HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 26, 1996
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, August 26, 1996
7:00 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #96-075 Sue Stang - Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Section
3.1 to Allow Arcades in the B3 Zoning District.
B. Case #96-073 Ebenezer Ridges - Ordinance Amendment to Allow Adult Day
Care Facilities in the Business and Residential Zoning Districts.
C. Case #96-045 Maple Hill 2nd Partnership - Preliminary Plat for Maple Hills 2nd
Addition.
S. Old Business:
A. Case #96-071 Dave Smith Variance (continued).
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 ~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesotal5sa72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Df2kFt
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 12, 1996
1. Call to Order:
The August 12, 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.
2. Roll Call:
Wuellner
Kuykendall
Stamson
V onhof
Criego
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3.
Approval of Minutes:
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECONDED BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE THE
JULY 22, 1996, MINUTES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, V onhof, Kuykendall, Criego and Stamson.
MINUTES APPROVED.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case 96-068 - Maris Stolcen, requesting a lake shore setback of 0 feet for the
construction of a deck to an existing cabin at 5395 Shore Trail NE.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report
dated August 12, 1996. Staff recommended denial of the application because the applicant
does not demonstrate a lack of hardship and has legal alternatives allowing reasonable use of
the property. The DNR recommendation was for denial.
Comments from the public:
Maris Stolcers, owner of the property, passed out a written response and photos regarding his
hardship. Stolcers explained how the proposed deck would be constructed on the 904 lake
level. He does not believe the DNR response is accurate. He feels what he is proposing is
not unique to other decks on the lake. Mr. Stolcers is willing to decrease the width of the
deck by one foot to 9' x 20'.
MNOII 296.DOC
PAGEl
Andy Valdmanis, 5405 Shore Trail, a neighbor, stated he had no problem with the
applicant's proposal and feels it would enhance the property. There is no other place to put a
deck. He feels the DNR sends out form letters and do not come out and look at properties.
Comments from Commissioners:
V onhof:
. Applicant was well prepared with his comments on the hardship criteria.
. Clarification on date of report and Resolution.
. The variance hardship criteria are not met on 2 or 3 issues.
. There are other alternatives.
Kuykendall:
. Concurs with Commissioner Vonhof.
. Comparisons by applicant are not similar. The photos are not applicable.
. The DNR is correct - there are other alternatives. The deck can be detached and accomplish
the same as having a deck.
. Applicant can build on the slope.
. There are alternatives, it may not be convenient, but can be accomplished.
. Support staff recommendation of denial.
Stamson:
. Concurs with Commissioners.
. There are other alternatives.
. Not being able to build a deck is not a hardship.
. Agrees with staff:
Wuellner:
. Questioned applicant on the level of the home on the survey. Applicant responded the 904 is
at the concrete wall. The home did flood in 1965.
. The 904 high water mark was broke in 1993 and there was a lot of property damage.
. Possible damage with an ice-out.
. Concern for another high water year that could damage the home.
. There are other options. Criteria has not been met.
Criego:
. No additional comments.
Mr. Stolcers feels the Commissioners would help him enhance his property.
Kuykendall explained the variance procedures and the problems with a home being on the
high water mark.
Criego suggested going to the City and find out what the platform deck requirements would
be for his property.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-
26PC BASED ON THE FACT THE FOUR VARIANCE HARDSHIPS HAVE NOT BEEN
MET.
MNOIl296.DOC
PAGEl
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner, Criego, Kuykendall and Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case 96-071 - Dave Smith, requesting an impervious surface coverage of34% for the
construction of a garage and driveway for the property at 2950 Spring Lake Road.
Kansier presented the information from the Staff Report dated August 12, 1996. Staff
recommends denial of the request due to the lack of demonstrated hardship. The DNR report
pointed out Minnesota Rules limits impervious surface to 25% of the lot in a shore land
district while the City allows 30%.
Dave Smith, 2590 Spring Lake Road, said the neighborhood lots are similar. The lots were
platted before the City Ordinances were in place. He also pointed out he lives on a sharp
comer where there is heavy traffic and is safer for him to back around in the driveway. The
garage was approved.
Jim Winegar, 2591 Spring Lake Road, a neighbor, explained Mr. Smith's situation. He
pointed out neighbors have had variances granted and Mr. Smith's request is consistent with
the neighborhood. The hardship is from the aspect from public safety. Many people speed
in the area. He is aware of the DNR criteria. Mr. Smith does have a home business and the
neighbors would appreciate him storing his equipment in a garage. Mr. Smith has worked
hard to improve the property and the proposed addition would further improve it.
Comments from Commissioners.
Stamson:
. He understands the applicant and neighbors, but the standards have not been met.
. The house and garage meet the livable use area. There are other legal options.
Wuellner:
. The property is substandard. The Commission approved the garage because it was consistent
with the neighborhood and would not detract from the properties in the area.
. If the Commission had this same information at the previous hearing the design would have
to be changed to meet the impervious surface standards.
. The garage area and driveway could be reduced. Impervious surface coverage is important.
. Kansier responded the City requires a paved driveway and a gravel driveway is still
impervious surface coverage.
V onhof:
. The City did not see there was an impervious surface issue and did not address it at the first
meeting.
. Impervious surface is a big issue. If there is some way to reduce the size of the driveway
and get it down to 30% the Commission could look at that more favorably. The City
standard for impervious surface is 30%.
MN081296.DOC
PAGEJ
Kuykendall:
. The impervious surface requirements are important. Would lean toward 25%. This is
unique.
. Need clarification of gravel for impervious surface.
. Redesign the driveway. Be creative to allow applicant a way to build his garage.
. Wingard said the wetland in the back of the property runs into marsh and the front yard into
Spring Lake.
. Kansier read the provisions from the ordinance.
. Suggest tabling to get staff's definition of a gravel driveway and look at another way of
looking at the situation.
Wuellner:
. Hesitates to approve a variance because the Commission has never granted a 3 car garage as
a necessity.
Criego:
. If the facts were known at the first hearing, the Commissioners would have not allowed the
34% impervious surface.
. Commissioners would like to have the applicant build, but the impervious surface has to be
reduced.
. Does not meet the hardship with a 3 car garage.
. The Commissioners do not have to study the issues.
Mr. Winegar pointed out previous commissions allowed hammerhead driveways so a person
cannot back out into the traffic.
Mr. Smith said the garage was approved and he needs the room for his snowmobiles and
motorcycles. He has already gone ahead and spent money and reconstructed his yard under
the assumption this could be built. Mr. Smith feels there is nothing in the ordinance that
says he cannot have a gravel driveway.
V onhof explained the variance granted was for garage setbacks with the understanding
applicant build the garage and stay within the impervious surface coverage. Applicant can
build the garage and make the driveway narrower.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO CONTINUE THE
MA TIER TO THE NEXT MEETING WHEN CLARIFICATION BY STAFF CAN BE
MADE REGARDING GRAVEL REQUIREMENTS.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Wuellner, Stamson and Vonhof. Criego nay.
MOTION APPROVED.
C. Case 96-067 - Eagle Creek Villas request a 21 foot front yard variance for properties
at 4170-4176 CJ Circle.
Jane Kansier reviewed the Staff Report dated August 12, 1996. Staff recommends approval
of the requested variance. Circumstances surrounding this property are somewhat unique
and the hardship criteria had been met.
MN08I296.DOC
PAGE 4
Attorney, Bryce Huemoeller, on behalf of Eagle Creek Villas explained the lot was part of a
townhouse project started in 1983. Eagle Creek Villas bought this one which was originally
approved for four units. The area around the unit is controlled by associations. The
applicant talked to the City and felt there were no variances needed. Applicant feels there is
a hardship and is eligible for a variance. They would like to use the property in a reasonable
and sensible manner building three units which would be better than the original four units.
The City affirmed it was a buildable property and applicant followed all of the procedures.
The property is unique and there are no other alternatives.
Comments by Commissioners:
Criego:
. The hardship is made.
. The developer had approval from City.
. Agree with staff recommendation to approve variance.
V onhof:
. Concurs.
Hardships have been met. Builder is restricted by the constraints of the association and the
building envelope. Also there was an apparent error by the City at an undetermined time.
. The problem is not with the present property owners.
Kuykendall:
. Agree with hardships 1 and 3.
. This is more of a Planned Unit Development.
. No major problems.
Stamson:
. Concur with the Commissioners.
. The problems are mistakes made by the City and/or the problem with developing at different
times.
Wuellner:
. The building envelope is the same as it was in 1983.
. The application for the building permit showed the same site plan.
. The analysis to the PUD is correct.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
956-25PC.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall, Stamson, Wuellner and Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 8:36 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:47 p.m.
MN081296.DOC
PAGE'
D. Case 96-061 - Consider Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to permit churches and day
care facilities in the C-1, Conservation District.
The hearing was called to order at 8: 47 p.m. and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public
in attendance.
Jane Kansier presented the information from the Staff Report dated August 12, 1996. This
request was initiated by staff in the interest of correcting an apparent error in the ordinance.
Staff recommended approval of the amendment.
Leanne Weyrauch, 16457 Five Hawks Avenue, stated she needs more information on the
subject and suggested including early childhood, family education and pre-school facilities
in the proposed amendment.
Comments from Commissioners:
Vonhof:
. Parochial schools are permitted in the C I District but not churches.
. Agrees to include and cover all the uses.
Kuykendall:
. Questioned the role of the churches related to private enterprise and what can be allowed.
. As presented, he is not opposed.
Wuellner:
. The intent is to change the zoning ordinance in the near future.
. Kansier stated the intent is to look at the entire ordinance within the next year.
. The City does not want to piece meal the ordinance.
Stamson:
. It is a band aid issue until we can fix it later.
. Concurs with staff.
Criego:
. Need to specify what happens in the church?
. Jane responded schools are permitted in the district and daycare and pre-school will fit into
the ordinance.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
ORDINANCE 96-xx TO ALLOW CHURCHES IN A C-l CONSERVATION ZONING
DISTRICT.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall, Stamson, Wuellner and Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
The public hearing was closed.
MN081296.DOC
PAGE 6
E. Case 96-062 - Consider Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to permit fences in County
road right-of-way.
The hearing was called to order and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance.
Jane Kansier presented the issues in the Staff Report dated August 12, 1996. Staff
recommendation was for direction by Planning Commission to draft ordinance language. Scott
County Engineer Bradley Larson's written response was to oppose the ordinance as written and
recommended ''the ordinance specify that no fences shall be placed within the right-of-way of
Prior Lake streets."
Criego questioned the City's authority for granting this ordinance change.
Comments by the public:
Russell Lawrence, 16493 Five Hawks Avenue, said the County and State ditches have certain
allowable recreational vehicles. Putting up a fence in the right-of-way would create a problem.
Also plowing for the County could be a problem depending on where the fence was located. He
also pointed out with the utilities buried in the area the fence would have to have pretty good size
footings.
Don Kotula, 14031 Harbor View NE, distributed pictures of the area. His issue is the road noise
with the growing traffic. The fence would stop noise and traffic. He said he was not anti-
recreational vehicles but they drive on their property. It would not make a difference if the fence
was constructed further back on the association property. The County would not approve the
fence.
Comments by Commissioners:
Stamson:
. The issue is whether the City can control, or should control, fencing in County right-of-way.
. The State and County can construct whatever they want no matter what the City says.
. As it is written now the City has some say or at least some negotiating stance with a private
citizen coming in to build something. By changing the ordinance the City loses the ability to
negotiate.
. By changing the ordinance the City would lose the ability to work with other governments.
. Ordinance is fine the way it is written.
Wuellner:
. Does the City want an opinion on this and try to regulate right-of-way on a county road?
. The City should have great deal to say about this.
. There is no good argument for putting a fence in a right-of-way.
V onhof:
. Agree with comments.
. Ordinance should remain.
. State has a tendency to turn roads over to local authority.
. This will have an impact down the line.
. Keep right-of-ways open.
MN081296.DOC
PAGE 7
Kuykendall:
. In favor of not changing the ordinance as it exists.
. The City should not construct private structures on public facilities.
. Question for planning in the comprehensive level. Suggest revising our highway zones and
be creative. There can be certain restrictions.
. Call it a sound barrier as opposed to a fence.
. The highway authority should consider a sound barrier if it meets their standards.
. Noise can be controlled by vegetation.
. Check with the Dept. of Transportation on vegetation.
. Fence your own property for trespassers.
Criego:
. Agrees.
. Do not change ordinance.
. Noise is a problem on County Road 42.
. Rather than change the ordinance there might be a variance caused by the noise. The City
could look at a variance. It might give the Harbor the latitude with the County.
Open discussion:
. This problem is the same on Highway 13.
. Residents in the Harbor will finance this fence.
. A fence does not belong out there.
. The Commissioners do not need to study the issues. A qualified person should look at the
issue.
. County will not approve this. State understands these kinds of issues.
. Do not change ordinance but allow some positive motion to go to the County.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY YONHOF, THE REQUEST BE DENIED AND
NO CHANGE TAKE PLACE AT THIS TIME IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Yonhof, Criego, Stamson and Wuellner. MOTION
CARRIED.
Kuykendall suggested staff look at the other cities and related issues before a variance is
considered.
Kansier explained the use variances are illegal in the State of Minnesota, the City can grant
height and location, not uses.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY YONHOF, TO REVIEW PRACTICES ON
STATE, COUNTY AND CITY ROADS FOR NOISE CONTROL BOTH ON AND OFF
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
Open Discussion:
. The issue is with the applicant, not the City to investigate. The fence is a county project.
