HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 12, 1996
-.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, August 12, 1996
7:00 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case 96-068 - Maris Stolcers, requesting a lake shore setback of 0 feet for the
construction of a deck to an existing cabin at 5395 Shore Trail NE.
B. Case 96-071 - Dave Smith, requesting an impervious surface coverage of 34% for the
construction of a garage and driveway for the property at 2950 Spring Lake Road.
C. Case 96-067 - Eagle Creek Villas request a 21 foot front yard variance for properties at
4170-4176 CJ Circle.
D. Case 96-061 - Consider Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to permit churches and day
care facilities in the C-I, Conservation District.
E. Case 96-062 - Consider Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to permit fences in County
road right-of-way.
5. Old Business:
Case 96- 055 - Eagle Creek Assisted Living Facility Hearing Continued.
6. New Business:
Gensmer Appeal Regarding Lot 7, Maple Park Shore Acres
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 ~~ek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, MinnesotaP5~2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
;
J}1H:>t
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 22, 1996
The July 24, 1996, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Criego at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Vonhof, Kuykendall, Wuellner,
Stamson and Criego, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Acting City Engineer John
Wingard and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
Roll Call:
Wuellner
Kuykendall
Stamson
V onhof
Criego
Present
Present
Present
Absent (arrived at 7:06 p.m.)
Present
Approval of Minutes:
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECONDED BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE
JUNE 24, 1996, MINUTES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Criego and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED.
Commissioner Wuellner abstained from voting.
Public Hearing:
Case File # 96-055: Eagle Creek Villas LLC applied for an amendment to the
Priorview PUD to allow the construction of a 61 unit assisted living building on the
vacant portion of the site.
Commissioner Criego opened the public hearing. A sign-up sheet was circulated to the
public in attendance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report
dated July 22, 1996. The original PUD was approved in 1983 and the development to
date has occurred prior to 1991. The present applicant has no connection with the
developer of the original PUD.
The Priorview PUD was preceded by Coqncil action in 1981 which rezoned the subject
property to R-3, High Density residential. This would have permitted 210 units on the
15.05 acres of buildable land on the site. In December of 1982, the Council approved a
Schematic PUD plan which provided for 106 units, a street connection from Five Hawks
Avenue to Cates Street and preservation of site amenities. In September of 1983, the
Council approved the first phase of the development consisting of 48 townhomes.
Priorview Second Addition consisting of20 units, was approved in 1991.
MN072296.DOC
PAGEl
,
'\
Staff recommends approval of the Schematic Plan, subject to the Comprehensive Plan
and Comprehensive Plan Amendment related to the density, satisfactory resolution of the
parking issue and modification of the plan to show extension of Five Hawks.
Wilt Berger of Miller, Hanson, Westerbeck Berger, Inc., Archeticts & Planners,
explained the proposed facility and the site surroundings. Mr. Berger pointed out they
tried maintain as much vegetation on the site as possible and build the facility on an area
with little vegetation. He went on to say they were not in favor of connecting the road to
the south and preferred to retain the trees.
Deborah Rose, of Care First Incorporated, Minneapolis, is a resident of Credit River
Township, and has been in long term care since 1981. Ms. Rose went on to explain
assisted living. The proposed facility will enable individuals to live in a secure
environment having a 24 hour security service and assisted care available. It will provide
various nursing services. A market study done by Scott County Housing Authority
indicated Scott County as well as Prior Lake is under served in this area. The apartment
size will be approximately 500 sq. feet.
Acting City Engineer John Wingard, explained the engineering issues of wetlands and
grading; the sanitary sewer line will be easy to tie into. A waterline will need to be
extended through the site and help provide a looping system. Storm water drainage for
this site is adequate. The wetland on site can be improved by raising the water level by 3
feet. The water quality would improve a sedimentation pond. The school district is also
supportive. Street and sidewalks will tie in with the Eagle Creek Villas and Five Hawks
Elementary School.
Comments from the public:
Marcus Mikla, 16477 Five Hawks Avenue SE, stated his concern for the water main
coming from the north end of Five Hawks crossing the creek and disrupting the area. He
said the residents on Five Hawks like the area the way it is. Other concerns are tree
removal and the road extension. Mr. Mikla is in favor of the assisted living project.
Leanne Weyrauch, 16457 Five Hawks Avenue SE, is in favor of the assisted living but
not in favor of destroying nature by having the road go through. She does not feel it is
necessary for another new road. As a taxpayer she is concerned for the expense and the
problems it can cause. The wetland water quality will be improved. Parking addition
would remove more trees. Mrs. Weyrauch presented a petition opposing the connection
of Five Hawks Avenue and disturbing the wild life area.
Wayne Annis, 4607 Colorado Street, claimed he was involved in assisted living since
1986 when a developer came to Prior Lake to construct a 100 bed nursing home. At the
time it was voted down. Mr. Annis gave an overview of nursing homes. He is in favor of
the assisted living facility depending on the way it is handled. Mr. Annis would like to
MN072296.DOC
PAGE 2
see this publicly funded. Shakopee has a new hospital/medical and assisted living care
quarters in one complex. Jordan will be constructing a similar facility in 1997. Mr.
Annis said he has been through this process many times and would like the project
delayed until the Commissioners see Shakopee's development.
Russell Lawrence, 16493 Five Hawks, lived in Prior Lake since 1971. He is in favor of
the assisted living and the location. Mr. Lawrence explained how previous planning
commissioners allowed a narrow Five Hawks Road where emergency vehicles cannot
drive through with the parked cars. There is a safety issue involved. Also, many of the
area residents enjoy the woods and walking paths.
Miles Bristol, 16495 Five Hawks Avenue, said he enjoys the quiet living on Five Hawks
Avenue.
Dar Fosse, 16228 Franklin Circle, Principal of Five Hawks School is against the
construction of a new road. Mr. Fosse said the school district and City have been
working together to preserve the natural environment. The main concern for the road
coming through as it is right in the heart of two drainage areas. He explained the
drainage and wetlands. The school district would like to develop the area into a nature
center. Not only is this area a benefit to the school but to the public as well. He does not
want to waste the special natural area. One of the University of Minnesota's landscaping
classes would like to come out this Fall and develop a trail system.
Charles Cappuccino, 4206 Cates Street feels the development would be a benefit to the
area but is opposed to any street coming through Five Hawks to the north.
Rhonda Wolf, 4171 Cates Street, stated she lives next to the creek and is concerned for
the water level as well as the wetland. She supports the assisted living facility.
Developer, John Mesenbrink, explained the water level and the proposed wetland.
Russ Lawrence pointed out two owls and the unique wildlife in the area.
Michael Conlin, 4091 Cates Street, is against the road but not the assisted living.
Commissioner Criego explained the discussion process and procedure of the meeting.
Wayne Annis, read a short piece from the Metro Area on Aging.
Wilt Berger addressed a water and sewer line issue.
The public hearing was closed at 8:13 p.m.
MN072296.DOC
PAGE 3
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
. First issue is to consider this a new PUD or an amendment to the existing PUD.
. The natural amenities provide for a new PUD.
. The assisted living facility meets with our Livable Communities Act and
Comprehensive Plan objectives. Supportive of the development.
. Waiting for the City Attorney's opinion to come back with a decision on the PUD.
. Wetland issue of raising the water 3 feet. Will the City have to treat it as a N.U.R.P.
pond?
. Wingard explained the drainage and grading.
. Parking issue - only 33 spaces proposed. Busy weekends will need more parking.
. Deb Rose said they can see what other facilities do. Possible off-site parking. Both
hospitals and nursing home facilities in Minneapolis regulates 1 parking place to 10
beds.
. These are apartments providing assisted care.
. Deb Rose felt there would be approximately 20 employees.
. Recommend a better parking facility.
. Comprehensive Plan states roads should connect neighborhoods. This also means we
can connect with trails. Expects to see a trail system on the plan as part of the
development. The neighbors, school and public will use these trails. The City made
the road connection to Duluth Street. All that remains now is a trail system as part of
the plan.
Kuykendall:
. There should be a definition in the Comprehensive Plan for assisted living.
. Would this facility be limited to the elderly only?
. Deb Rose said the building would be handicapped equipped. If the market had to
change it could assist others.
. Agrees with Commissioner V onhof on the street extension.
. Wingard said the current streets would handle the traffic.
. Pricing - Deb Rose said the cost would be $95 to $150 per day. It would depend on
the services being rendered from the facility. This is will be an average priced
facility .
. John Wingard said the City can look further into the water line.
. Supports raising the pond and dam the pond.
. Concern for the parking.
. Would like to see the City Attorney's position on the PUD.
. Supports the pedestrian walkway. This is a unique area Strongly supports trails. .
. Would like to see more information on pricing such as Shakopee's new facility.
. Supports the general philosophy.
. Consider pedestrian scale street lighting.
Stamson:
,
MN072296.DOC
PAGE4
· In favor of the concept and Will benefit Prior Lake as a whole.
· Developer took into a lot of consideration with the wetlands.
· The north end of Five Hawks was not built as a connector street. It is not a critical
connection.
· Trails are important.
· Agrees with Commissioner Kuykendall with the lighting.
· Need City Attorney's opinion on the PUD.
Wuellner:
· This is a wonderful opportunity for Prior Lake and fully supports the facility.
· The City is combining the neighborhood.
· There will be coordination of the traffic flow.
· We need to connect the roads for public safety but not necessary to connect Five
Hawks Avenue.
· Another opportunity to enhance and improve the wildlife area.
· You cannot have street lights on a wildlife trail.
· In favor of the entire project but cannot put a street through.
· The City should follow the easiest route to include this project into a PUD.
Criego:
· Agrees with all the comments.
· We need the facility and it is a wonderful project.
· Against the road going through.
· The trail system is exactly what we need going through.
· The lighting has to examined.
· The wetlands are an important asset. Any clean water we can get into the lake is
needed.
· Need legal opinion with PUD or amendment.
· Agrees with Wuellner to take the easiest way to implement the plan staying within the
guide lines.
· Review the limited parking area.
· It fits in Comprehensive Plan.
· The waterline should be examined to make it as easy as possible.
· Question the wood vs. the brick on the exterior of the building.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO CONTINUE THE
HEARING UNTIL AUGUST 12, 1996, AT WHICH TIME THE PLANNING
COMMISSION CAN REVIEW THE CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT; CITY
ENGINEERING REPORT OF RELOCATING THE WATER LINES; TRAFFIC
IMPACT OR NO IMPACT; TRAIL PLAN WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE PLAN
BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITY ENGINEER'S
RECOMMENDATION FOR OVERFLOW PARKING. STAFF TO COME BACK
WITH A CLEAN DEFINITION OF ASSISTED LIVING AND MODIFICATION OF
MN072296.DOC
PAGES
--- -- --- ------ -- -- -- - -- - -
"
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN APPROPRIATE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
CITY ATTORNEY.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Wuellner, Stamson, V onhof and Criego.
MOTION PASSED.
A recess was called at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Vonhofleft the meeting at that time.
The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
Old Business:
There was a discussion to tentatively reschedule the boat tour of Prior Lake to the week
August 19, 1996.
Commissioner Kuykendall said he would not be at the August 26, 1996 meetirig.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECONDED BY KUYKENDALL TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Kuykendall, Stamson and Criego. MOTION
CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
Recording Secretary
Connie Carlson
MN072296.DOC
PAGE6
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
MARIS STOLCERS
5395 SHORE TRAIL NE
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATO~
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR VJ.MJ .
_ YES -X... NO
MARCH 25, 1996
The Planning Department received a variance application from Maris Stolcer,
who is proposing to construct a deck addition to an existing cabin. The proposed
deck addition is located on the south side of the cabin, resulting in a lake shore
setback of 0 feet. The applicant is therefore requesting a variance to the 75' lake
shore setback.
DISCUSSION:
This property was platted in 1950 as a part of North Shore Crest Addition, prior
to its being annexed into the City of Prior Lake. Like many properties in this area
the site was developed with a seasonal cabin in 1956. At this time, the applicant
is proposing to add a 10' by 20' 7" deck to the existing cabin.
This lot is 280' long on the long side, 50' wide on the north end, and 36' wide
along the lake shore. The existing cabin is located at the south end of the lot,
just 10' from the Ordinary High Water Elevation. The width of the lot and the
cabin's location make this a substandard use, defined by Section 9.2 (8,3) of the
Zoning Ordinance as "any use of shorelands in existence prior to the date of this
ordinance which are permitted within the applicable zoning district, but do not
meet the minimum lot area, setbacks or other dimensional requirements of this
ordinance". This section goes on to state the following regulations for deck
additions to substandard uses:
a) Deck additions may be allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting
the required setback from the ordinary high water level if all of the following
criteria and standards are met:
96068pc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1. The structure existed on the date the structure setbacks were established;
2. A thorough evaluation of the property and the structure reveals no
reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing ordinary
high water level setback of the structure;
3. The deck encroachment toward the ordinary high water level does not
exceed fifteen (15) percent of the existing setback of the structure form
the ordinary high water level or does not encroach closer than thirty (30)
feet, whichever is more restrictive; and
4. The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened.
Since the proposed deck does not meet all of these criteria, a variance is
required.
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 existing use of the property will
continue without this variance. Furthermore, a deck meeting the criteria in
Section 9.2 (B,3) could be placed along the west side of the cabin.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
Because staff has concluded that there is no undue or unnecessary hardship
this criterion is not met.
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.
Any hardship results from design decisions made by the applicant, not from
the application of the provisions of the Ordinance. Thus, this criterion is not
met.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
-2-
- ~_._.. .-_...- - - -..-.. ~._--_. .- -
The proximity of the proposed deck to the lake shore is inconsistent with the
intent of the Shoreland District to preserve the natural environmental values
of the existing lake shore.
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:
Because staff has concluded that the applicant has legal alternatives which
would allow reasonable use of the property, and thus that the Ordinance criteria
are not met, staff recommends Alternative No.3.
If the Board of Adjustment finds that this request meets the applicable criteria,
approval of this variance should be subject to the condition that the deck addition
be drawn on the certificate of survey by a registered land surveyor, along with
the dimensions of the deck, as well as distances from the lot lines.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 9626PC.
-3-
SENT' BY: DNA j
8- 7-96 7:41AMj 6127727573 =>
6124474245j
#1 /1
Minnesota Deparlm~nl. of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 WamerRoad. St. Paul. MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
7671
(:0.
August 6, 1996
Post-it" Fax Nole
To Co
CoJOopl.
Phone It
0..1"
Mr. Dun Rye
Director afPhsnning
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
"'lion... ~
772..-'
I."
Fux 11
Fax It
RE: DA vm SMITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE V ARJANCll REQUEST (SPRlNO LAKE).
AND MARIS STar .eRRS SEmACK V ARIANCn REQUEST (pRIOR LAKE)
Dear Mr. Rye:
Please inco'l'on&lc: Ihc: fullowin8 DNR comment.! into thc record of the Planning Commissio.a bearing for the subject variance
requests.
DA VID SMJTH lMPJ.:;K VIOUS SURF ACE COVERAGE VARIANCE llliQUEST
I did nol receive a site pllU'l or survey fur the: Smith imperviou.~ sudil" l:OVCI'age variance n:qucst. However, 1 know the lob in the
13ulte&11ut Belich SubUivision were platted many years ago, and contain many existing substandard lots.
Is the lli7.c of the proposed sarage addition and the width of the proposed driveway the minimum n:quircd to alleviate the hardship
the applicant must demonstnte? Is it a three-staU garage on a lot more suited for a single or double garage'?
Without the benefit of a site: plan. it is difficultlO provide any J'eQommended alternative to the: proposal which may reduce the
variance. It should also be noted that, allhough lhc applicant is reque;ting a 4% Var1am:e from the: city's required 30% maximwn
impervious covl.-ragc, Minnesota Ruln 611 S. 3300, subpart J J. limits impervioWl surface to 25% of. Jot in the shon:land district.
