Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-11 PC Agenda PacketI Approval of Agenda: 3. Consider Approval of July 11, 2011 Meeting Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: A. #EP 10-121 Bluffs of Candy Cove. Jason Miller has submitted an application for Variances related to building setback, lot area, and bluff impact on a site consisting of approximately 1,07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. This property is located east of Candy Cover Trail, north of TH 13. B. #EP 10-122 Bluffs of Candy Cove, Jason Miller has submitted an application for a combined preliminary and final plat consisting of approximately 1.07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. This property is located east of Candy Cover Trail, north of TH 13. 6. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. Consider a request for an easement agreement with private property owners along West Avenue for consistency with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The easement area is located east of Bass Street northwest of Lake Front Park. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: 011 FILESII I PLANNING COMMISSIONII I AGENBAM050911 Agenda.doc Phone 952.4 47.9800 / Fax 952.447.42451 Ntiww.cityofpriorlake,coin PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 11, 2011 1. Call to Order: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 Chairman Fleming called the July 11, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Fleming, Roszak, Perez, and Billington, Planner Jeff Matzke, Assistant City Manager Jane Kansier, Finance Director Jerilyn Erickson and Development Services Assistant Peter Aldritt. Commissioner Howley was absent. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECONDED BY PEREZ TO APP AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes, Fleming, Perez and Roszak. The motion Carrie 3. Consider Approval of June 13, 2011 Meeti MOTION BY FLEMMING, SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO AF MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Billington, Perez and Roszak. The 4. Public Hearings: THE JULY 11, 2011 MEETING THE JUNE 13, 2011 MEETING rried. A. 11-119. Consider an Amendment to Section 1108 of the Zoning Ordinance Updating the Variance Provisions. Asst. City Manager Kansier presented the request To Amend Section 1108.400 to 1008.423 of the City Zoning Ordinance. This Amendment changes the criteria for consideration of a variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code Questions from the Commissioners Billington asked Jane as a long term member of the staff here, what is your assessment of the impact of this change? We have had the old language for quite some years I am assuming. Kansier answered Commissioner Billington in my opinion the standard that is being set is not as difficult as undue hardship. Practical difficulties give the city a bit more flexibility and allows us to grant variances where the hardship standard could not be met. Billington asked this could be advantageous in some cases for the applicant, where we have had issues in the past. With the new definition we could be better off in the long term? Kansier answered it does work to the benefit of an applicant. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINTON AND SECONDED BY PEREZ TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Billington, Perez, and Roszak. The motion carried. L:A11 FILESA 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONA 1 MINUTES\MN07111 Ldoc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 The Public Hearing began at 6:05 p.m. Comments from the Public: None. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PEREZ AND SECONDED BY BILLINGTON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. The public hearing closed at 6:10 p.m. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Roszak stated these changes would be in the best interest of the public and the community at large will support them Perez stated we are trying to be consistent with the state and as they change their standards we need to follow suit. I do see advantages to being more flexible for the applicant and also for the city. As staff stated this change does meet to ordinance amendment findings. I will support it. Billington stated I too will be supporting this.. It is an effort to be consistent with the change in the states statutes. I am encouraged by the fact that the applicant will have more flexibility and a little more leeway in these matters. Fleming stated I too will be supporting to amend section 1108. I do wonder when this will come before the planning commission again with a need to interpret the word practical. I particularly like finding number 3 which makes sure we are consistent with federal and state laws. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINTONG SECONDED B'PEREZ TO APPROVE VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. Consider a request to vacate the existing drainage and utility easements located on Jeffers Pond 1St Addition. Planner Matzke presented the request to consider a request to vacate the drainage and utility easement located within Jeffers Pond 1St addition. Ryland Homes plans to replat this area as Jeffers Pond 4th 'Addition. The new plat would allow the development of this site for 38 single family lots. With the new configuration the designated drainage and utility easements are no longer necessary. The new plat of Jeffers Pond 4th Addition will dedicate necessary easements for this area. L:A11 FILESA 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONA 1 MINUTES\MN07111 Ldoc 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 Commissioner Comments and Questions: Fleming stated that this seems holy consistent with the goals and objects of the Comprehensive Plan, and seems to be the natural thing to do. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PEREZ SECOND BY BILLINGTON TO APPROVE VOTE: Ayes by Billington, Perez and Roszak. The motion carried. B. Consider the 2012-2016 Capital Improvement Program Finance Director Erickson: proposed the approval of the capital improvement program Commissioner Comments and Questions: Fleming asked looking at page 4 of 4 projects by department worksheet, could any of these projects be affected by the current state budget issues. Erickson responded the state actually contributes a number of funding sources to the city and the ones that are shown here that would be impacted would be the municipal state aid and that is actually constitutionally protected so we will still receive it. Roszak asked on the fiber optic connection could you explain how that will work. Erickson: responded this particular project was actually moved 'up one year, the city staff has been meeting with the county on this project. The purpose of the project is to connect the water treatment facility and the maintenance center to increase their communications ability. We do currently have a SCADA system which monitors our wells. We want to make sure that this has the best connectivity,. Roszak asked is it for remote monitoring? Kansier: responded part of it is remote monitoring and part of it is for the fire station and maintenance center have little wireless card almost like dial up connection. This is to better connect them and to connect with city hall. Perez stated in regards to the street construction it is good to see the city staying on top on the maintenance it really shows. Good job on keeping up the street maintenance. Billington asked fiscally is this kind of a wish list? We are bonding for percentage of this expense? Erickson answered we actually bond for a certain percentage sewer and water funds a portion of the expenses, dealing with sewer and water replacement. There are certain expenses that are picked up through special assements on property owners. We asses about 40 percent of the project to the home owners that we can. The other part is picked up by sewer and water bonds and then the city picks up the rest. Billington asked is there a certain percentage that you try to bond for? L:A11 FILESA 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONA 1 MINUTES\MN07111 Ldoc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 Erickson responded we typically bond for 2 million dollars Billington stated that these projects seem very important but it comes down to what exactly we can afford. Erickson stated that is one of the issues that we need to consider is the finances but the other issue is the condition on the streets and sewers. We need to make sure we are bonding for the appropriate streets that need maintenance and up keep. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON SECOND BY ROSAZK TO APPROVE VOTE: Ayes by Billington, Perez, and Roszak 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Planner Matzke: City Attorney will be conducting Training on Lane Use Decisions with City Council, Planning Commission and Economic Development Authority, on Monday, July 18, 2011, at 4:30 pm Billington asked will there be a meeting on July 25th Planner Matzke responded no there will not be a meeting on July 25th MOTION TO ADJORN BY BILLIITON SECOND BY PERZE TO APPROVE 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:31 p.m. Peter Aldritt, Development Services Assistant L:A11 FILESA 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONA 1 MINUTES\MN07111 Ldoc 4 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 SITE PIDS: PREPARED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: STAFF REPORT 4A CONSIDER VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCUTRES WITHIN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT 25-027-023-0, 25-027-024-0, 25-027-025-0 JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER _X_ YES NO -NIA AUGUST 8, 2011 INTRODUCTION Jason Miller is requesting variances to construct residential home lots on property located along Candy Cove on Prior Lake at the intersection of Candy Cove Trail and State Highway 13. For a proposed development to be known as The Bluffs of Candy Cove, the developer requests the following variances: Lots 1 2 & 3 • A variance to allow a structure to be located in the bluff impact zone. (Section 9104.303) • A 5 foot variance from the required minimum 5 foot driveway side yard setback (Section 1107.205 (1)) Lot 1 A 25 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District (Section 1102.405 (3)). Lot 2 • A 20 foot variance from the minimum 75 foot lake setback required in the Shoreland District (Section 1104.308. (2)). • A 2 foot variance from the minimum 10 foot side yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District (Section 1104.405 (3)). Lot 3 • A 25 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District (Section 1102.405 (3)). • A 45 foot variance from the minimum 75 foot lake setback required in the Shoreland District (Section 1104.308. (2)). • A 4,923 square foot variance from the required minimum lot area for a riparian residential lot on a General Development Lake within the Shoreland District (Section 1104.302 (3)). Phone 952.447.9800 I Fax 952.447.4245 I iir%NNv.eityofpriorIake.coiii BACKGROUND The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District), and is guided R - LD (Urban Low Density Residential) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The land is currently vacant with steep slopes throughout ranging in elevation from 984 MSL to 904 MSL. The property was originally platted in 1921 as Lots 32, 33, 34, 35, & 36 of the plat, Candy Cove Park. In 1960 the State of Minnesota acquired a portion of the lots for the development of the State Highway 13 right-of-way and Candy Cove Trail was realigned to intersect Highway 13. The City of Prior Lake maintains ownership of the former Candy Cove Trail platted right-of-way via a parcel of land (PID 25- 936-075-0) by which this proposed development site and the developed adjacent residential properties located at 5572 and 5584 Candy Cove Trail are accessed. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to plat the property into 3 buildable residential lots. Lot 1 is 23,360 square feet, Lot 2 is 15,159 square feet, and Lot 3 is 10,077 square feet. In order to gain access to the site the applicant proposes a single, 10% grade, common drive from Candy Cove Trail to the 3 lots. Retaining wall systems are needed to level the access driveway area and building pad sites while minimizing the impact to the steep, bluff slopes. The impervious surface proposed is identified for Lot 1 as 2,950 sq. ft (12.6% of the total lot area), for Lot 2 as 2,434 (16.1 %), and for Lot 3 as 2,900 sq. ft. (28.8%). The property was once platted in 1921 under the Plat of Candy Cove Park as Lots 33, 33, 34, 35, & 36. The property currently involves 3 PIDs (25-027-023-0, 25-027-024-0, 25-027-025-0) of which all are under common ownership. According to MN Statute 394.36 (c) "In a group of two or more contiguous lots of record under common ownership, an individual lot must be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purpose of development, if it meets the following requirements: (1) the lot must be at least 66 percent of the dimensional standard for lot width and lot size for the Shoreland classification consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 6120; (2) the lot must be connected to a public sewer, if available, or must be suitable for the installation of a Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, and local government controls; (3) impervious surface coverage must not exceed 25 percent of each lot; and (4) development of the lot must be consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan. Lots 1 and 2 meet these requirements. The impervious surface for Lot 3 must be adjusted to meet the minimum impervious surface standard set by the statute provision. The following details further evaluate each variance request: Bluff Impact Zone A bluff impact zone variance is requested for all 3 proposed lots. A large majority of the site in elevation from the toe of the bluff to the front property lines lie within the bluff impact zone. A variance for the bluff impact zone is necessary to allow any building pads on the 3 