AMENDMENT BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY YONHOF, REQUEST STAFF TO LOOK
INTO THE PRACTICES OF OTHER GOYERNMENT AUTHORITIES (MUNICIPAL,
MNOSt296.DOC
PAGES
COUNTY, AS WELL AS THE STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION) TO DETERMINE
HOW THEY ARE ADDRESSING THE SAME ISSUE. INCORPORATE OTHER WAYS OF
ACCOMPLISHING THE OBJECTIVES. IN ADDITION INVESTIGATE IF APPLICANT
CAN REQUEST A VARIANCE TO PUT IN A NOISE ENBANKMENT ON COUNTY
PROPERTY.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, V onhof, Stamson, Wuellner and Criego. MOTION
CARRIED.
The public hearing is closed.
5. Old Business:
Case 96- 055 - Eagle Creek Assisted Living Facility Hearing Continued.
Kansier reviewed issues from the last meeting and addressed the following issues: 1) The City
Attorney determined the applicant should amend the PUD; 2 & 3) Waterline and traffic issues-
Engineering Memo dated August 7, 1996; 4) Trail plan for the area; 5) Overflow parking; 6)
Definition of assisted living; and 7) Modifications to Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommended 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.
Wingard summarized the water system. Five Hawks Avenue would feed of an 8" line. It would
improve the fire protection. The pressure would increase and meet requirements.
Wingard also said the extension of Five Hawks Avenue through the site would require a
considerable amount of disturbance through the area. If 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 being congested.
Overflow parking would be beneficial for the people who want to use the trail system. Suggest
using off street parking. Kansier said Planning staff feels the 33 spaces is not enough. Ordinance
requires 1 parking place for each unit - 61 spaces. Nursing homes generally generate traffic at.2
trips per day. This facility will be more active.
Comments from the public:
Wilt Berger, architect for Eagle Creek Villas, presented the revised parking area showing
additional flat areas that can be expanded to parking. The average age of residents would be 80
to 85 years old whose parking needs are reduced by 50%. Parking is directly correlated with. the
age of the residents. This parking proposal maintains as much natural vegetation as possible on
site. The second issue was to deal with the trail system. Mr. Berger said the developer does not
have a problem with constructing a trail through the property.
Wingard commented on the waterline along the eastern side of the property. Cates Street would
have to be tom up. The City would also have to go through a wetland.
MNOI1296.DOC
PAGE 9
Mr. Huemoeller, representing the developer, urged the Commission to approve Alternative #2 of
the Staff Report. He feels when the development was originally proposed, Cates Street had only
one entrance and it was necessary for Five Hawks Avenue to go through. Now there are other
outlets. There are environmental problems connecting the road. Priorwood Street would help
with the traffic congestion. The Comprehensive Plan does not affect this project. Connecting
the road is unrelated to this project. The cost should not come from the developer. The
engineering department does not see a need for it as well as the neighbors.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Wuellner:
. The verbiage in the Comprehensive Plan quoted earlier was written prior to the knowledge of
the Planning Commission that Eagle Creek Villas was coming.
. The street should not go through but would push strongly for a trail. Take advantage of the
significant environmental aspects of the property.
. Would not required the developer to make right-of-way for Five Hawks available to the City
in any form.
. It is not reasonable for the Planning Commission to find a place for the watermain to go
through. The developer can solve the problems with engineering.
. Strong recommendation of Alternative #2 in the Staff Report.
Stamson:
. Extension of Five Hawks is a bad idea.
. Strongly feel a trail should go through.
. The watermain is a wash cost wise. Move to the east with the least environmental impact.
. Parking is better to err on too much rather than not enough.
. Pollution and runoff control is an issue. Deal with easily before hand. If applicant is tacking
on parking later - reconstruction would have to be done. Parking should be more than .5
space.
. Would like to see more detail on the parking.
. Recommending Alternative #2 of the Staff Report.
Vonhof:
. Recommendation to City Council on the assisted living facility is appropriate on this site.
. Amend Comprehensive Plan to deal with the density.
. Amend Comprehensive Plan on completion of Five Hawks Avenue. It should not be
connected. Would rather see a trail.
. The issue of definition of assisted living is addressed better through the PUD process and
developer rather than an amendment definition to the Comprehensive Plan.
. Parking should be 1 per unit. Should be done at this time, more difficult to do later.
Ordinance says 1 per unit.
. Support of Recommendation #2 of the Staff Report with addition of amendments.
Kuykendall:
. Support the 1.0 parking. Important to do it now and do it right - have a quality facility.
. Meet the standards of our Comprehensive Plan.
. Street extension should be pedestrian right-of-way but should be a public right-of-way.
. The City Engineer has to decide the best watermain condition.
MNOI1296.DOC
PAGEIO
. The Planning Commission does not have to modify the Comprehensive Plan and still
connect the neighborhoods.
. Pedestrian traffic is allowed. It is also necessary to allow the area for emergency vehicles.
. These things are important to the public on both sides of this development. From a cost
standpoint compared to other developments, this is a very inexpensive development. So
cost-wise it is in the public interest to maintain as a public facility.
. Change density as recommended.
. Let the issues be determined by engineers.
. The only variance he suggested to consider is the trade-off where trees have to be removed.
Criego:
. Berger addressed the parking ratio.
. Concurs with the rest of the Commissioners.
Doris Wilker, 16493 Five Hawks Avenue, stated the development is a wonderful concept but she
works in this area and questioned the need for 61 parking spaces. She has more of a concern for
getting buses and private cars in and out of the area. It is possible down the road other people
will be using this facility. People with mental health issues, chemical dependency issues and
also developmental disabilities. If the developer wants the residents of the facility to be 55 years
or older it should be addressed. Ms. Wilker's other concern is for the pathway. The paths are
great but go nowhere - there are no connecting sidewalks. The residents should be included with
these trails. She lives on Five Hawks and resents having to pay for a sidewalk.
Wingard showed the extension between Five Hawks. Trails are stubbed into streets in other
developments.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE SCHEMATIC PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
THERE SHOULD BE NO ROAD EXTENSION OF FIVE HA WKS AVENUE. AMEND THE
PLAN TO MAKE IT CLEAR THE CONNECTION IS PUBLIC NON-MOTORIZED
PEDESTRIANIBIKE PATH ORIENTED SPECIFIC TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE SHOULD BE A PUBLIC TRAIL; TRAIL ACROSS THE CREEK; AND A TRAIL
PLANNED OUT WITH THE SCHOOL, CITY AND DEVELOPER.
ADEQUATE PARKING BE PROVIDED - 1 PER UNIT. CONSTRUCTED NOW, NOT
LATER.
THE WATERLINE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED. THE EXACT LOCATION WILL BE
DISCUSSED AT THE PLATTING STAGE OR THE MORE SPECIFIC DEVELOPING
STAGE. CRITERIA IS TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND STILL
PROVIDE ADEQUATE PRESSURE.
MODIFY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DENSITY FOR THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF
PROPERTY AND DELETE FIVE HA WKS AVENUE CONNECTION STATEMENT.
MODIFY THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR IT.
DEVELOPER IDENTIFY THE USERS OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY.
MN08I 296.DOC
PAGEIl
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner, Stamson, Kuykendall and Criego. MOTION
CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Gensmer Appeal Regarding Lot 7, Maple Park Shore Acres
Jane Kansier presented the information from the Staff Report. Staff recommended the Planning
Commission recommend to City Council that it uphold the staff interpretation of the ordinance.
Staff received a letter dated June 17, 1996 sent in response to a complaint 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 notice of violation. Upon receipt of the appeal, staff again visited the site and noted two
docks with four boats moored at the docks.
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 respondent states they are leasing dock space. Marinas are not a permitted use in the R-l
District.
Bryce Huemoeller, the attorney representing respondent was present. His position was the plat
of Maple Park Shores Acres was platted years ago and predates the ordinance by 40 years. This
is not a common beach area. It is a lot being rented to 4 people to have short term seasonal
docks in the water that comply with DNR regulations. The provision of the ordinances uses the
word "may" be developed..." which leaves it optional. The owner's position is he has a lease
that complies. It is not a violation of the ordinance. The lot is used for beach activities.
Comments from Commissionen:
Kuykendall:
. Agrees with Staff's interpretation for reasons stated in their staffreport.
. Mentioned DNR water regulations.
Vonhof:
. Agree it is not a commerical marina but it runs against the intent of the ordinance.
. There is no specific language.
MN08I296.DOC
PAGEI2
Stamson:
· Principal use is residential and this area is zoned residential but it is not a buildable lot. It
does not apply to Section 5-4-1. Primary use is leasing out dock space.
. Applicant can deed back to the homeowners and they can use it.
Wuellner:
. Is for alternative #2 of the Staff Report and accept the appeal for dock rental.
. Not convinced it is not a prohibited use. It is a reasonable use if you can not live on it.
Criego:
. It is not intended to lease out slips.
. This is a Rl zone.
. It is not a permitted use.
. Agree with Staff recommendation.
Open discussion comments:
. The owner of the property can have a slip.
. This is a commerical issue. Someone is making money.
. Go through the conditional use process.
. It is not addressed in our zoning.
. It is a plotted lot and has to have some use.
. It is not in compliance.
Commissioner Stamson read Section 9, page 3, subparagraph 9.2 B 4 of the Shoreland
Ordinance which states:
4. "Prohibited Uses. Any uses which are not permitted or conditional uses as regulated by
the applicable zoning district underlying this Shoreland District as indicated on the official
Zoning Map of the City."
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL UPHOLD THE STAFF INTERPRETATION AND CITE SECTION 9.2 B 4.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Stamson and Criego, nays by Wuellner and V onhof.
MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Lake tour scheduled for Tuesday, August 20, at 4:00 p.m.
MN081296.DOC
PAGEI3
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall, Stamson, Wuellner and Criego. MOTION
CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11 :09 p.m.
Don Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
I
I:
MNOIl296.DOC
PAGE14
/
PLANNING REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
DON RYE, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF EBENEZER RIDGES TO AMEND
THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW "ADULT DAY CARE"
FACILITIES IN BUSINESS & RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
YES
AUGUST 26, 1996
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is seeking an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in order
to include adult day care facilities as a permitted use within the business
and residential zoning districts.
The Zoning Ordinance provides that if a land use is not specifically
designated as either permitted or conditional in the City, it is considered
prohibited. In such case, the property owner may request a study to
determine if the use is acceptable and, if so, what district would be most
appropriate for the use and what conditions and standards, if any, should
be attached to the development of the use.
ANALYSIS:
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE:
Adult day care is similar to children's day care as it provides a safe place
for those who cannot completely care for themselves. Adult day care
entails more than babysitting. Typically, a variety of health, recreational
and social services as well as nutritional and emotional support are
provided to program participants. Adult day care centers also provide
"respite" care for people caring for older individuals or family members at
home. It provides an opportunity for the care giver to drop the person
they are caring for at the day care center and enables the care giver to go
shopping or tend to other personal business without the concern of
leaving the individual alone.
Adult day care has not received the recognition that children's day care
has received nationally however, in the last twenty years the number of
adult day care centers in the United States has risen from 15 to more
than 3,000, and in light of the dynamics of an aging population, it is likely
that the need will continue to grow.
-1-
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
LAND USE RATIONALE:
In establishing a new land use in the ordinance, it is appropriate to
compare the land use to other similar uses which are currently permitted
within the Zoning Ordinance. At present, the land use in the Ordinance
which appears most similar to adult day care is children's day care for
more than 12 children. Currently, this land use is a permitted use in the
B1 Limited Business District and B-2, Community Business and is
permitted as a conditional use in the R-2 Residential, R3 Multiple
Residential and R4 Mixed Code Residential Districts.
The characteristics of both land uses are both similar. They are low
intensity and they generate modest amounts of traffic compared to other
land uses which would occupy a similar area and typically have very little
in the way of nuisances characteristics to distinguish them.
Because of the fact that people are dropped off, it is helpful for such uses
to have ready access to the major street system without generating traffic
through adjoining residential areas.
Parking demands for such uses would typically be limited to the need for
staff parking and sufficient parking for persons dropping off and picking up
clients of the adult day care center.
ZONING TREATMENT BY OTHER CITIES:
Staff contacted several cities in the metropolitan area to determine how
adult day care was handled in their current zoning ordinances. Treatment
of adult day care ranged from permitting them outright to not allowing
them anywhere in the City. Several staff members from other cities
indicated this was primarily due to the fact that a request for such use had
not been received and one local official indicated that they would consider
allowing the use under the day care provisions of their current ordinance
even though adult day care was not specifically listed. The following
summary of treatment of the adult day care and other ordinances:
St. Louis Park - permitted with conditions in the high density residential
district and the commercial and office districts.
Golden Valley - permitted in residential districts with 12 or fewer persons.
Chanhassen - not covered in city code.
Savage - permitted home occupation and residential districts.
Eagan - conditional use in some commercial districts.
NECESSARY ZONING TREATMENT:
If this use is to be permitted it will be necessary to define the use to
determine the districts in which it should be located and to establish
parking requirements. Staff believes it would be appropriate to treat adult
day care in the same fashion as children's day care. For 12 or fewer
persons, adult day care could be a permitted use in the R1 and R2 Urban
Residential Districts. For more than 12 persons, the use should be as a
-2-
conditional use in the R3 Multiple Residential and R4 Mixed Code
Residential District and as a permitted use in the B1 Limited Business
District, B2 Community Business District and B3, General Business
District.
The following definition of adult day care is suggested.