Thi~ i~ to minimize the impl1Ct.~ of stormwalcr runo1f on sucfa.ce wlIter fealures.
AJllhal beiug said, I do not havc adequate infurmation on which to provide a DNR r=ommendation on the proposal. I trust the
Pl81uting Caaullission will cunsider allthc: fKCts, including the hardship which the appli~t is required 10 demon:nntc. PlcllSC
consider the questions I raist.-d with respect to the garage/driveway dimensions as lhl..'Y ~l.lc: 1.0 &he ovcrlll.1 constraints of a slUalllot.
~
MARIS STOLCERS SEmACK VARIANCE
}[ appears there is ample space to locate a detw;hed ~k meeting the n.:quircd ~lUTe setbad:. If it must be attached, it could be
attached to the rear (north side) cfthe existing cabin. That, too. would require Il set.bw;k variance, although significantly less than
the zero setback requested. I would be most interested in hearing the hardship argument on this one. The DNR ill very much
opposed to the granting ofthi~ variance. and urge; the Planning Commj~"inn to deny the requem befOTc them. Several options
exi$t which either eliminate or greatly reduce the need for a setbw;k variance. This one seems so blatantly counter to the intent of
shol'eland zoning. J need soy no more.
Thank you for the opportunity to rc:vicw and comment on the two varil1llce requests. Please forward II copy of the dec;i:sion made: On
lhcx mall&:::nl. clln me at 772.7910 ifhave any qU~"lItiuns regarding the DNR cornmcnts submitted.
Sincl.Tcly,
'~J~L~[~~gL-- ..
Area Hydrologist
1>'IIR (nforlllalilln: oI1.1<Jti-01.~7. I-XOO.7()(').(,IK)() . 'ny: ()112lJh 54X4. I I$lJ(j (,57 J42lJ
'\11 I::~u,d 1)1'~'u1ClInil) 1:-.ml"III),-.
\Vhll V;\lu.., hi.,.,......ilv
ft. ."rillh",1 nn 't"'"e,d,ol! l'iJIl\'r ('111l111'"Ill~' i'
c.., \1illinru:u uf 10':1 "11..1 CIIII.\UIIII.:r \\'~I'.II.:
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LA1~ USE APPLICATION
q~- DW
-1=1'-;;11::J-
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (oresent zonin~) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zonin~) A f') \\ Iv' )t -+0 I 7 'f ()c:-cJ<:.. TV
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance G '>tl 5, TIN' &" Cl46~#
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
~Variance \ Applicable Ordinance Section(s): Cf . '3 (,4,;1- 1
MAr<.rs I
Applicant(s): S ro L v=,2..S
Address: p~ C}"L/ ;= r / j I"Y1 d;( t: ...s;- A/ E" .'
Home Phone: ~ f.;L- ~ 7 /-~G,.JfO Work Phone: ~/ d- - 7 ~-~ 'T9S--
Property Qwner(s) [If different from Applicants}:
Address:
Home Phone: Work Phone:
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):
~C)..,- ;;L} A L-crG/C ~ N o/t!!.47+ S 64-.1 dh r' ../#I G!",
,~/" I _ _._
~'-' ' . , ; .: ,. . '. > -
To the best of my knowledge the information procided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, [ have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applications will not be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
"7/l"A~ S~ 7-/~-7 (...
Applicant's Signature Date
Fee Owner's Signature Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
~
=
Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOllOWING VARIANCE:
A 75 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF
PRIOR LAKE OF 0 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWElliNG ON PROPERTY lOCATED IN THE R-1
(SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED AS 5395 SHORE TRAil NE.
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, August 12,1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
Maris Stolcers
4654 Fillmore Street NE
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55421
SUBJECT SITE:
5395 Shore Trail NE, legally described as Lot 2, Block 2, North Shore Crest
REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to construct a deck addition to an existing
dwelling in the Shoreland District along Prior Lake. The proposed deck will
have a 0' setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation of 904' instead of
the required 75' setback.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the
following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the
property.
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: July 31,1996
96-068va\96068pn.doc I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTL'NIn' EMPLOYER
---'~:3771--ff
C..ii"LQi F
.."'" ",,,,, ';
W\ ~~.,~g
\1 4 .J, 5 I 6 7
\ 5~~L~k~a.... 5S4'! . .
~_.....,_._----
/ .,.~~
---=ro.
l'l/S'-
6
E
I~l'n
12
I~Zj:
13
I~Z25 w
:::.
I.:'. ct
I~Z1q to
15 LJl
a.
111 25;- u
!6
142'0 .
16
,0
II
5ll"10 i~"O 5S/0
f\fVlt3LE.WOO DOll..
,"'5 .... r" r,;;; \~'i2 3
3 4 3 6 7 8
.J--.,.."'" ~
\ \ " I'lJ30.
14 \13 1211110\ 9.
/11I1/'- II 0 /6'0\ /
~-.
5~ORE. L.l'i.
r'rD1'f;:'-\:"~17
~--1-l
=lK
I
I
; :\ DOl
i .
A
6TH N
;..~
Ar5D~N
;7
:'''. ~ tLlq
!lljo 18
.R 1~500 ...
C~RlZlAoe 'rilL-\.. ~D.
..1",~:Z1
I
I~
~O
I :: '1\
I
\ :srTh
o
.:.
r
..
~
,
_PRIOR
o
\ 5
-
11.j~'1c;
(
?
ILl q
.....
'-
-..: '
OUTL
-
CITY
PRIO"
Lt.
-f
,p.
l!
L'll< ~
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
MARIS STOLCERS
4654 .FILMORE STREET N.E.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN. 55421
\
\.'
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE 120-C. /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKC./N TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372
~---"ELEPHONE (6121447-2570
---- iRA\\..
SHORE 0 .........
"
---
~f: .....
~ l'l6'~~-OO_' --
I I' ",-,
----'i91~
/ {
I
\ I ~i
/ J
/
--
.. .Lut :
~~Io
,<- .. 0
~/N
~I~
~ g ~\j
/ ~ \
//] i
\
I ~ r'\ \
..
" \
/ 4 I \
.
.
11 \
I,
, I
i I .\
I {
I
I (
I I
~
o
r
SCALE
30
IN
t) Oenot" t 12 IIICIt .. ,4 '"eft" 'I'Oft
monument t.' and ,"0f"~<I b)'
Llce"s. No 1018)
. 0."01<<. Iron ,"O..umefl' 'ounG
'7 llenol.. P K Nad ,.,
--
.,-
s:
2l
~( I.l.l
. 10
0 ....
('j ~ in
(.... ~ .
. 0
. III
.
..
0
. \
~]"
i'~O
i....\:Oo).,\
~..... -t---L-
DICK
0...
\
\
.
"'0
.04
ON CO"~ .......
EL. ')02 8
./26/96
PllOP~:R'l"1 DF~iCl( I prtUN:
Lot 2, Ulor.k :,!, ~;R'nl Slk)Rt-~ CU.l~'T. ::t:ol:t. COIlnt,,-, Millll..~'()t;l. ^l:iU ~jh(~ltf1(1 .Ii I
visihle in'\Jcovemenet "nd p.ncC'oac..'"hfnl1t1tM on to oc olt LCU" g"id ~C'o~~t.ty i r ,lflY.
Ilnd th.. 10C".atiofl of the elevation 9<)4.0 <-","to..e l in...
60
-,
".,fOtI, CH"'" tM' 'hi, \0"'"", _d. J'"IIOIN
b, .,.~ ';t~ $tdH '"" lJrtft't wo...,,,,,Qft .,,..,, ,1'tcI'
; 'J'" , tit"., l't....'ec1 l.on'" ~UlV""'" \IlIdet 'It.
',I\IUi ...., "'. Slot' 'JI .....ftneo'o'u
./
FEET
t...".. .-s
1.1(."'. :4.. '(:/lj!
r". 'f
.."ell
>11)
.!'(ll.1(
".
"At;i
RESOLUTION 9626PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKE SHORE
SETBACK OF 0 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Maris Stolcer has applied for a variance from Section 9.2 (B, 3) and 9.3 (A,2) of the
Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a 10' by 20' 7" deck addition
to an existing dwelling on property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District
and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
5395 Shore Trail NE, legally described as Lots 2, Block 2, North Shore Crest
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #96-068 and held hearings thereon on August 12, 1996.
3. 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.
4. The request does not meet the Ordinance criteria in that reasonable use of the property
can be obtained if the ordinance is literally applied, and legal alternatives exist for the
placement of a deck without a variance.
5. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance would serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
6. The contents of Planning Case 96-068 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
96-068va\res9626.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
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
requested variance to allow a deck addition to be located 0' from the ordinary high water
level.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on August 12, 1996.
William Criego, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
96-Q68va\res9626.doc
2
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4B
CONSIDER IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE FOR
DAVID SMITH
2950 SPRING LAKE ROAD (CR 12f\.t V
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COO~AT~ A /
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
YES 1-. NO
AUGUST 12, 1996
The Planning Department received a variance application from Mr. David Smith.
Mr. Smith wishes to construct a new, attached garage as shown on the attached
survey. The proposed garage, along with the driveway leading to the garage,
requires a variance to permit an impervious surface of 34% instead of the
maximum 30% allowed.
DISCUSSION:
The subject property is zoned R 1-Suburban Residential and is located in the SD-
Shoreland District. The subject property was originally platted as a part of
Butternut Beach, which was platted in 1926. The property is currently developed
with a house with attached garage. The legal building envelope on the property
which results from the applicable front and rear yard setbacks is about 8 feet
deep.
On June 10, 1996, the Board of Adjustment considered an application from Mr.
Smith for several variances that would allow him to construct an attached
garage. On June 24, 1996, the Board approved Resolution 9622PC, granting an
18' variance to permit a 67' setback from the centerline of Spring Lake Road
rather than the required 85 feet (see attached resolution). This variance
essentially allowed Mr. Smith to build a 26' by 24' attached garage on the east
side of the dwelling.
Unfortunately, the original variance application did not include a request to
increase the permitted amount of impervious surface. Also, the certificate of
survey submitted did not include the area of the new garage and driveway in the
impervious surface calculation. This omission was discovered when Mr. Smith
made an application for a permit to construct the new garage. Therefore, Mr.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Smith is requesting a variance of 4% to allow a total impervious surface
coverage of 34 percent.
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. It also goes to whether the applicant has
legal alternatives to accomplish to the requested variance. Arguably, Mr.
Smith currently has reasonable use of the property with the existing house
and garage. Moreover, Mr. Smith also has alternatives for the expansion of
the garage which would not require a variance to the impervious surface. For
example, a garage addition measuring 10' by 22' could be constructed along
with the driveway area, which would not exceed the 30% impervious surface.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
Because staff has concluded that reasonable use exists, there is no
unnecessary hardship.
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.
Any hardship which exists results from the Mr. Smith's desire to have an
oversized 3-car garage and not from the provisions of the City's Zoning
Ordinance.
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 the Ordinance is to insure reasonable use of property which
conforms with at least the minimum standards set by the community in its
Ordinance. In some measure this means that the level of development of any
parcel of land is dependent on its particular characteristics, and that any
parcel should not be overdeveloped. The proposed project does not meet
this intent, in that it provides perhaps more development than should
reasonable be accommodated on the subject site.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
96071pc.doc
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 Ordinance criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Because staff has concluded that the request does not meet the Ordinance
criteria, staff recommends Alternative No.3, denial.
If the Board of Adjustment finds that this request meets the applicable criteria,
approval of this variance should be subject to the condition that the garage and
driveway addition be drawn on the certificate of survey by a registered land
surveyor, along with the dimensions and distances from the lot lines.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 96-27PC denying the applicant's request for
variance.
96071pc.doc
3
~
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
~b-07 .
-" - C'JI -~I rO
"<l,f~
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application:
o Rezoning, from (present zonin~)
! - to (proposed zonin~)
I 0;..- Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan ~r City Ordinance
to- S~bdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
rf^ Variance
Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
sheets/n~rrat}ve if desire~ "'1" J
fA'~--4 ~6~. ~_.r /
Q ~ ~,~( C~y
~ /
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
w...
Applicant(s): . /Au P <;.t::!/.J.,J.,
Address: . /:S"1()- ~;;h~"" /:.A1.,
Home Phone: ilYs:, 9{1.2.... ~
M
Wark Phone:
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address: I,n- /) 7~) .2. q 8v-.--;.hr .J,J.,;.-r fj~~-~
Home Phone: ~ Work Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee _ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement )/
Legal De~cription o~ Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
/Cft .2"7 J .2<'( 5Ld/V'';v;d. ~&AC/'
-
To the best of my knowledge the information prodded in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have r~ad the relevant section;;; of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
a~ will not b essed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee. ~
%i Y J /-/1-1;;
.
icant's Signature Date
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
Date
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER A 4% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE OF 34% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30% FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY ADDITION ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R1-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND THE SD-
SHORELAND DISTRICT AND IDENTIFIED AS 2590 SPRING LAKE ROAD
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, August 12,1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT:
David Smith
2590 Spring Lake Road
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
SUBJECT SITE:
Lots 27 and 28, BUTTERNUT BEACH, Scott County, Minnesota.
REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the construction of a garage and driveway addition
which would result in the impervious surface coverage of the lot to be 34% of
the lot area, instead of 30% as permitted in Section 9.3 (8,1) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the
following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the
property.
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: August 1,1996
96071 po.doc:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
\...0""
\-c"
Go\J '
Go\J' "
COUNTY OF SCOT T
?RDfftt"y
~
I
I
,,:.it~;
-e-:'ii.t.-~. \
-1--;:
''1, .~:" t'i
,.~!~~::.~~/
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
101. 70
("8, ql)
~
',<:1-;' ~rJ
\VO.,o
l,: '.-_= :..~' ~ - --.
- .. --;
(])
<r
<ti
(])
6g.q
0)/,: ~I< '" RFAH.$ "
o ,.v,E <.i. ,'/./q.
"" z"'",o
~ -,
,..,'C',,~ 5.'.t..l..
(.9",,' z-v)
r.ff.o
~"'1."
"
>i
:tl
<D
...J-j
- ~ r -~. L;-=-~
.".
,'1l,55
. ';~. 'j
~ .', .. '. ,-
"
~ . ~_ ~".-1.:-_J/~
" . ~
~""-.' , : '.~/?!F")
...
..
,I/O.
100.201
8'7VHL
.-/'
--..,
,
:3/T
\
~
e'lE ".c-
~. ,3,:,,:
,.' 9OZ::. 'z'
f. .
ROAD NO. 12
LAKE ROAD)
~ 131"::
./.9';:1 {1"
~ -
COUNTY
( SPRING
?ROP~RT'I ~ESC~rp~lQN
~C~5 0f hn~;5~ 3n~ ~arAge
!4a~
:'34
~t.
-\:-0?-3 0:
_:,:,n~:""'? ,:~"j ~- :.. .~.~
Lots 27 ~ 2~
. RU,..rF.RNUT BF.^CH"
^c=~rrii~g :1 ~ne ~~~0~1~d ?l~t th~~~of
Sc~tt ~~untv. :~inn~~ot3
~~~ ~..~~ ~~.
~mO~~':l~ll~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ p~rspnt~~~
"f t"lo. 1,:- ~
;:'1:""-:--3.
..:.~\
o
Dl!!nc':es lC00 monument c;l?'t
".lenct~5 l:::>n 'nonl.lmenc found
. :)"!notl?5 concC'-!'tl!! slan
;)~not'!s l!!xlsting spot elev~tion
iJ-:!notes 9r'Jpos-::=d ~J.:\jatit)n
~,
!
.
(1%1.8D.j
-N
I
i1
[ ]
3F.~ir:H~AARK
5 C.:. Ll:: IN C'!!"
,
!J :/J 2/J ://J
SOlk~ in ~o~~r ool~ lOC3~~d in che
n;'c~.i1'...;E?'st 'luad:"~nt "f ~1()C't:,wood
~c~d ~nd ~9cLng r.ak~ ~o4d
g:ev~~lon 122.~5 N.G.~.n.