proposed lots. The applicant proposes retaining walls on the property to reduce the amount of grading impacts to the steep bluffs slopes. Also, the applicant has submitted a geotechnical report complete with soil borings and an engineer's recommendations for footing designs, desired materials for subgarde and backfill compaction, etc. According to Ordinance 1104.305 (3) "The owner of the property shall submit an as - built survey and post -construction report completed by a professional engineer registered by the State of Minnesota that the final grading of the site was completed in compliance with an approved grading plan and that the recommendations contained in the engineer's report have been adhered to." Driveway Variance A driveway variance is requested for all 3 proposed lots. The driveway variance is necessary to allow for the proposed shared access driveway which would cross private property lines. The individual driveways leading from the shared access driveway to each garage are proposed to meet the 5 foot minimum side yard driveway setback requirement. The developer will record a joint access agreement for the proposed 3 properties for maintenance of the access drive. Front Yard Variance (Lot 1) To achieve a moderate grade for the access driveway a 4-12 high foot retaining wall system is necessary to retain the nearby hillside. This retaining wall is located within the City -owned parcel and Lot 1. The variance request is necessary to allow for the proposed retaining wall passing through the minimum required 25 foot front yard setback for Lot 1. Front Yard Variance (Lot 3) A 25 foot front yard variance from the required minimum 25 foot setback is requested for Lot 3. The building pad for Lot 3 is proposed to be setback 0 feet from the front property line (Highway 13). The variance is necessary to allow the construction of the proposed building pad area for Lot 3. Lake Setback Variance (Lot 3) A 45 foot lake setback variance is requested for Lot 3. The proposed building pad is located 30 feet from the Ordinary High Water Elevation (904 elevation) of Prior Lake. The required minimum lake setback is 75 feet. The variance is necessary to allow the construction of the proposed building pad area for Lot 3. In addition, a 20 lake setback variance is required for the proposed 6-14 foot high retaining wall in the rear yard of Lot 2. The placement of this proposed wall will reduce the area of impact to the bluff slope in the rear yard of Lot 2 and on adjacent Lot 1. Side Yard Setback Variance (Lot 2) A 5 foot side yard setback variance is proposed for the proposed 6-14 foot high retaining wall near the western property of Lot 2. The placement of this proposed wall will reduce the area of impact to the bluff slope in the rear yard of Lot 2 and adjacent Lot 1. Lot Area Variance (Lot 31 A 4,923 square foot variance is requested for the creation of Lot 3. The minimum lot size required by the Zoning Ordinance for a riparian lot on a General Development lake such as Prior Lake is 15,000 square feet. The variance is necessary to allow for the creation of Lot 3. The area for Lot 3 (10,077 square feet) is at least 66% of the dimensional standard for lot width and therefore, does meet the lot area requirement for a buildable lot of record according to MN Statute 394.36 (c). ANALYSIS Variance Hardship Findings Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that: (1) There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The property consists of five (5) undeveloped riparian lots in the °R-1" Single Family Residential Zoning District. The lots were platted in 1921. The buildable area of each lot, along with the topography presents challenges to developing the property and constructing a reasonable size single family dwelling that is consistent with the size of dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood. The lots remain in common ownership which has allowed the applicant an opportunity to reconfigure the available land area and apply to subdivide the property into three lots. The exceptional topography and shape of the property are unique to the property. The vehicular access point to the property is limited to an approximately 50 foot wide strip of land at the southwest corner of the property. In order to allow for a safe and reasonable access to the property a bluff impact zone variance for all proposed lots, driveway setback variance for the proposed lots, and front yard setback variance for Lot 3 appear necessary to allow the proposed shared access driveway and retaining walls to be constructed. In addition, a bluff impact zone variance is necessary for construction of any building pads areas on the property. (2) The granting of the Variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the bluff impact zone variance for all lots, driveway setback variance for all lots, and front yard setback variance for Lot 3 is in harmony with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The property is designated for low density residential development under the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the granting of this variance will achieve the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to "promote the most appropriate and orderly dovelopment of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas." (3) The granting of the Variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved. In order to allow for a safe and secure access to the property and a reasonable amount of square footage for a modern home, the granting of the variances appear necessary. These variances are necessary to create a reasonable building pad area for the lots and driveways to access them safely. (4) The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property not resulting from actions of the owners of the property and is not a mere convenience to the property owner and applicant. The Minnesota Department of Transportation acquired property for the construction of improvements to Highway 13. In doing so access to the property from the area now occupied by Highway 13 was eliminated and the amount of the available land for reconfiguring the existing lots compromised. The acquisition of right-of-way for Highway 13 created a situation that meets the required hardship criteria to support some, but not all of the requested variances. The property was originally platted into five lots, all of which are contiguous and in common ownership. The minimum lot size for a single family lot in the Shoreland District is 15,000 square feet. Pursuant to MN Statute 39€.36 Subd. 5c the five lots can be combined into three individual lots for development. Due to the steep topography and shape of the available land it is not possible to reconfigure the original platted lots into residential properties which meet the setback requirements from the bluff impact zone setback, driveway setback requirements, lake setback for Lot 2 and 3, and the front yard setback requirement for Lot 1 and 3 without granting variances. The hardship basis for the proposed variances is due in part to the acquisition of