ADULT DAY CARE:
A facility that provides care to functionally impaired adults on a regular
basis for periods of less than 24 hours in a structure that is not the
residence of the person being served or the facility operator. Some
characteristics of this use are similar to family day care in nursing homes.
This use is appropriate in commercial and high density residential areas
particularly if there is accessibility to outdoor areas for sitting or exercise.
The following off-street parking requirement is suggested. Two parking
spaces for every five program participants licensed by the State of
Minnesota. In the case of the applicant this would result in a demand for
12 parking stalls for 30 clients. This would provide parking for the six staff
members that provide six additional stalls for dropping off and picking up
clients.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Planning Commission has three alternatives available to it.
1. The Planning Commission may recommend denial of the
request.
2. The Planning Commission may defer the request pending receipt
of additional information as may be deemed appropriate.
3. The Planning Commission may recommend approval of the
request as proposed or with specific modifications.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that alternative 3 be followed and the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the request as modified to permit adult day care as a
permitted use in the B1 Limited Business District, the B2 Community Business District and the
B3 General Business District and as a conditional use in the R3 Multiple Residential and R4
Mixed Code Residential Districts. It is recommended that Adult Day Care for 12 or fewer
persons be allowed as a permitted use in the R1 Suburban Residential and R2 Urban
Residential Zoning Districts. It is further recommended the definition of adult day care cited
above be adopted and the recommended parking requirement also be adopted.
ZOO3PR
-3-
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
q~-[)75
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 zonine;) 7(i mnr::>-J c; 71'1"fiZ Z()"J,;Jt; O-.eO,lI/ftVCL TO /fW4l.J
181 Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance /rO-Il-,.... .CJt<NCA1cr::. :'7""C.O...J"7 I J2...J' I ~ ~l.!> JJe.rS
o Subdivision of Land 1'77\J (::J R.e...J' I..L.J .e::lTJ / rn...- "Z-<rJ f J\J<:;, ol.r;~J<:',C.-i.s
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
o Variance . Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
I
Applicant(s): e:L3 t=:lJ e:-z....er-<, r?./ J:::J (-, e;::~
Address: I 3:'-~--~(~ (~17v mu ,J /71.{ t.:J~ , y':C ~,~~;.J.sv I '-l-{:; rYl,.J :5"':3 ~ _~ (
I
Home Phone: Work Phone: "f- ~ "2)-<3/ I .0
Property Owner(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):
To the best of my knowledge the information procided 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
applications will not be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
--=':;~) ~~~ '1-~\-4~
A~cant' s Si!roature S0;:, ~ Date
U~~ --f'0 .~ - ~
c)\t.::u;N>- ~ ~~ ~c-
Fee Owner's S~ature 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 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 5-3-3 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND SECTION 3.1 OF
THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT ADULT DAY CARE
CENTERS TO BE LOCATED WITIDN THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS
ZONING DISTRICTS
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public
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 26, 1996, at 7:00
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider
an amendment to Section 5-3-3 of the City Code and Section 3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
which would allow adult day care centers to be located in the Residential and Business
Zoning Districts.
If you wish to be heard in reference to this item, you should attend the public hearing.
Oral and written comments will be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have
questions regarding this matter, please contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at
447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Prepared this 31st day of July, 1996 by:
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON AUGUST 3, 1996
1:\96zoamnd\adaycare\adultpn.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
PLANNING REPORT
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
CONSIDER ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
PERMIT ARCADES IN THE B-3, GENERAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT
N/A
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
AUGUST 26, 1996
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION: The applicant has applied for an amendment to the zoning ordinance
to allow "arcades, billiards/pool, equipment, etc." as a permitted use in the B-3 General
Business District.
BACKGROUND: Some time ago, staffwas asked by the management of Prior dale Mall
whether a video game arcade was permitted in the Mall. Staff informed the management
that this was not a permitted or conditional use in the B-3 district and, if they wished to
pursue the issue, it would be necessary to seek an amendment to the zoning ordinance.
The applicants came to City Hall and discussed the procedure with staff and subsequently
filed this application.
The ordinance provides that a use not specifically designated as a permitted or
conditional use anywhere in the City is considered prohibited and authorizes the Planning
Commission to initiate an amendment to the ordinance if it finds, after due consideration,
that such a use is acceptable and whether it should be a permitted or conditional use.
DISCUSSION: In a letter in support of the application, the applicant clarified their intent
as to what type of business they wished to open. In addition to video games, they also
propose pool tables, dart games and other electronic games. In addition, they would
include a concession area for snacks and soft drinks, a small retail area for T-shirts, game
supplies and so forth, and a meeting and conversation area. The intent is to provide a
gathering place for young people in the City which provides a variety of functions.
So-called video arcades became popular in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The initial
reaction of many communities was not favorable towards such uses and, as a result,
imposed strict regulations on the establishment and operation of these uses. Over time,
some communities realized that such uses, in and of themselves, were not necessarily
problematic and that problems associated with these facilities were more often the result
of the quality of management. Nevertheless, the potential for some problems remain,
based largely on location and hours of operation.
16200 ~~00f~~. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The application is not limited to a video arcade but includes other elements as well as
noted above. The question then becomes what to call the proposed land use for regulatory
purposes and what elements of the use should be used to develop a definition for it.
Presently, the B-3 district allows retail, eating and drinking establishments, commercial
recreation and recreation equipment sales, service and repair as permitted uses and places
of assembly as conditional uses. While the proposed use has some characteristics of all of
these uses, the relatively large area proposed for pool and other games would lead one to
call it a pool hall or game room with incidental retail sales and snacks for sale. The
commercial recreation category would appear to be the best descriptor of this use but the
definition of commercial recreation in the ordinance limits it to large scale, outdoor
activities which do not require sewer and water and includes fairs, shooting ranges and
airports. It is apparent from the definition that indoor commercial uses were not
considered to be part of commercial recreation.
The ordinance does not deal well with mixed uses. The PUD section of the code allows
for a mixture of housing types, religious and educational facilities and commercial and
industrial uses in a PUD but it does not provide direction, criteria, standards or criteria
which direct how this should be accomplished. The code is silent on how this should be
handled in a Business District.
ISSUES
Location- Often, with recreation facilities, there is a concern about the location of the use,
particularly its proximity to residential land uses. These uses sometimes are problematic
because of relatively high activity levels associated with the use and sometimes generate
a significant number of complaints. There may sometimes be problems associated with
the use if it is in a free-standing building as opposed to being in a multi-tenant building.
Staff has already heard concerns expressed over the use being located in the Mall by one
of the Mall tenants. Whether this concern is justified is not possible to predict because of
the variables involved. However, there is at least the perception that such a use in close
association with other uses may result in problems. This is exemplified to some extent by
the recent action of the Mall Of America in barring youths under the age of 16 from the
Mallon weekends.
Parkin~- If there is only one principal use involved, the determination of parking
requirements is relatively simple. However, in this case, there are what appear to be
several principal uses in the proposed facility and the determination of required parking is
more difficult because of the lack of direction in the ordinance. Most ordinances contain
some guidelines for parking determinations when there are multiple uses in one tenant
space, but the current code does contain such a provision. Even if the use was permitted,
there is no easy way to determine required parking.
Hours of Operation and Activity Levels- Some pool halls and video arcades are open for
extended periods of time while others operate hours similar to most other businesses.
ARCADE.DOCIDR
2
Recreation-oriented uses tend to stay open longer than retail or service uses, primarily in
order to provide opportunities to those people who work hours different from 9 to 5. This,
in conjunction with the often higher activity levels of these uses, can create problems if
located close to residential property. Some communities have addressed this by imposing
controls on the hours of operation and have imposed spacing standards between such uses
and residential uses as a means of minimizing the potential adverse impacts on residential
uses.
COll\Patibility with Other Uses in the Same Zonin~ District- The B-3 District is the
general business district in the City and permits a wide variety of uses with very different
characteristics. Many of the uses would be considered "heavy" uses in that they generate
significant amounts of traffic or have nuisance characteristics not common to other
business uses. The proposed use has similar characteristics to restaurants, health clubs
and theaters, although, over the course of a day, the proposed use will likely generate less
traffic than the other uses. The discussion under Location above touched on what some
perceive to be a compatibility issue, but in many respects, this may be more of a
management issue than a land use issue.
Proper Zonin~ Treatment- There are several questions dealing with the best zoning
treatment of this use. From a district standpoint, the B-3 District as it currently exists, is
the proper district. One question is whether the use should be narrowly defined along the
lines proposed by the applicant or whether the ordinance should consider a broader class
of private recreational use and include the proposed use in this broader category. While
staff favors the latter approach, it may be better to attempt this as part of the development
of the new zoning ordinance. The B-3 could be amended to include the use as proposed.
Another question relates to how strictly the City should control the use. Should the use be
conditional or permitted? Should the City impose restrictions on hours of operation?
What parking standards should be imposed? Should proximity to residential uses be
regulated?
Staff believes that it is appropriate to establish game rooms (video arcades, pool halls) as
conditional uses in the B-3 district, subject to the following conditions in addition to
those all conditional uses must meet:
. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 9:00AM and 10:00PM.
. Such use shall be located at least 150 feet from the nearest residential structure.
. Parking shall be calculated based on all uses within the structure or tenant space,
using parking standards in the code.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the attached ordinance amendment
2. Recommend denial of the attached ordinance amendment
ARCADE.DOCIDR
3
3. Recommend approval of the attached ordinance with specific modifications
4. Continue the case for later consideration of specific issues
RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 1
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to recommend approval of attached ordinance
ARCADE.DOCIDR
4
/
~
AM~_07)
PIDt .:lS90dlO,;J../O
,,,#-
Applicant:
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
APPLICATION FOR AMENI:MENI' 'ID CITY <DDE, cn1P PLAN OR CITY ORDINANCE
"PA-I-€~ 90/- .y~ ~
Heme Phone: tIf! - f: Q:2.
Vk>rk Phone: 7 - '(},;/ r
PJ?/ IJIE!. LA~g. '" IV 553'7;)-
,
5)J~~A.I S S,JqA/6-
1\ddress: L,/tf/ S JJJ..IJFP /-liE/6-J.lrS /l!.aJL &-
Section of Ordinan~ or Canp Plan Amendment
is lequested for: -3 PR'DR~ALe mlffLL.)
" ~ ~
Describe Amendment:L1.uAtJ 1~.e{fADL. ". g/.LLA..eDJ P~4' ~(J~/PJ'n&iV,.. 6-TC.
70 /Jfl:LA7~ /.;4..1 B.5 kAlE'''' rA.I!!..r/~'./J...4IZ1L'I "PRttJlC.ol4L.r 1)?19-L.L- ,A,ee4-
Ieasons for the Pequest: (May Attach) ,
t./lJoT# .4COTIV/TY (lE...(.ITE.e WILL ).}AVt!r VcIllDI/V/-r ,Gav, pmeA./T / ,,~
41:.- n 5' I
/.~.. PI..uBI9~'-. V I fJt,.o, rooL. 7I9BLe5 . D~If:7' /1?~NI,c/e _ P'=AI<'eJeS
t:J)./ I/APJ/1I/J' J'cJ13 T~(!~J'_ ''/JJe~A-bb'' ~l.helZ€p7/'v /UO'T ~I-L.O~1> IA/ B.3,
feetfJlJbs7lP&- ~,em l-r
&JBMISSION REOUIREMENl'S:
CA.) Canpleted application form. (B.) Filing Fee. (C. j Parcel Identification
Nurrber (pm). CD.) Certified SJrvey and Names of Property ONners Certified by an
Abstract Company if lequired by the Director of Planning.
ONLY QJMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNIN; CDMMISSION.
To the best of ~ knowledge, the infoIIMtion presented on this form is correct.
In addition, I have read Section .7.9 of the City Zoning Ordinance which
specifies the requirenents for amendments. I agree to provide information and
follow the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance.
~(t!~~ 0/ .p/~
icants Signature
Submitted this Lday of J!loJl/sr 19~
Fee ONners Signature
mIS SECrION '!O BE FILLED OUT BY THE PLANNIN:; DIREO'OR
PLANNIN:; a::MMISSION _APPWlID
CITY COON:IL APPWlED
DENIED
DENIED
HF.ARIro DA.TE
HF.ARIro DA.TE
CDNDITIONS:
Signature of the Planninq Director
Date
\
August 12, 1996
Susan Stang
4818 81uff Heights Trail SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Ms. Jane Kansier, CICP
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Av SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Application for rezoning permit
Dear Ms. Kansier:
Per my conversation with you this afternoon, as t stated, I had just received
the letter from you regarding clarification of the request within my application. The
following is the clarification requested per your letter of August 9, 1996.
It was my understanding per previous conversations with you that I needed
to apply for an amendment to the current zoning for the 8-3 area, since the current
zoning reads that "an arcade, billardslpool, combat games, etc." are not allowed, and
that your understanding of what I am planning on opening falls into that area.
However, when I submitted my application along with the $350.00 application fee on
August 6, 1996, I questioned the definition of arcade at that point, at which time no
definition could be given according to city zoning.
The definition according to Webster's Dictionary is :
ar-cade: 1. a long arched building or gallery 2: an arched covered passageway or
avenue (as between shops) 3: a series of arches with their columns or piers.
Although I was surprised at this definition, it certainly has nothing to do with what is a
current "slang" definition relating to amusement games, at which appears to be the
need for the requested zoning permit.
