction entrances and a street sweeping program shall be used to ensure minimal soil is removed from the site. Inlet protection for storm sewer shall be implemented until streets are paved and turf is established. Erosion control fences shall be installed around all wetlands and water quality ponds until area plantings have been established. At which time the erosion control fence shall be moved to the edge of the structure setback. Water quality ponds will be used as temporary sedimentation basin during construction. The grading contractor is responsible for maintaining drainage to the ponds and between the ponds and wetlands, by the use of perforated stand pipes. VII. Storm Water Management The purpose of storm water managemen: is to insure that the proposed development will not create adverse conditions, in the form of increased nutrient load or increased peak flows down stream of the proposed project. To assess that impact of the project on the existing drainage area a preliminary storm water model (HydroCAD) is utilized to approximate the existing and proposed peak flows generated for the site. The Walker PondSiz model created the criteria for the wet detention volume necessary to treat storm water from this development. These models are summarized below in Table i. VIII. Wetland Delineation Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. have prepared a detailed Wetland Delineation Plan for the subject property. IX. Traffic Control The contractor is responsible to provide to the City of Prior Lake and the Scott County Highway Department a detailed traffic control/sign plan for construction of turn lanes on Co. Rd. 82 and Fremon: Avenue. XI. Construction Sequencing The following is a rcu_*h schedule for construction, contingent upon the approval of the project by all pertinent regulatory agencies: Install perimeter erosion control fence, erosion control fence around wetlands and gravel construction entrances. April Ist Ih Clear and grub site. April 7~' llh Construct permanent sediment ponds and temporary pond outlets per Grading Plan. April 28~h IV. Begin Mass grading - phase one and two. May 1~t V. Respread topsoil, mulch and disc anchor with appropriate seed mixture. July 1~ VI. Begin construction of utilities and streets - phase one. July 1~t VII. End construction of utilities and streets - phase one. September 1~' VIII. Begin construction of utilities and streets - phase two. Anticipated April 1s', after brought into MUSA. PlO.NEE .R eng neemng Ms. Kelly Murray Wensmann Realty 3312 151s' Street West Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Re: Glynwater P.E. # 97139 Ms. Murray: Civil Engineers · Land Planners · Land Surveyors · Landscape Architects 1~-~ 8 199~ February 17, 1998 The following is in response to the City of Prior Lakes comments dated February 2, 1998. Due to time restraints some of the items are not completed and others are partially completed. Work will progress on the remaining items with additional input from City staff. Sanitary Sewer and Watertnain 1. The grading plan is adjusted to provide at least 5' of cover with an average of 7'. 2. Utility crossings will be shown in profile on the final construction plans. I am confident their are no insurmountable conflicts. 3. SDR 26 sanitary sewer pipe is used .below 16 feet. 4. Utility Lines are shown in profile for Bushmill Road now Spring Glen Road. 5. Size of existing utilities is shown. 6. Insulation of sanitary sewer with depths of less than 7' will be consistent with the insulation detail for watermain shown in the detail plates. 7. Final alignment of sanitary sewer is subject to change, depending on research into the use of the lift station on Fremont Avenue and the Sioux Communities installation of a new trunk sanitary sewer line. Pl,lt 1. 2. Street right-of-way width are shown. All easements are shown. Easements are subject to change, due to utility and ponding alignment changes. The final easements will not be f'ded until the final plat. 2422 Enterprise Drive · Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 · (612) 681-1914 · Fax 681-9488 625 Highway 10 N.E. · Blaine, Minnesota 55434 · (612) 783-1880 · Fax 783-1883 Streets Gradine 1. 2. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. Typical street section has been changed to match City detail Plate. Maxim Technologies (Geotechnical Engineers) are reviewing the soil samples from the site to determine the adequacy of the proposed pavement section. The calculations will be available prior to City Council action. Due to time constraints, the street grades within 100' of intersections have not been reduced to 2.00%. I have reviewed the intersections and made the changes but ran out of time to redraft them. A median in Fremont Avenue has been added to restrict left turn movements from the Glynwater addition. I will be working with City staff to finalize improvements to Fremont Avenue. Additional plans will be provided once the details are worked out. NWL and HWL are shown for ponds and wetlands. Due to time constraints the existing grade contours north of the County Road could not be shown. They will be added for final submittal. Ponds and Wetland are labeled for identification. Heavy duty silt fence is specified around wetlands. Silt fence around ponds will be added later. The impact to steep slopes has been minimized. The grading plan shows all slopes greater than 20%. Wood fiber blanket is specified for created slopes greater then 3:1. The wetland "water cours4' is shown from wetland basin B to basin A. The installation of the road over the watercourse will require the filling of approximately 200 s.f. of wetland. Due to time constraints the NURP ponds have not been redesigned to show the City standard slopes. The NURP ponds are shown much larger than are required. The slope changes will not effect the sites ability to treat its stormwater. Since the ponds were not redrawn lots 34-37, block 2 still do not meet setback requirements. This will be change when the ponds are redrawn. Lots 39 and 40 house pad designation changed. 12. Grading detail for condominium buildings is shown with a 10' grade difference. 13. Pond 2 was deleted with a Cretex Stormcepter proposed in its place. It is our understanding that City staff approved this February 12, 1998. We still need to convince the watershed district. 14. See 1 15. Spot elevations for overflows wiil be added when the ponds are redrawn. 16. A copy of the NPDES permit is provided in the Specifications placing the responsibility of the permit on the general contractor. 17. Construction traffic will not use Fremont Avenue. Storm Sewer 1. Due to time constraints, additional field work was not performed. 2. Storm sewer layouts were revised at the Cities direction. 3. Catch basin intercept calculations will be provided at final plat. 4. The stormwater management plan .will be updated once the ponds are redrawn. At that time, the elevation of Pond 4 under two 100 year storms can be determined. 5. Pond 2 was eliminated. 6. Due to time constraints addition field work was not performed. This information will be gathered at a later date. 7. The stage storage information for pond 5 appears correct. 8. Sump catch basin details are included in the City details sheets 20-21. If you have any questions or require any further information please feel free to call. PIONEER ENGINEERING P.A. Nicholas Polta cc: Jane Kansier, City of Prior Lake SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DIVISION HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 (612) 496-8346 BRADLEY J. LARSON ASSOCIATE ADMINISTR~.TOR Fax: (612) 496-8365 January 27, 1998 Ms. Jane Kansier City of Prior Lake 16000 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake,/YIN 55372 Subject: Preliminary Plat of Glynwater in Prior Lake - south of CSAH 82 Dear Ms. Kansier: We have reviewed the preliminary plat and preliminary construction plans dated 1-19-98 for Glynwate~ as it relates to Highway Department issues and offer the following comments or concerns: Conditions of Approval * The existing 75' rightIOf-way as shown is adequate. Provide an analysis of the projected traffic to be generated by this development. Provide drainage calculations for any drainage entering the County right-of-way with the final plat submittal. This should include the existing and proposed conditions and a summary denoting any change. Show where the wetland in Block 2 outlets. · An access permit will be required for each location connecting to CSAH 82. The sanitary sewer crossing under CSAH 82 will need to bored and p!aced in a steel casing. A utility permit will be required prior to installation. The maximum a[Io~vable profile grade is 2% for the first 100 feet from the outside edge of County Highway shoulder. Your easterly access with CSAH 82 shows a 2.25% grade from the center of CSAH 82, and should be revised. The westerly access shows 2%, however it is not clear if that matches with the edge of shoulder or again with centerline of CSAH 82. signing plan for the CSAH 82 turnlane must be done in accordance with MMUTCD and be approved by Scott County prior to work. A work within R/M/permit must also be acquired prior to work. We request the opportunity to review the final plat and construction plans. An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer Jane Kansier G lynwater Page 2 General Comments * The right turn lanes as shown are acceptable. No berming, landscaping, ponding, curb & gutter, sidewalk, or signing will be allowed within the County right-of-way. Any grading or utility work required within the County right-of-way will require a permit prior to the work commencing. A temporary rock pad is required on the internal streets connecting to CSAH 82 to prevent dirt from being tracked onto CSAH 82 during the grading operation. Sweeping of CSAH 82 shall be done as required by the County. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact us if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Scott Merkley - County Transportation Manager Greg Ilkka - City of Prior Lake Nick Polta - Pioneer Engineering m:~adm\review\plat.doc INTEROFI01CE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: PLANNING/ENGINEERING Ralph Teschner Glynwater (assessment/fee review) January 29, 1998 A 45 acre parcel in Section 34-115-22 (PIN #25 934 017 0) is proposed to be developed as Glynwater. The property currently is NOT served w/th municipal sewer and water utilities. At the time municipal utilities become available the subdivision will be subject to the following City charges: Stormwater Management Fee Collector Street Fee Trunk Sewer & Water Fee Lateral Sewer & Water Charge 16.8 cents/sq.ft. $1500.00/acre $3500.00/acre 150' ~ $60.00/ff The application of these City charges would generate the following costs to the developer based upon a net lot area calculation of 28.13 acres of townhouse units (1,225,548 sq. ft.) as provided within the site data summary sheet of the preliminary plat description: Lateral Sewer & Water Charge: 150' @ $60.00/ff = $9,000.00: Trunk Sewer & Water Charge: 28.13 acres @ $3500.00/ac = $98,455.00 Storm Water Management Fee: 1,225,548 sf@ 16.8/sf= $205,892.00 Collector Street Fee: 28.13 acres ~ $1500.00/ac -- $42,195.00 These charges represent an approximate cost of $2938.00 per lot for the 121 proposed townhouse units within Glynwater. Assuming the initial net lot area of the preliminary plat does not change, the above referenced storm water, collector street, trunk and lateral sewer and water charges would be determined and collected within the context of a developer's agreement for the construction of utility improvements at the time of final plat approval. There are no other outstanding special assessments currently certified against the property. Also, the tax status of the property is current with no outstanding delinquencies. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 02/19/1BBB 11:49 6128840990 H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT 10315 Thomas Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431-3315 (612) 884-5037 (612) 884-0990 Fax RALPH HEUSCHELE ATTY PAGE 02 February 19, 1998 By FAX and by U. S. Mail FAX No. 447-4245 Jane Kansier City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Windsong on the Lake 3'4 Addition Dear Ms. Kansier: In reviewing the narrative of our application, I find that we have an error in the last paragraph. The number of additional boat slips should be 11, not 15. I also note that them is no specific request for additional boat slips in this application. Is this needed? The actual permit comes from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Ralph PLANNING REPORT AGENDAITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 5A CONSIDER REARYARDSETBACKVARIANCEFOR PROPERTY ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, FENCE HEIGHT, AND BERM SLOPE FOR BURDICK PROPERTIES, CaseFile#97-132 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE AND14180 COMMERCE AVENUE JENNITOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO FEBRUARY23,1998 INTRODUCTION: On January 12, 1998 the Planning Commission heard the request for variances on the respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances relate to two existing commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. 14180 Commerce Avenue was built in 1994 and 14162 Commerce Avenue was built in 1997. The following variances are being applied for at the respective addresses: 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and L:\97 FILES\97VAR\97-132~97132PC3.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 A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash enclosure; and A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. The Planning Commission continued the hearing and requested staff to supply additional information. On January 26, 1998 the Planning Commission was provided additional information as requested. The item was continued to February 23, 1998 to allow the applicant sufficient time to submit a revised landscape plan and to place posts in the field indicating top of berm and fence location. This has been completed. The applicant has submitted full size copies of a landscape plan and color photographs of the proposed screening. Ordinance Requirement Buildin~l#3 Building #2 1 Tree per 40' site perimeter 18 Trees Required 27 Trees Required 10% Oversized 2 Oversized 3 Oversized Max 25% Deciduous 5 Max 7 Max Min 25% Coniferous 5 Min 7 Min Applicant Proposes Building #3 Building #2 Total Trees 31 Trees 31 Trees 10% Oversized 4 Oversized 29 Oversized Max 25% Deciduous 5 Deciduous 3 Deciduous Min 25% Coniferous 26 Coniferous 28 Coniferous The proposed landscape plan includes required irrigation and 151 shrubs. While the ordinance does not require a specific number of shrubs, they must be planted to meet certain criteria such as screening. The City has a letter of credit on file to insure the landscaping plan is complied with and all plantings survive one winter. The proposed landscape plan exceeds the City's minimum requirements as stated in the landscape ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\97132PC3.DOC Page 2 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: As stated in the staff report dated January 12, 1998, staff has concluded the hardship criteria have been met, considering the structures are existing and both sites are at maximum build out with respect to parking and setbacks. Considering that the trash enclosure is located in the drainage and utility easement, staff recommends a "Use of Public Easement" agreement be signed and recorded by the applicant (as amended in Resolution 98-01 PC). Resolution 98-01 PC and 98-02 PC include the condition that the fence be continuous with no breaks, the landscaping and screening be completed as in revised plans and that grading be completed as previously approved. Due to lack of pertinent information the variance request to berm slope should be denied. The applicant is proposing to construct a 6' high fence. The applicant has verbally stated their intent to withdraw the variance request for an 8' fence, however, staff has not received this request in writing. The Planning Commission should also deny this request based on lack of hardship if a written request for withdrawal is not received. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolutions 98-01PC and 98-02PC and a separate motion denying the variance request to slope of berm and fence height due to lack of information and lack of hardship respectively. L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\97132PC3.DOC Page 3 KELLY LAW OFFICES Established 1948 MARK W. KELLY WILLIAM F. KELLY (1922-1995) February 12, 1998 351 SECOND STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 (612) 474-5977 FAX 474-9575 Ms. Jennl Tovar City Planner City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 BY FAX: 447-4245 Re: 14180 Commerce Avenue (Burdick Building No. 2) Dear Ms. Tovar: My client's landscap9 architect, Eldon Hugelen, will be submitting tomorrow a landscape plan, together with photographs as requested. I am enclosing herewlth a copy of a diagram prepared by Jacobson Engineers and Surveyors, 8500 210th Street West, Lakeville, MN 55044 at the request of my client. The illustration of shots and topography behind Building No. 2, together with a table of shots is similar to information prepared by the City. We hope this completes the entire plcture for the Planning Commission and City Staff. The string line now in place behind Building 2 and 3 illustrates a six-foot fence atop berm as proposed. The berm behind Building No. 2 would be increased to a four-foot berm as originally discussed at the time of the buildlng's construction In 1994. The berm proposed for Building No. 3 is projected to be a 2 to I ratio and would to be built to the same height as the berm or landscaping that was at that location prior to construction. Photographs taken between the Schroeder and Herman residences and Herman and Mix residences suggest that a fence atop the berm would shield from view all of the brown brick of the building and leave open to view the blonde facia and mansard roof. Given the two-story construction of the Herman and Mix residences, it is not possible to shield their upper levels from a view of the building in the same manner that screening can shield single story residences which are more typical behind Building No,. 2 and 3. KELLY LAW OFFICES -2- We stand open to answer anY questions you may have. Sincerely, Mark W. Kelly MWl//tas RESOLUTION 98-01PC A 2.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 57.30 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR EXISTING BUILDING AND; A 43.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 16.3 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR AN EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE FOR BURDICK PROPERTIES. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS Burdick Properties has applied for variances fi.om Section 5-4-1, 5-4-1 E, and 5-5-10 H and 5-5-11 E of the City Code on property located in the B-1 (Limited Business) District at the following location, to wit; 14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #97-132 and held hearings thereon on January 12, 1998 and February 23, 1998. The hearing was continued to February 23, 1998 to gather more information. The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for variances and requested additional information for Case #97-132 and held a continued hearing on January 26, 1998 and February 23, 1998. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The structure on the lot exists and the lot is built to capacity in terms of building setbacks and parking. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447~4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The granting of the variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property fight of the applicant. The variances will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as no reasonable altematives exist. The contents of Planning Case 97-132 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code this variance will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variance has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following variances for 14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN, as shown in Exhibit D; 1. A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building. A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash enclosure. The approval of the variances is contingent upon the following conditions: 1. A "Use of Public Easement" document be signed and recorded by the applicant as part of the variance approving the trash enclosure on the drainage and utility easement. 2. A continuous 6' high privacy fence be installed on the berm on the west side of the property. 3. Landscaping be completed as in attached Exhibit G "Revised Landscape Plan" dated February 9, 1998. 4. Screening and grading be completed as in attached Exhibit H "Rear Lot Sections and Elevations" dated February 9, 1998. 5. Grading be completed as in attached Exhibit J "Landscape Plan" dated November 4, 1994. The plan indicates a minimum 4 foot high berm (above parking lot elevation) located between parking and adjacent residential property. 6. A certified copy of the variance shall be filed with the County Recorder of Scott County by the applicant within 60 days of granting of this variance or by March 27, l:\97var\97-132\98-01 PCre.doc 2 1998. A copy of the recorded resolution shall be delivered to the Zoning Officer as evidence of satisfying this requirement. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on February 23, 1998. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director l:\97var\97-132\98-01 PCre.doc 3 DELMAR H SCHWANZ EXHIBIT I., 40 feet RESOLUTION 98-02PC A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 58.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR EXISTING BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Burdick Properties has applied for variances from Section 5-4-1, 5-4-1 E, and 5-5-10 H and 5-5-I 1 E of the City Code on property located in the B-1 (Limited Business) District at the following location, to wit; 14162 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN; The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #97-132 and held hearings thereon on January 12, 1998 and January 26, 1998. The hearing was continued to February 23, 1998 to gather more information. The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for variances and requested additional information for Case #97-132 and held a continued hearing on January 26, 1998 and then on February 23, 1998. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The structures on the lot exists and the lot is built to capacity in terms of setbacks and parking. The granting of the variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants, and is necessa~ to alleviate demonstrable hardship as no reasonable alternatives exist. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372~1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The contents of Planning Case 97-132 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code this variance will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variance has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following variances for 14162 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block I, James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN, as shown in Exhibit B; 1. A resolution approving a 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building. The approval of the variances is contingent upon the following conditions: 1. A continuous 6' high privacy fence be installed on the berm on the west side of the property. 