right- of-way for Highway 13 which is circumstances unique to this property. The recommended variances are necessary to allow for the construction of safe and reasonable access to the property. (5) The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. The granting of the bluff impact zone variance for all three lots, driveway setback variance for all three lots, Lot 3 minimum area variance, lake setback variances for Lot 2 and 3, and front yard setback variance for Lot 3 will not impact the character and development of the local neighborhood. Many of the lots along the southern shores of Candy Cove are also irregularly shaped with existing nonconforming front yard setbacks and bluff impact zone encroachments. The geotechnica[ report identifies stable soils within the area for structures to be constructed on the steep slopes. (6) The granting of the Variance will not result in allowing any use of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located. The proposed uses of the property are single-family residential dwellings which are a permitted use within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. (7) The granting of the Variance is necessary to alleviate an inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The current proposal does not involve any proposed solar energy systems. CONCLUSION Due to the exceptional topography and shape of the property and in order to allow for a safe and secure access and a reasonable amount of square footage for a modern home, the strict application of the following variances appear to create a practical difficulty for the owner of the property to develop 3 residential home lots on the property: Lots 1, 2, & 3 • A variance to allow a structure to be located in the bluff impact zone. (Section 1904.303) • A 5 foot variance from the required minimum 5 foot driveway side yard setback (Section 1107.205 (1)) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 A 25 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District (Section 1102.405 (3)). A 20 foot variance from the minimum 75 foot lake setback required in the Shoreland District (Section 1104.308. (2)). A 2 foot variance from the minimum 10 foot side yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District (Section 1104.405 (3)). A 25 foot variance from the minimum 25 Zoning Use District (Section 1102.405 (3)). A 45 foot variance from the minimum 75 District (Section 1104.308. (2)). A 4,923 square foot variance from the residential lot on a General Development 1104.302 (3)). foot front yard setback required in the R-1 foot lake setback required in the Shoreland required minimum lot area for a riparian Lake within the Shoreland District (Section City staff acknowledges that the project site is challenging in regards to topography for the design of building pads areas and an access drive. City Staff has had many discussions with the developer, and major plan changes have been made to reduce bluff impacts, number of variance requests, and grading impacts throughout the site. The developer is also working to reach an agreement with the property owner at 5584 Candy Cove to grade on the adjacent property in order to reduce retaining wall heights near the shared property line. These retaining walls are needed for the installation of the proposed access drive to the properties. If an agreement cannot be reached the developer has prepared an alternative grading plan design which would not require grading on the adjacent property. While the developer has made substantial changes to the original design of the project, City Staff believes there remain additional changes which may change the overall grading of the site and therefore affect the proposed variance requests. These additional changes are identified in the attached engineering memorandum dated August 4, 2011. The City Staff recommends the applicant revise the development plans to address the comments in the engineering memorandum. After City Staff reviews the revised plans, we recommend the Planning Commission once again review the plat and variance requests at a future meeting for possible approvals and recommendations to City Council. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve any variance the Planning Commission deems appropriate in these circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny any variance because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated practical difficulties under the zoning code criteria. RECOMMENDED ACTION The recommendations by staff require the following motions: 1. A motion and second to table the discussion of the variance requests until the applicant has the opportunity to revise the development plans. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Development Plans 3. Engineering Dept. Memorandum dated 8-4-11 4. CDNR Dept. memorandum dated 8-4-11 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 SITE PIDS: PREPARED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: STAFF REPORT 4B CONSIDER A COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR A DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE 25-027-023-0, 25-027-024-0, 25-027-025-0 JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER _X_ YES NO -NIA AUGUST 8, 2011 INTRODUCTION Jason Miller has applied for approval of a residential development to be known as The Bluffs of Candy Cove on the property located at PID 25-027-023-0, 25-027-024-0, 25-027-0250. The site is located along Candy Cove on Prior Lake at the intersection of Candy Cove Trail and State Highway 13. The request calls for the subdivision of the existing common ownership property lot into three single-family residential lots. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Total Site Area: The total site consists of 1.07 acres. Topography: This site has an extremely steep topography, with elevations ranging from 984' MSL at its highest point to 904' MSI- at the lowest point. Vegetation: The property is a vacant, wooded area on the southern shores of Candy Cove. The project is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Wetlands: No wetlands are located on the site. Access: Access to the site is from Candy Cove Trail through a vacant, City -owned property (25-936- 075-0). 2030 Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for Urban Low Density Residential (R -LD) uses on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Zoning: The site is located within the R-1 Zoning District (Low Density Residential). The R-1 district is consistent with the proposed R -LD designation. This district permits a maximum density of 4.0 units per acre. Shoreland: The site is located within the shoreland district and is subject to the Shoreland Ordinance (Section 1104) including but not limited to bluff impact zone, impervious surface, and lake setback requirements. Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.coni PROPOSEDPLAN Lots: The combined preliminary and final plat consists of 3 proposed riparian lots for single family dwellings. Lot 1 is 23,360 square feet, Lot 2 is 95,159, and Lot 3 is 10,077 square feet. Streets: Platted in 1921, the 5 originally platted lots (now under common ownership) had direct access from Candy Cove Trail. In 1960, with the development of State Highway 13, the State of Minnesota acquired a portion of the lots and Candy Cove Trail was realigned to intersect Hwy 13. The City owns a parcel of land between the lots and the current alignment of Candy Cove Trail. The lots are proposed to have access through the City -owned parcel to Candy Cove Trail through a shared access driveway. Sanita Sewer/Water Mains: A sanitary sewer pipe and water main exist within the right-of-way of State Highway 13. Utility services for the 3 lots are proposed to connect to this sanitary sewer pipe and water main. Storm Sewer: Grading on the site will direct runoff to newly dedicated drainage and utility easements along the perimeter of all the properties. The developer shall designate additional storm water treatment methods as required under the Public Works Design Manual. Landscaping: The Subdivision Ordinance requires a minimum of two trees in the front yard for all newly created lots. Tree Replacement: The applicant has submitted an inventory identifying 1597.5 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. The Zoning Ordinance allows up to 35% for building pads and driveways. According to the proposed plan, 1084.0 caliper inches will be removed and a 28 inch heritage trees will be preserved resulting in the need for 262.5 caliper inches of replacement. The applicant should submit revised plans distinguishing between tree removals located within the City -owned parcel and the private lot areas recalculating the required tree replacement percentages. Fees and Assessment: This property has paid sanitary sewer and water assessments as a result of a utility project in 1974. Therefore, this development will be subject to only the utility connection fee. ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into 3 riparian single family dwellings. Lots 1 & 2 conform to the R-1 riparian minimum requirements of 90 feet in width at the front yard line, 75 feet in width at the Ordinary High Water Elevation of Prior Lake, 15,000 square feet in area, and less than 4.0 units per acre in density. While Lot 3 does not conform to the minimum lot area requirement it does meet the area requirement for a buildable lot of record under MN Statute 394.36 (c). The applicant has a pending variance request from the minimum lot area requirement for Lot 3 required by City Ordinance. In addition, to establish building pads for the 3 lots the following pending variances are requested: a. A variance to allow a structure to be located in the bluff impact zone on Lots 1, 2, & 3 (Section 1104.303). b. A 5 foot variance from the required minimum 5 foot driveway side yard setback for Lots 1, 2, & 3 (Section 1107.205 (1)). G. A 25 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District for Lot 1 (Section 1102.405 (3)). d. A 20 foot variance from the minimum 75 foot lake setback required in the Shoreland District (Section 1104.308. (2). e. A 2 foot variance from the minimum 10 foot side yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District (Section 1104.405 (3)). f. A 25 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District for Lot 3 (Section 1102.405 (3)). g. A 45 foot variance from the minimum 75 foot lake setback required in the Shoreland District for Lot 3 (Section 1104.308. (2)). h. A 4,923 foot variance from the required minimum lot area for a riparian residential lot on a General Development Lake within the Shoreland District for Lot 3 (Section 1104.302 (3)). CONCLUSION: The combined preliminary and final plat application will comply with all relevant ordinance provisions and City standards outside of the pending variance requests. The plat as presented cannot be approved until the pending variance request approvals are granted. City Staff also recommends the following conditions of approval be met: 2. The applicant shall enter into an Agreement with the City prior to the construction of a retaining wall within the City -owned parcel 3. The applicant shall address all engineering comments as outlined in the memorandum from the City Engineer dated August 4, 2011. 4. The following pending variances are granted: a. A variance to allow a structure to be located in the bluff impact zone on tots 1, 2, & 3 (Section 1104.303). b. A 5 foot variance from the required minimum 5 foot driveway side yard setback for Lots 1, 2, & 3 (Section 1107.205 (1)). c. A 25 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District for Lot 1 (Section 1102.405 (3)). d. A 20 foot variance from the minimum 75 foot lake setback required in the Shoreland District (Section 1104.308. (2). e. A 2 foot variance from the minimum 10 foot side yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District (Section 1104.405 (3)). f. A 25 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District for Lot 3 (Section 1102.405 (3)). g. A 45 foot variance from the minimum 75 foot lake setback required in the Shoreland District for Lot 3 (Section 1104.308. (2)). h. A 4,923 foot variance from the required minimum lot area for a riparian residential lot on a General Development Lake within the Shoreland District for Lot 3 (Section 1104.302 (3))• 5. The applicant shall address all comments as outlined in the memorandum from the Community Development Department dated August 4 2011. 6. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and pay any required development fees. 7. The applicant shall obtain required permits from all applicable governmental agencies prior to final plat approval. 8. The final plat shall be recorded at Scott County within 90 days of approval by the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the Combined Preliminary and Final Plat subject to conditions. 2. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the issues that have been discussed. 3. Recommend denial of the Combined Preliminary and Final Plat request. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends Alternative #2. RECOMMENDED ACTION The recommendations by staff require the following motion: 1. A motion and second to table the discussion of the combined preliminary and final plat until the applicant has the opportunity to revise the development plans. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Development Plans 3. Engineering Dept. Memorandum dated 8-4-11 4. Community Development Dept. memorandum dated 8-4-11 o�raw=s0 xs ��� �0rho Z�I-zwOY+Xo mea h-(n.:<ppUtn� aN N===❑w0 Lu VC5<, U¢ Z oz©�a -O.w.¢O Z Q Wa � w O Q Z z Q4w[}a zaO iJ y P z z En zizcn H ¢ Iw,,,y¢w. ❑ w � Z w zdQ z Nld..❑ Cwj ^Ue � .0 5, . ,w m� O w U g w u.I�OZ^6m mZOp ww U 3: U 4LM [7 L, w y o= Z a aw 'o Nywgz !-1 2 IS -3o H o0GL)u�� a w m w a oz zw� ❑� o F u w Q n w a �wwnacxw cs F., z ❑ A ,., z�❑Ln Tu a a^ ti.zw w�Q...n 0. COWMU wa w � ni7cn "U%N Q Iu 0ouI M1 a Q'W¢w0 J mZ`fl V c c14 a Em a w M V' v1 ? 10 In J myLU C7 w i vNi m o�raw=s0 xs ��� �0rho Z�I-zwOY+Xo mea h-(n.:<ppUtn� aN N===❑w0 Lu VC5<, U¢ Z oz©�a -O.w.