To best clarify my planned usage is: To provide a well structured, adult
supervised, youth community gathering area, for the ages of 17 and under, however,
not exclusive to that age catagory. Within this area, we are planning of having:
1. Concession area
a. pop
b.hotdogs
c. prepare frozen pizzas
d. various prepackage snacks Le. pretzels, chips, candy bars, etc.
2. Retail area (In future)
a. dart supplies
b. pool supplies
c. t-shirts, sweatshirts
d. novelty items
3. Amusement games area, including but not limited to:
a. jukeboX
b. pin ball machines
c. video games
d. dart machines
e. pool tables
f. air hockey tables
g. foosball tables
4. Conversation/meeting area
a. gathering area to -
1. plan school projects
2. play table games, i.e. monopoly, scrabble, etc.
3. meet and sociaHze with friends
4. hear speakers that we are planning on bringing into the center to
talk to the youth about topics relating to them. Such as:
1. speakers from 4 branches of military service
2. drug and alcohol use
3. violence-its not o.k.
4. dealing with anger
5. pressure from those around you
I hope this will help clarify any misunderstandings as to the intended use. If you
have any further questions or are in need of any further information, please do not
hesitate to call. I am looking forward to the meeting on August 26, 1996.
Sincerely,
~~~
00: Frank Boyles, City Manager
Dick Powell, Chief of Police
LeAnn Weihrach, Director of Community Education
~
.d.tI'.r~""'-'-"""'"
..
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 96-_
INANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 5-1-7 and 5-3-3 OF PRIOR LAKE
CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTIONS 3.2 and 8.1 OF PRIOR LAKE
ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
Sections 5-1-7 and 5-3-3 of Prior Lake City Code and Sections 3.2 and 8.1 of Prior Lake
Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended as follows:
Section 5-1-7 of the Prior Lake and Section 3.2 of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance are
amended by adding the following definition:
GAME ROOM' An establishment offering various mechanical and electronic games for
use by the public for a fee. Such use may also include sale of food items and merchandise,
either incidentally or as another principal use in the same building or tenant space, and
also some assembly or meeting space.
Section 5-3-3 of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 8.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance are amended by the adding the following to the list of Conditional Uses in the
B-3 General Business District:
Game room, subject to the following conditions:
1. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 9:00 AM and 10:00 PM
2. The use shall be located at least 150feetfrom the nearest residential structure.
3. Parking shall be calculated based on all uses within the structure or tenant space,
using parking standards in the City Code.
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 Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN. 55372
16200 1!Wg~~Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4C
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE
KNOWN AS MAPLE HILLS SECOND ADDITION
11.74 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF CR 42, EAST OF
HOLY CROSS LUTHERAN CHURCH AND NORTH OF THE
DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS KNOB HILL
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR, JOHN
WINGARD, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_X_ YES NO-N/A
AUGUST 26, 1996
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an application for preliminary plat to be
known as "Maple Hills Second Addition". A preliminary plat identifies proposed lot
locations, areas and dimensions, road locations, storm sewers, grading, location and
grade of sewer and water, landscaping and tree replacement plans, and other
improvements to an undeveloped site. Once preliminary plat approval is granted, the
property owner has a vested interest in the plat. For one year following preliminary plat
approval, no ordinance amendment shall apply to or affect the use, development
density, lot size, lot layout, dedication required or permitted by the approved preliminary
plat.
PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location of Property:
i'
f '
I
Zoning and Land Use
Designation:
Maple Hill Partnership
6001 Glendale Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55422
Sharon Peterson
4663 140th Street NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
This site is located directly south of CR 42, about 1/4
mile east of Chatonka Beach Road.
This site is zoned R-1 (Suburban Residential) and is
designated for Low to Medium Density Residential
uses on the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The site is
16200 tkW'~~Ws;.ve, S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax {g~.117-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Adjacent Land Use and
Zoning:
Proposed Development:
largely wooded, with a single family dwelling located
on the north end of the site. Access to this site is
presently from CR 42.
The property to the south of this site is undeveloped
land, presently zoned R-1 and C-1 (Conservation),
and is designated for Low to Medium Density
Residential use on the 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
The property to the east is single family dwelling on 6
acres, also zoned R-1 and designated for Low to
Medium Density Residential uses. The property to
the west is developed with a church and single family
dwellings, and is zoned R-1.
The proposed plat consists of 11.74 acres to be
subdivided into 28 lots for single family dwellings, for
a total density of about 2.5 units per acre. This
density is well below the maximum permitted density
of 3.5 units per acre.
The minimum lot size in the R-1 district is 12,000
square feet, with 86' of frontage at the front building
line. All of the proposed lots meet or exceed these
requirements.
For a more detailed explanation of the proposed
development, see the attached narrative submitted
by the developer.
Streets/Access/Circulation: The proposed street which will be called Bluebird
Trail is proposed to be a public street built to City
standards with a 32 foot back-to-back bituminous
surface with mountable concrete curb and gutter on a
55' wide right-of-way. This right-of-way should be
adequate to meet City standards for a 32' wide back-
to-back street with a 5' wide concrete walk along the
east side. The proposed street system will connect
to CSAH 42 by the construction of a temporary street
on Lot 2 of Block 2. The proposed street connection
to CSAH 42 has adequate site distance.
I ' The street layout plan also shows the construction of
a cul-de-sac in the southwest corner of the site. The
final platting of the four lots on the north end of
Hummingbird Court cul-de-sac will not be approved
until a final plat is approved on the Twiss property
that would extend streets and utilities to Hummingbird
Court.
MAPL2PC.OOC Page 2
Grading/Erosion Control:
Storm SewerlWetlandsl
Water Quality:
MAPL2PC.DOC
As shown on the attached Exhibit, the County intends
to upgrade CSAH 42 from a two lane rural road to a
four lane divided highway with turn lanes along the
north edge of this site. The upgrading of CSAH 42 is
scheduled to begin in the fall of 1997. If the
temporary street connection to CSAH 42 is still in-
place when CSAH 42 is reconstructed, then the
entrance will be restricted to a right-inlright-out only
access. The County will not allow any permanent
street entrances onto CSAH 42 from this property.
The upgrading of CSAH 42 will provide full access
intersections at Pike Lake Trail and Rolling Oaks
Circle. The developer will be required to dedicate 75'
of half right-of-way for CSAH 42 at the time of the
final plat.
The preliminary grading plan attempts to match the
existing topography to preserve as many trees as
possible. Approximately 6.5 acres of the 11 acre site
will be disturbed to grade the street and house pad
areas. The 4.5 acres that will not be disturbed will be
in the backyards. The Developer also intends to
custom grade some of the lots to help preserve trees.
A maximum of 14' of cut and 8' of fill are required to
grade the site. No grading will be allowed on the
adjacent properties unless written permission is
obtained. The development will be required to
comply with the City's erosion control standards.
Storm water runoff will be directed to a 0.3 acre water
quality treatment pond located in the northwest
comer of the site. The pond shall provide 0.9 acre
feet of wet storage volume to meet the NURP
standards of the direct drainage from this
development. The City will require that the pond be
excavated to a depth of 4 feet below the NWL to
allow the pond to trap the sediments that drain into
the pond.
The outlet for the pond which drains to Pike Lake
shall be designed to limit the storm water discharge
from this site to one-half the pre-development rate.
The City's Storm Water Comprehensive Plan
requires the reduction for new developments in the
Pike Lake Drainage District.
There are no wetlands on this site.
Page 3
Sanitary Sewer:
Sanitary sewer service is not readily available to this
site. A 1 A" sanitary sewer line will need to be
extended along the south side of CSAH 42 from Pike
Lake Trail to the east a distance of 700 feet to serve
this site. The 1 A" sanitary sewer line extension is
designed to be included with the upgrading of CSAH
42 (City Project 95-09) which is scheduled to begin in
the fall of 1997. The 1 A" sewer line would be
constructed in 1998, SO' south of the centerline of
CSAH 42. Approximately 10 to 12 feet of excavated
material is shown to be removed from the area where
the sewer line is to be constructed.
If the Developer requests that the 1 A" sanitary sewer
extension on CSAH 42 be completed before the
County is ready to include the work in their project,
then the Developer could extend the 10" line along
CSAH 42 with this development's other utility
construction. Any additional costs incurred by the
City to construct the 1 A" sanitary sewer line before
the County upgrades CSAH 42, would be the
Developer's responsibility. The extra costs would
include easements along the Holy Cross Lutheran
Church property, extra excavation along the sewer
line extension, tree removal, and restoration.
As shown on the preliminary utility plan, the
Developer intends to construct an 8" sanitary sewer
line through the site from the 1 A" line in CSAH 42 to
the south edge of the plat. The 8" sewer line will also
serve the undeveloped property to the south.
Watermain:
A City maintained water system is not readily
available to serve this site. The City intends to
construct a 1S" trunk watermain along the south side
of CSAH 42 from Femdale Avenue to Pike Lake Trail
with the upgrading of CSAH 42, City Project 95-09.
However, this watermain is not expected to be ready
for service until 1998.
Approximately 1/2 mile to the south of this site is an
8" watermain in Carriage Hills Parkway. The
development of the next phase of Knob Hill is
intended to extend the 8" watermain system up to the
south property line of the Twiss property. When the
Twiss property develops, then the 8" watermain
would be extended to the south property line of this
site.
MAPl2PC.OOC
Page 4
As shown on the preliminary utility plan, the
Developer will be responsible for constructing an 8"
watermain through the site to serve the proposed
houses. The final plat for this development should
not be approved until a public water line of sufficient
size, pressure and capacity is extended to the site.
Easements:
The Developer will be required to dedicate drainage
and utility easements over the wetlands, storm water
ponds, and over all sewer and water lines
constructed outside of the dedicated right-of-way.
Along the west edge of Lot 2 of Block 2, the final plat
shall dedicate a 30' wide. drainage and utility
easement over the proposed 8" sanitary sewer line
and 8" watermain which are shown to be constructed
along this lot line.
Tree Preservation:
This development is subject to the provisions of
Section 6.16 (Tree Preservation) of the Zoning
Ordinance. As mentioned earlier, this site is largely
wooded. The applicant has provided an inventory as
required by this ordinance, but will be required to
provide a preservation plan which shows which
significant trees are to be removed and which are to
remain, as well as the size, type and location of any
replacement trees which might be required. This
inventory identified 441 significant trees, as defined
by the ordinance. The developer has estimated that
225, or 51 %, of the trees will be removed by initial
site development and the placement of building pads,
driveways and so on.
The ordinance allows up to 50% of the significant
trees to be removed, without replacement or
restitution, as a result of initial site development and
home placement. Therefore, the developer will be
required to replace the 1% (44 trees) by which he
exceeds the provisions of the ordinance. A tree
replacement plan must be prepared according to the
provisions of Section 6.16 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Landscaping:
This development is also subject to the requirement~
of Chapter 7 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which
required one (1) street tree per lot frontage and one
(1) front yard tree per lot. The applicant has
submitted a "typical lot" plan showing the proposed
location of the required trees, as well as the minimum
size and types. It must be noted that this
requirement is over and above the required
MAPL2PC.DOC
Page 5
Parkland Dedication:
Finance/Assessment Fee
Review:
MAPL2PC.DOC
replacement trees.
The Developer shall comply with the park dedication
and contribution requirements as defined in the City
Code. The park dedication for the plat shall be
fulfilled through the following:
A. Due to the size of the plat and proximity of
other parks to this property the park dedication will be
cash in lieu of land. The cash dedication is based on
the raw land value of $13,000.00 per acre. With a
10% park dedication the total cash dedication for this
parcel is:
11.74 acres (Gross Area) x $13,OOO.OO/acre x 0.10 =
$15,262.00
The park dedication fee shall be payable prior to the
release of the fmal plat.
B. In addition a 5' wide concrete sidewalk shall
be constructed along the entire length of Bluebird
Trail on the same side of the street as lots 1 - 9 as
identified in the preliminary plat. A temporary 8'
wide bituminous trail shall be constructed parallel and
adjacent to the temporary access to County Road 42.
The developer will be responsible for the costs
associated with construction of the aforementioned
sidewalks and trails.
C. Outlot A which is located adjacent to lot 1
shall be graded to accommodate a future 8' wide
bituminous trail. This grading shall be coordinated
with the future Knob Hill development, as one half of
the width of this trail is located on both properties.
The City will be responsible for the construction of
this trail at a later date.
At the time municipal utilities are available, this
subdivision will be subject to a stormwater
management fee, a collector street fee, a trunk sewer
and water fee, and a lateral sewer and water fee. A
summary of the charges is shown on the attachedimemo from Ralph Teschner.
Page 6
ISSUES:
There are two main issues with this development. First of all, municipal services are not
immediately available to the site. Development of the site depends on the extension of
services in CR 42, which is scheduled for 1998. For this reason, the applicant has
requested a two (2) year approval period for the preliminary plat. The Subdivision
Ordinance requires that a developer submit a final plat within one (1) year of the
preliminary plat approval by the Council The Ordinance allows the Council to extend
this period ufor good cause for up to but not exceeding 12 months", upon written
application by the developer. The question is whether or not a preliminary plat should
be approved for an area without these services. The fact that the extension of services
is scheduled in the Capital Improvements Program for the relatively near future does
provide some assurance that these services will be available. In the event that the
project is delayed, the preliminary plat, even with an extension, will expire. The
applicant will also have the option of extending the services, with the understanding that
any additional, cost to the City would be his responsibility.
The other issue concerning this development is its effect on the development of the
property to the south. The cul-de-sac in the southwest comer of this preliminary plat is
accessible only from the property to the south. Additionally, Bluebird Trail is an
extension of the road from the south. The applicant is working with the owners of the
property to the south, Gold Nugget Development, on the location and grades of the cul-
de-sac and the extension of Bluebird Trail. Development of these streets will require
this continued cooperation.