BOERHt\ VE LAND SUR VEYING. INC.
I ner~hv '.lI!r::if:t ':~=lt thl~ ~lIr'VII!,!. ;1[:t" 'Jr :-erort
...15 :"r'!~r1rl!d h? :TIp. "'r 'l!'tder :on;.-' rtirl!cc: !!lUpleH.....!~t...m
:1n(\ tn.~t ! =lm , ';lIi'." ::l~~:scp.rl!d L,;m.d 51Ir'/II!YQr
'lndt.":- .:.!J.e t,.".",~ 'Jf ::~:: ~:;1te .,r "Hnnl!s,.,t:t.
(...~~~'i~~
;.1;:l,!!:C :::'rl~"~~":"I':~. ~!...~
J;1:-a .r:?'<'/I- -,7'", I ?~6
:.s241 \-1itOC" C'irclt ,'J F.:
:'r:llf : _lice. \finn~(n~ (~r':':
t. I 2..14 ~.') I~.s
~P?:
1~<
File No. 96-040 Variance
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)88.
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
The undersigned, duly qualified and City Manager of the City of Prior Lake, hereby
certifies the attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the original.
Resolution 96-22PC
X
on file in the office of the City Planner, City of Prior Lake.
Dated this2~i~'~ay of i.. '{ t /L tfJ __
,1996.
I
j
-
. I',
'. \ ~ -.. .. . .. . ".
'" , ~
.' ,~.':<' {City Seal)
__.' f
" .... '.
'.-" .
Doc.
~iLtR40
.,' ...
...'). .-." '....
OFF:CE OF TEE CCL~ RECORDER ~~
SCOT'!' COUNTY. M::llNESOTA / t _
Certifiec ,!i:ed and or Re~ded on 7 tJ
~~-J 11-..
. t aoec~an. ~unty Recorder
. .
.. .......:......: ..'
, .)
:,'~~:.... ~~,'
l::y:
Deputy
16200 ~Weo~fflfu Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota S'5~2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTC:'<ITY EMPLOYER
RESOLUTION 9622PC
A RESOLUTIONAPPROVING A REQUEST FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE
1. AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 67 FOOT SETBACK FROM
THE CENTERLINE OF SPRING LAKE ROAD RATHER THAN THE
REQUIRED 85 FEET;
ALL RELATED TO A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2590 SPRING LAKE ROAD.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. David Smith has applied for a variance from Section 9 of the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an attached garage on
property located in the RI-Suburban Residential zoning district and the SD-
Shoreland District at the following location, to wit;
2950 Spring Lake Road, legally described as Lots 27 and 28,
BUTTERNUT BEACH, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained
in Case 96-040V A and held a hearing thereon on June 10, 1996.
3. 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 variances on the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The request meets the Ordinance criteria, in that reasonable use of the property'
cannot be made without the requested variance.
5. The granting of the variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variances would not serve merely
as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable
haedship.
16200 ~~1~~(P~ve. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTt.:NITY EYlPLOYER
6. The contents of Planning Case 96-040V A are hereby entered into and made a part
of the public record and the record of decision for this case
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
requested variance.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on June24, 1996.
~
Richard Kuy en
g Director
9622PC.OOC/DR
2
RESOLUTION 9627PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY ADDITION WHICH
RESULTS IN AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 340/0 INSTEAD OF THE
~UM30PERCENT
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. David Smith has applied for a variance from Section 9.3 (B, 1) of the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a garage addition and driveway on
property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland
Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
2590 Spring Lake Road, legally described as Lots 27 and 28, Butternut Beach,
Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #96-071 and held hearings thereon on August 12, 1996.
3. 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.
4. The request does not meet the Ordinance criteria in that reasonable use of the property
can be obtained if the ordinance is literally applied, and legal alternatives exist for the
construction of a garage addition without a variance.
5. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance would serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
6. The contents of Planning Case 96-071 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
96-Q71va\res9627.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
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
requested variance to allow a garage and driveway addition which would result in an
impervious surface of34% instead of the maximum 30 percent.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on August 12, 1996.
ATTEST:
· William Criego, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
96-071va\res9627.doc
2
Minnesot.a Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 WamerRoa.d~ St. Paul,; MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 172-7977
August 6. 1996
PosHt" Fa1( Note
7671 Dl1I$
$" I
Mr. Don Rye
Direc'lor ofPl1W1mg
City of Pour Lake
16200 Hagle Creek A\lenue: SE
Prior Lake, Minneaota 55372-1114
RB: DA vm SMITH :IMPERVIOUS sURFACE COVl:::RAOE VARIANCB.REQUEST (SPRJNO LAlOS).
A.ND MARIS STor.eRRS SETBACK V ARIANCn REQUHST (pRIOR. I..AKE)
FUJI *
?J
(:0, W,e.
f'none I 7..,
Fallil
Dear Mr. Rye;
please inc:orporah: the full owing DNR commenLs into the record of tho PlIIOning Commisaion bCaritla for tho INbjec:1 ".n~
re.qo:csts.
DAVID SMll'H J.Mi>ER VIOUSSURFACE COVERAGB VARIANCE 1WQUEST
I did nul ~-ive a site plan or SI.U'\I~ furffu::Smi1h imperviousSudllC4 eoVlll'agevan.nco rcq1.lC'.$t. However,! knoW the l~ in the
Buttcmut Be~h Subdivision were plat:1ed many years AgO. and eQotain many ~ substandard lots.
Is the $i7.e of thc proposed sarage addition and the width of the propo8l:d driveway the m.irUmum n:quired lb alleviate the h..-w.hip
the applicllnt must demonstnte? Is it a three-stall gatage on a lot more suited for a sinsleoI double gara~7
Withoutlhe benefit of a site plan. it is diffitull to provide any reconut1ClIldec .Jlcmative to tb&: proposal which may n:duce 'be
variance. Il should also be noted that., althougbthc: aPPuClUlt is recp1e1Cting a 4'1e vari81'lCC from the city's required 30% maximwn
impervious I;OYI."1'&80, Minnesota Rules 611 S. 3300, subpart II. limits Unpel'Vioua sutfa= to 25IJ,. of" lot in the shoreland district.
This is 10 minimize the implIll:ts of storrnwatcr runoJf on surfsce wat2r fe4lures.
Alllhlll being said, I do not have adequate infonrtation onwhit,:h to provide a DNR n:c:QtDmendation on the proposal. I truSt the
PllUU\ing Ccmnussion will consider llll tllC: facts, including the hardship whK:h the applieant is required to demon:stnalc;:, Please
consider the questions I raised wi th respect to the garage/driveway dimensions as Ih'-'Y relats: to Lhc overall am:stIai.uts of. small lot.
MARlS ST01..CERS SETBACK VARIANCB
It appears there is ample SpllCC to locate a detached d.ec:k meeting the required SltUCUlTC setback. If it must be attached. it could be
attached to the rear (north side) of the existing c:abin. That, too, would require a lICtbllf;:kV.nlUlCC, although significantly Jess than
the zero SClba<:.k requested. I would be most interested in hearing the hardsbip orgument on this Me. 'Tb4 DNR is vcry mw:h
oppo..<;ed to the granting ofthill variance. llndurgn the Planning Commis...ion in deny the requd. before them; ~cvcral nptlom:
exist whilOlh either eliminate or greatly red\lc:e the need for a setbllClc variance. This CII'le s;eems so blatantly counter to the intent of
shot'eland zoning. 1 need say no more.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and l;ommc:llt on the two variance request$. Please forward a copy of the ~i:sion Jl.I~ on
Lhex matlcnl. Call mo at 772-1910 if havl: my qUc."Slions n:garding the DNR commc:nu submitted..
Sim::LTc1y,
'.'t" ~ :J -.
_: "'K~ -" - _ - ... ._
4"..~. M. ((@--.-..
Patrick J. L h III
Area Hydrologist
llNR Inrmlll::rtilln: tlll-l,)fI-n 157. 1-~IX). 7l'i,.f,{KIO . Try: () 12. 2<,1(, ;~/loJ. I ~IJU (,:17 ,\f.J:lt)
'\11 l:':t.llt-.,lJ C)..~.,.tli.lnil)- ~;tur'h~sl.-'t
Wh.. .v;~lli~~" 'J\'\.'~t',il\'
,ftt _ Printyll n:i It"."':r~'lt'lt l'"all,'r- (\lflfdiIHn~' ;J
c..a \.1inlmOllHtf I C)",l Illl..t CI"'~"UIh.:r ""~~,t...
PL NNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4C
CONSIDER FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES FOR
EAGLE CREEK VILLAS
4170-4176 CJ CIRCLE i
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINA TQR~.
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ ·
_ YES ...x... NO
AUGUST 12, 1996
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Eagle Creek
Villas to allow the construction of a 3-unit townhouse building on the site located
at the northeast intersection of Cates Street SE and C J Circle. The building,
which is presently under construction, is located 21 feet from the Cates Street
right-of-way instead of the required 25 feet. The applicant is requesting a 4'
variance to the front yard setback.
DISCUSSION:
The subject site was platted as Lots 1-4, Block 4, Second Addition to Lakeside
Estates in 1982, prior to the effective date of the current Zoning Ordinance.
While a conditional use permit for the construction of a 4-unit townhouse was
also approved in 1982, that building was never built.. In May, 1996, a building
permit for the 3-unit building on this site was approved. The 3-unit building fits
within the "envelope" lots for the planned 4-unit building. However, as was
subsequently discovered, the building is located 21' from the front lot line instead
of the required 25 feet.
Section 4.2 (Lot and Yard Requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance notes that a
25' front yard setback is required for structures in the R-2 district. Furthermore,
Section 4.1 C states that "any lot of record may be used for the erection of a
structure conforming to the use regulations of the district in which it is located".
Therefore, a 4' variance to this provision is required.
Variance Hardship Standards:
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property. 1
96067PC.DOC 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447- 245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. The building could be realigned on the
site to meet the required setbacks. If this were the case, however, the
building would not fit into the existing "envelope".
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
A unique circumstance applicable to this property is the fact that the existing
subdivision plat includes the building envelope. The plat was approved and
recorded prior to 1983, the effective date of the current Zoning Ordinance.
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.
Any hardship results not from the application of the provisions of the
Ordinance, but from design decisions made by the applicants. Thus, this
criterion is not met.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The size and appearance of the 3-unit townhouse is consistent with the other
buildings in the area. Thus, it does not appear that the requested variances
would be contrary to the public interest.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Approve the variance requested by the applicant.
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:
While there is not a definitive hardship, the circumstances surrounding this
property are somewhat unique. The Planning staff therefore recommends
Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 9625PC.
96067PC.DOC
2
/ ....-,
.~- -
-... r" ,.~
'- -; -'~-
r-
....
-- '-
~./
. .. L.-
,^" i-'"' .
l." l; I
'\ \ '
\
'\..
.'
-:--~
. /~
/-
,-
qlo -DG 1
'-
., ".
..,
1- ,''''
'i' - / Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
i- - '- City of Prior Lake
LA1~ USE APPLICATION
~'2 '~.~- -
,- ..
- -
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zonin~)
to (oroposed zonin~)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
~nditional Use Permit
~ Variance Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
Applicant(s): F n (_ i-It'- (.;71- (!<"A-- (..,) t ( (v/-Y
Address: -)) (p ~ r:- ," -, ~-.J~
Home Phone: Work Phone: (I \( I ,-~ oS y
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone: y Work Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee' Contract for Deed _ purchase Agreement ----->'
t-
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
,
To the best of my knowledge the infor Ion procided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant Ions of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
app 'catio will not be proces tit deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
". $/..ftJ -; . - q. q t:.
Date
Date
Fee Owner's Signature
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
CONOlTIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
Date
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE:
A 5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 21 FEET INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 25 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-UNIT TOWNHOUSE
BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R2-URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND THE
SD-SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 4170-4176 CJ CIRCLE.
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, August 12, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as
possible.
APPLICANTS:
Eagle Creek Villas
7765 East 175th Street
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
4170-4176 CJ Circle, legally described as Lots 1-4, Block 4, Second
Addition to Lakeside Estates
REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to construct a 3-unit townhouse building on an
existing lot which will have a front yard setback of 21' instead of the
required 25 feet.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against
the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to
the property.
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: July 31,1996
96-Q67va\96067pn.doc I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447- 245
AN EQLAL OPPORTL'NITY EMPLOYER I
.
...
r-
Ul
Ul
N
I]'l
o 0/0'_
, .
?~
/
fd i
.J I;
~ -
'aJ lD
~fJ1
< CERT.:2,
,...
C\J GARD~N'Sg
v
CD II'l I .~
Cl 10 3RD
0 -
C\J
!::: I~ ",,:'~8
u49~ 4' 11I1
\91.
"
faI' I 2~r~ .
, ~
,
rw", ~' tD 3 1 2 I I
(J 111I
I ~ ...~'o . 14~'''.
i 1"2:'14 q~~ () ~
<J 21:'"
, .tol' ;'1 ~'2.(('--
t"V \"Ac. ,~ I
~-<;.~~
I-. . ~>s,
:!!' r"'C=:-
3" \IJ sr
~IOO .,1
~
, 12'1';
I .
~~~.I~f.
;;~
'133/
I
.'5j''5
,
17 IE
~Ol.O
-
~,"-;;
.' Co
'\ _/W'f"
::v:=.lJ'l
: w ~
- ~ ~
r=L- -= ..........S .......... r-....J -r-
150 S r:
~-.
'OiII<:r rt
~.
o
"
7
I a
.01.
4(08:;- .
U.J CIl
9 U.J
CIl ~
~.~
<t CIl
....J U.J
'I~~
'1~Z'
10I
(7
"
S
A
: _ ~~1.
.' 0., crlWtlt
. .-!.~
'S
S
210 '" _ 95 .
:: , ; ~. ~ 'f;l1J:1/ +34/-"i . f A.
- 97 . I ,... I . ')~'
I"", ~! 5;1 ~ 2-:"'32C: I ~I f, :5".
~-I ~ I - ~. i-
156_6:~! n ~:75 ' ,~/
ft-
~'":) Ji::.
121220 ~i.'" ~~r=2!?31'5
-
TIlACT 5
t. ~ ~ Aa*'
'10405
4
3
~ 5
..
.~ S
,.,
'!
,,'s/
ST. S. E.
p~
2 I I
ESTATES
\ I
208558
OLLY
OUTL:'j A
......
L
.... -.. JRr--
f'" _"
J '" .
'0
.",-.~
o~
G
<\,
C. 0 'l,
~~ "'-
'" c.
/.J.pqy GENSMER
VALLEY SURVEYING CO. 1 P. A.
16670 FRANKLIN TRA IL S. E.
PRIOR LAK~ MN 55372
OFF ICE. 447-2570
FAX 447-2571
"'.'1
9" :'
f,C. tL.
'1" .1
r ? ;::..~'
..: .....
a _J,__ -. -... -.
.- -iiUiIL: -- - ,
.... , "'M ~._.,,_..'.. GOD
9 ::. ~~
--
-.-
I""'iii:'O'
2 I....:.....~-I
..... ~
ilJ
.. .:-_._~-
!!:N 84'45'00.
, ---90. 00..-
NU. IL. ..... ~L
__ fJ'-~~-- _.u~.'
: ~ ~
~!! ;,!/
I C!E!:) -:
! ..t.O
;.-io~-o
..
..
- '!:=
I
I
I 1
LI'''cpoeco
1 .. -. I
1 I
o , I'
:/ .
.:0 "'~I~. I .
, :( ~-l.....!..-,^""
I., ).
'1 ,-.1:
h ..-.,. ~= f;I ~=f
I." 13.1 I~! I
"~c..'"
10.,,, .....' I
1'..!!.'.!.J'..90 Qo
, . , '" .
o V!..~i' 45 '00. _iJ..