¢O Z Q Wa � w O Q Z z Q4w[}a zaO iJ y P z z En zizcn H ¢ Iw,,,y¢w. ❑ w � Z w zdQ z Nld..❑ Cwj ^Ue � .0 5, . ,w m� O w U g w u.I�OZ^6m mZOp ww U 3: U 4LM [7 L, w y o= Z a aw 'o Nywgz !-1 2 IS -3o H o0GL)u�� a w m w a oz zw� ❑� o F u w Q n w a �wwnacxw cs F., z ❑ A ,., z�❑Ln Tu a a^ ti.zw w�Q...n 0. COWMU wa w uj I "U%N Q Iu a M1 LU Q'W¢w0 N mZ`fl V c c14 a Em a w O O 0 L N m o� o ? b tli6 n.Q xc In myLU C7 w i vNi m �•G d vNy L1_ W tnn o�raw=s0 xs ��� �0rho Z�I-zwOY+Xo mea h-(n.:<ppUtn� aN N===❑w0 Lu VC5<, U¢ Z oz©�a -O.w.¢O Z Q Wa � w O Q Z z Q4w[}a zaO iJ y P z z En zizcn H ¢ Iw,,,y¢w. ❑ w � Z w zdQ z Nld..❑ Cwj ^Ue � .0 5, . ,w m� O w U g w u.I�OZ^6m mZOp ww U 3: U 4LM [7 L, w y o= Z a aw 'o Nywgz !-1 2 IS -3o H o0GL)u�� a w m w a oz zw� ❑� o F u w Q n w a �wwnacxw cs F., z ❑ A ,., z�❑Ln Tu a a^ ti.zw w�Q...n 0. COWMU wa w uj I u ry C7 o�raw=s0 xs ��� �0rho Z�I-zwOY+Xo mea h-(n.:<ppUtn� aN N===❑w0 Lu VC5<, U¢ Z oz©�a -O.w.¢O Z Q Wa � w O Q Z z Q4w[}a zaO iJ y P z z En zizcn H ¢ Iw,,,y¢w. ❑ w � Z w zdQ z Nld..❑ Cwj ^Ue � .0 5, . ,w m� O w U g w u.I�OZ^6m mZOp ww U 3: U 4LM [7 L, w y o= Z a aw 'o Nywgz !-1 2 IS -3o H o0GL)u�� a w m w a oz zw� ❑� o F u w Q n w a �wwnacxw cs F., z ❑ A ,., z�❑Ln Tu a a^ ti.zw w�Q...n 0. COWMU wa 3 imm Y,p00 z M ly- L-[ 0- .'W 19-A `> " w ao� itsIL v n r a 1 xy H ug r �...�. F d CD m ;r }0 MH z LLI g '`; z LUg a !Lda LU ^ 1 0 c \ zw zut U J U C r z m G O LL LL Oz caw sh AA PM 9 1. ©y3m� ❑ Lill ��g O �II�w Q f�� ad O ^ w u oc 0 a w ? Zw .t w a O +;7 J Q Za Cry oc O Zm O Lo' www U }u odea U¢ O m U A O o�¢e U< a�d O p w❑ w p w 2 a °' a ❑ G Z m « O U r Zu; Uc c m d� Uz wH� crew U ¢� w Z a� O acg ocjZti a. ❑w NwO �� d'Z0 y aNa Zza�U¢ O �} x O� owz �Ua •�^❑ oo a o o� w 70�O a❑ o � az��0Uc"0o?O��' y5zznD❑��J�0o ��❑w �O¢z�u'� ��Z��°`UoSo©� tt¢OpQ"���-;}w vdrpi � Ua d.¢ug.: ¢❑p 4�=?U¢+5?dU=�zOaaaa}�0 O Ubh2�06sZU ¢ O aZ LL =m Zp �dOawwv1. ZU paLL0=N=i ❑-Z a ❑ 6 26: 1., dUO�Z O❑Z, w 7O ❑ (Z x0N❑¢ U z 'U CQ =oy yNQw5 zo0Q w� V w� a. o.ZU � Ua w,UO� ��F ❑ za"�aw � xx apm �a6 ©ohw� �Z�� ❑ � ❑� Q w ZOp"' ww n JO Q QOO w_�Z � 0�Q„«„� Li �w A y gHQ r7 0 e m y 2��awwO�o0c �o'c SaUwrH❑wamw OJDzQ'9�c�v�ZOz �❑0aw �Q❑O0N oamJ }AZ6O7 �QUaQh m�O❑ O�UQ_PD�zww Oa` ¢P aQcOrrwLO 0 7C Z 0 o Z p'OnLL z°¢¢ U¢Z¢Z za v, w a❑wUm�i� 00 o QhO 2aw..�nZ O� ❑¢�JZv¢,t� npQa O a�•m w w0 G Q❑i'OZO z� z pwC ❑4zo w�zaZaazh= �❑✓zUW❑❑c�i z a >� W d o U ¢ ¢ z u O a O -u _ TZ �a❑u40a �Ow:N_�Uwg5w�4UwyQ°i�wC wV �U��w6xoa�JOUwZQ«`s`�-O'+owawc a Nwv, mrww- Z(w„�h7„w0Od•• a}m wuj y°o°ew�� -UU+ QM VzO Q 0 zOpa"w0c' z❑Z�w�m��UQwJ��a�6 zaz OZz�aOo�2 zOUn©woUp NIQ0 ¢¢�U' CZ�On O0 Wi DQ�2Os �n ZO�OLL F{OOzV c�e mwCl Sa 7w s -O ;d_ - 9:c =_�O bu�a0O. OU Q❑ n> �WCL p r } I 68. f y1 455.188 ' I 'MT•523 / 5W WA 9.s3o c24 34s J J r I I i I i I III 1 6'illx9" 941 � ' 1 tom+ I! Ilb•� I AO 13 {} I l l l l l l irl \I \ iY f '• iI �Sp If,1a01�70 N a �' 1 1 1 V Il 1 �\ N 1i f 111 W U—^ / \\-^ I f ;I 1 !� l i l l l l l 9 ! 11f ..991 rwlla ii1i111'1 I�i1f� ! v1 l ofi o �Pf �Illf11 I f i�il I I I iI a�Q fr o'' 4 / 11I1lIlf VIII k 7Ca� r.5• iaI�4 l2o�wl �;Ico�13a 4 I ��// 9�6v _ „$`•L1J / / i - � � �' h� 1 i I I 41 939.Sax f(k aw�� Vii✓/�s � �,�� � n-a"� ti 1 �1 1 /�j✓/�o r ��.�;. _�� �����, 1 I I 1 l �f � .x ' i?/ ✓� /// ` 6\'�`���`- /// 4 / //// ///� �� ^945 I i5 l it uj t� ��. �{ / y¢ alo r ;1811 j-�\\�. ~_ �,ti�,, , `/ •i / //� // �� ,..+'n '�; \� 1. 11..1 1�3�i.��P \ ,�" ' \ ' C �p / / r / / � J / / / � /' / / / � 1' �.. =� � � � �- r — �' � 4c�,6 / .� . r� • �f — -, 1a' \1 �1 4S >:ul5a I U' ,95.9�3 ❑ _ 11 �' ^ ` �` / //� 96/ / �N! o \ } 1 1 } ! I r r i! 443•c L _�_� ..+'p1�—' �•�� � % % i / �Si` `\\ 1} 1111 � � .,�G / f � •096` � � .` Y � � �`�"ac,, / ✓ �A � ` � /• x 6 1 1 z v1' � 'j W 4,�.ao _� �� ��.� � � /•� � , 11511x.' U 1 453.�J .— �.—✓896 ✓"'— P6 � ;�y i�' :.� Q 14tn�1 � I�l I '�' 1, X 1 45+•1° 1}I \r Lb I [it 1II11�1 Ci i� 1 439.53 j ! ��! � � � . 0•6 gJ1 I i! �� l I! i m l I l }I 7 ,'� !1 \ 4»: j1 4v�9" ! �1 a�b P •`�'� I S I I I i I 1 I 1,1 � � /J 453.74 %Nf —� ^/ �\� • � ! IGJI I 1 I II II I 111 � 453.12 l W�` � \ � Y� / ��-� ! I 1 I I 1pI t 7 1 \ 99, 033 494•x8' •—_/ J � I I / Y 1� 1 \S 1 8•e % J } 1 1 9 4N'N. 4 j1 ..1 X ry4q G fr ✓39, f `D 418 I A Y` 1 �_ Z 454.i3I p>: %^ �L iii Q i'S1 49. 4 x'29 / z�� �:WQOX0-� 39.43h989 IA/21W , o W x ~ Z F- Ia7 �gq.s19 mfl�usjl+eS CSS a yyao5 7 4 LLQ LV ¢ uJa33.°x1 11 f Q u La•- I••„ = z w i1J 1 11 Q1Co ATt 499884 974.98 [W'}Zm�05i—O 0"" llTOz M:l O LU I l4 ZO O 2 O© O 9gy34gi0 �- Z L l w � -:J) 39].83 �t'ZUXz-0 M I ';I 1 ';f 1 of N i � n � � rl w O/ �Arb /a2 v Jflc_ € 958.1}8 f r .\ r I t 'I ! 7��59 � a13•ry5�' I 99���� � I� L �'®1�1111f1i � ' ,I I II 111111 Irn�I"IN p X111111111 I I f•-' I I I / �l � I JI11 11 I LI I .a Sns;I1 1 j.nla �� / "IfN°Ill llljl111gN�'� `� / rll'lflrl 1 Izf l }' I CL o£¢ i Z�� ! LU511If1 I 1 1 w to �Oap6 !I �" rr�omml Iamn I< �/ Yr ^` _. r. [. $(` /•gyp .A I 1 � f a. }} Z .• �6}al }� 1 L L I I \ 5 a ll l 11 l `\ G\ v l °` 459 F7 1 � \ } 1 k � f r 495• '• �w�' � 1 11 S I 11 1 ;I F 11z nom. � w Lu ' Il�lo allil �l a� 1 ,9 h� • I I E I 1' �' 1 099• 19( l n ..AanY k 11 k1 i I I II I 1 1t � I p p`•_ r 1 1 1 I I I k i} 05.1-0 I; t kl S• / L� ^�11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11I 1 I t� I 1 ` 655 �b b a- G ii I !N �! 11 11 11 0 09q FM ' 1 q 1-y 1� 496Zg6 99n•11 } t55 e / 1 I nYd12' suet \ i r 59 6g11\ 1 999.644 1 7gA'44 994•td 494.,55 N �6 45a.z44 Ag� ry94.t}2 ui� } �41p4 nr t2 44s.xp6 493•t� J 1 } ! I M1901 q Xe ..1 ^ >: >- H N 79�FF Ob Z Z 995: �n¢cn0 w Lu)apO�w�F 3 0 m0°c�j� a :D�?�" .Luo.-, UZZ©¢wf=-¢ L} o V m= F -= W o L L L OHO F 0Zmwa©F--O W N 131�m�Z}T w (A3=•I-_5ULUOC aO000C7�Yn z z=zn<- 1 �F-Z'u�Q t55 e / 1 I nYd12' suet \ i r 59 6g11\ 1 999.644 1 7gA'44 994•td 494.,55 N �6 45a.z44 Ag� ry94.t}2 ui� } �41p4 nr t2 44s.xp6 493•t� W z dW z u O n tj ©�F UZ Z w a R MIMo � ':nA�'44P��ii►`rt �,.� w>rIA�IW41i 4tiM�►".b1fAt�c£a � • �� ^y r O ;k I .y. 1'll T. 3 t W I / LU C © w N • r�-'reef 0 0 _� aW-,w " II W x � axn� J a 1 �aoo�A N � ry ter., i� •�, _ __._ e.• �.:�,�.'�►���'" 7�;�,, %' /��n� Si>>��.� �� h1Y:$M w m S W z dW z u O n tj ©�F UZ Z w a R MIMo � ':nA�'44P��ii►`rt �,.� w>rIA�IW41i 4tiM�►".b1fAt�c£a � • �� ^y r O ;k I .y. 1'll T. 3 t W I / LU © w N 0 0 _� aW-,w " II W x � axn� J a 1 �aoo�A N w m w �mm'W �00?- 1 LU w ©r� O VLU F ❑ a n O}rr o� a SIT- z O� T a �/�� �Q �Lnw,cm ll© WLU Pm Oi UlG1,�NC.J— �7 m)_, J a,�n LU J��au3 in NLU �....t Naz ' cc U)r-IVLi3 0�U)o-.. Ui a(• I— V Ij pm �� ux \\ xo o (n v) uj In rNNO \ cev"1O ZN'J V1 \\\\ aw n `Le, ON N U L4 A 7 / LL J LA% co LL oRb �a 00 4 / co cul? ,ce ' F Fkl 0 I iY a- I— WLLJ J o _ a hLLJ^^ z U >: M1Y 1 LSI Fkl 0 I— WLLJ J hLLJ^^ U M1Y 1 LSI Fkl 0 +-'I N M V'• Sn +D n fb T -U w -N M �� Ln :tb- n W: dl :D w N' M -.� In -�D- 00 67 O +-i .H M .[t: in .10 , .O 61 O ,-I 'N M ,[t. N .%O N 07 m O ri N M V' 117 :N N :fV N :N N :N- N ;N- N :M. M M M .cn M co. M .M M :v r �v v :V': r :v V v r -ln to Ln to to 117 Lo vi LU J N ¢ Jcr Q >LJJ LIJ ¢� p LL ox 10 LL OO =OLUtn co 1-- )— ¢ Q -r LL 0� �� WU U -j LU Q w >Lu Q a_ C) LU I— O p Lu LTJ N Lu Z LU Lu = Ur .J O UJ t0 m N F-� OUZ HU < >Ln Oil U-[il w�� CGN O� �.. LL 0 LLJ Lu Ln w I—UJ Ln Ln Mz �LoZ" U� O LuCY) OU) JT Lun� Qm Q m x J ¢%n X00 L ��� a. � :D ¢u)� U-¢(!) UON J© ° Q Ln Q L�. z U o w c� �w _LLJ o V)LU ZF Z 0 co O LO 01 �n c-4 n N Lr)10 ati W LO LO N to ko W n tD to m h Ln r -Z lD lD •4 c0 U) N, W CO V 16 in a in O N. M Ln .