These two issues, as well as other engineering and ordinance requirements, can be
addressed by placing the following conditions on the approval of this preliminary plat:
1. The final plat for this development shall not be approved until a public water
line is extended to this site.
2. The Developer will be required to dedicate a temporary street easement over
Lot 2 of Block 2 to allow for the construction of the temporary street
connection to CSAH 42 across Lot 2. The temporary street easement cannot
expire until Bluebird Trail is extended to the east to Rolling Oaks Circle.
3. The final platting of the four lots on the north end of Hummingbird Court cul-
de-sac will not be approved until a final plat is approved on the Swiss property
that would extend streets and utilities to Hummingbird Court.
4. The Developer will not be allowed to grade on the adjacent properties un/flSS
written permission is obtained.
5. The development will be required to provide 0.9 acre feet of wet storage
volume to meet the NURP standards and the pond shall provide at least four
feet of depth below the NWL.
MAP12PC.DOC
Page 7
6. The storm water runoff from this development shall be ponded to limit the
discharge to one half the pre-development rate.
7. The additional costs that the City might incur for extending the 10" sanitary
sewer line along CSAH 42 prior to the County upgrading project would be the
Developer's expense if the line needs to be installed prematurely.
8. A tree preservation and replacement plan must be submitted and approved
prior to final plat approval.
9. Storm water management, collector street, trunk sewer and water and lateral
sewer and water fees will be determined and collected in the context of the
developer's agreement.
10. The Developer will be required to dedicate 75' of half right-of-way for CSAH 42
at the time of final plat, to accommodate the future upgrading of this street to
a four lane highway with a trail along the south side.
11. The Developer will be required to dedicate drainage and utility easements over
the wetlands, storm water ponds, and over all sewer and water lines
constructed outside of the dedicated right-of-way. Along the west edge of Lot
2 of Block 2, the final plat shall dedicate a 3D' wide drainage and utility
easement over the proposed 8" sanitary sewer line and 8" watermain which
are shown to be constructed along this lot line.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution 96-28PC recommending approval of the preliminary plat of Maple
Hills Second Addition as presented and subject to conditions contained in Resolution
96-28PC, or with specific changes directed by the Planning Commission.
2. Table or continue the public hearing to a date and time certain and provide the
developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future
Planning Commission review.
3. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific findings of fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion to adopt Resolution 96-28PC recommending approval of the preliminary plat of
Maple Hills Second Addition, subject to the listed conditions.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
MAPL2PC.DOC
Page 8
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Applicants' Narrative
4. Future CSAH 42 Alignment Map
5. Proposed Sanitary Sewer Alignment Map
6. Proposed Watermain Alignment Map
7. Concept Plan for Development of Knob Hill North
8. Memo from Ralph Teschner
9. Letter from Adjacent Property Owner (Garling)
10. Resolution 96-28PC
MAPL2PC.DOC
Page 9
, " ~ ~ 't '. " '-
o u '" ':. C)
I :z tI1 ~ ~ ~ j :.'
g~l.:)lD~~~
:31-~~~~~
a::?:t:~:;;~'1
... a: L. ~ (f)
8< ~ ". ~ a.. l".J en
~~.~l&JQ:G
'<( Cl. ., ;t ~ 5 <(
:..!""1: ,n:: I.aJ Z ~
~: ..~~~~
; i.: ::. ~.. . ~ ~ t <::
~I r~~
~ \
('I
~)
'"
~
...
cr
.. '"
",.,
.,
'. ...
:z !
III
o
cr
'"
'"
i..
........
~
....'"
erN
..,
III
o
II:
~..,
- ,,.,-_:~
(\J
\\J
~
lr')
:::::
~
..
~
C\J
"
~ l
~ C\/
ot
(\~
"
.. 0'. "
~
~
~
tr.l
S{
.,;
:.:.
0.9
::
<J
Z
..
cr
..,
::
.... z
:> 0
... '"
... Z
o ::
,0
... ..
II>
2> ..,
.,; ~ ~
Z 0 f)
:! ~ !:.
z;;
-0-
;n
{ !:
.
.
.!.
:l.
~
'"
;..
r, J r.+
o
<r
o
a::
....
e
z
..
cr..
Ill.,
...
~'
::111
....
e
~
...
..;
!!
1- -.
- - ....-- -. - 91(";"-
. ,-=>. ---. -:'D~ ~ ~i~ -..,,-:t /; "'J tr.lOaNNlR'DV'I.... .
"ONI "!)HIH;:);:)"I!)";:) WHS! . ==: ~~ ..- 'allY CINz: TDRruYM
...--. III I
..... ...." ~ ----~-- ...- - 12'
- -===.:.-:.=-==- NY'llS9VNn'WC1/9N11m19 A~ ' .-
,- ____-=e:: J:* .
- I I
-
..
.
.. .
B \
- ; \
I \
- ' l \ \ · ".----
\' \. ,.'
\ \\'" \ // ',,.--~
\ :;: /'
\ ,\ '\ ~~ I, I'~ t"':
: I \, \ '\ \~~ '~" ~ --. \ /.
, ' .)~ \ I \~h.r \'i.:~. ~ \(
,U ,,~.[r~i~[-~lni ~
\ N~\ \ I
---, ",~~. ," "~; '., .; \ ~ \\~
-, __, I rp~_ q ....-'"' 11(>6 ~I f\t f \ \......
I lhl I':J' JXY ,("1 I \ \ \
___ - -";:::::/, ~ ~j/ 12 'f1 Y/A
_, ~ \ \ 2!; ~ \ / .-: v ~ \" I / )
I I - ~-\ \\\\l \1 i / /~) \ /.. "~~'_~. ~7J ~'>I~'.t ~..,<\ \-..\'" 1/ /
II 1~'1 \\\\~Lj! j ..),' w J"Y7 (\ '. ,\ \
_ I ~ 11- I \ r i IT. I I ,I . ~'l717'" ~\ . ' :\ ;; \ I t~
I II :/1) \ ~..",f\\ \ \ I · ~ / . / -- ~ ,/n'/I,~ \.\ \ ,J\i::
: I .~ ~ -~.::- /. ""h r{J) :d(/ '1\ ~,~-".~
I' I It J ~ /.~) ~> "'~~- '1 .: C;i~GlIl1~1 = /"f \ ::1--
!: .! />~fJ# ~~~!-.,~. ",;if~'rJ. /T'ill~~/:)
J~ ,I ! l /,.;; J uJl-. _}lc. t \ ;"1--- 'Ii} t I1V it,}v- y y' vYJ'(- - '/ r:-
_ -"';c~~ ~\wi J "ft')~r;pt~~ -~~ 17/ J~ ~
I: i ~~,~ J' \~~ / ~ 'iF:' :;:/;P-~" --'-~(~ ~~~..
1,1 I: \' v j' '~~ -- J)/./ I,' -- 1'"\' -- T -----:--
, \ I I ~ '...., _ . - Jf . _ / / I \...j::: -.-- ~
f I H \ )/' / X ItA.. '\ ""-- "-l~' :..r.:l.C : ~ .. '-'- - r
I - \\./;1/ / <"-2 ;u(,,~ \ ....... 1"\ "./Jill rrL - /" ,-- ~ - j
\ \-.,/ ~'Y\ - I 'J1 /., '- '
I i ~~~~ ,,~~ - II ~\ ~ ;~~~li--" I" ~ / )\ \\
. j\ : I K . J//l r; ) .' \ \ .~...\ \ \ \ \'~ --- ~ \' ~
111\\ -~~"':~!.- ;...j)),1 ,,""', \ ~"\ ~~" \~( \ /-
'L-f-;;;oo~~ ~ ,f' ~~'l";::-"~] / i \.\ 0\" "" ._~ ~
I ~ / //:..-- /"'.-/- -:::: --' /' I \ \ ~ \ "" , "-
~ \\ f ~ /, --- ~ /' \ \\ ---
I ( __." ) \ ~
~\\II( -:i I
If I f~t i -.. ;. \ I \
:: : &
...... .. .....a. \
iiiii~~! 5 ~~ ~
_u.
. 11:1f::1I
I ....t11Iifil"I!!
Ill....' I. .1
~dJl: I 1111
: :'! =
!~Ii=nl!!= I
._ . ;:..... I
II · .=I~. ;..
~ I ;-c.: t I
li:J11fUi I I
...;t'\l\.~Jf:'l
N i
; ~~.' 1i!
I~ -;~~ II
Ii T11 \' ~
'~Ijllld:! ?!IIl
!!:=-;If:!!; :
ill I;::'I'..~'.I a
~ . ....~.!....:I r
'Z:
1 ~
.
.
"
. .
.
..
.
.
.) ,~
v
a
!
c;
~
Maple Hill 2nd Addition
Prior Lake, :MN
Proposed
Single Family Residential
Neighborhood
Submitted by:
Maple Hill Partnership
August 6, 1996
August 6, 1996
Page 2
Requested Aoorovals
The developers of Maple Hill 2nd Addition, Maple Hill Partnership, are requesting to the Planning
Commission and City Council that the proposed Maple Hill 2nd Addition receive Preliminary Plat
approval for 28 single family residential lots, one out lot and three road rights-of-way on 11.74
acres. If approved, then Maple Hill Partnership would also request that the preliminary plat
approval be for two years instead of the standard one year.
Project Location
The 11.74 acre proposed development of Maple Hill 2nd Addition is located in the northeast
quarter of Section 26, Township 115, Range 22, to the north of the existing Knob Hill single family
development, south of Co. Rd. 42 and east of the Holy Cross Lutheran Church on Pike Lake Road.
The location map and legal description is shown on the Preliminary PlatJUtility PlanIPlanting
Plan.
Maole Hill partnershiv
Maple Hill Partnership consists of four individuals. They are Peter J. Knaeble, Brian W. Olson,
Jim Allen and David G. Brown. The contact person for Maple Hill 2nd Addition shall be Peter J.
Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55422. The phone number is 593-9325.
ExistiJU!' Land Owner
The property is currently owned and homesteaded by Sharon Peterson. Maple Hill Partnership
has a signed purchase agreement to buy the property. The property address is 4663 140th
Street, Prior Lake, MN 55372. Sharon Peterson is planning to purchase another property
elsewhere.
ExistiJU!' Conditions
Prior to the design of the preliminary plat of Maple Hill 2nd Addition a number of existing
conditions were analyzed relating to the site. These existing conditions were:
Land Use Plan and Zonine:
The City's land use plan shows the site to be residential. No change to the land use plan will be
needed. The site is presently zoned for R-1 Suburban Residential. No change to the zoning will
be needed.
Su.IToundinll Land Use
North
The existing land use to the north of Co. Rd. 42 is undeveloped, A-1 Agriculturally zoned land.
Maple Hill 2nd Addition is compatible with this surrounding land use.
South
The undeveloped land to the south is owned by Gold Nugget Development, the developer of
Knob Hill. Gold Nugget Development is proposing to develop this R-1 Suburban Residential
zoned land in 1997. Maple Hill 2nd Addition is compatible with this surrounding land use.
East
The existing land use to the east is undeveloped, R-1 Suburban Residential zoned land that is
owned by Robert and Lorene Garling who homestead the property. Maple Hill Partnership tried
to purchase the property but the Robert Garling was not interested in selling. Maple Hill 2nd
Addition is compatible with this surrounding land use.
- m_ ___ _.._______ ...- -- - ..- - --
August 6, 1996
Page 3
West
TIle nine lot exiting R-1 Suburban Residential zoned development of Maple Hill is located to the
southwest. Also to the west is the existing Holy Cross Lutheran Church located on Pike Lake
Road. Maple Hill 2nd Addition is compatible with both of these surrounding land uses.
Proiect Boundarv
TIle boundary of the site is very irregular in shape which had a slight constraint upon the design
options of the proposed Maple Hill 2nd Addition development.
Wetlands
No wetlands are located on the property. TIle lowest portions of the site are located along the
north property line adjacent to Co. Rd. 42 and are included within the reconstruction plans of Co.
Rd. 42 by the Scott County Engineer. Dan Jobe, County Project Engineer, has determined that
there are no wetlands adjacent to Co. Rd. 42 on this property.
Topoeraphv
TIle topography of the property is undulating to hilly, and the slopes are mostly irregular.
Elevations range from a low of 871 at the northwest corner of the property to a high of 935 at the
southeast corner of the property creating a difference of 64 feet.
Soils
One soil series, Hayden Series, has been identified in the Scott County Soil Survey within the
property boundary of Maple Hill 2nd Addition. TIle Hayden series are light colored, well drained
soils formed under a mixed hardwood forest from limey clay loam glacial till. TIley occupy about
one-third of the uplands of Scott County. TIlese soils are suitable for home building and road
construction.
Existin2 Trees
TIle site is mostly wooded with areas of scattered openings. TIle trees have been inventoried and
identified on the Existing Conditions Plan as part of the preliminary plat drawings. TIlis
inventory was completed in compliance with the city's tree preservation ordinance which requires
all significant deciduous trees measuring 6 inches in diameter and all significant coniferous trees
measured 12 feet above ground be inventoried. This inventory does not show the smaller
significant trees that will be proposed to be transplanted elsewhere on site.
County Road 42
TIle boundary survey on Maple Hill 2nd Addition shows that the county presently has a 33 foot
easement for right-of-way for Co. Rd. 42. TIle north property line is the center line of Co. Rd. 42.