, ,-
d ""a 11.. ~ tN' .,,-,
.t9.'0 .,.
O.,V,.."
..
lI,
.
...... '"
!.~^~....
J:
r.
81
e; f: ......
......
![. :~\
. ..
, ~ i
~~ ..
~. ~
,.j u, .
a- I
: ; IU, i
.~ .
", ~
Wh~
-/ I '
',....
,.,
-__. '''0
- II.' -
:
/
// .
( t,
\~
'. I
. --
1:.<' ~' (..
.tf.tO ",
.
0:
';::' 0
,C)
lJ'l'
~C)
'<)
aun.o...
...
o
..1
,.~ - I
.~_~.. I
_ ~ no......'
. .
..
': - -0-
6
-.J!.!--
..... lL.
.t'_ ,.
...e II.
.t'.1O
J
.,
",
"
! : 1t\t1 ~~.
o .,e-
0lIt"""'1"
-.
9'7 '9
1C, ..
..t, "
r.e.IL.
.... '1
DP.scRIP'l'ION:
Lot", L 2. 3, ~ 4. fllock 4. SECOND A/lO'N TO LAKESIDE ES'l'ATI".s. Scott County.
Minnesota. Also "hewing the loc"ticn of the proposed hOIl...e. as staked this 23rd
~y of April. 199b.
...."
.
Nm'~:<;' l!enchn..rk fUevaticn 921.44 Top nut of Hydrant at SE corner of OJtlot PO.
921.4
~2C).5
Denotes existing grade elevation
Denotes propcll'leCl finished grade elevations
Oo!notes Pr:0p08ed direction of finished 11l1rface deainage
Set the peoposed gae"qe slab at elevation 920.67
Set the top of. block at elevation 97.1.00
The lewest Elooe elevation will be at 917.96
N..t Lot ae.... = 5.400 sq. ft.
REV 4/30/96 TO SHOW PIlOPOSED SLOG a GRADES.
~
~
-'.. -
: --- ---
~i-'-
-]
, "'''frY ,.:n' ,.,.' ."".i' ,-/-tj': r;{1RvE" WA~ "QEO~R!O BY ,"fE .JR
-:!.,r'" .., 1.!I~'J' :.;Pf-C, '~/:'J"" .IUD 'HAll H" ~ nUL" &,IC!NScO
Alii.' :,;,~. '''J!:I': ; j~AW$ ')1= ''"If sr.ar,..t:/ifINNEsorA
/C~r~~/~
-'/:,,/,'.":.1".1'" 'It,
. ;" " 'J:"' ,J ~4r;.; o.i
','" IlPf f:~-.'tO
lIS r.-MiE _2~_
en
w
~
~
en
w
.
i ~
~ ..
; ]
I i
] j
I !
! ~
~
~ ~
~ ~
i {
: ~
g i
! ~
~ !
~ ~ -
ii . ~
I ~ ~
~ ~ ~
l . r
S ~
~ ~ '
~ :c !
~ i ~
~ -:;: ...
; j ;
~ . 8
2 S ~
~ ] ~
w
o
-
en
w
~
<t
...J
o
I-
i
~
i ,
S { i
~ I ~
i ~ ':
- ~
] , -
, ~ ~
J i ~ .
i ~ s !
! i ~ I
i i ~ }
~ t i .I
~ .. ; :s
: ; J :
~ ; "i ~
~ :: E .
~ ~ l i
:I 0 8 -
! i , ~
~ i ~ i
1 ! i ~
.. .,
f ~ ,11
i oS ~ 1
j I ! .
S ::l ... e:
Iii;
~ oS i ~
1 !! i i
e~~!_i=
i ~ i : _
~ > ~ i !
"i j ~ i .s
. l ~ .
~ - .s '1 ~ ! ~; ~ ~ I
~I ~ ~ ~ ~ .
,I ., ~ ~ f~ f =
t j ; ~ . 2 ~ ~ ;5 ! ~
i ~ 0. ~ ~~ ~; i' I ~ >
3! ~ ~~ ! j ] H ~ ~~ 3 ~ ~I
~ J ~~ l' S ~
i . ! ] ~ is ~ ~ :
~I ig ~ 0. ~ ,! "E € ~ ~
! .c~ i ~ !
H I ~ . .~ ~ ~
:s ~ s :>:~ ~ !
- , =~ s ~ R. ~ h ~ "i
, h : ~ ! ! !
" -; . .. S > i
, c
~ = i : .
. i ~
, ~ - :s 1 ~
. . ~ "i F ~
i ~
i ! ! ~ I ~
. ]
, . ~ i f
S l g j ~ .
t I r ~
} . "i .
t I ~ f e -
. ~ 1 J ~
i ~ > s .
i i " ~ . ~
i ] ~ I ~ ! ~ 0
, i . t ;
j i i 0 ~ ~ 8 I 0.
I ~ I ~ ~ i ~
~ i . i i ~ ;5
~ i .2 J
- ~ ~ ~ i ! !
j ~ ~
1 t ~ . ~ 1
F " F . ! :s
, ~. ~ ,
~ ~ , ~ 11 l' ~ j
.s ~ oS ~ j ~ ! ~ z :!
] .
- ; ~ - ~ j j ~ 1 j
- i ]
~ ] 0 j I
j E ~ ~ > 1 ! = >
~ ~ ~ F ~ S
I ~ ~ ~~ ~ . . ~ ,I J ~ i :
1 ~t 8 : € I
!~ S ~ 0 s ~~ = .5
" € !
~~ ~ ~~ ~ = j ~ ~~ i ~ i
~~ 11 -
~~ ] i ;5 ~
t;S ~ ~6 ~
.
=
11
1
~
S
F
t
f
!
~
..;
~
::f
"i
~
E
~
~
j
..
..;
l;J
,,~ --i:' rj..,'/)~:,~ i...~ i
.....- - SiJ.Us3 ]OJS])I., '-:1
111'* 'z,., ",.... ~:2. i>
I... Jl.!"o;~ -. II
CI~
, -..,-.., " i :
_'\ /\ I I,......., ~I
i '" 'J -'..
L-_
......._..;
l!!
~
~---
l(")
z
-
o
o
<t
o
z
o
u
w
en
::-:
I
I
I V)
l'..i
t-- ----:-:::--
f ,,-
I ~~
/ "\,I '..J)
~J
;'Ic-J '1;:'.....
.
I:i!t
IiI".
1)1.
-5J
j!iU
ith:
IH,~
!iUJ
,
,
,
~__-L
r-~'~~~~::~'
eJ ;---_,_
,~ /
-- I
L'...i
.. 1
~~!~ 1
I 12~! i
:~::! =:
J WUt!u
;.t:; I z
~~9" I ~
g- .I~; ~i
I ~iU &1
I gi!~ II"
.
:~;
o~~
I
r~-f
I
r-
.....-:
:\")
(--'~
_.:.t
l,..i
\-
--
----,
,
':c
-.J
ILL:
~
.s:
d~
~~
~'t
a:~
-S:!oi
~~
~..
~
:;-it
::::Il.
~
RESOLUTION 9625PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD
SETBACK OF 21 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3-UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Eagle Creak Villas has applied for a variance from Section 4.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a 3-unit townhouse on property
located in the R-2 (Urban Residential) District at the following location, to wit;
4170-4176 CJ Circle, legally described as Lots 1-4, Block 4, Second Addition
to Lakeside Estates
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #96-067 and held hearings thereon on August 12, 1996.
3. 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.
4. 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.
prior to 1983, the effective date of the current Zoning Ordinance. If the building is
moved or realigned, it will not fit into the existing "envelope".
6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
The application of the required setbacks leave no legal buildable area.
7. The contents of Planning Case 96-067 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 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 grants and
approves the following variances;
1. A variance to permit a 3-unit townhouse which will have a 21' front yard setback
instead of the required 25' setback.
This variance is granted with the following terms and conditions;
1. The improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the site plan
submitted by the applicant, and attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on August 12, 1996.
William Criego, Chair
I
AITEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
2
EXHIBIT II A II
VA L LE Y SURVEYING CO. I
16670 FR,aNKLlN TRAIL S. E.
PR lOR LAKE, HN. 5':372
OFF ICE 447-2570
FAX 447-2571
P. A.
~pcv CiENSHEq
,,1' J'
~
' .. -
, -_. _..
.n.?
tt. oS
~~;.L. I'"~ "'f". ~- -_.. --' --
\ ttU8 I....
\ ..... o--.....~':. _.. I .'
1 .,..'
I
I
I,
II
If,
'\ I
,,-
f,e. &~~.
",..0 ~
.......--.
! '....:....~..J
9 Mue n
I '.0,"
,
" ,
___._~I-- -" -.......
,
Q..,.fL ...,..\.
; "0." ~ __9_'~.!'___-=":~
~fN--8:"5'OO' W'!.... ~ ,.
I ---90 OO'''-! '\ .:1
<:ffiI:. I I
, Jo -~I ..1.0
I ao -io~~
I ;1
......... , -. f 01;:;";\
. I I ev...o... , ~
,''"" 0' I ~~i
!..~-~... 0"/ 1 I ~ ~ ~
I .:0""... Ilrt
J= I :( ,-'-1~^~,.. c:::A.....
~~ I. lit' ).: 'Ol.
~_~ ~ ...~/;_~:~L:'- ~,@ - r:r~ ~f j
" ~'~"~O.IP ..,,1 I V l_1 I '
. . r. ,.o,u....90 ao '."'~D 00 1,.,,-
0' ." I ..... -1 ..'
'-i--o- "-- 0 '!/v 8"'5'00' J <m:D"r; ---- ''1:1
::::: 6 /: r~~-= 11- -l:~t~1 TFf
.,... t C .....' . ~ I : .... ~...
.,..v...., CllI""...... 0 ,It.
I '
....
Ci!OD
..
:
~:
'~ '='
,Q
~<:)
. '-0
1I1
MU" (1,..
.,t. ,.
TC ~
.." T.
r.c. ....
II. '1
OFXRTPTtON:
.... eM
(.or:" L. 2, J, , <I, fHock 4. SEC::NO A"C>' N 1'0 ('AKES roE E:5'1'AT!'-S. Scot:: C-'"'Unty.
Minnesota. A l..o !Ohcwin<; the loc"tlcn of th.. pC"::lpos<'!d hC1I...... as staked !:his U.,.d
dl'!y ot I\I"'i L L9%.
Nm'~-:'''' ~cl1n..C"k Elevation 921. 44 l'op nut of HydC"ant at SE co.,.ne.,. of OJtlot !'.
~2l.4 Denotes existing g.,.ade elevation
~20.5 Oenot~ pC"oposed finisned gC"ade elevations
Oenote!l pC"OpOSeddit"f!C,;icn of fini"hed ,,"C"f/3ce dC"ainaq'!
Set the pC"OpOSed ga.,."qe slab at elevation '/20.67
3et !:he top of. blocl< at elevation 92L.00
The Jowest flooC" elevation will be at 9l7.96
N..t r.ot aC".... % 5.400 sq. ft.
!
~
REV "/30/~6 TO SHOW PROPOSED SI.OG a GRAOES.
.,ro:f"" :;;
-"",,,' .~.;- ~ut=vE" ilA") ..,,,,.,-:3.REO lfJY !IifE.]P
()~ t:" :.' "j".' .1t.1C ~"'A 1 : .... .: t",t" ,,;(("1'5(:;
'1;: -' 'y., AltO; IJF r...,. s,~.J:' t: ""IN/II€SQrA
?.-.Cdv~
a:~ r;" afa ".t"
.1'i'J"~.
.....:... -~---=
-:
/L.::-r14
." ,,,., Y:~-.'~
1,4-=.)", ;. Z J S '-IIr.F Z'
a
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
PLANNING REPORT
4D
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE
TO PERMIT CHURCHES AND DAY CARE
FACILITIES IN THE C-l, CONSERVATION
DISTRICT
N/A J0.tfJO
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR---U'~
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
AUGUST 12, 1996
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this request is to consider an amendment to the
zoning ordinance which will allow churches and day care facilities in the C-l,
Conservation District.
BACKGROUND: Several weeks ago, staff received a call from the Department of
Human Services inquiring whether the Lutheran church located at Five Hawks Avenue
and Highway 13 was properly zoned to permit a nursery school- daycare facility. In
reviewing the ordinance, it was determined that the site is located in the C-I,
Conservation District. It was also discovered that, not only is day care not permitted in
the C-I district, neither are churches. This means that the two churches in the City
currently within the C-l district are non-conforming uses and are subject to the non-
conforming provisions of the ordinance.
DISCUSSION: The C-I District was established to " recognize vital environmental
resources of the community as steep slopes, wetlands and unstable soil conditions and
allow development only after careful analysis." The application of this district in the City
has been inconsistent with the stated objectives of the district. The C-l district covers
street and highway right-of-way, schools, churches and some parks, in addition to
wetland and slope areas.
Some time ago, serious consideration was given to eliminating the C-I District altogether
because there have been ordinance provisions added which address the concerns. for
which the C-l District was originally established. It is likely that this will be
accomplished in the new zoning ordinance.
For the present, however, the current provisions of the ordinance must be applied.
Normally, zoning ordinances are amended when there has been a significant change in
conditions , there has been a Comprehensive Plan amendment or there was a mistake in
16200 ~~gy~~~~~e. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447- 245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
the original zoning. In this case, staff is of the opinion that a mistake was made in
including churches in a C-1 District without making them a permitted use. In both cases,
the site of the church does not display characteristics which would justify its' inclusion in
the C-1 District and there does not appear to be any other circumstances which would
warrant such inclusion.
This request has been initiated by staff in the interest of correcting an apparent error in
the ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the amendment to allow churches and day care facilities
in the C-1, Conservation zoning district
2. Recommend denial of the amendment
3. Continue the case for specific reasons
RECOMMENDA nON: Alternative I
ACTION REOillRED: Modon and second to recommend approval of the attached
ordinance amendment
8 1 2964D.DOCIDR
2
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 96-_
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-3-3 OF PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
AND AMENDING SECTION 3.2 OF PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
Section 5-3-3of Prior Lake City Code and Section 3.2 of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance
83-6 are hereby amended as follows:
In the listing of permitted uses under C-l Conservation, inseert the following:
14. Churches
15. Day care centers
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of
, 1996.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
, 1996.
Drafted By: City of Prior Lake
ORDPRO.OOT
16200 J!>1g1e Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING REPORt
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4E
Consider amendment to zoning ordinance to permit fences
in County road rights-of way
N/A ,,,,- n l
Donald Rye, Planning Directo~'-
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
August 12,1996
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION: The City has received an application from the Harbors Community
Association to amend the zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a fence in the
right-of-way of County Road 42.
BACKGROUND: The Harbor Community Association wishes to construct a fence in
the right-of-way of County Road 42 in order to meet the objectives contained in the
attachment to this report. These objectives relate to screening, noise reduction and
security and access control. The Association has indicated that a fence on their own
property will not meet these objectives because of the topography of the area. The right-
of-way line is located on the hill slope below the level of County Road 42 and a fence on
the property line would not provide the screening the Association desires nor would it
adequately address the other objectives. Consequently, the Association has asked that the
ordinance be amended to allow fences on the right-of-way of County roads with County
approval. The fence as proposed by the Association would exceed the height limitation
for fences in the City. If an amendment were to be approved, the height limits would need
to be addressed in some fashion.
City ordinance currently states as follows regarding fences: Fences shall not be permitted
in any ril:ht-of-way.
DISCUSSION: The provision which prohibits fences in rights-of-way is a common one
in City codes. The reasons for such provisions are as follows:
· Public policy- As a matter of public policy, public land should be available to the
general public on an equal basis. The theory is that public land should not be
generally available to individuals or small groups to enjoy a privilege not granted to
the general public. If no public purpose is being served, there should be no private
use.