-i 07 w ry.. M O 4? N Q f6 O Q w N M N- xr M c N O � O � � L d CS 0 'D co I.n tD Ifl u] - C n V' V' V' d' 'r ko KS' W V' lD lD to n' to kD kD kD lD tiD tD +D to KC V. N t!' N %D 'tY ' Y' o y, o v o -0v O 4Y� z W m LO - �D Oti iD M h o n %0 co n n - �D cD O% h 0 W f+ N tp �D W ]� +6 t6 cd n n N .07 G p N, m -[ tl n (711 C O 7 p r rw r-7 Ln Z ro o W a, uj UJI w a w O. O O O O O O O O OwO -o� O O v3 0 a� 0 0 a� a 0 -a 'o OO O a v o 0 0 0 0 w O 0 4 Q O 0 0 0 0 O 'o3 0 0 ,v� OO OO v" c, w QxQ OO2 0 PP 2 2OOOO 2 O um rua 1 a m �fo aZ v a a am rn M0 ¢ Q O a a r(:;I =o op cc N m er v� co n Gtl ai O N m a �. m rn P *+ . N M rl Ln cD n W rn o+ e N M a u> cD n o� rn tl -. a 'DO V,— = a vm La 0 0) 01 0) 0l�������NNNNNNNNNNMrmi - O O U 1- ri N M Memo Date: August 4, 2011 To: Community Development and Natural Resources Department From: Engineering Department — Larry Poppler, City Engineer Public Works / Natural Resources Department — Ross Bintner, Water Resources Engineer Subject: Bluffs of Candy Cove (Project #10-122) The Engineering Department and Public Works/Natural Resources Department has reviewed the combined preliminary and final plat for the subject project with a draft plan date of July 25, 2011 and we have the following comments. Comments highlighted in bold text are of particular concern: General 1. Permits from MNDOT and a SWPPP must be obtained. 2. Provide copies of easements for work outside of property limits. 3. Show City Project #10-122 in the lower right hand corner of each plan sheet. 4. Provide note stating the working hours are from 7am to 7pm Monday through Friday and 8 am to 5prn Saturday. 5. Show pavement section for bituminous drainage way. 6. The drawings for this plat must be signed by a registered professional engineer. 7. All parcels should be properly labeled with lot and block numbers. Developed parcels should have their address shown on the plans. 8. The plat should show drainage and utility easement for all stormwater features. Gradina Plan L Grading plans are incomplete. A number of contours are missing. Some contours are shown connecting to other elevations. The grading plan can not be properly reviewed until the contour discrepancies are corrected. Below are a few of the issues that were encountered during this review: a. Contour 958 near lot 1 ends in the middle of the driveway. b. Contour 956 near lot 1 ends at the driveway edge. c. Contour 954 connects to a 946 contour near lot 1. It is unclear how the retaining wall in this area works. d. The 952 contour changes into a 948 contour near lot 1. e. The 948 contour for the driveway of lot 2 ends prematurely. Phonc 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / AN,%v%v.6tyofprior1ake.com f. The 922 — 940 contours south of Iot 3 encs prematurely. The driveway grade for lot 3 appears to be too steep as shown. 2. The lot 3 grades at the walkout level are 3 feet below the walkout elevation. 3. The extension of the 920 contour on lot 2 is unnecessary and should simply connect into the retaining wall. 4. The drainage path north of lot 3 flows onto the neighboring property to the northeast. 5. The bituminous drainage path at the 940 contour would direct water from the path toward the north side of lot 3. To avoid the additional drainage, a diversion dike should be installed in this area. 6. Drainage arrows are shown down the lot line between lots 1 and 2, however the contours do not correspond to that drainage path. 7. The building pad for lot 2 should be pivoted to allow distance between the pad and the proposed retaining wall. 8. The walkout elevations show up to 18 foot wall heights for the basement level. Is this intentional? 9. All retaining walls constructed in the public right of way must be mortarless concrete block retaining wall. Delineate type of walls on plans. Retaining walls require fencing if over 4 feet in height or more than one tier. 10. Show additional top and bottom wall elevations. Some top and bottom wall information is difficult to read in some areas. 11. Drainage paths are shown flowing over the top of retaining walls. How will this water be safely conveyed? 12. Once constructed, stormwater features must be protected until the home sites are restored. Notes detailing how these are protected must be added to the plans. 13. Due to the bluff impacts of this project. The Developer should provide a report and calculations prepared by a licensed professional engineer in the state of Minnesota on the bluff stability. Consult section 1104.305 of the City Ordinances. Any changes made to the plan will require a new analysis. 14. Easements should be shown on the grading plan. 15. Porous pavement is proposed in the drainage calculations. These parous pavement areas should be depicted on the plans. 16. Details for the infiltration area should be provided in the plans. 17. Soil amendment locations should be depicted on the plans. 18. If all retaining walls are not plam2ed for construction with the initial grading, an interim grading plan should be submitted. Grading Plan Alternate A separate grading plan was submitted for grading in the southwest corner of the side near the home located at 5584 Candy Cove Trail. The comments below are in addition to the comments above for the grading plan. 1. A 17 foot wall is proposed to within 3 feet of the adjacent property. It is improbable that construction of a wall of that height is possible so close to the property line. The type of wall system needs to be specified on the plans. Construction details will be necessary. Site Hydrology, Wateruali and Storm Sewer 1. Design information for infiltration feature should meet the requirements in the PWDM. Infiltration tests required requirements of 12.8 of the Minnesota state stormwater manual followed including 48hr drain down, pretreatment, phasing, soil compaction, etc. 2. Soil is Hayden series loam. Pre -development and post -development hydrological models should use B type soils. 3. Porous pavement CN reduction credit is undercounted. 4. Rate control from road catchment should meet PWDM standards for 2, 10, and 100 year events. 5. The treatment systems are on private property and are assumed to remain under private ownership. The continued fimnction of the treatment systems are required; therefore a maintenance plan and agreement will be required, binding property owners to maintain the system at its designed average level of service 6. Drainage concentrated on R.O.W line will cause an erosion issue. Recommend planning micro scale drainage areas to disconnect and safely convey roof water to treatment and provide stable flow paths. Two concentrated drainage paths flow over 10-13' walls. 