Scott County is requiring that the right-of-way be 75 feet. This 75 foot right-of-way shall be
dedicated with the final plat of the property. Co. Rd. 42 is scheduled to be upgraded to a four
lane road adjacent to this site. Construction will commence in 1997 and end in 1998.
Construction activities will consist of road construction, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main
and a bituminous pathway along the south side.
Easements have not yet been acquired from the existing land owner of the property by the county.
TIle required right-of-way and easements are planned to be dedicated to the county by Maple Hill
Partnership after the plat of Maple Hill 2nd Addition has been approved by the city at no cost to
the county.
August 6, 1996
Page 4
Utilities
The property is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and city utilities will be
available with the reconstruction of Co. Rd. 42 and also with the development of the Knob Hill
land adjacent to the south. Storm sewer and storm water ponding will have to be designed and
constructed for Maple Hill 2nd Addition to handle the storm sewer runoff.
Existina DwellinlZ
The existing Peterson dwelling is located towards the center of the property. Maple Hill
Partnership is proposing to save the dwelling by platting the property with the dwelling to be on
one of the proposed lots. The dwelling presently utilizes a water well and septic system. The well
shall be sealed and the septic system will be abandoned during the construction of the proposed
development. The dwelling shall be connected to city utilities upon the completion of the
construction activities.
Project DesilO1
The existing conditions of the site limit the design flexibility that other typical sites have. The site
also has a uniqueness about it for the people who would eventually live there. Maple Hill
Partnership's goal is to design a neighborhood of single family homes that would neatly fit into the
natural amenities and have as little impact on the site as reasonably feasible. Maple Hill
Partnership believes that the proposed development plans of Maple Hill 2nd Addition
accomplishes this goal.
Project PhasinlZ and Time Schedule
It is the goal of Maple Hill Partnership to construct Maple Hill 2nd Addition in one phase starting
in the spring of 1997 and ending in the fall of 1997. If Gold Nugget Development does not develop
the adjacent land to the south, then Maple Hill Partnership shall construct Maple Hill 2nd
Addition in one phase starting in the spring of 1998 and ending in the fall of 1998.
Preliminary Plat
The preliminary plat shows a total of 28 proposed lots on 11.05 acres (excluding Co. Rd. 42 ROW)
with a density is 2.58 lots per acre. Lot sizes range from 28,810 sq. ft. to 12,010 sq. ft. with an
average lot size of 14,840 sq. ft. The existing dwelling is shown to be on lot 8, block 1.
No variances are proposed to any of the minimum required R-l residential zoning standards
concerning lot areas, lot widths, building setbacks, easements or maximum allowable gross
density.
Out lot A consists of 2,210 sq. ft., 0.46% of the total land area (excluding Co. Rd. 42 ROW) shall
to be deeded to the City as park dedication for a proposed trail greenway. The width of this
greenway within the plat of Maple Hill 2nd Addition is 15 feet. An additional 15 feet (both of
which combined equal 80 feet) shall be dedicated to the city for park dedication as part of the
future phase of the Knob Hill development. This 80 foot wide trail greenway will continue to the
north to Co. Rd. 42 when the Garling property is developed. The payment of the trail in Maple
Hill 2nd Addition shall be the responsibility of the city and shall be built after the Garling
property is developed. The City Park Director has reviewed and approved the size and location of
this proposed trail greenway.
The rights-of-way for the proposed street and cul-de-sac comply with city standards and are as
proposed by the City Engineer. Bluebird Trail is shown to have a right-of-way of 55 feet to
accommodate a five foot concrete sidewalk within the right-of-way on one side of the street.
Bluebird Trail is also shown to end at the northeast corner of the site at the Garling property.
August 6, 1996
Page 5
When the Garling property is developed, Bluebird Trail would then continue through the Garling
property and then connect to the existing Rolling Oaks Circle, which would then provide
permanent access to Co. Rd. 42.
Lot 2, block 2 is shown to have a paved temporary right in and right out vehicular access from Co.
Rd. 42 to Bluebird Trail going through the lot. This temporary right in and right out has been
reviewed and approved by the Scott County Engineer's office. Home building on this lot shall not
take place until the temporary access has been abandoned. Maple Hill Partnership plans to
abandon the temporary access upon the completion of home building activities on the rest of the
lots and also upon the completion of the connection of Bluebird Trail through the Knob Hill
development.
The location of Bluebird Trail and Hummingbird Court has been coordinated with Gold Nugget
Development, the developer of the Knob Hill development. Maple Hill Partnership and Gold
Nugget Development have a signed agreement concerning the location and construction of
Hummingbird Court.
Preliminary Utilitv Plan
The proposed sanitary sewer and water main sizes and locations are shown on the Preliminary
PlatlUtility Plan/Planting Plan. If the Knob Hill development develops their phase adjacent to
Maple Hill 2nd Addition to the south in 1997, which they are planning to do, then the water main
will come from this new Knob Hill phase and the sanitary sewer will be constructed along Co. Rd.
42 through Maple Hill 2nd Addition to the Knob Hill phase in 1997.
If the developer of Knob Hill decides to develop their phase next to Maple Hill 2nd Addition in
1998, then the development of Maple Hill 2nd Addition would take place in the spring of 1998,
with the sanitary sewer and water main entering Maple Hill 2nd Addition from Co. Rd. 42. For
this reason Maple Hill Partnership is requesting that the preliminary approval be two years
instead of the standard one year. The Co. Rd. 42 improvement project which includes sanitary
sewer and water main will start in 1997 and end in 1998 with or without any additional phases
being developed by the developer of Knob Hill or the development of Maple Hill 2nd Addition.
Storm sewer sizes and locations are shown on the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan.
Drainage and utility easements for the sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer are shown on
the Preliminary PlatlUtility Plan/Planting Plan.
The design and installation of the public improvements will be by Maple Hill Partnership and not
petitioned to the city to design and install the public improvements.
Other utilities include: electricity provided by Shakopee Public Utilities; natural gas provided by
Minnegasco; telephone provided by Scott Rice Telephone; and cable TV provided by Midwest
Cable. The installation and underground location of these utilities in Maple Hill 2nd Addition
shall comply with the standards of the city and the utility companies.
Preliminary GradinlZ and DrainalZe Plan
The Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan shows how the grading of the property will appear
after the initial development grading and home building grading. The Final Grading and
Drainage Plan will show only the extent of the grading activities upon the completion of the initial
site grading of the development and not through the home building grading because of the
significant trees on the property. The reason for this is to allow the home builder flexibility in the
placement of the dwelling on the lot so as to save as many of the significant trees on the lot as
possible. The lot survey for building permit will show the significant trees on it for review by the
city.
August 6, 1996
Page 6
The storm water pond, drainage calculations and erosion control measures are shown on the
Prelimin~ry Grading and Drainage Plan. All disturbed areas will be seeded and disc mulched
upon the completion of site grading and utility construction. There will be no temporary soil and
dirt stockpiles after the development construction activities.
Tree Replacement
During initial site development, up to 25% of the total number of significant trees may be removed
by the developer without providing replacement trees as per city ordinance. The ordinance also
allows up to 25% of the significant trees to be remove on individual lots by the home builder after
the initial site development activities by the developer. The developer's engineer has calculated,
through the combined activities by both the developer and the home builders in the development
of Maple Hill 2nd Addition, that 225 (51%) of the total of 441 significant inventoried trees would
be removed. 1% of the significant trees will have to be replaced as per the tree preservation
ordinance. Final calculations shall be completed once the Final Grading and Drainage Plan is
completed.
Proposed Landscapinll
The Preliminary Plat/Utility Plan/Planting Plan show a typical lot with two deciduous trees to be
planted, 2 and 1/2 inch caliper in size measured at the base of the tree. The trees shall be
planted before a certificate of occupancy is to be issued for the dwelling on the lot.
Maple Hill Partnership plans to use many of the existing trees, types of which are as show on the
Existing Conditions Plan, on the property (old nursery stock) for the planting requirements of two
trees per lot and also plans to transplant some of these existing trees on site along Co. Rd. 42 for
screening purposes and for any tree replacement requirements as per the tree preservation
ordinance. If Maple Hill Partnership and/or home builders decide not to use the existing trees on
the site then the type of new trees to be planted will be sugar maple, hackberry, Marshall's
seedless ash, summit ash, greenspire linden, pin oak and/or river birch.
Proposed Housinll Styles
Maple Hill Partnership proposes to develop the property and sell lots to home builders. The
housing styles shall comply to the Grading and Drainage Plan and be similar to the style and
price of the existing housing that is already built in the neighboring Knob Hill development.
Maple Hill Partnership shall be reviewing for approval all lot surveys and architectural plans for
the house construction.
Proposed Development Amenities
As mentioned above there will be landscaping in the proposed development of Maple Hill 2nd
Addition. At this time it is planned to have custom mail boxes, all of which would be designed the
same for the development, and the location shall be determined by the postmaster. No
permanent entrance monuments and associated landscaping would be installed because there
would be no permanent vehicular access to Maple Hill 2nd Addition from any collector roads.
Permanent access is through the surrounding land when it develops. Sidewalks and trails are
also proposed as stated above.
Proposed Covenants
Maple Hill Partnership shall submit restrictive covenants to the city for review at the time of final
plat submittal. There will be no home owners association as part of this proposed development.
August 6, 1996
Page 7
Site Data
Total land area
Co. Rd. 42 ROW area
Total land area excluding Co. Rd. 42 ROW
Out lot A (trail greenway) area
Total lot area
Total number oflots
Average lot size of all lots
Largest lot
Smallest lot
Density (excludes Co. Rd. 42 ROW)
Existinll &-1 Suburban Residential Zoninll Standards
Building setbacks:
Front
Comer side yard
Side yard house
Side yard garage
Rear
Centerline of Co. Rd. 42
Minimum lot data:
Lot size
Lot width at front setback
Maximum gross density
Typical easements
Front and rear yard
Side yard
Exhibits
Existing Conditions Plan
Preliminary PlatlUtility PlanIPlanting Plan
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan
Preliminary Street Plan and Profile
11.74 ac.
0.69 ac.
11.05 ac.
2,210 sq. ft.
415,630 sq. ft.
28
14,840 sq. ft.
23,810 sq. ft.
12,010 sq. ft.
2.53 lots per ac.
25 ft.
25 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
25 ft.
50 ft.
12,000 sq. ft.
86 ft.
3.5 lots per ac.
10 ft.
5 ft.
. I
. ,
.
I
I I
I
I ,
, I I
E-Z I
.
I ,.
. ..
I I I
I ,
I I
I
.
I
I
I I ,
I .
. .
I
C I
I
. I ,
. j .
j I z
0
:s i=
I I Ul 25
~ i:L -J 0
u. -J <
~ ::L 0 ,
l-
e W Z
~: z I -J 0
I- 51 I a..
Z I 51 I < u
il ~~ ~ W
W z ~I ~ (J)
:5 c(
z c
w
C) 0:: ~
::i I ~ .
j I I ~
<C 0: I
w I
N c
..J
~ ::;) (/)
I 0 (/) ,0
:::E: I :t: I ~ :1-
.
<C I o I C) I ..J I ~
tJ) ~
0 I
w l-
I W I
a:: I I ~ .
. I
:) j I L__
I-
:)
LL I -7
I I
.
I m /'.'
I ("
, I
.
I
I
I
I I ::L
I .
. . U
. I a::
I I :).
I ::L
U
. (J)
I I
I I (J)
. I
I . 0
a::
I u
. >-
. . -J
I
I I 0
.
J ::L
I I
J I
.
I
.
I l
0::
W
a.
9
\\\ w 0::
~ (ij W
Z 0 ~
=> w en
0 i= >-
- -(.) 0:: 0::
~ 0::>- 0::>- ~ w
Wm wm ~
~c 3:0 Z
en~ ww < en
~ en..J en ~
>-..J >-<i! :0 z
o::~ o::~ =>
~en ~~ C) ~
-z z
z- Zw i= en
<w <m en w
enm eno ~ (.)
c = 0 ~
.S!~ :o~
z I I
w I I
C)
w I I
...I
a::
w
~
w
mz
~Q
<(!::
1-0
-0
z<(
~o
OZ
wO
me.>
OW
o..m
o~
a::-,
0.._
LL::E:
OW
1--'
zo..
w<(
:E:E
z
C)
::::i
<(
N
....,.
::c
<(
(/)
()
I
I
~
IE
I ::I
..Jo
I ::! <
J:o
I "~8
...... '"" '- / ~ ~
I M 1
I it'
I a::: ".
W
I ~ 0-
0
..J
I Z w
::> >
I 0 W
U C
I W w Z
J: J: -
I, I- ~ !
>
CD CD a:::
II c c W
zw W l-
II -..JZ..J~
!..J -..J
I a:::~!~ ~
I w (J) a::: (J) C)
I-ZWZz
I, <Uj!;(Uj-
c ~CD~CD~
I, z <00. 0 ~
W ....1- COl-
Ii ~ I I I
w
I ..J I I
z I
<( I
:Ez I
0::0 I
w-
....!:: I
<e I
~e I
e<
we :, .' ..
U)Z
00 IN.
o.(J
ow ~I
0::U) <I
0. ~I
LL..J
0= . ..J
....J: I ..J
~
ZW . CD
w..J 0
:Eo. . Z
UJ ~
z< . UJ W
C):E I a:::
I ~ ::l
::i I I-
::l
< I I~ u.
I I E
I C
I..JC
. I I :::!<(
J:c
I ." ),""....../' WZ
..JO >..