· Liability- The City may have liability exposure by allowing private use of public
right-of-way. Some Cities will allow limited private use subject to specific
agreements which specify the conditions of use, contain a hold-harmless or
16200 ~!gr~e~e. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4 45
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
indemnification clause in favor of the City and provide for insurance coverage to the
City to be provided by the user.
. Interference with public functions- Private use of a right-of-way may interfere with
the public functions of the right-of-way. In addition to streets, rights-of-way often
contain public utilities, signage and pedestrian facilities for the benefit of the general
public. Private use should not interfere with these facilities. While private use can
sometimes be shown not to conflict with these facilities, most communities as noted
have taken the position that private use is usually not allowed.
. Traffic Safety- Private use may compromise the safety of persons using public streets
if the private use obstructs traffic, confuses motorists, blocks views or otherwise acts
as an impediment or hazard to traffic. Because of potential liability issues noted
above, most cities do not allow private use except in rare or unusual circumstances.
The attached memorandum from the Engineering Department underscores these
concerns.
Proposal- The applicants have proposed specific ordinance language as follows:
Fences shall not be permitted in any right-of-way, except that Scott County may permit
construction offences within the right-ol-way of County State Aid Highways.
This language was submitted to Scott County for review. The response received by the
City was that the County was opposed to the specific language proposed and suggested
that the City may want to consider an amendment which limited City regulations to City
streets only and remained silent on the issue of County or State highways. A copy of the
County response is attached.
This application, and the County response to it, raises both regulatory and policy issues.
While the City may have some authority to regulate the use of County or State right-of-
way, City regulations may be superseded by other authorities if superior public purposes
are being served by these other authorities. For example, the State could build a noise
wall along Highway 13 as a means of protecting the public health.
As a policy matter, the question is whether the City wishes to continue to assert control
over fences in State or County rights-of-way, knowing that the possibility exists that City
controls could be overridden, or is the City satisfied to allow the County and State to
regulate their own rights-of-way, knowing that each is also subject to the concerns
outlined above regarding the private use of public right-of-way?
If the City were to adopt language along the lines suggested by the County, the City
would have no control over such structures and would have no guarantee of some
minimum level of aesthetics. The attached map shows the County and State roads in the
City which would be affected by the language proposed by the County. However, given
the position expressed by the County, it does not appear that the County is anxious to
issue fence permits on a wholesale basis. Traditionally, MnDOT has not freely issued
permits for the use of its' right-of-way and it would seem unlikely that they would adopt
a more liberal position in that regard.
AL TERNA TIVES:
812964E.DOC/DR
2
~
1. Approve amendment as requested
2. Approve an amendment consistent with language suggested by Scott County
3. Approve amendment with specific changes adopted by the Commission
4. Deny the request
5. Continue the case for specific reasons
RECOMMENDATION: Specify policy direction and recommend Council adoption of
ordinance language consistent with the suggested policy direction.
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second consistent with desired alternative
8 1 2964E.DOCIDR
3
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
q~-o(P;l,
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zonin~) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zonin~) v ..e-~~~~!~
.B Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance tA.fI~. - 'AI~ .t~
o Subdivision of Land ~ :..k~if?4".~~ ;:
o Administrative Subdivision ~ . ~ -
...." ~ ,'~"- A......l ~
o Conditional Use Permit ~ ~~ L~ -~~A~afl;JlJ~
o Variance Applicable Ordinance Section(s): , . , I S-~,(."t....,
("I<D. ~S'-or) E
C~VI"" VIV' i l--tr
Applicant(s): I-I~ ~,~
Address: 6Si {:, HA6{8 ,;.~ 'i? /iAc:::. H N',~
Home Phone: ~ I 2- ,c.{ Y -i'"" 16 t 7 Work Phone: (PI,- Y 'I S' 77 V<j
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants):
Address:
Home Phone: Work Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee ~ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement .
Legal DescriPt;::n~~~ttach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
A),1- ~tr~
To the best of my knowledge the information procided in this application and other material submitted is co~rect. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
ap~tions will ~ be processed until d~med complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
~~ ~nv~T'j .~o-S.
~'1 A " J I.... ' cr 7 - L - 9 C,
Applicant's Signa9fre p~~~~~ '~ Date
-
Fee Owner's Signature Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATEOFHl ARING
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATEOFHl ~RING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date
T Appendix ( change noted in italics)
6.11 ScreenUng: (<>rd. 95-05)
Proposed change in wording for (E) regarding the last sentence.
Fences shall not be permitted in any right-of-way, except that Scon County may permit construction of
fences within the right of way of County State Aid Highways.
__ ____ _______ _u____ __________________ -- -
IT A~pr::.N~\)' (HM<f.,tl~ CO,,",I'-'/.-f.,v/'1 PR%SrJf..)
Proposal for North end of Harbor South o(Hwy 42 North oftennis court between the Don Kotula
and Dr. Ed Reese properties.
Objective:
. Act as a security barrier
. Reduce sound
. Reduce, or eliminate sight of traffic on 42.
. Eliminate trespassing down hill to lake through Association property- Summer and Winter
. Retain a uniform look that is attractive and adds value.
Ways to meet objectives:
. Plant Spruce trees: To block out the sight of automobiles (seedlings and small transplants) 1-3
below have been completed and paid for already from voluntary contributions.
1. Plant close together (5ft centers)
2. Several rows deep (2 rows deep on each end and 12 rows deep in middle section.
3. Length of area - 850 ft.; Depth 10 to 65 feet (Approximately 1,050 seedlings
planted).
... Through voluntaty contributions- this will add one row of taller spruce trees towards top of
bank next to proposed fence. They should be 5-8 feet tall. (approximately 40 trees over a 240 ft
distance).
. Build Fence:
1. Treated wood - 525 feet long
2. 23-35 ft from curbs on County highway 42
3. 7 to 8 ft. fence (Approximately 6 -7 ft above highway)
Constructed from 2" x 6" x 8 ft. treated lumber & 4" x 6" x 10 ft. treated
posts (posts rest about 3 ft in ground).
will eliminate almost all road noise.
will not eliminate all sight problems until trees reach 15 ft height.
Should eliminate security problems and the way trespassers reach water. .
Cost of spruce trees and fence:
. Fence _ approximately $24 per lineal foot. Total projected cost = $13.000
. Spruce trees - Approximately $100-$200 depending on size and variety.
Variety of spruce - Norway, White, Colorado
Blue and Black Hills spruce.
Size - 5 ft - 8ft
Optimum number = 40
Total proiected cost = $ 6.000. (based on 40 trees x $150)
. TOTAL PROJECTED COST for optimum size fence and number of trees = $19.000.
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DIVISIO
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
GARY L. CUNNINGHAM (612) 496-8346
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BRAD LARSON
ASSOCIA TE ADMINISTRATOR
rwrn@rnowrn~
n. 19~ U
OJ
Fax: (612) 496-8365
July 18, 1996
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior lake MN 55372-1714
RE: Fence Ordinance
Dear Ms. Kansier:
This is in response to the City's consideration of an amendment to the city code and
zoning ordinance on fences within the public right-of-way. While we do not have a
problem with the proposal, Scott County is opposed to the amendment as written.
If the ordinance is recommended for change, the change should not specifically
reference Scott County right-of-way. We recommend that the ordinance specify that no
fences shall be placed within the right-of-way of Prior lake streets. The ordinance
would be "silent" on State and County highways. This we believe would satisfy the
City's concern on their system, continue to maintain the State's and County's statutory
authority on their system and not "advertise" the idea that private fences may be
allowed on public right-of-way.
If you further questions or need additional information please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Bradley J. larson, .E.
Associate Administrator - Public Works and lands
BJUan
c: John Roach, Assistant County Attorney
An Equal Opportunity/Safety A ware Employer
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
DON RYE, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING
JOHN WINGARD, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER -:)"f"W
FENCES IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
AUGUST 5, 1996
We have given careful consideration to the request by private individuals to construct fences i
public right-of-way. For the following reasons, we would discourage the construction of fence~
in City right-of-way. I
. The fence can create an obstacle to the City's maintenance or public safety personnel th t
might need access to the City's property.
. If the fence is constructed on public property, then the issue of who will maintain the fenc
needs to be resolved. The City's maintenance personnel are busy and have a lot of facilitit$
to keep in good working order. Maintaining our streets, water and sewer systems should be ~
higher priority. :
. The design and location of fences needs to allow for good visibility for our motorists J
pedestrians. I
. The City needs to allow adequate space for snow storage along our streets. Fences can ~
damaged from the weight of the snow when the plows clear the streets. I
I
. The fence can become another obstacle for a car that is out of control that leaves the pav~
surface. The traffic engineers are requiring clear zones on streets to improve the safety. I
These ideas are mutually recognized by other cities as reasons why you seldom see fences in Ci~
right-of-way. I hope this helps to provide you with some of the rationale used by the .City ~
formulating our policy regarding fences in public right-of-way. !
162~~~J~~., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447- 245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
__ I
~"'~ 7l
'f ,~ ~ ; ,i :tf.;\' -W I, ;.Hi! ~
-f,-W~~i - ~ . ~, 1 - -t: ' ,:
i--- I ~ l ~ () -;--- "''''-" -~, ~, ~
~,,-, I l- . f I~ ,: fA' ,.~' I,:,
Ii' . '- - '... ~';, . . ",I" ; I,' '
.___ ,_. . , IL"" \ ....,1
\ I'~ : . r- 1 ! :o~',-.~~:W ~, 'L' 1 ~ :....,1
!, !i: .. -, I. . '. Q,.'-.'- ~-",
, . i: ~"r ~ I~' .!;.L( ~J
.. ! I '\ I~'" I .l' " ,
_~._~~ --------+----' ,Ill ". . . ~ II L.:
:',~,: ~T g~~ ~'/~~~'<-:\~':--II" ~'I-'.-J
.,' '\, ~ '1" He:j~ " "\ ~ I, i
" ' . ~ => _, I ' [' I ~ 1'1 I " . ,;f\ . ~L.
" ,\ I' , t! '\\ 'r- ~ ,/, ,~ I j;- I ~
"\ _ c .' ...... ' _ _____ __:i1il . ", ;:_~~jdi I'" I'
~- ~" - p- ~. 'l~> .. I t~" l;i' ~~ I
,;~ : ---::::::'~,' , . ~~ I '. ' ",--:...J, '. , I i /.-<~
'4 \' " ~ O~0".~~" _I ,:~, '. 1~"" "i' I(,-~, 'A'~' dj' S ,1'/--;- gq;
'. " ! , '" ~.. ,,\\~~ii' , ,/i..~',. <,' irCl'fE
I. . . i 1]. _,._ ~ ~ \.\I..;.jj}g;' i ~ 0:.,.J ,^V; r-: i 'tILC1;{
~, II' ) ~~'~,.~ " ']ft1~1" a ','" ,~.~.: " i, --y~, _L I,.,' I~
~ \~, .: _ '--Cj~ "c_.:;? "~' 1': \ t';t' ' , , , "i I' ,1-J'=_-JlS
2t~ ,',It:~~~~; > ~! ',~ ~~'l1 ~.. ',~- · @ tlf{
, ~. ~~ !
" ","" ,,\1 : ~ fl" ~," .. ' ,," ' .~ ,"~ · I
", .J \ <,,' . r:i'~,' ~,~-:-\r,~- ~ .,....' ,'~ . Ii /, I i C!:l"
.,. 1c;1~ 'e'. .... -,...;, I I ~ "",-'. J '..., \ 2\ \ \..' ~ .
, \ 1 , " <1~' , '. . ' ....:!'i:l-~" _ ~ ' '-..::~!': s;.. ,I ~--; lC.J ('; I -
\ \ \ \ (, ('- \ '" ' ,/: . K ',._ ,., '~l!!' ' ~, '. l\" ~ " I
11,\ \ \\~\, '!'M\~t I ~~~~~~i,6~I",~~__~ ~ ~~e=;~~~t::~'_ '-{"',I, / I. ;~~ 1 'Il- }~^ ~
>. ~ll! i I ",*,~,,@'c{:\,!:-1~~ I ,~'--i" -~. , ,~-lT." , 11:::JIf,,0"";'
! ! ! ,,;i,,"!i~.\1.JA'.'.'l~.,~. j.,~. ',\1"'-- -~"_ , -if.!' ~2t;- , ,-... f:.' i '-;~'~ ""'( ~ " .' .;<~
'-.~~~3!~,r"~1~t;;'!:1 1" . ~~l:\' ~ ' '\' ~' ' '~;..' , ",,:t' W,'
, '.1 H~'~,' f/ -- ,!.~. ~ \,~' -c--- :' "I' ~ \J --- ~., 1 '.--'-.~ ; -=- ~......,~\\,,~,.
"l I \ ,I ,I C i. : " ~ ,'" ~'"l 1 \ ",1 I . ri- "" ~
I ~ ' I'. ''1" ,," ~ . . ;r' 'I ' ~' ,
tE.lrt ' .1' 10i, it~l! :~~'B," I ~,i:l ~'i ~~~
( 11:- ,; ",,}:.~"c., '. ~ ~'I II; i Iq
, i l ~ .~ _cc.~,' ~.~','::: ,,' r: ',', t~~, . tf.t\ ;J,'~'V;:!-1 ' ~ ~~,
~, c , , ' ,'~' ~,' "i'" ~,,\ ':""" 'I' eJr~'
1-+-1 I I ! ~ ,. .' __. '13i!,j..' ~:' ,.. ,,"" , ,1:: c.. 'I !'O;i~ I
~ . i, '1~'. i. 1'- ..":..;;'.~-.'-"':-- '.:Jffi~'.___ .,,!A~I.'.~,t. ~t\: ,f, I I, (I, I, ,1. ~ "~'"
, ,. ,'.. 'I .. . ;":t~ ''\iTf",,,,ii ,~~.,,' ' , ','" '\v'~:
I ~':~! ;B-Il, hi ~;'J:, \ ' 'L!--., 1 ~'1.l't~ ",,'; i ' ,.~ [
L_,:=::'q...l _ . %c~ftlf;\Y.~r:~ f?\,\ J · I I
~~.-.. ".,c,',- ..':
fJ :....f .
~ () J(' ~! ..~,~~ .~
~ : G~V~ '" ", ,~,,~,
fit 1~;,f~~'~" ,\,~'
~~, L.;~ - ')~ '
.. -: v I!", -
1: (.\ I'l' I I
( ,,! l,-~ , '
", 0 :===-' -fi -.
~ &JO 1;'
'&\ ' )-,
. I I
o '.~ -L"~ I
- ~ ~
;::.-
~-
, I (
1 l'
;:,;;,
~(,,~
J~
;
~
~
~ I
~I ~
~ Ui
-}ii~~
1ft
I ~ ' I I i ~ : ~ l
_I H .'
.--- -~:---\
'I ~ ~
1
,
I
I
if
I '
I ,
I~
, ,
I
~ '
ll: '
, ,! ,,' l '
l L._.'.J
II
t I I
; #
//~.
'1"': I
, i
'-J
I
i
,
,
-+--J
,
!
fl I
:,
,I ~__n_
;'it.'-4Y
,11.;--,
I
.
.
.
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5
CONSIDER SCHEMATIC PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW AN ASSISTED
LIVING PROJECT IN THE PRIORVIEW PUD .
FIVE HAWKS A VENUE AND PRIORWOOD STREET
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES X NO-Nt A
--
AUGUST 12, 1996
Eagle Creek Villas LLC has applied for an amendment to the Priorview PUD to allow the
construction of a 61 unit assisted living building on the vacant portion of the site. The
original PUD was approved in 1983 and the development to date has occurred prior to
1991. The present applicant has no connection with the developer of the original PUD.
BACKGROUND:
On July 22, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this
proposal. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal, heard testimony from
several citizens, and then closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission then
tabled action on this time until August 12, 1996, in order to obtain additional information
DISCUSSION:
The information the Planning Commission requested is listed below (in bold italics),
followed by the staff's response.