2. Landscaping be completed as in attached Exhibit G "Revised Landscape Plan" dated February 9, 1998. 3. Screening and grading be completed as in attached Exhibit H "Rear Lot Sections and Elevations" dated February 9, 1998. 4. Berm height on westem portion of lot (adjacent to residential) be completed as in attached Exhibit I "Grading and Drainage Plan" dated June 12, 1997. A certified copy of the variance shall be filed with the County Recorder of Scott County by the applicant within 60 days of granting of this variance or by March 27, 1998. A copy of the recorded resolution shall be delivered to the Zoning Officer as evidence of satisfying this requirement. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on February 23, 1998. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\98-02PC.DOC 2 EXHIBIT B DELMAR H. SCHWANZ SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE jJ Ij A v e, OFFICE BUtLDING //3 revJ sed ELDON HUGELEN commerce Ave. at Highway 13 Landscape Plan Prior Lake Minnesota DICK OFFICE BUILDING # 3 -- merce Ave. at Highway 13 r' Lake Minnesota Rear Lot Sections &Elevotion WAT£R AND UTILI?Y T Z ITER SHRUBS TREES ~,-~ ~-~. 6.10 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: (Ord. 95-05) Purpose: The purpose of this ordinance is to establish performance standards and minimum requirements for landscaping, buffering, and screening, that will enhance the visual environmental, and aesthetic character of property and site development within the City. The City Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council, will utilize these standards in the review and evaluation of subdivision and site plans and development proposals. The objectives of these requirements are to establish and maintain forestation of the City; to provide appropriate ground cover vegetation for controlled soil erosion; to preserve and enhance, when necessary, the natural environment, particularly in instances where the natural environment is disturbed during the course of development; and to establish standards for utilization of naturaf and other materials to achieve desired screening, buffering, and landscaping. This ordinance sets forth minimum requirements for landscaping, and reforestation and technical limitations to assure that the result is consistent with reasonable maintenance requirements on a long-term basis and to assure that the results provide landscape amenities to the urban environment. This ordinance is intended to provide standards that allow flexibility in design and individual site needs. Designers are encouraged to utilize a variety of site landscape elements (i.e.; trees, shrubs, ground covers, flowers, berms and ground form, fences, walls, existing topography and vegetation, artforms, and other similar items), in creative ways that are aesthetically pleasing yet functional where required. Plan Review Standard: Plan review by the City Planning Department will include such items as: choice of materials, especially plantings, to determine if they ere functionally appropriate for the intended purpose; hardiness; disease-resistance; compatible choice and mix of materials: do materials complement and/or provide pleasing contrast to on-site and off-site conditions to maintain interest; and other issues as site appropriate. Specific site plans may be required to go beyond the minimum requirements to meet the purpose and objectives of this ordinance due to unique or exceptional circumstances and conditions which are existing or proposed. Application: This ordinance applies to all proposed business, industrial, multi-family residential (projects of 3 or more dwelling unit~ per building), public and institutional uses as may be permitted or conditional within their respective zoning districts. This applies to all new construction within all zoning districts. Existing uses shall also comply with this ordinance (except as exempted in Section (E 5) when a building permit is issued for their expansion. Exceptions include additions in which the ground building footprints in total are under 10% of the existing structures gross floor area or 4000 square feet, whichever is less. The Downtown Redevelopment District as defined by City Council Resolution No. 85-07 shall be exempt from this ordinance. General Provisions and Landscape Requirements: To help assure the best possible results, plans must be prepared and certified by a Registered Landscape Architect in the State of Minnesota for: a) business, industrial public and institutional development projects with sites over 20,000 square feet'or gross building area of 4,000 square feet or more, whichever is less~, Section 6, Page 6 b) multi4amily residential projects of 8 or more dwelling units per building. Projects smaller than those identified above shall be prepared by either a Registered Landscape Architect or a professional site planner with educational training or work experience in site analysis and landscape plan preparation. The quantity of plant materials shown on the landscape plans of proposed developments shall meet or exceed the minimums as defined herein. The City requires landscape treatment of the whole site to include the following elements: a) b) c) d) The site perimeter. The "entry" focal area(s) of a development (i.e., major entity drives, corner areas, signage locations, and other similar focal points). The parking lot landscape. Screening of mechanical equipment, exterior storage, loading docks, trash storage, or visual clutter es identified by the City in the plan review process, The plant materials used must meet or exceed the City standards of size and specie in order to qualify for credit towards the landscape requirement. Additional plant materials smaller than required herein may be appropriate and necessary to achieve the design effect. Preservation of existing vegetation on site, if it can successfully be incorporated into the landscape plan, is encouraged and will be credited toward the landscape requirement. Existing plant matedal must meet or exceed the City standard in order to qualify for a one to one substitution credit. Plantings at street intersections shall not block visibility within a clear view triangle. Plantings shall not interfere with drainage patterns, create unreasonable conflict with utilities (i.e., frequent pruning near overhead power lines, etc.) or restrict access to any utilities. Landscape coverage shall be defined as all ground areas surrounding the principal building and accessory buildings which are not garden areas, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks or patios. All ground areas shall be landscaped with grass, shrubs, trees or other approved ornamental landscape material. Calculation of Requirements, Credits and Sizes: The planting requirement shall be the sum of the following separate requirements. These formulas are only intended as a method to generate a quantitative performance level and not a design instruction. Creativity of design is encouraged to provide specific solutions. a) Perimeter Tree Calculation: Business/Industrial/Public/Institutional sites shall contain, at a minimum, the greater of: 1. 1 tree required per 40' of site perimeter, or 2. 1 tree per 1000 square feet of gross building area. Multi-residential sites shall contain, at a minimum, the greater of: 1. 1 tree per dwelling unit, or 2. I tree required per 40' of site perimeter. b) Entry Plantings: Each "entry" and focal area. (see Section D 3b), of a development shall be treate~J with landscape development (trees, shrubs, etc.). No numerical requirement of plants is provided, but the Section 6, Page 7 landscape plan shall reflect the proposed treatment. Trees required on the perimeter calculation are not applicable to this design feature. c) Parking Lot Landscape: As identified in Section (F) 'i - 5, parking lot islands and screening shall be provided. No numerical requirement of plants is provided, but use of canopy trees to provide s~ade and shrubs to soften the internal sight lines and screen small storage areas is required. d) Other Screening: As identified in Section (G) other screening shall be provided. No numerical requirement of plants is provided. The perimeter tree planting requirement may be used to provide trees for this purpose, but their effectiveness shall be as described in Section (F)4.b). Plant Sizes: Plants provided by the developer as credit for meeting the landscape requirement shall meet the following size criteria: a) b) c) d) Deciduous Canopy Trees: 2 1/2" caliper B & B (at 6" above ground). Coniferous Trees: 6' high B & B Others: 1. Ornamental or half trees: 1 3/4" caliper B & B (can substitute for canopy trees at a ratio of 2 ornamental/half trees for 1 canopy tree). 2. Other shrubs: No minimum, except that they must meet the stated purpose (screening, etc.). Ali plantings shall be appropriate to the hardiness zone and physical characteristics of the site. They shall conform to the size and quality standards in the most current edition of the American Standard for Nursery Stock as published by the American Association of Nurserymen. e) Ali deciduous trees proposed to meet the minimum requirements shall be long-lived, hardwood species. A list of desirable and prohibited plant material species is incorporated in this ordinance and will be maintained and kept on file with the City Planning Department. f) The complement of trees fulfilling the minimum requirements shall typically not be less than 25% deciduous and not less than 25% coniferous to maintain a mix of plant types. Any proposed modification to this requirement will consider the site specific design solution if site conditions are deemed appropriate and other functional requirements (screening, etc.) are met. g) installation will be in accordance with professional horticultural standards as established in the most current edition of the Landscape Construction Reference Manual as published by thb American Nursery and Landscape Association. Credits for Existing Materials: The developer may request credit for plant materials preserved on site provided the developer has demonstrated that the plant material has been accurately identified by specie and location on a survey. The plant materials correct location shall also be shown on the grading plan with appropriate measures to ensure their protection and survival (i.e.; snow fence barrier, appropriate distance to tree base and root structure, pruning, watering, mulching, root protection/pruning, timing, fertilization, tree removal plan/techniques, disease prevention, method to prevent soil compaction over root systems, etc.). This tree protection/preservation plan should be prepared by a qualified forester, Registered Landscape Architect, or arborist. a) Existing trees must conform to the minimum size requirements (identified in 2 above) to be credited. b) Plants must be of approved species as currently recorded by the City as appropriate materials. Weak wooded and disease prone species are not suitable for credit. Section 6, Page 8 o) The extent of credit will be based on staff review of data (plans and narrative) presented by the developer. Criteria will include type of material, size, quality, location and extent of site coverage. 