O-u
I !~ ~..
I ~.,
a:::
I. ~
II (J):
..J
..J
I :I: s:
I 0 W
0:: C)
<(
I ::> ~"
:I: a:::
I 0 <(~
u
I
l I ow. 3>1V1 3>11d
.
I
.
C)
.J
,:
)
C
p.;::;~ ~~ ~~, ...-/
1\1 6r-z'" '" ~..., ."..,.....
, j,6'l>~~1 S
"
---
:'~
:~
.::
.:
=. II
~~
~-
l..lI,....5q)
".j '"
~ "
:( " '"
" .
.j " .~;:
-Wf\i
<!~
.,
10
II -
~~ '
\i
/
/
,....
=,
'i
h
00
/:~-. 1
/ . '~~
I . Ii
;~ . ~
k-'" - ~~~
'"
CD
()
-,.
.:;-
'~/
~.
:~
,"0
,0
-,
l!~
..,.. "
Jos~tfs~ "
J"Q.~...
I
I
I
,L
>-
'::';'.';11
.......---
- - .-.. - z..
...
il
li~
~o
II
2M
;0
.~~
..... ""\1\
\ ~~-
'\ \ .-.-'-:Z-
\ \"
"., \ \
\ \ \
\ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \
\ \
if
~-:
t,'-'
-5 --
h
<j
L
: Ii;
8 · j
~ IT--
~1- ii
" L
j<
439.~~_ VI
N 04'00,4
I
\ T"LJ
t;. , ,If, ,
I /
L______-.J
Ii
S~
::0
-,., '\-IIA' \
_~ ,(J V" \
J._
"
\
CD
::... 0)
.. 0)
~ ....
..
8- 0
a: C\I
..
., ~
.,
0-
~ CC
CD c:
:; 0
.... ..
c:
0 CD
.. i
i
e I
go
- CD
: Q
CD ..
Q CD
g
CD
:; i
~ !i
~
0
c: CJ
.!! ~
a.:
.. 'tJ
t !
Co) ..
S e
.g
(I)
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PLANNING
Ralph Teschner
Maple Hill 2nd Addition
(assessment/fee review)
June 18, 1996
A 11.05 parcel in Section 26-115-22 (PIN #25 926 004 0) is proposed to be subdivided into the
plat of Maple Hill 2nd Addition. The property currently is NOT served with municipal sewer and
water utilities.
At the time municipal utilities become available the subdivision will be subject to the following
City charges:
Storm water Management Fee
Collector Street Fee
Trunk Sewer & Water Fee
Lateral Sewer & Water Charge
16.8 centslsq.ft.
$1500.00/acre
$3500.00/acre
150' @ $60.00/ff
The application of these City charges would generate the following costs to the developer based
upon a net lot area calculation of 9.54 acres of single family lots (415,630 sq. ft.) as provided
within the site data summary sheet of the preliminary plat description:
Lateral Sewer & Water Cha-:ae:
150' @ $60.00/ff= $9,000.00:
Trunk Sewer & Water ChaJ:le:
9.54 acres @ $3500.00/ac = $33,390.00
Storm Water Management Fee:
415,630 sf@ 16.8/sf= $69,825.00
Collector Street Fee:
9.54 acres @ $1500.00/ac = $14,310.00
These charges represent an approximate cost $4500.00 per lot for the 28 proposed lots within
Maple Hills 2nd Addition. Assuming the initial net lot area of the plat does not change, the above
referenced storm water, collector street, trunk and lateral sewer and water charges would be
determined and collected within the context of a developer's agreement for the construction of
utility improvements at the time of final plat approval.
There are no other outstanding special assessments currently certified against the property. Also,
the tax status of the property is current with no outstanding delinquencies.
16200 ~ Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ul ,G. ') 0 \5S6
I .\J '-
@@O~[g
C;t...l~;;U!:.~t. ~~().. 1.~:J~JF5
To V'Jhurn It~ ivr:,.' 1.::cnCE:YT!:
It has bl'?er1 b....ous;rrt. t.o Ol.lY' .".rtt"A~;nt:ion t"}'1i':fr. -r.h(:,.; Gi....,="'::jr.;cn'::; t::w"c!p(o',oy-t;../
had bE;en sol,dr.o d de,'(~;lopEo/' IAhc IArid";('?::-; to bu.::i.J,d si..n~:,l,,:.; farni:L:/
hClCT1e'-,> en t..r,(:.:; S:i.tA'?S., !N(='-:' iAK::luJ.d l:i..kE~ [-.h(:::; d?"/elupE';Y' t~C1 c:tJns::i.dE;jo'"
leavi..rl9 an ('?i':J,,~Hlrll~,:ni:~ betJ,Ale."n OUY' pY'c~:(~"y"I:::./ andi:}'K:" nE'IAI horn\? ::;i,.'I:",..,.;:::..
Fcy oVI?!".th.", r:Jdst~ :~15 'y'(::"dt'::; Wl::" ha'..j(::.:. t::K.:.:+:',ri a11cL\Il.:.:.d b.:I U::;F.. t.rl." nu,,"::,>:.o/.','
i'oad t.hY'cuqh t.hE,' CY'('?Slf::.y-son' ::; pnJr.:)(:::.y"\:::./ tn ....E'dCh t.hH ::::ol.lt".h ::;idE" elf
OCl..... i=~""T)~)E!!,".t:.:~v/.. :~::;:inc:(~ (lLl...... 1.''J(~J.J.. '1.::-; en tJoji:.:rt:, ~':i..ck::! (::.lr"lci 1.....,lf? C:4::1f'! I t.. }"",:.~~(.:lC:t-'l "Lt.
'worn t..he noy..t.h., .th:i::; hazo; beE'n cn..lY' on 1:/ dCe(.::.;::::::;; t.o the IN.,:.;l]....
Thf.~ pr-opey"!:';.' t.o ell''':; de'./(:~.:J..oped ha", lonq be""n ,'1 n:;fi..l9:::' .fcy IA,jJ..c:[U..Te 1,n
t.r1e at'(?d.. The lush ~~;n:'"en .':lnd .t-'"l(J1....ipy-J..n~;; :;,hn.lbG.. th:::! mdny tyee!s
.includi.nq t.h..~ pinec::.. :,;hclCk:-; andrf"l.l:l.t tl"."::.:-e::;., w:i..ld pY'<:!pes dnd ponds..
.n"lis hd,,~ be,':.;rl r'10rTl(~; 1::.0 t.h(:;:. (h..leks.. ~:;E,ese., musky' at:::: ., l....ondc:t-1uck::::..
""ac:C:j(:;n~,.. y'abb:i:b:;" .fClX., (':C;I.l:if'YH:L:'; ncrt !:'.o rnent~::i..ons <'.'111 !:'.he 'v'al"-;..Clu<.::
h:i..I"'ds and ni::.her-- IAri..JCD..::i.h::-.. WE; 1".':':":"i.:L.::i..z.,::;': t.hi:'rt iAci..::Ldl.::i. f.:,.. :i..::.; not. t.he
!=.-'Y"iJn<:JY"y' con::,::idHy'at.:ino in d C1e\/elclPrTlHnt. ,;;uch <.'IS thi.::,;.. but. we' aJ..sn
bel..i..l?\/P 'I:h;:=;: dl?\/elopE:Y' C:t::ll.lld enhance the hornl:;:; :;;:ii:>,"s bv ,'.'l::iJ..OI,A!:i.nprclY i~
t.hl?, naCl.lY',:ll, hal::ri..t~a-t crf V"lE" IAI:ilcD..:.i..Te':l..ntr11? .'lI"'.:~d..
Clu.... .f'?dt' :i.st.hati'f thl':': de/(?'loppy' dCk"::;n'!:,, t,_'.'ik(?, ::iJit.O conzo;:i..dey'at.::"Dn
t..hl?' l,\d.ldl::i.:fe n'.I'7;nt.::i..onE;d al::)(:::'../(=,~ ~i,.nc::i..ud::i..nq mc.Jn~v. ell?>'.:"Y', l::.1..ll"'k.?YS ,"lne! Ot1.'1(,;,:'t'
anirnaJ..,:> p....(~;!;;ent. on t;1I"" py.cpEo/-l::v' ..i~j-;e anjJYk:,L1. s IAlOuld b,?, TClY'C('?<::! t:.c u:.:.:e
n~sid=,-rrtj..;:'LL r.::ynpEo/-ti,.:.;:': a,,:: .h~ch,nc; dl"'(:"a:::; ard rn:i..,::Y'i'.l/::.:'i..on ....Ol.lt~::::. In
p(.:.lt'-.t::i..c::._t.l.~:]r-".. t.r'iE'! c:~::-:(':':.:........ rTk=:1\." ~~:\'::-~ .fCl.....T::(~.:{:: .c,: C:V't.)~:~.:,: ::::C)l)r,.t~.../ ~CKICf 4:;: t.el V';~?c.:.:J.r:t"'i
r;'lE':':i.y' t)eckjint~1 .;,:lY'(::-~i:.:l!~ _, :<~:i.nC:::8 r::c:lJnt.l~"/ !-""()e,;.:ici "t:'2 ~"~i;!:''; c.~:j ::Li:.=1Y'c;u.:.:.~ \/Cl::LL!,fnF'? crt"
trafh..c ., thl? d(?e!'"' could .....(?,suJ:l. ].1'1 ,"1 haza.....r:! ~::.u rncrt..(:l....~:i..st.s..
Thank youfcy' 'y'OUI'" .L'l.inH <:.lnd ,"iCl<'LI.J'1 r:' 1..'::.'<71::,(',., .t:",:rk:,.. int.o con:::;::i..dE,n'.lt..:i.on
thE- j..r.(?'rn<:: rnf.''!it.::i..oll abo'./H..
,-:'
SiricE~Y'el':.;
/'") /
,L,~,?L-'"
..../ 7.-1 C
/ '.
..,
...-/
;:>d."'"
., (/. ) ~J~'" &4._""-
. 'L.l ' /
/ I:" ,...tr
/;l'"
,/ ~~.L'.4.
-' ~~..I., "
I
./>~;
~',-
....
f' /
-"' /.... ,
RESOLUTION 96-28PC
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF "MAPLE HILLS SECOND ADDITION" SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
OUTLINED HEREIN.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS: the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 26,
1996, to consider an application from Maple Hills Partnership for the preliminary
plat of Maple Hills Second Addition; and
WHEREAS: notice of the public hearing on said preliminary plat has been duly published and
posted in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake
Ordinances; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issue
and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and
objections related to the preliminary plat of Maple Hills Second Addition; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat according to the
applicable provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and
found said preliminary plat to be consistent with the provisions of said
ordinances; and
WHEREAS: the Planning Commission finds the preliminary plat of Maple Hills Second
Addition to be consistent with the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that it hereby recommends the City Council approve the
preliminary plat of Maple Hills Second Addition subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat for this development shall not be approved until a public water line is extended
to this site.
2. The Developer will be required to dedicate a temporary street easement over Lot 2 of Block 2
to allow for the construction of the temporary street connection to CSAH 42 across Lot 2. . The
temporary street easement cannot expire until Bluebird Trail is extended to the east to Rolling
Oaks Circle.
3. The final platting of the four lots on the north end of Hummingbird Court cul-de-sac will not be
approved until a final plat is approved on the Twiss property that would extend streets and
utilities to Hummingbird Court.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4. The Developer will not be allowed to grade on the adjacent properties unless written
permission is obtained.
5. The development will be required to provide 0.9 acre feet of wet storage volume to meet the
NURP standards and the pond shall provide at least four feet of depth below the NWL.
6. The storm water runoff from this development shall be ponded to limit the discharge to one
half the pre-development rate.
7. The additional costs that the City might incur for extending the 10" sanitary sewer line along
CSAH 42 prior to the County upgrading project would be the Developer'S expense if the line
needs to be installed prematurely.
8. A tree preservation and replacement plan must be submitted and approved prior to final plat
approval.
9. Stormwater management, collector street, trunk sewer and water and lateral sewer and water
fees will be determined and collected in the context of the developer's agreement
10. The Developer will be required to dedicate 75' of half right-of-way for CSAH 42 at the time of
final plat, to accommodate the future upgrading of this street to a four lane highway with a trail
along the south side.
11. The Developer will be required to dedicate drainage and utility easements over the wetlands,
storm water ponds, and over all sewer and water lines constructed outside of the dedicated
right-of-way. Along the west edge of Lot 2 of Block 2, the final plat shall dedicate a 30' wide
drainage and utility easement over the proposed 8" sanitary sewer line and 8" watermain
which are shown to be constructed along this lot line.
Passed and adopted this 26th day of August, 1996.
YES
NO
KUYKENDALL
CRIEGO
STAMSON
VONHOFF
WUELLNER
KUYKENDALL
CRIEGO
STAMSON
VONHOFF
WUELLNER
William Criego. Chair
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Donald Rye, Director of Planning
City of Prior Lake
96subd\preplat\maplehil\rs9628pc.doc
Page 2
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
CONSIDER IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE FOR
DAVID SMITH
2950 SPRING LAKE ROAD (CR 12)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_ YES -X. NO
AUGUST 26,1996
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
On August 12, 1996, the Planning Commission tabled action on this variance
application to obtain additional information from the staff. Specifically, the
Commissioners wanted information on whether or not a gravel driveway was
included in impervious surface. The definition of impervious surface in the
Zoning Ordinance is as follows:
"The portion of a buildable parcel which has a covering which does not permit
water to percolate into the natural soil. Subject to the following exceptions, these
structures and materials shall constitute impervious surface: Paved Driveways
and Walkways of greater than three feet in width; Paved Patios,' Covered Decks
and other Structures. The following structures and materials shall be exempt
from the calculation of impervious sutface: Decks or Patios which are open to
the sky and have open joints otat least 1/4 inch allowing the percolation of
water; Paved walkways or other structures of three (3) feet in width or less. All
such structures and materials shall be documented by a Certificate of Survey
unless exempted from this requirements by the Zoning Administrator. "
While a gravel driveway is not specifically listed, the constant use of this surface
will cause the gravel to become packed down and will not allow the percolation
of water. For this reason, the staff has always interpreted impervious surface to
include gravel driveways. It must also be noted that if the Planning Commission
chooses to exempt a gravel driveway in this case, a variance to the requirement
that all driveways be paved will be necessary.