1. The City Attorney's opinion on whether or not this application can be considered
as an amendment to the original PUD since the developer has no connection with
the original developer.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447- 245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The City Attorney has determined that this application may be considered as an
amendment to the existing PUD in spite of the fact that the developer has no
connection with the original developer. A memo from the City Attorney is attached.
2. The City Engineer's report on relocating the water line.
See attached memo from John Wingard, dated August 7, 1996.
3. The City Engineer's report on the traffic impact of connecting Five Hawks Avenue
versus eliminating this connection.
See attached memo from John Wingard, dated August 7, 1996.
4. The trail plan for the area, including any plans between the City and the School
District.
The City's trail plan for this area includes the extension of the existing trail in
Westbury Ponds to Five Hawks Avenue. Sidewalk will also be extended along
Priorwood Street to Duluth Avenue. A sidewalk or trail along the right-of-way of
Five Hawks Avenue to the north is also desirable. The City has no plans to establish
nature trails on the subject property. The development of nature trails on this site is a
private matter between the developer and the School District. As mentioned in the
original staff report, the developer needs all of his land for the density of this project.
Conveying land to the School District could affect the allowable density.
5. The City Engineer's recommendation for overflow parking.
See attached memo from John Wingard, dated August 7, 1996.
6. A definition of an "Assisted Living Facility".
A generally recognized definition of an "Assisted Living Facility" is "a residence
that provide rooms, meals, personal care and health monitoring services under the
supervision of a professional nurse or other medical professional, and that may
provide other services such as recreational, social and transportation". These
facilities are generally marketed toward the elderly, but are also used by other
individuals with special needs, such as handicapped or Alzheimer's patients.
The Planning Commission can approach the need for a definition in several ways.
First of all, the Zoning Ordinance could be amended to include a specific definition.
The disadvantage in this approach is that the Planning Commission must initiate the
amendment process, which includes a public hearing and approval by the Council.
This process may add time to the review of this application.
pcrept2.doc
Page 2
Another approach is to ask the developer to identify the users of the proposed facility.
This list would be reviewed by the Commission during later phases, and could then be
incorporated into the final approved PUD plans.
7. Necessary modifications to the Comprehensive Plan.
If this plan is to proceed, it seems that a Comprehensive Plan amendment from the
Low Density Residential designation to the Medium Density Residential designation
may be necessary since the proposed development would result in densities greater
than those contemplated by the current plan. If such an amendment were to be
pursued, it would seem likely that the amendment could be limited in such a way as to
limit development of the property to something similar to the proposed project to
insure that the development intensity of the site is limited. In addition, if the Planning
Commission recommends that the plan proceed without the connection of Five
Hawks Road, the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to remove Objective #3
from the Five Hawks Planning District, which states that "the comvletion of Five
Hawks Avenue should be established as a vriority vrQject in order to imvrove north-
south vehicular movements and establish the main entrance to. this neighborhood
from Highway 13".
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on whether or not
the proposed use of this property for a 61-unit assisted living facility is appropriate. If the
Planning Commission believes this is an appropriate request for the proposed location,
the following should be kept in mind:
. A Comprehensive Plan amendment will likely be required to deal with the density
issue.
. The parking requirements for elderly housing will likely need to be amended.
. The proposal will enable the City to make substantial progress toward the attainment
of Livable Communities goals related to lifestyle housing.
. The City required the previous developer to make the right-of-way for Five Hawks
Avenue available to the City.
. The proposed use is compatible with the development in the vicinity.
ALTERNATIVES:
,
I.
1. Recommend approval of the Schematic Plan, subject to a Comprehensive Plan
amendment related to density, satisfactory resolution of the parking issue and
modification of the plan to show the extension of Five Hawks Avenue.
2. Recommend approval of the Schematic Plan as presented, subject to a Comprehensive
Plan amendment related to density and satisfactory resolution of the parking issue.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
pcrept2.doc
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1.
ACTION REQillRED:
Motion and second to recommend approvals of the Schematic Plan, subject to a
Comprehensive Plan amendment related to density, satisfactory resolution of the parking
issue and modification of the plan to show the extension of Five Hawks Avenue.
pcrept2.doc
Page 4
r-
j~~ ro-
(--
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FlJCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
Thomas J. Camrhell
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas M. Scott
Gary G. Fuchs
James R. Walston
Elliott B. Knersch
Suesan Lea Pace
(612) 452-5000
Fax (612) 452-5550
Andre.) McDowell P,'ehler
M.mhew K. Brokl
John r:. Kelly
Marguerite ~1. McCarron
George T. Srerhe\1lson
July 23, 1996
TO: Don Rye, Planning Director
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
FROM: Suesan Lea Pace, City Attorney
RE: Amendment to the Priorview Planned Unit Development I
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The purpose of this memorandum is to address those issues raised in your July 22, 19961
memorandum concerning a proposed amendment to the Priorview PUD to allow construction of *
sixty-one (61) unit assisted living facility on the vacant portion of the site. !
Both of the issues you have raised focus on the fact that the applicant who has requested In
amendment to the PUD is not the original developer. Like Conditional Use Permits and varianc~~
a PUD runs with the land, not with the owner of the land. :
Your memorandum indicates the original PUD was approved in 1983. I'm assuming thatlin
1983, the PUD received fInal plan approval, and that the property that is the subject of the requerted
amendment is included in the minimum to-acres which received fInal PUD approval. !
Assuming the foregoing, City Code Section 5-5-12, 7(f) provides that:
Amendments may be made in the approved final plan when they are shown to be
required by changes and conditions that have occurred since the ("mal plan was !
approved, or by changes in the development policy of the City. A change in density ~d
use must be authorized by the City Council under the procedures set forth in Title 5-~
10. (Emphasis added)
Based on the foregoing, the PUD may be amended not withstanding the fact there is a ne
developer. Remember to have the new developer enter into a development agreement, and pleas
let me know if you have any other questions.
SLP:kgm
cc: Frank Boyles, City Manager
Suite 317 · Eagandale Office Center · 1380 Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN 55121
~._--,.\.
I - . . \
",,- o~
:. :,~~:; r/
~
",.Ioa
'GRAIN~
CROSSIHGS
UPPER PRIOR LAKE
&
,-
1-.
1_ i
~I
EXISTING PARKS & TRAILS
~
I~
B EXISTING PARK
~ PRIVATE PARK; RECREATION FACILITY
IS REGIONAL PARK
El TRAIL
r!'NI'COf"I....of~...~~lr.....
."r<
PROPOSED PARKS AND TRAilS
I 0~"'" '
~:,.,"O'" . ~~~."~
'~ '
'-::
~ PROPOSED PARK
r==1 PROPOSED TRAIL
t:.=.J (m.-, ~ 01........ .,." ~I tfPt,'
rn pAAK I TRAIL SEARCH AREAS
'.
f \
L:'~
.- -'
-"
I
RICE LAKE
_.--
-.
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
JOHN WINGARD, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
AUGUST 7, 1996
RE:
EAGLE CREEK VILLAS
ASSISTED LIVING CENTER
GradinWWetlands:
Approximately 2 acres of this site will be disturbed to allow for the construction of the buildin
and parking lot/driveway. The remainder will be left in a natural state.
A 2 acre wetland is located on the southwest comer of the site as shown on attached Exhibit .
The Developer, City and School District are working together to raise the normal water lev~l
(NWL) of this wetland up three to four feet to create a better functioning water quality treatmedt
facility in this wetland. The wetland receives runoff from the Westbury Ponds and Triangle calr
Wash areas. The Outlet for this wetland has eroded and been lowered in the past, and with thi~
development, a new Outlet would be constructed that raises the NWL to elevation 918.5.
A total of 181 acres drains to the 2 acre wetland. The drainage basin includes a mixture of singlb
family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, school, open space and park uses. The 2
acre wetland receives 31 acres of direct drainage. Exhibit B shows the sub-drainage districts ~
through L which drain into the 2 acre wetland. There are six ponds located in this 181 ac~
drainage basin. The storm water runoff from this 181 acre basin can be controlled to a maximmh
discharge rate 13 cfs by construction of a dam and control structure at the present Outlet of the ~
acre wetland.
The high water level (HWL) of the 2 acre wetland should be designed to be 3 feet below an
door or window openings of houses adjacent to this pond. The lower level walkout flo r
elevation of the house at 16595 Dutch Avenue was measured at elevation 923.66, so the HWL f
the pond should be set at 920.66.
A 0.3 acre wetland also exists in the southeast comer of the site. This wetland will not e
disturbed by filling or draining.
G:\PROJECTSIEAGLECK.OOC L
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 553l2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447- 245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The creek system that drains the wetlands in this area is also classified as wetland areas that are
shown not to be disturbed. The creek system conveys the storm water runoff of this area
northwesterly to Green Heights Trail and discharge directly into Prior Lake.
The development will be required to comply with the City's erosion control standards,
Whenever possible, a 30 foot grass buffer strip should be provided along the edge of wetlands to
limit erosion.
Watermain: Ii
As shown on the attached Exhibit C, the City's watermain supply system does not contain man
north/south connections in the area near this site. Water is fed into the system from the wate
tower located on Tower Street. A 20" trunk main distributes the water in an east/west directio~
A 16" trunk main is located along Elm Street that loops to the north and then along the southerly
edge of the lake. An 8" line is located on Duluth Avenue that provides another north/south loopi.
Since the gap between the Elm Street loop and the Duluth Avenue loop is nearly one mile apart,
the City is recommending that another north/south loop be provided in the Five Hawks Avenue
area.
The City modeled the water supply system in the Five Hawks Avenue area to see how waJ
supply and fire protection could be provided to this site. The City's Comprehensive Water PlJ
establishes a 3500 gpm fire flow for supply and to provide this level for a duration of three hours.
The construction of the watermain loop along Five Hawks Avenue will improve the City'~
operating pressure during a fire by increasing the pressure from 39 psi to 55 psi. i
An existing 6" watermain has been stubbed to the site from the Five Hawks A venue/Priorwoo~
Street intersection. An existing 8" watermain has been stubbed to the site from the north at th~
Five Hawks Avenue stub street. An 8" watermain is proposed to be constructed through th~
development along the alignment of Five Hawks A venue. The construction of this line wi1l1
provide another loop to the City's system. The proposed watermain system will need to inc1ud~
a fire hydrant on the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of the proposed building tel>
provide adequate fire protection to the site. I
The construction of the 8" water line along the Five Hawks Avenue alignment could follow tht
proposed street or trail. The Five Hawks Avenue alignment would eliminate the dead end lin
that exists on the Five Hawks Avenue stub street. If the Five Hawks Avenue street extension i
not constructed, then the alignment of the 8" watermain should be picked which saves as many
trees as possible. !
An alternative alignment for a north/south watermain connection would be along the e~
property line of this site. The 8" watermain would follow the existing 15" sanitary sewer lin
that is located along this property line. This alternative alignment would cross through trees an
a wetland. i
I
I
I
G:\PROJECTS\EAGLECK.DOC
2
Sanitaxy Sewer:
An existing 15" sanitary sewer line with adequate depth and capacity is available to serve this
site. The sewer line flows northerly along the east property line at the site.
Streets/Access:
The proposed development intends to obtain its access from the Five Hawks A venue/Priorwood
Street intersection. The preliminary layout shows a private driveway and parking lot connecting
at the north end of Five Hawks Avenue. The proposed parking lot and drive aisles shall be
constructed to City standards with concrete curb and gutter and bituminous surfacing.
The City has a 66 foot wide easement for public use to construct a roadway and utility lines
along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue. The easement was conveyed to the City in 1983
from the Priorview Developers for a fee of one dollar. The extension of Five Hawks Avenue
through this site will help to interconnect neighborhoods and provide a northerly connection to
the Cates Street area. The Five Hawks A venue extension would provide another north/south
connection in-between Duluth Avenue and Willow Lane.
The extension of Five Hawks Avenue through this site would require a considerable disturbance
to the trees, creeks and natural features of this area. If Five Hawks Avenue is not extended
through this site, there will be minimal impacts to the City's overall transportation system. The
streets will still be able to function without becoming congested.
The City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan recommended that the construction of a new two
lane undivided roadway be extended along Priorwood Street from Five Hawks A venue to Duluth
Avenue. This street extension is designated as a minor collector street and is being constructed
this summer with the Eagle Creek Villas Development. The extension of Priorwood Street will
eliminate the dead end street system by Five Hawks Elementary School. The Transportation
Plan designates the extension of Five Hawks Avenue through this site as a local street.
Trails/Sidewalks:
An 8' bituminous trail shall be constructed along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue. The trail
will provide a pedestrian link from the Five Hawks Elementary School to the Cates Street
neighborhood.
Overflow Parkin~ or Public Parkin~:
The trail system, parks and natural features of this area could attract enough interest to justify the
construction of a public parking lot. The 61 unit assisted living building will require a bigger
parking lot than what has originally been shown (a 33 stall lot). With the expansion of the lot by
the developer to serve the 61 unit building, there is not enough room on this site for an overflow
parking lot to be used by the public. Residents will need to use off-street parking or the Five
Hawks Elementary School parking lot for parking.
G:\PROJECTSlEAGLECK.DOC
3
\
\
, -
, 0
u G)
\ 7 .t
v
~ U. IJ'\
...
<;
"1
, i I :
l' T
. \ :
T
I
"
z
ti
S<
w
~.
~I
1-1
.~
/1' I
~. ,1 )
c,~-I. ......1 /! /
~~~ / / I
....~ .,./ I .
~ . i f .J.
.... -'-.-1 /
~.-' ;::' .,;
.r'- "'II'
'-r-:---------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..J.J
..J .J I
CY.: I
...... I
(/) I
<(
~
m
-
:I:
><
W
~
I
,
--~I-
I
~--
~~
\ tr'%\ ... I
<~"\.(~.~-- ,0 \ " I
<f\'\~ --.' () I 1
\:, .\;~~,.., "'" . - +- - - - +- -
,\\rV1tt>-" 0 -+----+-- I
~>W~<~\ :~~ 1
~;(~ ' O.t:t 1
. 'fr ~ fi~ ~\\
~, >'0-\\\ !
, /~'___ 1
~~. 3/\ v' " : - - --.. I
:::: ~I'i 'v'1-,' .., ---.., - - .....
. ...:7,1/ I I
..:]
('\ I
./,
~.J I
>--
~( I
(~ 1__
~
l.
./
yo/' I'
// .~
,:
l l
1
/ I
I
.~
r-\.
I -
I
I
I
t,- --
I' \
1\'
I ' \
I \,
I "
, '
I " ";'.
t- \ \ 'OS".. r
---_,_L__ ,
I \ ,,-.'
1\\
I \ \
I~, \-'~,-
1-"-
- - - r -...:-. -::\ "-
I \ '\. ,.....
I \\
I \ \\ :I:
I \ \' ~
I \. .v;.:..-~.
.1.., 17:..--'
. :jnr'i3/\V - - . ~ ~ ~ ."
}fNi VH ""3/- - -...-::;
r - \1.;1 -:;::,
-T-
I I \
I I \
I I \
I I I L..-- :,,:
;---r---r : ~~ ~.
\ \ I I w
I \ \ 1 I ~
I \ \ I t U
l___.-L___l_--l---' J,
,
\'
\
-~
4'"'
..r
"
-
uJ
\--
'" -
" tf)
-I
, ::.--~:=;:::;::.:..;---~~
/' . "~
/. "\
,', ..\, ~ '\
" "/ i ,. ~ . \
~, "--' ~ ,;; / :i ~ '~\~'l''''
,~g t \. \
\ '..~ ; 1 '
'\~ / i
~~" 'f'
~~~'- ./ '.\
,~~~~-~\
.\ \
"
o
o
I"')
If-
w
lJJ
lL.
,
';"1 "
.....:. "
I I -.