4. Variation of Plant Sizes: a) For all landscape plans, at least 10% of the coniferous and/or deciduous canopy trees must exceed the minimum size (to 8' high and 3 1/2" caliper B & B respectively) to establish some diversity in size. b) For multi-family projects, 20% of the required plants shall be of the larger sizes. These plants shall be used in the areas for strategic screening, softening of buildings, focal point enhancement, adjacent to recreational areas for shade, etc. Parking Lot Landscape: To avoid undesirable monotony, heat, and wind associated with large parking lots, such lots shall have lineal and row end internal landscaped island/traffic delineators in addition to any required traffic safety islands. Landscape islands shall be at least 5% of the paved parking lot area in excess of 6000 square feet. A parking island is considered to be 9' x 18' or 162 square feet (equivalent of one parking stall), although the shape and location will be a design option of the developer. The minimum width shall be 6 feet. Industrial storage yards, outdoor retail display areas or similar type areas are exempted from the parking lot island requirement. Landscaping of parking lot islands shall include some combination of mulch, lawn, shrubs and/or trees. The intent is to provide shade, focus or promote traffic patterns, (define drive aisles and rows of parking), limit rows of visually uninterrupted parking stalls to a maximum of 180 feet, soften ground level views, yet maintain appropriate visibility for safety. 4. Parking lot screening shall be provided on the perimeter of any new parking lot. a) Screening shall be provided using a combination of shrubs, coniferous trees, fencing, harming, etc., to minimize the effect of headlights and reflected light from bumpers, grills, and headlights. Screening must attempt to address at least 60% of the perimeter where views of the parking lot could originate. b) Effectiveness of the screening shall be 80% opacity year-round. c) Berming must achieve a 30" height to provide 80% opacity on 3' high screening. (Berms cannot be used as the only method of screening. They must be used in combination with other elements.) d) Plant materials must be spaced no more than 30" apart on single rows of deciduous shrubs, 48" apart on double staggered rows of deciduous shrubs, with initial planted height of at least 2' (spacing may vary, subject to species used). e) Coniferous trees must be placed no further than 8' apart, to be counted as screening. All parking lot islands or landscape areas shall be separated from the parking surface by cast in place concrete curbs or an equal or better standard. Bituminous or precast concrete curbs or similar curbs are unacceptable. Curb will not be required for existing uses that are required to comply with this ordinance (Section C-2) unless more than 50% of the existing parking or paved area will be reconstructed to accommodate drainage or general maintenance. Section 6, Page 9 Other Screening: Developers shall make design efforts to fully screen service areas, trash storage, loading, mechanical equipment, and other similar areas, from view by the general public or adjacent residential areas. The screening provisions for parking lots shall be followed except that berming heights must be increased to a minimum of 4' with an overall effective screening height of 8'. (Berms cannot be used as the only method of screening. They must be used in combination with other elements.) Each site will be evaluated as to its specific needs and solutions which may exceed these minimum standards. Grounds and Lawns: All areas must be finished off with a stable landscape (trees, shrubs, tuff, mulch, etc.) or hard constructed surface (concrete, bituminous, pavers, etc.). No site areas can be left unfinished or subject to erosion. Landscape rock or bark/wood chip mulch may be substituted for sod in shrub and flower planting beds and building maintenance strips. All lawn areas and drainage swales shall be sodded. At least a 2-foot width of sod shall be provided between all paved/curbed areas and seeded/natural/native areas to provide a finished edge and control erosion. Seeding or reseeding is allowed for less visible or large and remote portions of a site that are unused or subject to future development. Seed mixes could include prairie grass or other appropriate Iow-maintenance mixes. Athletic fields may be seeded. Slopes in excess of 3:1 will not be allowed in areas intended for maintained turf. Slopes of up to 1:1/2:1 may be allowed with a slope stabilization plan approved by the City; otherwise terracing and/or retaining walls will be required. All areas to be lawn and landscaped shall have a built-in irrigation sys~!em. ~il:rigation; ~lan;.sbaE:. _b~iireqtJii;~ ;at.'-t hi¢. ti m'~:~0f ?0 btaidibg..tJ3~:~u([dj d¢~.pe~ This plan shall indicate the overlapping pattern, head type, control type and location, source of water and connection method. The system plan shall be prepared by a qualified designer with experience designing systems for similar uses (project type and size). Permanent underground irrigation is not required for existing, new or re-established natural or native plant communities. Undisturbed areas containing existing viable natural or native vegetation shall be maintained free of foreign or noxious plant materials. Top seeding or enhancement of these areas should occur as needed and appropriate to fill in thin areas and revitalize the existing vegetation. Maintenance Standards: All cultivated landscape areas shall be maintained by the property owner to present a healthy, neat and orderly area. This shall include: a) b) Maintain a healthy, pest-free condition. Remove dead, diseased or dangerous trees or shrubs or par~s thereof. c) Provide appropriate pruning per National Arborist Association and American Nurserymen Association Standards. d) Mowing and/or removal of noxious weeds and grasses. e) Remove trash and other debris. f) Watering to ensure plant growth and survival. Natural or native plant communities shall be managed in order to maintain the plant community for the purpose that it was preserved or created. This includes trimming as needed of all noxious vegetation and long grasses, removal of trash Section 6, Page 10 6.11 or other debris and other horticulturally appropriate maintenance methods for the specific type of plant community. Performance Guarantee; All plants shall be guaranteed by the developer for one year after total project acceptance. The irrigation system shall be guaranteed for one year concurrent with the plant guarantee. This will assure one winter season with a fall shut down and spring start-up. The developer shall notify the City prior to total project acceptance, for. City concurrence on the acceptability of the complete landscape and irrigation system installation. The City shall issue a letter accepting the landscape and irrigation system installation and therein fixing the date for guarantee purposes. The developer shall post a letter of credit with the City for the complete landscape and irrigation system installation when the building permit is issued (plants, irrigation, mulch and edgers). The letter of credit shall be held by the City and used, if necessary, to effect satisfactory completion of the project in the event of incomplete or failed work. The value of the letter of credit shall be 125% of the estimated construction costs for plants, irrigation system, mulch and edgers. Release of the letter of credit shall occur on the date that the City has reinstated and accepted the landscape and irrigation system and notified developer in' writing of such acceptance. Such release date shall not be earlier than ten (10) days prior to the expiration of the plant guarantee specified in paragraphs (J) 2 and (J) 3 above. Submission Requirements: Landscape plans must be drawn to scale, show all proposed plants, quantities and sizes, seed/sod areas/limits, etc. The plan(s) must include the entire project area. Include project name, developer, Registered Landscape Architect or landscape designer, architect, dates, existing site conditions (topography, vegetation, ponding areas or water bodies, utilities, boundaw data, walks, etc.), proposed site conditions, (grading plan, tree preservation/protection plan, etc.), site lighting, off site conditions approximately 100 feet beyond the site, and other site conditions that would be expected to affect landscaping. Calculations to evaluate compliance with the ordinance provisions including: area in square footage and percentage in total area for building, parking lot (including driveways), landscape areas and total area; and q~antities of trees and shrubs required and planted or preserved. Supportive plans, details, written narrative notes, cross-sections or other information as may be required by the Planning Staff that is reasonable and necessary to demonstrate the design intent and general compliance with this ordinance, including, but not limited to, items listed under Section (C) 2. 4. Fifteen copies of all plans shall be submitted. SCREENING: (Ord. 95-05) Screening shall be required in residential zones where any offstreet parking area contains mere than six (6) parking spaces and is within thirty (30) feet of an adjoining residential lot line. Where any business or industrial use (structure, parking or storage) is adjacent to property zoned or developed for residential use, that business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of the residential property. Screening shall also be provided where a business or industry is across the street from a residential zone, but not Section 6, Page 11 R on that side of a business or industry considered to be the front as determined by the Zoning Officer. The screening required herein shall consist of a solid fence or wall not less than five (5) feet nor more than six (6) feet in height but shall not extend within fifteen (15) feet of any street or driveway opening into a street. The screening shall be placed along the property lines or in case of screening along a street, fifteen (15) feet from the street right-of-way with landscaping (trees, shrubs, grass and other plantings) between the screening and the pavement. Planting of a type approved by the Zoning Officer may also be required in addition to or in lieu of fencing. Where planting is required a landscape plan shall be prepared including complete specifications for plant materials and other features. The Zoning Officer may issue a temporary Zoning Certificate for the principal building on a project before full completion of planting or fencing, if such items cannot be furnished at the same time as the building. Temporary Zoning Certificates shall be good for one (1) year and shall not be renewable. As soon as the screening is completed, the temporary certificate may be cancelled and a permanent Zoning Certificate issued. If any portion of the required planting and fencing is not complete within one (1) year, the Zoning Officer shall cause all use of the premises to be stopped. In ail districts, a fence six (6) feet high or shor[er may be erected on the rear lot line, the side lot Fines and return to the nearest front corner of the principal building. In residential districts, a fence not exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height and having an opacity of not more than twenty-five percent (25%) may be erected on the front lot line and the side lot lines forward of a line drawn across the front line of the principal building. Fences ' shall not be permitted in any right-of-way. Fences shall be constructed in a professional, aesthetically pleasing manner, be of substantial material and reasonably suited for the intended purpose. Every fence shall be maintained on both sides in a condition of good repair and shall not remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. (Ord. 91-03) In all Zoning Districts, waste material, debris, refuse or garbage shall be kept in a container enclosed by a waif which is visually compatible with the principal building it serves. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment installed on buildings shall be screened from ground level observation at all points on adjacent streets or property. The screening must be visually compatible with the building it serves. In all situations where fences are utilized, either optional or required, that side of the fence considered to be the face (facing as applied to fence posts) shall face abutting property. On comer lots in residential districts, no structure or planting in excess of one (1) foot above street centerline grade, except fences that meet the requirements of Section 6.10E for front yard fences, shall be permitted within a triangular area defined as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the projected property lines of two intersecting streets, thence forty (40) feet along one property line, thence diagonally to a point forty (40) feet from the point of beginning on the other property line thence to the point of beginning. (Ord. 91-04) Section 6, Page 12 A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash enclosure; and A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. DISCUSSION: The lots are located in the subdivision known as James 1st Addition (1981). The properties are located within the B-1 (Limited Business) district. The following setbacks apply: · 25 feet · 25 feet · 10 feet · 60 feet · 20 feet Front Yard (Section 4.2 Zoning Ordinance) Rear Yard (Section 4.2 Zoning Ordinance) Side Yard (Section 4.2 Zoning Ordinance) Structure Abutting Residential (Section 4.1 D Zoning Ordinance) Parking Abutting Residential (Section 4.1 D Zoning Ordinance) 14162 Commerce Avenue is 9,350 square feet with 37 parking stalls required (Exhibit A). The site has 37 stalls. There is no undeveloped land where the trash enclosure can be relocated. Building Permit #97-274 was issued after the site plan was approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC). The approved plans indicate a 60 foot setback to the face of the building. However, the as built survey (Exhibit B) indicates a utility area was constructed on the west side of the building without prior approval from the city. The bump-out on the north end of the building encroaches two feet into the required 60 foot setback from the residential property to the west. Therefore, a 2 foot variance is being requested. 14180 Commerce Avenue (Exhibit C) is 10,400 square feet with 42 parking stalls required if the building is used entirely as office use (1 stall per 250 square feet). With the recently added parking to the west (rear of building), the site has 51 parking stalls. If the use changes to entirely retail, then the parking requirement will be 52 spaces (1 stall per 200 sq. feet of retail space). Current uses are professional offices and a day-care. Considering that retail uses are permitted, the entire building could be used for retail activities and then there would not be enough parking on the lot. The approved plans indicate a 59 foot setback to the face of the building on the west side, adjacent to the residential properties. However, the as built survey (Exhibit D) indicates a utility area was constructed on the west side of the building without prior approval from the city. The 2.5 foot L:\97FILES\97VAR\97* ~ 32\97-132PC.DOC Page 2 bump-out on the south end of the building encroaches into the required 60 foot setback from the residential property to the west. Therefore, a 2.7 foot variance for the principal structure is being requested. The trash enclosure (14180 Commeme Avenue) was constructed on the lot in 1994 and expanded in 1997 to accommodate the recently constructed building at 14162 Commerce Avenue. The city approved the construction of the trash enclosure and addition in error. The trash enclosure is located 16.3 feet from the west property line abutting residential. The required setback is 60 feet. Therefore, a 43.7 foot variance is being requested for the trash enclosure. The applicant is also requesting a variance to fence height to allow for increased screening between the commercial uses and the adjacent residential uses. Zoning Ordinance Section 6.11 C and 8.11 E allow for a maximum fence height of 6 feet. The applicant is requesting a fence height of 8 feet. The applicant has also met with the adjacent residential property owners in an attempt to resolve the ongoing screening issue. City Code Section 6.10 H allows for a maximum slope of a berm to be 3:1. As par[ of the screening of the adjacent residential areas, the applicant is requesting a variance to the slope of the berm. As of yet, staff has not received the specification on the proposed slope as indicated in the variance application. Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue this specific request until specifics are submitted to the Planning Department. VARIANCE HARDSHIPSTANDARDS 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, the lots and structures are existing. As indicated by the building envelopes and given the minimum parking requirements, there are no reasonable legal alternatives for relocating any of the structures. The applicant contends literal enforcement of the ordinance with respect to the fence height will result in undue hardship to the adjacent residential properties. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. There are unique circumstances in this case. The structures on the lots are existing. The commercial property is adjacent to residential property and some of the adjacent residential properties slope down toward the commercial property making effective screening difficult to achieve. L:\97 FILES\97VAR\97-132\97-132PC.DOC Page 3 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 lots are built to a maximum capacity considering building setbacks and parking requirements. There is not open area to relocate the trash enclosure on either lot. The increased height of the fence is due to the existing grades of the commercial and residential properties and the need to provide additional screening between the two. The hardship is caused by the previous applications of the provisions of the Ordinance and existing conditions. It is not the result of proposed conditions that can be changed by the applicant. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The granting of the combined requested variances can meet the intent of the Ordinance and be in the public interest. The spirit and intent of the setback from residential properties can be protected with the increased fence height and additional landscaping. The granting of such variance is not contrary to the public interest, as the setback variances are small and there will be increased screening. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded the hardship criteria have been met, considering the structures are existing and both sites are at maximum build out with respect to parking and setbacks. Due to lack of pertinent information the vadance request to berm slope should be continued. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolutions 98-01PC and 98-02PC and a separate motion continuing the variance request to slope of berm. L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-t 32\97-132PC.DOC Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1998 1. Call to Order: The January 12, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. Roll Call: Vonhof Absent Kuykendall Present Criego Present Cramer Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the December 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. Commissioner Vonhof arrived at 7:36 p.m. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case #97-132, Burdick Properties request variances for rear yard setback and berm slope for 14162 Commerce Avenue and 14180 Commerce Avenue properties. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated January 12, 1998. 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE: · A 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and · A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and · A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE: · A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298,doc 1 · A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash enclosure; and · A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and · A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. The lots are located in the subdivision known as James 1st Addition (1981). The properties are located within the B-1 (Limited Business) district. 14162 Commeme Avenue is 9,350 square feet with 37 parking stalls required The site has 37 stalls. There is no undeveloped land where the trash enclosure can be relocated. Building Permit #97-274 was issued after the site plan was approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC). The approved plans indicate a 60 foot setback to the face of the building. The as-built survey indicates a utility area was constructed on the west side of the building without prior approval from the city. The bump-out on the north end of the building encroaches two feet into the required 60 foot setback from the residential property to.the west. Therefore, a 2 foot variance is being requested. 14180 Commerce Avenue is 10,400 square feet with 42 parking stalls required if the building is used entirely as office use (1 stall per 250 square feet). With the recently added parking to the west (rear of building), the site has 51 parking stalls. If the use changes to entirely retail, then the parking requirement will be 52 spaces (1 stall per 200 sq. feet of retail space). Current uses are professional offices and a day-care. Considering retail uses are permitted, the entire building could be used for retail activities and then there would not be enough parking on the lot. The approved plans indicate a 59 foot setback to the face of the building on the west side, adjacent to the residential properties. The as built survey indicates a utility area was constructed on the west side of the building without prior approval fi'om the city. The 2.5 foot bump-out on the south end of the building encroaches into the required 60 foot setback from the residential property to the west. Therefore, a 2.7 foot variance for the principal structure is being requested. The trash enclosure (14180 Commerce Avenue) was constructed on the lot in 1994 and expanded in 1997 to accommodate the recently constructed building at 14162 Commerce Avenue. The city approved the construction of the trash enclosure and addition in error. The trash enclosure is located 16.3 feet from the west property line abutting residential. The required setback is 60 feet. Therefore, a 43.7 foot variance is being requested for the trash enclosure. The applicant is also requesting a variance to fence height to allow for increased screening between the commercial uses and the adjacent residential uses. Zoning Ordinance Section 6.11 C and 6.11 E allow for a maximum fence height of 6 feet. The 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc 2 applicant is requesting a fence height of 8 feet. The applicant has also met with the adjacent residential property owners in an attempt to resolve the ongoing screening issue. City Code Section 6.10 H allows for a maximum slope of a berm to be 3:1. As part of the screening of the adjacent residential areas, the applicant is requesting a variance to the slope of the berm. As of yet, staffhas not received the specification on the proposed slope as indicated in the variance application. Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue this specific request until specifications are submitted to the Planning Department. Staff concluded the hardship criteria have been met, considering the structures are existing and both sites are at maximum build out with respect to parking and setbacks. Due to lack of pertinent information the variance request to berm slope should be continued. Comments from the public: Mark Kelly, attorney for the applicant, B. C. Burdick and Burdick Properties, submitted official written comments for the record. Mr. Kelly felt the requested variances are good housekeeping matters. His client did not plat the property and was not present for any discussions prior to the sale which included the neighbors and previous developer. Other than the signed plat, them are no records in the Scott County Recorder's Office. The applicant met with the Timothy Avenue neighbors and City Staff on December 4, 1997 to discuss screening. The meeting resulted in proposals outlined in Exhibit A. Mr. Kelly explained the housekeeping variance on the 2 foot setback. They do not feel it encroaches into the setback. The setback was measured from the building foundation not the overhang. Mr. Kelly went on to point out the trash enclosure and the effective screening which would meet code. The proposal is intended to exceed the City's Code requirement for screening for a maximum height of I0 feet. The neighbors are requesting a 4 foot retaining wall with additional fencing. This request would triple the cost of the landscape plan. There was also a question of neighbors maintaining their side of the fence. The neighbors have no ownership in this project. Applicant is trying to make the property attractive, not high maintenance. Eldon Hugelen, 7473 West 142nd Street, Apple Valley, the landscape architect for the applicant presented the landscape proposal which included the grading and plant screening. He feels this will solve the screening element and meet the landscape requirements. Harry Ray, 5726 West 98 1/2 Cir., Bloomington, stated he was representing the neighbors on Timothy Avenue. Mr. Ray explained his interpretation of an agreement from 1979 with the residents and developer. The berm has been changed for the last building. Mr. Ray mentioned Timothy Avenue resident, Maureen Hermann inquired at the City as to how the berm was going to be changed and was assured there would be no changes. He l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm011298.doc 3 went on to say there was a comedy of errors with this building because this building was in the master plan in 1979 and did not have to go before the Planning Commission. The neighborhood does not like the lights shining in the back of the building nor the garbage pickup in early morning. In summary, the neighborhood would like to see higher screening. Maureen Hermann, 14151 Timothy Avenue, felt the zoning was different in 1979 with no retail and perceives the City is violating Minnesota State Statutes. Kansier explained the City Attorney pointed out the discussions back in 1979 in the minutes are not enforceable. Harry Ray stated the City has not been able to come up with the original plan. Therefore, this plan should have gone before the Planning Commission. There is also a question of a large pipe that stops at the end of the development. One of the main concerns of the neighbors is the removal of the trash enclosures. The developer knew the setbacks and went ahead and built on the line and then come back to the City and ask for a variance. The neighborhood would like to resolve the matter before a variance is granted. Maureen Hermann, 14151 Timothy Avenue, said she is really thrown by this whole rezoning issue. She revealed they found the approved plans from the Assembly of God archives. Mrs. Hermarm felt this issue should be before a judge. She felt the berm has been there since 1981. Now there is parking behind the building and she is just finding out there might be retail in the building. She questioned how the City can just change the zoning and asked ifa nuclear waste dump would be put in. The foreman on-site told the neighbors the berm was going to stay and concluded the matter is a mess. Mr. Ray displayed a berm article from a magazine and remarked the neighbors are entitled to have the berm the way it was intended to be. Stamson questioned staff on the discussion referenced in the Minutes. Tovar said there was reference but they did not state any specifics. The issue was sent to the City Attorney for review and the City Attorney responded that the minutes are not enforceable. Ross Stewart, 14122 Timothy Avenue, feels the enclosure is in an easement. He has a document at home indicating the restrictions in a B2 Zone. Mr. Stewart spoke on landscape and trash enclosure encroaching on the neighbors. He was told this summer Burdick was going to put a fence 18 inches from his property. He questioned how can this be allowed. Another main concern is a parking lot. Mr. Stewart said if the Planning Commission grants the variances the City is taking away the neighbor's legal rights. Sandy Wright, 14300 Timothy Avenue, stated she does not own property next to the Burdick property but her neighborhood is affected and she was concerned. She felt the City's errors or oversights should not be paid by the neighbor's tax dollars. The City has 1:\98files\98plconlm\pcminh'~m011298.doc 4 back tracked. The neighborhood remembers the issues. Ms. Wright also stated the City is afraid of being sued and is buckling under the City Attorney's advice. The Planning Commission is the only hope for the neighborhood for mistakes made by the staff and developer. Maureen Hermann, presented the document she obtained from the Assembly of God archives. She feels the neighborhood is suffering from lower property values. Additionally she now sees cars, snowplows and can even see in the windows of the building. The existing trees are too small. There is no privacy. She talked to the people planting the trees who told her they had to be planted the way they were because of the utility lines running through the area. A 4 foot wall and 8 foot fence is not asking too much. Mrs. Hermann pointed out the two zoning ordinances at City Hall. Ron Olson 14291 Timothy Avenue, stated he lived in the 27 years and remembers James Refrigeration said they would give until the neighbors would agree. He assumed there would be records kept. Now the garbage and snowplows nm all night long. He contacted the garbage hauler and told him not to pick up the trash during the night. He also does not like the snowplowing during the night as well. He feels this is a white wash and hopes it all works out. Mr. Ray is seeking some uniformity with the undeveloped property to the north. The public hearing was closed at 7:54 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · Clarification from staff regarding setbacks. Tovar recited the zoning ordinance and side note relating to overhangs. · Kansier explained the policy and the differences. · Maureen Hermarm, presented an ordinance dated 5/25/96. Staff will make a copy and return the document. · Mark Kelly said they do not know the exact height of the original berm. It was removed to accommodate the original plat submitted in 1997. · Tovar presented the grading plan with the existing grades. The existing grading does match the approved plan. · Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott stated the developer is not in compliance with the approved grading plan. Stamson asked developer to explain the proposed elevation height. Eldon Hugelen asked the architect for the original grading plans and never received them. Criego showed the original grading plan with the elevations in 1981. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhnn01 I298.doc Vonhof: · Questioned engineering staff on the drainage issue brought by the neighbors. McDermott stated to her knowledge, the catch basin was connected to the storm sewer. Kuykendalh · Appreciates the neighbors being present. · Concern the documents were drawn to scale. · Eldon Hugelen explained the vertical elevations change as you go east. His drawings are a concept as opposed to an engineer's drawing. · Mark Kelly stated it is not the intent to misrepresent anything. The drawings are to reflect the discussions fi.om the neighborhood meeting on December 11, 1997. · Needs a drawing to scale showing existing conditions and then overlays with proposed concepts. · This is beyond the level of detail the Planning Commission gets involved with. · Empathize the sound issue with the maintenance. · Concern a parking lot was built without a final grade. · Stamson questioned the variances before the Planning Commission. · Tovar said the applicant has stated their intent to withdrawn the 8' fence and berm request. She also explained the ordinance allows for a 30 inch berm. · Criego said it seems the developer has proposed something beyond what is the ordinance and now add a 6 foot fence. · Tovar explained the variances · Mark Kelly explained the proposal is a combination of satisfying the neighbors and meeting the City Codes. The display is a visual affect. Criego: · Questioned the master plan of 1979. · Tovar stated the City does not have copy of what the neighborhood has presented tonight. · The application did not have to go before the Planning Commission because what the applicant is asking is a permitted use. · The building was not on the approved plans. · Tovar said the berm is 20 feet wide adjacent to building #3. The berm was taken down on building #2 for more parking. The old berm was wider than 20 feet. · Would like to see the Minutes of this covenant in 1979. · City Minutes are not enforceable. · What are the ordinances relating to evening garbage pickup? Kansier explained there are no hours for garbage pickup in a commercial districts. · Highly recommend the neighbors to contact the garbage collector. · Harry Ray said Mr. Boyles was going to propose to the city an ordinance that the garbage not be taken before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Mr. Ray feels neighboring cities have requirements. · Questioned the restrictions on the utility easement across the property. Kansier said you can build anything that is not permanent. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn011298,doc 6 · Questioned trash container. Tovar said one trash enclosure was put in 1994. The expansion was 1997. Tovar pointed out the enclosure is on the plans. Cramer: · Trash enclosures - Has the City recommended anything different? Tovar said the City Attorney recommended the applicant apply for a variance. · Questioned ordinance requiring trash enclosures in the back of a building. Tovar said setbacks would still have to be met. · Question to developer regarding the parking plan? Kelly said they did respond to the concerns expressed by the neighbors at the December 4, meeting. · Question to developer regarding feeling they are at an impasse with the neighbors. Kelly said the neighbors have many suggestions. They all vary. The application is to the City not the neighbors. But they are trying to come to some solutions with those issues. They are trying to accommodate the neighbors and City Code, The City has a $20,000 Letter of Credit on the landscaping, The landscaping may take a year aRer the issuance of occupancy. The City is the legal authority on the issues not the neighbors. · Questioned the neighbors regarding drainage with the old berm and how it has changed with the new berm. Maureen Hermarm said they did not have problem with the old berm. The concern with the new berm is that all the drainage from buildings 1 and 2 come to the middle and a pipe to the hexagon drainage. They are also concerned the additional hard surface (parking lot) would drain up to the homes. She went on to say no one has given them any information regarding capping the end of the catch basin. Kuykendall said they need to determine the drainage issue. Is it capped? At who's expense? Also the Commissioners would like to see overlays. The meeting needs to be continued. He would like to see the Minutes. Vonhof agreed with Kuykendall and would like to see elevation maps, If the elevations are not in compliance with the grading plan. The zoning has not changed. When there is a change it is published in the newspaper and nobody comes to the hearings. Also, a commercial district is next to a residential use. The Planning Commission does look at those issues a little bit different trying to make those zones compatible. There are solutions to make this matter compliable. Recommend to continue. Would like to see full size maps on the elevation and approved plan. There was no requirement to have this matter before the Planning Commission because it is a permitted use in the district. Criego added it is important the City Engineer determine the capacity of the drainage issue. Sue McDermott said the developer has submitted that information. The trash containment should be properly shield and/or moved by developer. Possibly give up a couple of parking spots. Cramer commented on the proposal submitted by the neighboring residents and the developer. Encouraged neighbors and developer to work together. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm011298.doc MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO THE JANUARY 26, 1998, MEETING TO CONSIDER THIS MATTER FURTHER AND OBTAIN INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED RELATIVE TO THIS MATTER. AMENDMENT BY KUYKENDALL, ADD A NOTE THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FIND OUT WHAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DID THAT TOOK PLACE. HAVE THE SAME STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE NEXT MEETING. VONHOF AGREED TO AMEND, SECOND BY CRIEGO. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 9:01 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:11 p.m. B. Case #96-126, Kelvin Retterath requesting a side yard variance for the property at 16520 Inguadona Beach Circle. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report. On October 28, 1996 the Planning Commission approved a 7 foot front yard setback variance for Dave Yearling and Karlynn Benson, to allow a front yard setback of 18 feet rather than the required 25 feet for a proposed garage and residential addition. The time period to obtain necessary permits expired on October 28, 1997. Upon request of the applicant, on December 15, 1997 the City Council granted a 90 day extension to allow the applicant until January 28, 1998 to obtain the necessary building permits for the project. The ground level of the proposed addition will be a garage and the upper level will be living space consisting of a bedroom and bathroom. The living area of the addition will be attached to the existing structure over the front entry. On November 11, 1997 the City received a building permit application for the proposed addition. The survey indicated a 24 foot wide garage with an 8 foot side yard setback. This is different from Resolution 96-35PC which indicates a 22 foot wide garage with a 10 foot side yard setback. The applicant contends the change was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting on October 28, 1996 and was given approval to make the change. Discussion by the Planning Commission specifically raised the question of the necessity for a side yard setback variance. Further discussion indicates that staffwas under the impression this is a substandard lot. This conclusion was made using the width at the front property line of 80.6 feet. The required front lot width for R-1 SD riparian lots is 90 feet. The actual lot width is determined at the front yard setback. Due to the pie shaped lot, this scales out to be 104.5 feet. Therefore, the lot is not substandard as originally thought and the required side yard setback is 10 feet on both sides. The applicant is requesting a 2 foot side yard setback variance to allow the project to proceed as planned. Based on the outcome of the October 28, 1996 Planning l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc EXHIBIT A 210.00' NOO'42'56"w' __ T NEW BUILDING A V E N U EXHIBIT B DELMAR H. SCHWANZ EXHIBIT C R C E II IJI EXISTING BUILDING III EXHIBIT C f~orlLi'~ c~dc~ ~ I~C/'~ ' 402.00' NOO'42'56'V PAGE 2 EXISTING BUILBING D E CO TYI TYI ALI DELMAR H. SCHWANZ EXHIBIT D Planning Case File No. c/'7 - j 3 ~ Property Identification No. ~,:~ -19q-OO.:-ff-0 City of Prior Lake 3 .~- t~,.4 -co $--o LAND USE APPLICATION 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 By Type of Application: [] Rezoning, from (present zoning) to (proposed zonin g'~ [] Amendment to City Code, Comp. Plan or City Ordinance [] Subdivision otLand [] Administrative Subdivision [] Conditional Use Permit [] Variance [] Other: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional si See attached Exhibit "A". ~pplicable Ordinance ~ecn0nts.~: Applicant(s): Address: Burdick Properties, Inc. 684 Excelsior Boulevard, Excelsior, MN 55331 Home Phone: Work Phone: 474-5243 Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:. E.C. Burdick Address: 4930 Meadville Street, Excelsior, MN 55331 Home Phone: 474-3796 WorkPhone: 474-5243 Type of Ownership: Fee ~ Contract for Deed__ Purchase Agreement__ Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1, James First Addition, Scott County, Minnesota Commonly Known as 14180 and 14162 Commerce Avenue, Prior Lake, MN 55372 To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In I addition, I have read the relevant sections ot' the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand thatI ~pBplications will not be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee. RDICK PROPE~2]~IES, INC. ~ Applicant's Sign~m~'/Bria~ ~urdick / Date " Fee Owner's Signature, B.C. Burdick Date THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED l]loxJ'J ~" DATE OF HEARING CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature ot Planning Director or Designee lu-app2.doc EXHIBIT "A" BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Applicant is the owner of 14162 and 14180 Commerce Avenue, Prior Lake, Minnesota, which each are host to one office building. Prior Lake Code requires screening along the rear lot line of the property in favor of neighboring residential properties (Section 6.10G and 6.1lB, C, and F). Prior Lake Code Section 4.1D requires a 60-foot setback for any rear yard abutting any R District. In addition, the building trash enclosure must be screened 6.lOG. Variances Required: 1. Trash Enclosure. The buildings in question are serviced by a brick trash enclosure built under City building permit in 1994 and expanded under City building permit in 1997. The trash enclosure is 16.5 feet from the rear lot line of 14180 Commerce Avenue. A variance to Section 4.1D is necessary to permit the trash enclosure as a lawful conforming use. 2. Buildinq Encroachment 14180 Commerce Avenue. Survey of the building at 14180 Commerce Avenue (Lot 4, Block 1, James First Addition, Scott County, Minnesota) as built, shows that it encroaches on the required 60-foot setback at 1 the building's southwesterly corner 0.2 feet along the rear wall and an additional projection of 2.5 feet (total encroachment 2.7 feet) into the rear yard setback to accommodate brick facing/ screening of electrical utilities. A variance to Section 4.1D of 2.7 feet at the southwesterly corner is necessary to permit the building as lawful confirming use. 3. Building Encroachment 14162 Commerce Avenue. A survey of the building at 14162 Commerce Avenue (Lot 3, Block 1, James First Addition, Scott County, Minnesota), as~ built shows that its rear brick wall is in conformance with the 60-foot rear yard setback, however, the brick facing/screening around the electrical utilities at the northwest building corner encroaches two (2.0) feet into the required 60-foot rear yard setback. A variance to Prior Lake Code Section 4.1D of 2.0 feet is necessary to permit the building as lawful conforming uses. 4. Screening. The Prior Lake Code Section 6.10G and 6.1lB require screening of adjacent residential properties. The neighbors on Timothy Avenue have requested: a) An 8-foot fence; and b) Increased berm height as part of the required screening. 2 Variances will be necessary to Prior Lake Code sections 6.10G, 6.10H and 6.11C to permit an 8-foot fence and enlarged berm height and slopes greater than plan is to be implemented. forthcoming. permitted if the landscaping Exact specification will be ApDlicable Ordinance Sections. Section 4.1D; 6.10G; 6.10H; 6.11C. 3 NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES AT 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 58.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FE~T FOR EXISTING BUILDING; AND A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FENCE HEIGHT OF 8.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED 6 FOOT HEIGHT FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENLARGED BERM HEIGHT AND SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:f FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES AT 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 57.30 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 PEET FOR EXISTING BUILDING; AND A 43.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMITA REAR YARD SETBACKADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 16.3 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR AN EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE. A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMITA FENCE HEIGHT OF 8.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED 6 FOOT HEIGHT FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE ADJA CENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES; AND A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENLARGED BERM HEIGHT AND SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE B-I (LIMITED BUSINESS) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE AND 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE. You are hereby notified that the Pdor Lake Planning Commission will hold a headng 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, January 12, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: Burdick Properties 684 Excelsior Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 PROPERTY OWNERS: B.C. Burdick 4930 Meadville St. Excelsior, MN 55331 SUBJECT SITE: 14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, James 1st Addition AND 14162 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN. L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\97132PN.DOC ! 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Mir~nesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER REQUEST: The applicants are requesting the variances to make the existing buildings conforming and to permit additional screening from the adjacent residential properties, The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 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 this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calring 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 wdtten 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: December31, 1997 L:\97FILE S\97VAR\97-132\97132PN.DOC DELMAR H SCHWANZ 183/55 Scale: i inch - 40 feet E~rd/ck Pro, er ties 183/55 684 Excelsior ~oulevard [~. 