2004-10-27 Memo - Cedar Creek Fence ComplaintNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan nersanacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
NAC FILE:
Alan Brixius
Mike Darrow
October 27, 2004
Albertville — Cedar Creek — Fence Complaint
I have reviewed the complaint involving the Cedar Creek Golf Club. Specifically, you
requested information pertaining to the intention of the PUD and related open space,
function of ponds, easements, and stormwater improvements.
The intent of the PUD was to provide for a single family residential development with the
amenity of a public golf course. The golf course and related open spaces were
established through outlots. As part of the concept plan, lots were laid out in a
configuration that established multiple view sheds of the course, ponds, and related trail
system. Drainage easements were required over all ponding areas. Lots adjacent to
ponding areas were required to have adequate separation from pond elevations.
There doesn't appear to be specific language outlined within the documents pertaining
to fencing or the future subdivision of Outlot B. I didn't see a PUD permit in the files.
Information outlining specific polices, setbacks, fencing, etc. may be found within that
document or related covenants. As you are aware, Section 1006 of the Zoning
Ordinance states that "all boundary line fences shall be located entirely upon the private
property of the person constructing or causing the construction of said fence." Upon
review of the complaint, the homeowner is not in compliance with regards to Section
1006.
CONCLUSION
It was the intent of the PUD to establish a single family development with a nexus to the
golf course as well as to provide view sheds of the course (as shown on the concept
plan). The current fence location within the outlot denies the adjoining homeowners a
view of the course. It is also in violation of Section 1006 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Furthermore, the proliferation of additional fencing within the outlot by other
homeowners would be contrary to the intent of the PUD.
.3641 ZT14ATJU4?HO3
--1
There is also no specific language outlining the purchasing of outlots to adjoining
homeowners. Because the intent of the outlot is for the enjoyment of the entire
community, any future subdivision within the outlot would be contrary to the purpose of
the outlot, golf course and related open space amenities.
Please let me know if you require additional information regarding this issue.
2