;1 I
1&-1
I l.1.1l
11.111 ~
I er: I ~ 0
~: 0
~
I - J I
I I
o-t-_ 0
'1"'"
~
o
}
m'"T1
x-
_Gl
C/)e
::!::o
zm
Gl~
O'
00
z<
em
-::0
::!)>
Or
zr
C/))>
:E::O
_m
-I)>
I-c
-c .-
r)>
)>z
-I~
o
<
m
::0
r
)>
-<
OJ"
o ""'I
~ ~
1 .. ~
Q-"
~ ?
~~
..i:
i.:
-
, "
,
.'~
m
-I
to
\. :~~l.i.
~)~ .+t(i _.~
,. . -L ~ "
. .jl \.rl~' ":.~ ;:1
.~~.I!: ,.
:-::,. . .~. ' II!
--- ___Hi -:.
"
\.j)... <Qb
c
""'0
""'0
m
~
""'0
~
... .
0 \
;;0
l"
;l>
~
m
~r
fI
/.
'\
".
..
..
[iI -
I [iI I
[iI I
2 ~ ~
~ ::0 ~
~ 0 -
~ en
C"'.l 0 :j
0 en 2
2 ~ C
en 0 ~
.., ~
::0 >
c:: > ..,
C"'.l .., ~
.., ~ ::0
- ::0 ::
0 :: ...
2 >
> -
- 2
2
~trr
--:)c
\ :I
\~
. !'~0;=
I; g! II..
I ~ .; /
to. .-. ._ .-::=--
PLANNING REPORT
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER SCHEMATIC PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW AN ASSISTED
LIVING PROJECT IN THE PRIORVIEW PUD .
FIVE HAWKS AVENUE AND PRIORWOOD STREET
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
JULY 22, 1996
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION: Eagle Creek Villas LLC has applied for an amendment to the
Priorview PUD to allow the construction of a 61 unit assisted living building on the
vacant portion of the site. The original PUD was approved in 1983 and the development
to date has occurred prior to 1991. The present applicant has no connection with the
developer of the original PUD.
I
BACKGROUND: The Priorview PUD was preceded by Council action in 1981 which
rezoned the subject property to R-3, High Density residential. This would have permitted
210 units on the 15.05 acres of buildable land on the site. In December of 1982, the
Council approved a Schematic PUD plan which provided for 106 units, a street
connection from Five Hawks Avenue to Cates Street and preservation of site amenities.
In September of 1983, the Council approved the first phase of the development consisting
of 48 townhomes. Priorview Second Addition consisting of 20 units , was approved in
1991.
In 1987, the developer asked the City to consider expansion of the PUD to include the so-
called Holly Court property to the north and increase the number of units to 148. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the request and the application was with -
drawn.
In April of this year, staff submitted a status report on all PUDs in the City for review by
the Planning Commission and City Council. The report noted that there had been no
construction activity in this PUD for 8 years and also that the current applicants had
expressed interest in developing the remainder of the PUD for some type of housing for
the elderly. The City Council tabled the issue of the status ofPriorview PUD to allow for
the submission of a development proposal for the site.
i:
I
16200 ~~~~S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION: The proposed Schematic PUD Plan requires that a variety of issues be
addressed before a recommendation can be made. These issues are as follows:
Density- The original PUD was approved at a gross density of 6.07 units per acre and a
net density of 7.04 units per acre. The first 2 phases consisting of 68 units were built on
approximately 5 acres of land with a net density of 13.6 units per acre which was
consistent with the previous R-3 zoning. The remaining 8.5 acres were to contain 38 units
at 4.47 units per acre. It seems clear that the intent was to concentrate the units on the
relatively low amenity part of the site in order to preserve as much of the wooded and
wetland area as possible.
The new proposal would have 61 units on 8.5 acres for a density of 7.17 units per acre
which is comparable to the overall density of the original PUD. This proposal contains
more units on the northerly portion of the site but they are contained in one building
instead of two as previously approved.
Com,prehensive PlanlZonini- The Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan designated the subject
property for Medium Density Residential use, which suggested densities of 4 to 8 units
per acre. The Year 2010 Plan recently adopted shows the property as Low Density
Residential which has a maximum density if 3.5 units per acre. The comparable zoning
would be R-l, Single Family Residential. However, the site is still subject to the PUD
zoning. Conceivably, the 38 units allowed on the northerly portion of the site could be
built under R -1 zoning but not as apartment buildings as approved. Changing to
townhouses on this property would also entail an amendment to the PUD. Because the
proposed development would result in densities greater than those contemplated by the
current plan, it seems that a Comprehensive Plan amendment may be necessary if the
applicant is to proceed. If such an amendment were to be pursued, it would seem likely
that the amendment could be limited in such a way as to limit development of the
property to something similar to the proposed project to insure that the development
intensity of the site is limited.
Another zoning issue is whether the 10 acre minimum size for PUDs is violated by this
request. If the proposal is considered as an amendment to the original Priorview PUD,
there is no issue. If the proposal is considered a new PUD, it would not meet the 10 acre
requirement. Staff is seeking an opinion from the City Attorney concerning this issue.
Street Construction- The original PUD called for the extension of Five Hawks Avenue
northward to Cates Street to provide a convenient north-south for residents of the Five
Hawks neighborhood. This idea had been restated in the Comprehensive Plan in the
Planning District section. Objective 3 for the Five Hawks district reads as follows:
The completion of Five Hawks Avenue should be established as a priority project in order
to improve north-south vehicular movements and establish the main entrance to this
nei~hborhood from Hi~hway 13.
The applicant has proposed that the street connection not be made. Staff believes that this
connection is important to a significant portion of the community beyond the subject
property and the street connection should be retained as planned for the past 15 years.
PCREPORT.DOCIDR
2
This will improve access to the elementary school and provide a convenient access to
Highway 13 for residents of the area to the north of the site.
Parks/Open Space- The proposal as presented does preserve a significant portion of the
site in its natural state. Staff believes that it accomplishes this to a greater degree than the
original PUD and will do so even if Five Hawks Avenue is extended to the north.
The Parks and Recreation Director has indicated that no land dedication is necessary from
this development. Consequently, a cash dedication would be required. A trail connection
along Five Hawks Avenue would be desirable as it would tie in with the sidewalk now in
place along the west side of Five Hawks Avenue.
The school district has indicated an interest in the wetland and wooded portion of the site
adjacent to Five Hawks School for use as a nature education area. They envision trails
and instructional areas within this portion of the site. As a result, the school would prefer
that Five Hawks A venue not be extended through the site as it would reduce the area
available to the school for their use.
One problem which potentially exists with regard to school use of the land is related to
density. If the property is conveyed to the school, the land available for density credit
decreases and the net density of the project increases. Staff has no objection to the use of
the property by the school under some arrangement with the developer as long as the land
is still tied to the development, but conveyance of the land to the school would be
problematic.
Utilities- The attached report from the engineering department indicates that utilities are
reasonably available and adequate to serve the subject property. The report does point out
the need to provide for a water connection through the site to provide for a loop to the
north.
Fire Access- The Building Official has indicated that the layout as proposed would.likely
not be in compliance with Fire Code requirements. Improved access and increased
hydrant placement on the site would likely be required. This can be addressed in the
detailed plans required for Preliminary PUD submittal.
Parkini/Traffic- The site plan attached to the application shows 33 parking stalls on the
site. While this is probably sufficient parking for the use, it does not comply with the
parking requirements in the zoning ordinance. The parking requirement for housing for
the elderly is one stall per unit. The applicant is proposing .54 stalls per unit. Many
communities have a reduced parking standard for elderly housing. Some cities require
that .3 stalls per unit be provided with a condition that the use must have room on site
available for an additional .2 stalls per unit. Either the applicant must modify the plan to
show one stall per unit or the parking requirement for this type of use should be modified.
The proposed use is not listed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, however, nursing
homes do and these are probably the most similar in characteristics to assisted living
facilities. Nursing homes, on average, generate 2.6 vehicle trips per day compared to an
apartment building which generates approximately 6.5 vehicle trips per unit. Based on
PCREPORT.OOC/DR
3
this, the proposed development would generate about 160 trips per day while an
apartment building with 61 units would generate about 400 trips per day.
If the Planning Commission believes this is an appropriate request for the proposed
location, the following should be kept in mind:
. A Comprehensive Plan amendment will likely be required to deal with the density
issue.
. The parking requirements for elderly housing will likely need to be amended.
. The proposal will enable the City to make substantial progress toward the attainment
of Livable Communities goals related to lifestyle housing.
. The City required the previous developer to make the right-of-way for Five Hawks
Avenue available to the City.
. The proposed use is compatible with the development in the vicinity.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Schematic Plan, subject to a Comprehensive Plan
amendment related to density, satisfactory resolution of the parking issue and
modification of the plan to show the extension of Five Hawks Avenue.
2. Recommend approval of the Schematic Plan as presented, subject to a
Comprehensive Plan amendment related to density and satisfactory resolution of
the parking issue.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 1.
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second to recommend approvals of the Schematic
Plan, subject to a Comprehensive Plan amendment related to density, satisfactory
resolution of the parking issue and modification of the plan to show the extension of Five
Hawks Avenue.
PCREPORT.DOCIDR
4
EAGLE CREEK VILLAS
ASSISTED LIVING CENTER
Gradin~W etlands:
Approximately 2 acres of this site will be disturbed to allow for the construction of the
building and parking lot/driveway. The remainder will be left in a natural state.
A 2 acre wetland is located on the southwest comer of the site as shown on attached
Exhibit A. The Developer, City and School District are working together to raise the
normal water level (NWL) of this wetland up three to four feet to create a better
functioning water quality treatment facility in this wetland. The wetland receives runoff
from the Westbury Ponds and Triangle Car Wash areas. The outlet for this wetland has
eroded and been lowered in the past, and with this development, a new outlet would be
constructed that raises the NWL to elevation 918.5.
A 0.3 acre wetland also exists in the southeast comer of the site. This wetland will not be
disturbed by filling or draining.
The creek system that drains the wetlands in this area is also classified as wetland areas
that are shown not to be disturbed. The creek system conveys the storm water runoff of
this area northwesterly to Green Heights Trail and discharge directly into Prior Lake.
The development will be required to comply with the City's erosion control standards.
Whenever possible, a 30 foot grass buffer strip should be provided along the edge of
wetlands to limit erosion.
Watermain:
An existing 6" watermain has been stubbed to the site from the Five Hawks
A venue/Priorwood Street intersection. An existing 8" watermain has been stubbed to the
site from the north at the Five Hawks Avenue stub street. An 8" watermain is proposed
to be constructed through the development along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue.
The construction of this line will provide another loop to the City's system. The
proposed watermain system will need to include a fire hydrant on the northwest,
northeast, and southeast comers of the proposed building to provide adequate fire
protection to the site.
Sanitaly Sewer:
16200 ~~~S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
An existing 15" sanitary sewer tine with adequate depth and capacity is available to serve
this site. The sewer line flows northerly along the east property line at the site.
Streets/Access:
The proposed development intends to obtain its access from the Five Hawks
A venue/Priorwood Street intersection. The preliminary layout shows a private driveway
and parking lot connecting at the north end of Five Hawks Avenue. The proposed parking
lot and drive aisles shall be constructed to City standards with concrete curb and gutter
and bituminous surfacing.
The City has a 66 foot wide easement for public use to construct a roadway and utility
lines along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue. The easement was conveyed to the
City in 1983 from the Priorview Developers for a fee of one dollar. The extension of
Five Hawks A venue through this site will help to interconnect neighborhoods and
provide a northerly connection to the Cates Street area.
Trails/Sidewalks
An 8' bituminous trail shall be constructed along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue.
The trail will provide a pedestrian link from the Five Hawks Elementary School to the
Cates Street neighborhood.
G:\projedsIEAGCKVR..DOC
Planning Case File No. CjL;-05S
Property Identification No. r
.;z s:-qo;;r/ 0;;-0
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230. Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (anach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zonini)
to . (proposed zonin~)
I25J Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Penn it
o Variance Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
Applicant(s):~-Q,- {; "'"" ~L I V ~ I (&t:x'J L- L G,
Address: 7) !d.. '\ e. /7 ~ ~ +-
Home Phone: tf It 1 -- 7 g sD Work Phone: Lilt J - SO!:::>- ~
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership:
Work Phone:
Fee c-/' Contract for Deed Purchase Agreement
Legal Description of Property (Attaclra copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
'..If'L 4#~
To the best of my knowledge the information prodded 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
appl atio is will not be processed until dee ed com lete by the Planning Director or assignee.
~
Date
(? -'" d ~) -q&,
to - ;) Cf -96
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
Date
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMENDMENT TO PRIORVIEW
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
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, July 22, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter
as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Priorview
Planned Unit Development.
APPLICANT:
Eagle Creek Villas LLC
7765 175th Street East
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
This property is located north of the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue
and Priorwood Street, just north of Five Hawks Elementary School.
REQUEST:
The approved PUD allows an additional 38 townhouse units in this
location. The applicant proposes to replace these units with an assisted
living facility for the elderly. This facility would consist of one 3-story
building containing 61 units. The building also includes dining
facilities, community spaces, offices and support spaces for the
residents. The plan also shows 33 surface parking spaces.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. The Planning Commission will
accept oral and/or written comments. 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.
Prepared this 3rd day of July, 1996 by:
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON JULY 6, 1996
16200 ~~~~S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGER, INC
ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS
19 June 1996
Housing Proposal: Prior Lake, MN
Statement of Use
Designed as a 61-unit assisted living facility, this three-story wood framed building would contain
dining facilities, community spaces, offices, and spaces for support services. The exterior materials
would include siding with brick accents. A covered portico at the main entry becomes the focal point
of the building and acts as a sheltered drop-off during inclement weather.
As we look to the future, providing care to seniors will require greater and greater investment in
developing a continuum of care beyond the traditional care center model. An assisted living
environment allows residents the freedom and privacy of their own apartment on a month to month
rental basis and the opportunity to purchase additional services as needed. The environment offers
choices for those individuals who need varying levels of support and services. Residents have the
freedom to pursue an active social life, entertain family and friends and continue to make choices in a
safe, comfortable, and secure environment.
.
1201 HAWTHORNE AVENUE
MINNEAPOUS MINNESOTA 5S403
612-332-5420
FAX 612-332-5425
.:1:
0 ." . . .
c: ::IJ .
0 z (I) )> aJ
en z c C '0 C
- -t 3: ::IJ '0 r=
Z m aJ ~ ::IJ 0
~ m 0 Z
G') ::IJ 0 ?<.
~ m C)
0 ~ aJ ~
"'tI ~ -n C
(5 m
~ c ::IJ r= c5
z z ,.. 0 ::t
0 =t z Z -t
"'tI (I) C) C) II
0 Z (I) (I) Co)
en aJ ~ 0 ~
c 0 -n
~ r= m -t -t
(I) 0
r- 0 II
'z II -t
. . ~ 0
C) Co) ~ '0
1::1 II Co) '0
~ 0 0
en 0 -n
- ... ::IJ
0 6
~ C)
m
r-
~
"
m
s:
z
-I
I.
...
.
II
N
o
,.
:D
n
:I:
=l
In OJ =E
~ mm
. ~~
~ m9J~~
z. mZ r
z_mcnr
!lIzoom
",o"z:O
<
Ci
Z
::j
<
3:
)>
"U
i
=
~
~ ;:
<:::,.~
~
..