9709 DELMAR H. SCHWANZ SJJRVE YOR',~ CERTIFICATE .F / / CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVENUE SEt PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 Date: Number of pages including cover sheet: To: Brian Bm*dick Burdick Properties Phone: 474-5243 Fax phone: 474-7543 CC: From: Jenni Tovar City of Prior Lake Phone: (612)447-4230 Fax phone: (612)447-4245 REMARKS: [] Urgent [] For your review [] ReplyASAP [] Please comment Brian, Please submit the following information pr/or to Tuesday January 20, 1998. This information is needed for the continuation of the variance requests: · Landscape plan (10 full size and one 11 x 17 inch reduction) indicating changes to the landscape plan already submitted and approved as part of your initial site plan review. Indicate the size of the plantings as planted. The display Eldon submitted indicates 12' Red Pines. This appears to be the size at maturity or at least 5 years out. 6' trees are the minimum requirement for coniferous. Also need actual elevations shown on plan. The cross-section of the berm submitted is not reflective of the approved berm as per the approved grading plan. · Submit a revised grading plan if you are not intending to grade as on approved grading plan. Last time engineering inspected the berm, it was lower than the approved grading plan. · Show easements on as-built survey for 14180 Commerce. The 20 foot drainage and utility easement is shown on the plat and should be shown on the survey. Address the use of the trash enclosure on the easement. Let me know if you have any questions. KELLY LAW OFFICES E~tablished 1948 January 16, 1998 Ms, Jennl Tovar City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 BY FAX.' 447-4245 Re: Response to Faxed Commun~ation Sent Janizary 15, 1998, 5:23 P,M. to the Attention of Brian Burdi~k Dear Ms. Tovar: We are presently requesting our architect to prepare an updated landscaping plan. It is news to us that the grading performed to date ostensibly does not conform with the grading plan earlier submitted. If your Engineering Department has details, we would be most Interested in reviewing that information. Please fax it to our attention. While the trees Indicated on the proposed landscaping illustration show height, we are mindful that the Code requires 6-foot coniferous trees. It should be noted that, as yet, no one has discussed the merits of any of our landscaping proposals intended to benefit both our property and the neighboring property owners. The neighbors have not replied to the merits of the proposal. The Planning Commission has not cornlnented on the merits of the proposal. All discussion by the neighbors and the Planning Commission appears to dwell exclusively on Minutes of City Council Meetings from 1979 of which we were never a party. It is our hope that at some Juncture in the near future, all interested parties will begin to discuss the merits of the landscaping proposal, As regards the question of the presence of a trash enclosure on the utility and drainage easement, it is a matter of established case law that an easement holder has only those rights which are specifically enumerated to the easement holder in the easement grant. The grant of an easement does not strip the owner of the fee title of the right to use the property. The use is limited only by a proscription against unreasonable interference with the narrow use provided to the holder of the easement. It should be observed that drainage and utility easements 13:51 6124749575 KELLY LAW BUILDING PAGE KELLY LAW OFFICES -2- frequently have improvements -- driveways, fences, sheds, etc. There are presently gas and electric lines buried in the drainage and utlilty easement. But for an emergency which would require excavation immediately adjacent the trash enclosure there is little likelihood of the trash enclosure needing to be disturbed. However, to the extent that the Crash enclosure would need to be disturbed at a future date, the property owner is the party that assumes all risk of injury or harm to the structure. The presence of the structure on the drainage and utility easement is regulated exclusively by the City Zoning Code, consequently, we submitted a variance request to conform the trash enclosure to the Zoning Code. We will request Gopher One State identify locations of gas and electric lines relative to the trash enclosure. If I can provide further information, please call. Sincerely, Mark W. Kelly pE. DI 80 AMENDED ZONING R-2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL cont. R-3 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL 1. Townhouses 2. Multiple Family Dwellings $. Public ~ Parochial Schools 4.. Public Parks ~ Playgrounds S. Churches 6. Funeral Homes B-1 LIMITED BUSINESS 1. Retail Business 2. Personal Services $. Funeral Homes 4. Clinics S. Offices ~ Banks 6. Business ~ Professional Office B-2 COF~4UNITY BUSINESS 1. Retail Business 2. Eating & Drinking Places 3. Offices & Banks 4. Personal 5 Professional Services S. Business Service 6. Public Buildings 7. Parking Lots 8. Wholesale Business 9. Commercial Schools i0. Hospitals & Clinics 11. Auto Sales, Service ~ Repair 12. Motor Fuel Station 1S. Funeral Homes 14. Private Club-Health Club 8. Funeral Homes 9. Townhouses 10. Multiple Family Dwellings 11. Planned Unit Development 12. Mobile Home Parks 15. Charitable Institutions 14. Boarding Houses 1. Single Family Dwellings 2. Two Family Dwellings $. Nursing Homes 4. Hospitals ~ Clinics S. Public Utility Buildings 6. Public Buildings 7. Private Clubs ~ Schools 8. Planned Unit Development 9. Charitable Institutions 10. Boarding Houses 1. Eating ~ Drinking Places 2. Motor Fuel Stations $. Public Buildings 4. Public Utility Buildings S. Fast Food 6. Private Club - Health Club 1. Research Laboratories 2. Public Utility Buildings 3. Multiple Family Dwellings 4. Home ~ Trailer Sales ~ Display S. Farm Implement Sales Service ~ Repair 6. Supply Yards 7. Commercial Recreation 8. Hotels ~ Motels 9. Animal Clinics 10. Recreation Equipment, Sales ~ Repair 11. Fast Food 12. Theaters ~ Assembly 15. Newspaper Publishing 14. Blueprinting Photostating 1975 ZONING ORDINANCE PEH~ ~ITTED USES CONDITIONAL USES R-2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL cont. 8. Funeral Homes 9. Townhouses 10. Multiple Family Dwellings ll. Planned Unit Development 12. Mobile Home Parks 13. Charitable Institutions 14. Boarding Houses R-3 MULTIPLE PiE, SIDENTZAL 1. Townhouses 2. Multiple FamLly Dwellings 3. Public & Parochial Schools 4. Public Parks & Playgrounds Churches 6. Funeral Homes 1. Single Family Dwellings 2. Two Family Dwellings 3- Nursing Homes Hospitals & Clinics 5. Public Utility B~ ] dings 6. Public Bui] dings 7. Private Clubs & Schools Planned Unit Development 9. Charitable Institutions 10. Boarding Houses B-1 LIMITED BUSINESS 1. Personal & Professional Services 2. Funeral Homes 3. Clinics Offices & Banks 1. Eating & Drinking Places 2. Reta~ Business 3. Motor Fuel Stations B-2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS 1. Retail Business 2. Eating & Drinking Places 3. Offices & Banks Personal & Professional Services 5. Public Buildings 6. Parking Lots 7. Wholesale Business 8. Commercial Schools 9. Hospitals & Clinics 10. Auto Sales, Service & Repair 11. Motor Fuel Station 1. Research Laboratories 2. Public Utility B-~ldings 3. Multiple Family Dwellings Home & Trailer Sales & Display 5. Farm Implement Sales Service & Repair 6. Supply Yards 7. Commercial Recreation 8. Hotels & Motels 9. Animal Clinics 10. Recreation Equipment, Sales Service and Repair Memo DATE: TO: CC: January 16, 1997 Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Sue McDermott, Assistant City Engineer FROM: ~Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator RE: Project 97-44, Burdick office building #3 storm sewer review This memo is in regards to the capacity of the existing 21" storm sewer that runs west to east along the south property line of Burdick office building #3. I have reviewed the existing drainage area which consists of properties on the east side of Timothy Avenue. The backyards of these properties drain to the existing catch basin located on Lot 6, Block 4 Boudin's Manor 4th Addition. This catch basin is the end structure on the 21" storm sewer pipe that flows to the east through the Burdick property. This line was originally oversized to handle the increased flow due to additional commercial property that is being and will be developed in this area. After reviewing the submitted hydraulic calculations for building #3, I have determined that the existing storm sewer network that serves this area is sized correctly to handle the 10 year frequency storm as required in the City's Public Works Design Manual. If you have any other questions regarding this matter, please let me know. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Memo DATE: TO: CC: FROM: RE: December 12, I997 Frank Boyles, City Manager Greg Ilkka, City Engineer Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator Drainage issue at Burdick Building rear berm This memo is in regards to the catchbasin in the southwest comer of the Burdick Office Building //3 property. This catchbasin is inside of the west property line of the Burdick property by approximately nine (9) feet. On Friday afternoon of December 12, 1997, I confirmed that this catchbasin is indeed connected to the City storm sewer system as indicated on the construction plans. Attached is a letter I wrote dated November 21, 1997, to Mr. Alan Mix regarding his rear yard drainage to this catchbasin. Per my field observation and survey of the area as shown on the map, this area should drain properly. An as-built grading plan is a requirement as part of the Burdick Office Building//3 project. When this is received we can verify that the swale along the west side of the berm is graded properly. If not, we will have an opportunity to require the developer to make any corrections prior to issuing the final certificate of occupancy. 16200 Eagle Creek ,~[ta. ~l.e, rl~rior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER November 21, 1997 Mr. Alan Mix 14171 Timothy Ave. N.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mr. Mix: On Friday, November 21, 1997 I received a copy of a le~er from you indicating the potential for drainage p.roblems on your lot due m the relocation of the berm on Conunerce Avenue. That sa~ne morning I surveyed the area and found that your back yard has a positive grade toward the catchbasin, except for one area along the east property line Csee attached map). At this particular low point water would have to pond less than 0.1' (1.2") before it would drain to the catchbasin. The month of July 1997 was the wettest recorded historically for that month, which resulted in many Prior Lake citizens experiencing water problems on their property, The City was virtually "swamped" with phone calls from people saying that they had drainage problems in their yards. Many of them that had never had problems in the past. Again, from the_survey that was taken, it appears that some minor ponding would occur before it reached the catchbasin. There ts an existing 10 foot drainage and utility easement along the rear property line which is for this very purpose. If you notice this problem continuing in the future, where the water is ponding beyond the 10 foot drainage easement, please let me know and I can look into this issue further. If you have any other questions regarding this matter please give me a call at 447-4230, Sincerely, Water Resources Coordinator ce: Greg Ilkka, Public Works Director 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT HOUSE 932.9 q~.4Z 9.30.71 CATCH BASIN ~'~' ( 932.~ ~- END CURB SAWCU T EXISTING PAVEMENT INS'TALL 21 L.F. OF 10' PVC STOR~ SEWER PIPE 0 1.0~[ 932.<'8 " STORM SEWER MANHOLE ', rING 21' STORM SEWER PIPE L5 (MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT) ', gTING PIPE_-.. ...... : ......... NEW .TOP OF ¢ S1'1~ FI FV. ~ROPER?Y LINE XND UTILITY EXHIBIT E INFORMATION -I Z O~ .m 0db z :::lJ . ,~ ,~ ,,, ,~ ,,, ~o,~p=c- ooooo ~0~ -- -0Z )> ZO r- z ~ ~,-n m'~ o~, I~ z mo ITl --I '11 Ill ~.~.~o.~ C o Z ~ Z nl~ 0 '11 ~ "~ m o e~°X~ 0000 CTZO 020 0"~ --AVENUE--