7. A NPDES Construction Site permit is required for sites disturbing greater than 1 acre and the provisions of the NPDES Construction Site are used locally for sites under that threshold. Before a grading permit can be issued, an erosion control plan and SWPPP must be submitted and approved by the City. 8. The design engineer is encouraged to call Prior Lake Water Resources Engineer, Ross Bintner at 952-447-9831 with questions on any hydrological, hydraulic, and SWPPP continents. Street and Utilities 1. The driveway width must be a nlaximunr of 24 feet within City Right of Way. 2. The utility services for lot three are shown within 3 feet of the lot 3 structure. This should be move to the west to provide at least 10 feet of distance from the services to the structure. 3. An easement agreement will be needed for the driveway access, grading, and retaining walls on City property. 4. The invert elevation shown for lot 3 is above the low floor elevation. o� rzuo� Development Review INH85o'Vt Memo To: Jason Miller, Whitewater Development From Jeff Matzke, Planner CC: ©ate: 814111 Re: Review 4 — The Bluffs of Candy Cove (Combined Pre/Final Plat & Variances) The following is a list of comments from the CDNR Dept. review: 1) Indicate 25 foot front yard setback from City owned right-of-way parcel. 2) Adjust building pad in Lot 2 out of indicated side yard setback and lake setback. 3) Provide impervious surface breakdown of pad areas, driveway areas, and access drive for each lot. Impervious surface for Lot 3 must not exceed 25% of minimum lot area according to MN Statute 394.36 (c). 4) Revise tree removalfreplacement plan to distinguish trees located within City -owned access parcel and private lots and recalculate tree replacement percentages. Eliminate tree replacement from bluff area in Lot 1 rear yard. Current proposal indicates 262.5 caliper inches of tree replacement is required. Also per Subdivision Ordinance, 2 front yard trees are required per lot. 5) Property owner(s) shall enter into an agreement with the City prior to the construction of the retaining walls on City Property. 6) Variances needed for current proposal: a. Bluff variance for all lots to allow construction of structures and grading in a bluff zone. b. 5 foot driveway setback for all lots (5 foot variance from 5 foot min requirement) c. 25 foot front yard variance for Lot 1 (variance to allow retaining wall along access driveway. d. 63 foot lake setback variance for Lot 2 (12 foot variance from min requirement) e. 30 foot lake setback for Lot 3 (45 foot variance from the 75 foot minimum requirement) f. 0 foot front setback for Lot 3 (25 foot variance from the 25 foot minimum requirement) g. 10,077 square foot lot area for Lot 3 (4,923 square foot variance from 15,000 min.) MEETING DATE: AUGUST 8, 201'1 AGENDA #: 6A PREPARED BY: LARRY POPPLER, CITY ENGINEER 1 INSPECTIONS DIRECTOR AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG WEST AVENUE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is for the Planning Commission to review whether a driveway easement agreement is consistent with the 2030 Compre- hensive Plan. History The City of Prior Lake owns property associated with Lakefront Park near West Avenue, PID# 259350020. Burt Olson owns property adjacent to Lakefront Park. The property elevation peaks at the Burt Olson parcel. A steep gravel driveway allows access to the Burt Olson property. Current Circumstances The Burt Olson driveway currently encroaches onto Park property and has ex- isted at its current location for a long time. It is assumed that because of the ele- vation difference, the driveway was located outside of the dedicated right of way. The driveway width is only 8 feet and curves to the west which creates further difficulties in navigation. Burt Olson would like to lower the elevation of the high point in the driveway to reduce the steep slope. He would also like to straighten out the driveway remov- ing the curve. He is proposing a 12 foot driveway and includes a short two foot high retaining wall. To remove the curve, the driveway shifts further onto park property varying from 0 to 15 feet at the maximum. Burt Olson is proposing to compensate the City for this new perpetual easement. The current driveway is gravel and because of the steep grade is prone to ero- sion, Burt Olson plans on paving the driveway with this agreement. Because this is a remote area of Lakefront Park, trailer parking or other en- croachments are possible. The proposed retaining wall would eliminate that pos- sibility at this location. ISSUES: The current driveway encroaches onto City property, by approving this agree- ment the City is acknowledging the encroachment and memorializing the man- agement of that encroachment through a perpetual easement. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies goals and objectives in relation to vehi- cular accessibility and continuity of safe road design. In particular one of the ob- jectives states to design private driveways which are consistent with reasonable traffic engineering standards. City Staff believes this agreement allows for a sa- fer access driveway for some of the existing residential properties in the West Avenue area. ALTERNATIVES. 1. Recommend approval of a resolution approving a perpetual easement for the Burt Olson Driveway. 2. Table approval of a resolution approving a perpetual easement for the Burt Olson Driveway. 3. Do not recommend approval of a resolution approving a perpetual easement for the Burt Olson Driveway. RECOMMENDED Alternative #1 MOTION: 4253- M' 253td]' 4247 423] 4241 4235 4223- 4221 t _ Scott County, MN 4263 f5771 15731 157�53—� 15743 753 f ;k55 I 15957 Easement Area 15325 43h3 I I � Lakefant Park This draw5ngisneither aregaltyrecorded map nor asurvey and isriot 4333 Map Scale intended to be used as one. This drawing fs a compilation of recotds, information, and data located in various city county, and slate olfices,and 43 4]43 1933E purposes only. Scott County is not responsible for any ineocuracies herein SID) 23� contained.lf discrepancies are found, pleascontact the Scott County p Surveyors Office. 8/4/2011 'J 4337 1943] 1937] 194 8 Ll15357 E3470 �`. 1 X33 15391 ,� !..;�;. � 15433 w r 1c�3fo y4 16)31 19]18 IWO 0 1!1152 16123 16-A3 16333 },. 16]tf 16]17 E6114 1n , 16]3] Stow lw3f Maio 16311 16373 tom OA -� 163;8 (A163:3 16333 163:A t163;810351 16353 163lerw 58 16051 16012 4150 16073 16358 10335 G 16374 16332 16070 16)x3 42W F6735 �� 't370� t6102 43:1 4323 4333 4493 49.0 4533 45;0 4333 4335 Ut2 443' �rA 16110 18111 ffff/j 4373 4331 `S r$�C _tL53- This draw5ngisneither aregaltyrecorded map nor asurvey and isriot Map Scale intended to be used as one. This drawing fs a compilation of recotds, information, and data located in various city county, and slate olfices,and 1 inch = 309 feet other sources affecfing the area shorn, and is to be used for reference purposes only. Scott County is not responsible for any ineocuracies herein MDate Map contained.lf discrepancies are found, pleascontact the Scott County p Surveyors Office. 8/4/2011 N W+Et S t 4 y d� �y fl 'A '? ,1 1 C 1`j 5k 7nalln�38 dWd -16 1 V7 _ F;W i t ap � YG x ti w 4b 1 02 3JD�NY9 fff t y 1 1 o Q wz w [] cl 1P °o o v_f o CL ---� - o km �xr 1� o N A'