I~,
~~
~
. I
. ",' ;;(\~ : I
- - . " " " I I I ,', ,~, I
'. l~" ',' " I \ I 1\ l' ~\" \
. '. .......,,: .. , ' , , .. -' \ I \ \ )" \ '
". ~\\" I I, .It \ ,
- - - , ", , " \ \ \ '\ , 'II I I
'... - .... '\ I I I ,e \ I /1/ I J
.,.'......, '" \"" J I , I, .': I,
"', ". \', /"~ I 'I'! I \ '
~ '. "'/1....1, I I
.. '. " - \ I I / 'II I I ,
NOll1ll '~\, (. '- '- ~ ~j , : !~.L \', l' '''t
. , (' "0 1, ~ ~ \
".' , , .' I I , .~~ \ s>
...., , I ~ I' )' ) ,
'. \ ' " I 0" " " )'
,......., ,,' I ,'), I \
' ',:, " , - - 1., \ l:1 '
' , " , , ....," \I'
' \. ", '~"",----., \,. \ '
' " 9z~*~~z~~~:,::~~"""
'- (~':/ ,-~-~~-2.~~:~~"f",,~.~~ '\
' I> .; I I -":5' , <<::r-,: , , "~>" '
1,'/ /1'/ ".--....-........ ---'0 Q'\..~ '\",.."..... .....,~~\
),: ,1/ ",' '\ "', " ',',,\
".. ~'! " " " . - -, Q " ' , , .""" " ", " '- \~
.... .. I I 1 /~.r' - " ''W ' , , '~1
fl. .... :'': 1 "1'</ ~ """'-s' '8~ "\ '~\~ \ \, \, ," \~;
. ().J :: I)' JfJI // / -......\ ( _.... '-- '. \.v~, " ~ \ \ , \
'\ : ';I .1 \ r- -.. , .....' \ \: '
rf.: ----~/J"-///h "~~ II "~\ \.:.>tQ\,., \ '.. "
{': - /,JI///,/ ., 1\\0., "'~'.s> "-&-, "
.. " '" I I~ \'\' V .-'J \, S \
." ","0 1 / \ '_-::::- ~\ -'- \ \ ,\
) i · r ' / -:,,-~ C/ / I , \' \
" .. U I.. I ." ,
s: r~~~;/ 0-::"/; 1/( . '\)\\.<> \ ,,',-
z ~~""""/..J ///II~ \ \..,~~ '..0 \
......o.e.. , r' ,1// h I r I )N\ ~\), \ ';i,
- ~-- .... .... """ ",../, I' I I'Q ~ " \ , ,
./"/---.c:~,. ,,-~ I ~ \' , "
~- .....,..;:.----- -.;- - I ~ '" \. ,
-' -~ 1 r -'" '",
' - 0 - ,. "II I \I ~....... ~ _ ", ,'_
"-' . I ".........., ,
- " '-, . 'II "
-ll I I (\) , ... .... ""
II'r1.\ /)1\\\
II1I I ;". f1 '/': l : ~
\ ; I 1.1 \ P " , I I
-----~\ \ II (,~., I / J I
'\ II;'::: ::::: :... I ,: ~ ~ / " f, ,
II { "",, I 1,1 Ny/ , ~
-- -, I " ,,~ I I v ~)o.. ;' I \
\11 ",,-"'I! If ,Vt I I \ I
. '\\\1 /;r~~~~ l,ll'\""/jJ.'; ,/ II \
1\\\1\ (/ ,_ _ _ "):::','" , " ,
. ~ \ I .." , '. J>. ... ""-" I ' I
~ \1.' I. , "'0 "::" I I. " ; :
11, \'-- , ,
o ~\\I ... ' \... ~ \' . \ \ / J /
~. "~I' ~\; , I '-. \', ..... I. I I
"1\ '..' , . \ \ \ . _ _ _ _/ I 1
r" 11.. , \ , , ,
~ . . " '. , - I" I,
'I II I ...... _ _ _ _ _ .... ..... \".... / ' ,
~\ \ ~\I \. ........................... " '" _:- -, -0) _, ~ ,", r'
'-.. '-, - ~ - /
II" _____ " ',_ " .~ __ /'
I"', _.__~ ,,___. :._-..........,
."\ \ \\ ';)('::---?=~-"'>l~) "- - _ _ _ _ _ ~ I
\\ Ii, '-----.)'/1 ........."-___ I
\ \... . - - -.;:: - - -... / "
~ I ,'_. , /
.-..-i~ ;i /~~..~..
... .' I' I I ,
:I:
o
C'
'00 :'
z
G')
"tJ
:0
o
-C
o
en
)>
r-
. '.
,
,
,
-c
:0
-
o
:0
r-
)>
^
m
""
\
Q
.
..
"
.<1
o
o
en
.~.
m
"tJ.
r- ",
:J>
Z
>-
~
%
::I
- .., In lD=e
amm
. .. ~~
-. I "0 m91~~
i.:ulllZ::
I z -mcnm
_ ~~~~:n
-p
;
(" l\'Pl.....~ ".~. "'1~"""100I"2' i
7' I';-~~,-~~..J ':j--J. I
,;=~'.'<. -1 I
, L- ,,,' J I
~ . ~ I
.",- I.... .
-'." ... ---- . - ',~' 'I
fUCiltt,.......... ____~C'/t _,.-----'
r I -_ :.::~ .------ ,"'
.I
i..'
I
".
'i",
.'
~- '5
-'II
, U
Ii; .," t)N
,,? J
. (' ~~,.-
~ '
- ---:-+t
;. .: I i J
.! .. . P
I~, I' H
. i A
J IS
."'-- .., E
"!=.' ~ i 1
I I'
,4
~~.'-~-
~~
-,
~/-
.- ..
.... ." .
./
~:
~::j"..xr \..; .w r-;l !
.' ('.'
1:-'. li\:-i .'. ~ll-' '. ;'~ ,
a.-- 10:, " Itt.. '\'-!'::"d",
. ,.I, ....,
;.!.;ri~i':,':~',,;:,~ ,; (
:...-' . ~
(~'~i ;i~'''''~#;~i''"-Il'\ c I
...... . ...... . 'C\.~, : \ .
~
--
~S_ClL:
o MCIDUOUS (fA, SHRUBS (-;::) EXIST. WooOLAND
. ~ '.~_ EARTHEN.......
B3PIAWlJCANI'
""UI-' lNt: fWftlDlES. IIC.
~UnIHlttlS'''....c.
tll"""",,'li..~ ~!l:'))
SUllIE...
\.AtIE\' f:';l::I:aIU'C ID., lie:.
:.......,~ tce--H1f..... P"".,. r...II, ,"'.
t'n.., I.~..~:a !l)I~~
SITE AREA . 17.45! AC A~:';".N>IiEACHUSE'
104 D.~. (:t. .-... -.... ( H"'~._-") =~'':. JAM:
2 P4Wo}!'!G SPACES / UNIT ......D .....
6.0 UN/4C WOCIDl...U,I) ....toe c----
DEVELO~'ItENT 4.15 Ao 0'"'' GRI;I:H PACt u IoC
PRIVATli / PUBLIC 13.3~. LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS &
OPEN sPACE 76~ OF TOTAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PlAN
dale
, : ~ 'I&.
I ',,, I'
~'ftIO&,f\Jrft
1D .....
1oIIO~.Are.
.....-
~.l"'."
.""'1"; To) tOt
UN'" ,,~
... ........
Priorview
Gol, & Assoclo,.. Inc.
"!~-~~:~'i:
~ 1~y)1AT\C pUt') 32.- /2....
mru:l
Prior Lake, MN.
EAGLE CREEK VILLAS
ASSISTED LIVING CENTER
Gradin~/W etlands:
Approximately 2 acres of this site will be disturbed to allow for the construction of the
building and parking lot/driveway. The remainder will be left in a natural state.
A 2 acre wetland is located on the southwest comer of the site as shown on attached
Exhibit A. The Developer, City and School District are worki.ng together to raise the
normal water level (NWL) of this wetland up three to four feet to create a better
functioning water quality treatment facility in this wetland. The wetland receives runoff
from the Westbury Ponds and Triangle Car Wash areas. The outlet for this wetland has
eroded and been lowered in the past, and with this development, a new outlet would be
constructed that raises the NWL to elevation 918.5.
A 0.3 acre wetland also exists in the southeast comer of the site. This wetland will not be
disturbed by filling or draining.
The creek system that drains the wetlands in this area is also classified as wetland areas
that are shown not to be disturbed. The creek system conveys the storm water runoff of
this area northwesterly to Green Heights Trail and discharge directly into Prior Lake.
The development will be required to comply with the City's erosion control standards.
Whenever possible, a 30 foot grass buffer strip should be provided along the edge of
wetlands to limit erosion.
Watermain:
An existing 6" watermain has been stubbed to the site from the Five Hawks
A venue/Priorwood Street intersection. An existing 8" watermain has been stubbed to the
site from the north at the Five Hawks Avenue stub street. An 8" watermain is proposed
to be constructed through the development along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue.
The construction of this line will provide another loop to the City's system. The
proposed watermain system will need to include a fire hydrant on the northwest,
northeast, and southeast comers of the proposed building to provide adequate fire
protection to the site.
Sanitmy Sewer:
16200 ~~"J1:~S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQL'AL OPPORn:NITY EMPLOYER
An existing 15" sanitary sewer. line with adequate depth and capacity is available to serve
this site. The sewer line flows northerly along the east property line at the site.
Streets/Access:
The proposed development intends to obtain its access from the Five Hawks
A venue/Priorwood Street intersection. The preliminary layout shows a private driveway
and parking lot connecting at the north end of Five Hawks Avenue. The proposed parking
lot and drive aisles shall be constructed to City standards with concrete curb and gutter
and bituminous surfacing.
The City has a 66 foot wide easement for public use to construct a roadway and utility
lines along the alignment of Five Hawks A venue. The easement was conveyed to the
City in 1983 from the Priorview Developers for a fee of one dollar. The extension of
Five Hawks A venue through this site will help to interconnect neighborhoods and
provide a northerly connection to the Cates Street area.
Trails/Sidewalks
An 8' bituminous trail shall be constructed along the alignment of Five Hawks Avenue.
The trail will provide a pedestrian link from the Five Hawks Elementary School to the
Cates Street neighborhood.
O:\pn>j_IEAOCKvn..DOC
PLANNING REPORT
SITE:
6A
CONSIDER APPEAL OF G AND R ENTERPRISES
FROM A RULING OF THE ZONING OFFICER
RELATING TO DOCKS
LOT 7, MAPLE PARK SHORE ACRES (EAST OF
15287 FAIRBANKS TRAIL)
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES _X_NO-N/A
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION: Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from
decisions of the Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior
Lake. The attached letter dated June 17, 1996 was sent in response to a complaint that
dockage was being rented to persons who did not live in the subdivision in which the
dockage was located. Staff investigated on May 29 and noted two docks were located on
the subject property and three boats were moored at the two docks. This was verified by
staff on June 19 following mailing of the attached notice of violation. Upon receipt of the
appeal , staff again visited the site and noted two docks with four boats moored at the
docks.
The letter of appeal was received on July 17, 1996 and a copy is attached.
DISCUSSION: Section 5-5-3 of the ordinance deals with permitted and conditional uses.
This section was cited in the belief that rental of dock space is one of the primary
activities associated with marinas and the appellant states that they are leasing dock
space. Marinas are not a permitted use in the R-l District.
The letter of appeal states that the owners of the lot are leasing an undivided 25% interest
in the lot to four people who are keeping their boats at two docks on the property. The
letter states that the dock rental does not constitute a marina as defined by City code. The
code definition of a marina is a commercial establishment adjacent to a navigable lake
providing moorings for boats and offering other supplies and services accessory to
the principal use. The appeal states that the use is not a commercial establishment nor
does it provide any other supplies or services, and it complies with DNR rules.
Websters Dictionary defines commercial as occupied with or engaged in commerce or
work intended for commerce. The dictionary goes on to define commerce as the
exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving
transportation from place to place.
16200 ~~~~e. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Given these definitions, it is difficult to conclude that the dock rental is a commercial
establishment, although it could be argued that few, if any Prior Lake businesses meet
that definition as commercial uses. What this does do is point out the need to write
definitions which clearly state the intent of the City and remove ambiguity from the
enforcement of the ordinance.
The letter of appeal does not address the second ordinance section under which the dock
rental was found to be non-compliant. This is section 5-4-1 (I). This section reads as
follows: Any lot or parcel of land which is contiguous to or abutting any public lakes
in Prior Lake may be developed into a common beach area controlled by a
homeowners association.
This provision applies provided that several conditions are met. These conditions are:
1. The lot must be controlled by an association whose members own property in the plat
from which the common lot was created. In this case, control does not lie with an
association but with G and R Enterprises and Messenbrink Construction and
Engineering, Inc.
2. A conditional permit must be issued for the use. In this case, no conditional use has
been applied for or issued.
3. The association rules and bylaws must be on file at City Hall when the final plat is
approved. Because no association exists, no bylaws have been filed. It seems clear
that this provision was intended to insure that such common beach lots were created
at the time of plat approval.
4. Provided all other conditions are met, the site itself would require 10 feet of lakeshore
for every buildable lot in the plat. Maple Park Shore Acres has 51 lots and, if the
common lot were created for this subdivision as required, it would require 510 feet of
lakeshore. This parcel would not meet that requirement.
5. Given the situation stated in 4 above, the site would need a minimum of 200 feet of
depth from the ordinary high water level. The site would also fail to comply with this
requirement.
Conclusion- Staff concludes that the dock rental as currently being conducted does not
comply with Section 5-4-1 (I) of the City Code.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. The Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council that it uphold the
staff interpretation of the ordinance,
2. The Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council that it accept the
appeal and fmd that the dock rental is in compliance with City code provisions.
3. The Planning Commission can defer action on this request for specific reasons.
RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 1
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second expressing the opinion of the Planning
Commission
812966A.DOCIDR
2
June 17, 1996
Mr. Larry Gensmer
P.O. Box 155
Prior Lake, MN. 55372
Dear Mr. Gensmer:
In the course of investigating a complaint that property owned by you (Lot 7, Maple Park
Shore Acres) was being used for dock rental, it appeared that three boats were being
docked on your property. If, in fact, these docks are being rented, this would constitute a
violation of Section 5-3-3 of the City Code which prohibits marinas in the R-1 zoning
district. Even if the docks are not being rented, use of the docks by persons not residing in
the subdivision in which the docks are located would be a violation of Section 5-4-
1 (H)(I), which deals with common beaches. Continued use of these docks by persons
other than yourself will constitute an ordinance violation and will result in subsequent
enforcement action.
You have the right to appeal this decision to the Board of Adjustment by filing a letter of
appeal with this office stating the specific basis for your appeal. Such an appeal must be
made within 30 days of the date of this letter.
Sincerely,
Donald Rye
Planning Director
cc:Pat Lynch, MN DNR
16200 ~~'ell&~~S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNI1Y EMPLOYER
G AND R ENTERPRISES, INC.
20664 Lake Ridge Drive
Prior Lake, MN 55372
~rn @rn D\'b'rn ]
41118)
\
July 17, 1996
Donald R. Rye
Planning Director
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: Lot 7, Maple Park Shore Acres
Dear Mr. Rye:
This letter is intended as a notice of appeal to the Board of Adjustment of your
decision dated June 17, 1996, sent to Larry Gensmer. Mesenbrink Construction &
Engineering, Inc. and G and R Enterprises, Inc., own the portion of Lot 7, Maple Park
Shore Acres, lying easterly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the southerly line of Lot 7, distant 6.23 feet
northeasterly of the southwesterly comer of Lot 7, thence northwesterly to a
point on the northerly line of Lot 7, distant 7.60 feet easterly of the
northwesterly comer of Lot 7, and there terminating.
The owners, through Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, have leased an undivided 25 % interest
in the parcel, including the incidental riparian rights, to four lessees.
While the leases do include ordinary riparian rights, this does not transform the
property into a marina, which the city code defines as II A commercial establishment ...
providing moorings for boats and offering other supplies and services accessory to the
principal use." It is neither a commercial establishment nor are any supplies or services
provided. The land is rented for purposes fundamental to an R-l shoreland area; the
dock accommodates no more than four boats, in compliance with DNR regulations, and
we contend this is a proper and lawful use of the property.
Yours truly,
G AND R ENTERPRISES, INC.
C?t~
--/