The City Engineer has also reviewed the question of water quality and wetlands
on this site, and offers the following comments:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 J Ph. (6f2) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
. The surface water drainage on the front yard area of the lot drains to a culvert
and ditch system that conveys the water in an easterly direction to a culvert
that crosses Spring Lake Road. The culvert conveys the water directly to
Spring Lake.
. The surface water drainage on the back half of the lot drains overland to a
20:t acre wetland. The 20 acre wetland drains overland across the adjacent
vacant lot to the culvert that crosses Spring Lake Road.
. There does not appear to be any easy locations in this area to construct
water quality or rate reduction ponds. The vacant lot to the east of this site is
a wooded lot that is for sale.
. The 1994 daily traffic volume on Spring Lake Road west of Howard Lake
Road was measured at 1350 trips per day. It is marginal if this is a high
enough traffic volume to require the homeowner to construct a turnaround in
the driveway. Along Spring Lake Road, some of the houses have
turnarounds and others do not. This house is located on a fairly straight
section of Spring Lake Road, so visibility is good.
. The City requires new streets, parking lots and driveways to be constructed
with bituminous or concrete surfaces. Gravel surfaces require more
maintenance and the gravel can erode and contribute to degradation of the
water quality of our ponds and lakes.
At TERNA TIVES:
1. Approve the variance 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 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.
2
96071 pc2.doc
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 96-27PC denying the applicant's request for
variance.
96071 pc2.doc
3
~
~/
~.
\0... 0..: lC1
~ . .\V~ ~A...
~~ ~
~v
~
CER T1FICA TE
~o rJ \)
"'^"'-
'^"'"'
-^"-
101. 70
~ ~/8. (1)
I
I
i
!
, I
v/"eo I I
! ,
i I
,
I
OJ./e StiNt ,./ r/rA..-IS I
O~~'.E,;.L~'t,i~ I
~ :s:,o-
C('.,~.:-:'-~
(.?"-" z-v'
I ',I'
11':'.0
..1:'/ 7' ~:rJ
! ,.___ _.1," .. _.. -.:
...
~
\-\ 0 \X. '5
~d.1J
I '.-- :.-- --I
1:1
~ t.r.:~.:;,:,,:::-t.~ I
qAt<, N .:..~,=,iO"';~i
..,"I~I
I ~.:~:>e:)~ 1,. .,. .. J-.;
Ii ....._/p.t) In:fJ.r-- _! .'.
.11,7.\- -!'---
, I"" .. ' i
I 'I:~' . Ii,
~I. ..
I ~I. .1':.../;'
II . C. /
J..: ,,:1 .: o/?<F")
a:I
<T
,~
a:I
"
';.'i(
~~5 ~
~
0-
.,.
'oJ
'~,,,:, .
:}, \
Ie.." .2.AJ '
(. -"-. 1
?'
~\TC. \-\
100.20, . - . ,
.... 1c.w...\llC:~ .\
r/ ~/-:: \.,
, \
"/:"1.I""~(/S _"" "-
'-" "' ~
~
. ,
\/0,
<::"t;l'~ o~
~' .31"":
,.'9--== Z
f .
COUNTY ROAO NO. 12
TS;:>RIN~ LAKE-ROA"O)
IT"'
~
?":)P~~T~ 'ESC~;~~l~N
,,\r~:;
;\ ,:'-'!-3
~,~'=s 2~ " 2~
'111J-rTF.ilNUT BF:^CH II
^c=~~~:~g :1 ~~~ :~~"c1~d o;~t
S~-t~ C~un~!, ~inn~~ot~
"'"",,1'";'\'
~~A":=o,....r
l:r:P~:': ~'_"I~S
..,f t'~
o :JenC~eS lr~n ~OnlJm~nt ~~~
. :lenct~~ i. ~::-:, _"Cnl.lment E..,'.lnd
J'!nor:~s
,,:onc:"'!'t"!
sl~n
( ?Z/.40.~
;)~nct~s ~X15tlnq spct elev~tion
(
J
~~nct~s pC'P0S~~ ~1~va~i0n
~F.~lr:rt:...^?::
SOl~~ in ~n~~r ool~ lo~!t~~ in :he
n~c':n..~Et~~ .;na~:,,~nt ',f ~10r.~:'W(,H~d
~c.:t~ :1 nc' ;;~ ~ ~ ng ~'u k l! ~o-!\d
~:~v~~~on 1:2.~5 ~_G.~.~.
DRAINAGE STUDY
BY
JOHN WINGARD
":'
\lACPrtJ1'
\... 0"
'D
~
--:,
~
~ ~~:
...L
.I ,"Zl,'~~t
(,.- .
~
ryf ~nl:S~ ~nri ~~~~ge
: .,Q~
::'.,
:. j Ii
,"\::.
:'::"!"'..:-:"'~':~ ~..
."J:
~ ~.",!."I So
':\~. -!~ .
,,;:: ."1
"~"':!=":-:::~'i~
z;.~...\
~; ~
-N
I HOlkS€..
i}
SC':'l..~ 'If =-!!-
r
1 ;t) ~() :/0
t
,#.~~
,t:':'..,;:i-, ~ eOERH.\ VE L.~ND St.:RVEYING. INC.
~ ""," ~. :.1:.11 \.tilOu Circle ,'1 F.:
'~!~~~.Y :'"~,~r : 'l.;'~. \1inn~(''':I (!'-~
~ j ::..J,.4 ~.,) I ~.s
! her~i".' -"'l!'!"'::.i~~.. ':~~t ':nt~ ~ur."II!Y. :'Ii.." "r :-'!1'''r,:
.J,',!; :"ro!".;1r~f'1 ;,~ :':1'! "'r '1nder "':'IV 1ir'l!c:: ~upt!r':!!:~""
.1n-1 t:,~t ! .:1m , 11:1.,- ~~~ist~rll!ri !....'nd Sllr'/~Yl)r
'Ir:d'!."~ '=~. :'.:'l'J!l=i f)f ::,!.a ;::1C'! ..,r "l~nnll!s''''C:'l.
7 c.:.- /2.,,7. -
, :-~~ ...;;:~-~~
..1o:"lI!:C ".. .n....,~. ~ :J. ~
s~
\..
\~~
\l~
l;l ~ ~
.~i~?':""
37/
. I:f
1'":(
..:t.
::('~
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 tI
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
_ YES ...x.- 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.
2
96071 pc.doc
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.
96071 pc.doc
3
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
1~1rv.~1 ~D
'.~
.....:-'.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4130. Fax (612) 447-4245
Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
Type of Application:
o Rezoning, from (present zonin~)
I ,to (proposed zonin~)
! 0;.. Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan ~r City Ordinance
lO S~bdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
~ Variance
. sheets/n.jm1 . at)ve if desire~ L ~. J
fA'".f,-,4 ~6~. ~~, /" /
Q ~ ~,tt7( C~y
/' /'
Applicable Ordinance Section(s): .
Applicant(s): ' : /J1v p' <:,t:J./.J,~
Address: ' /~,~'1()- ,{;"')A<j /:.A1. c
Home Phone: IIY~ 9~.2... ~
/4{
Work Phone:
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address: I./YI- /) -; ,) J.. q f5J/'.%r j..J,,;.7 B~~ ~
Home Phone: ". Work Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement ~
Legal ne~cription o~Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
j't:7f ,2"7 J ,2q .5vr!-/v"v;rl- % &AL t,
-
To the best of my knowledge the information procided 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~~ssed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee. ~
, / /;IL~ _ y~ /-/1-1'r
~cant's Signature Date .
../
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
I
PLANNfNG 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
LOCA TED 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 (B,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
9607 J pn.lb:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTCNITY E~IPLOYER
\..0'\
\~
Go\J \
Go\l' '\
COUNTY OF SCOT T
?Rofft1"Y
..
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
101. 70
'~'?18. '71,\
CD
<I"
'J)
CD
I
I
I
I
I I
vlooo I
I
I
O,le ~,,~ ;:?;AM',E I
O,'V'~i.L/lJ4- I
"" ZS'10
C,,"t:t. 5.-"
(9z.,<' z,,)
, ~:;r 'Z'.j''''
I L:= ~:~. ~ -
JQ.()
I','
I
"I
Oi[
v
q,4~,
I
~ '::,';,~~i '1
i '
~ -1-.i
- '.:f; 'r -- ! .,
I ~ -;-:--
.. ~""" ,/'
. )/'
.~-- ..
'.<>/'1 ",..)
'"
al
&"'1'''. ftL.
(,,, tI 81)
~
al
t/'fd
::2./P:!- .'
.\ ,.
.~. .... .
:'1- , ' .
'(1.,5
~
....
~
.,Q
..... ~.
,yo
~\ \
-1t .', .
..
'"
"
I t.."~1 86) \
.
Va.
100.20i
I
8'TVH~
.-/
.,
13'7:
\
~
~~~ t:1-""
-...,
".
-' ";'7':
/<?'Z=z.
COUNTY
( SPRING
ROAD
LAKE
NO. 12
ROAD)
~ En;
.I1z"8"
~ - '
?ROFFRT'/ ~Esc~rp~!CN
..\ r.-:-:5
0f .....,("'lI.;SI?
;.!,~
;~r''='ge
140"
~ t .
^~~~ ~r :~n~~~~~ j~-';~
53ft :v:.
Lets 2 -: ~ 2~
. I'U,..rF:RNUT BEACH"
~c=~cn:~g ~~ ~~e ~~~0r.1~d ?iat the~~cE
S~~tt ~0IJnty. '~inn~~ot3
-.....~:l.
~,. J.::' .;G.
tmc~~':l~'JS ~~~~s ,~ ~ r~~~pnt~~~
~f ~~~ ~~~~.
_..~7l
[
,
J
~~notes 9C-Jposcd ~J~vatiQI'
~,
!
-N
I
Il
o
:Jenctes lCGn ~orltJment ~~t
.
;lenct~~ 1. ::~n .110nlJment found
~~notes ~oncc~t~ slab
( '1'2/.80.'
;)~not~s ~xlstinq spot elev~tjon
SOl~~ in ~n~~: oo]~ lO~3~~d in che
n;:"c:.h',,;E"or;~ '1'_:O~r~nt. ~,f ~Ioct;,woc.(j
Rc~d ~nd Scrina ~.ak~ ~o~d
S:ev~tlon ~:2.i5 ~.G.'f.n.
5 c.:. 1..:: :N =!:~T
r 'j
I) ,tJ ~O :/0
~.F:'lr.i-I~oIlAR :.
lJ:,ll \-1iIOJl:~ Circle ,'J F...
:'r:," ; 1. 0: e, \1inne'liol;\ (~''7:
~ l 2..14 < .'1' ~.s
! "~er~iw-'!r::i::: ":~:tt ,:ht~ .<:lillr'J'!Y. :'1.," <;If' ~~rl":r:
'J:t~ :'lrol?l';arl!ti h~ :nP. ...r '1nder :n~ riirect super':!st",n
;'in" th~t ! ~m' .1111'.' ~~~isrp.r'!d L:md 5'1r-''!yor
'1:-1<:~':'" :~'!: t:t.....~ ~)f ::~ ')t;1C'! ..,r '1i.nn~s<"'tC:'l.
(....~nn4. 6.1---1-~
:.';;l!!~ s. .l"~~":t.:p ;:n._,':
);li~ ~?~/t.... : a.. ,?~t5
::Op2
"'''~
I
I
~
..~,-'~
/o;..:r.'::5--
-;.
''i, -':9~ ~
'~r:i!..~~~~/
BOERH,\ VE LAND SCR VEYING. INC.
-----------------
File No. 96-040 Variance
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
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.
X
on file in the office of the City Planner, City of Prior Lake.
Resolution 96-22PC
.. I " r /'
L ~ IL, tJ,1 ___
,1996.
~? L'.R40
Doc.
.
. . "
-. \ ~ ~ - ~ . . . . . .
, .~.':','. '(City Seal)
.~~ ~: .', f.
," . ..
......,.. '.
l:y
Deputy
, ... ........."
".(' ~ . \ .
~.
16200 ~~~o~rmB< Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota g'5~2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTC:\ITY E:V1PLOYER
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 ~g~1~CC?-~~{PA.ve. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTCNlW E:VIPLOYER
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.
crTEST:
I . ""\
I . . I I
,~ ,
~ ./
Donald R. ye, 1
~
Richard Kuy en
2
9622PC.OOCIDR
RESOLUTION 9627PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY ADDITION WInCH
RESULTS IN AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 34010 INSTEAD OF THE
MAXIMUM 30 PERCENT
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.
96-071va\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 of 34% instead of the maximum 30 percent.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on August 12, 1996.
William Criego, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
96-071 va\res9627 .doc
2