The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About98-093 Variance -f' RESOLUTION 98-109 RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE ROOF TOP SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND THE BUILT-IN IRRIGATION SYSTEM REQUIREMENT FOR DAVE HANSEN ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17001 FISH POINT ROAD MOTION BY: KEDROWSKI SECOND BY: WUELLNER WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by David Hansen. of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a variance to waive the roof top screening requirements and the built-in irrigation system requirements for the property legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variances do not meet the standards for granting variances set forth in Section 5-6-6 (C, 1-4) of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. Dave Hansen has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to waive the requirement for built-in irrigation and roof-top screening of mechanical equipment for recently constructed office/warehouse building on property located in the B-P (Business Park) District at the 17001 Fish Point Road, legally described on attached Exhibit A. 2. The Board of Adjustment reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #98-093 and held hearings thereon, and denied the request on August 24, 1998. 3. David Hansen appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 5-6-3 (A) of the City Code. r:\counci1\resoluti\planres\rs98109c.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ... 4. The Prior Lake City Council considered this appeal on September 21, 1998. 5. The Prior Lake City Council 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. 6. The City Council has determined the request does not meet all four of the hardship criteria. There are not unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship, was caused by the actions of the applicant through the design. There are no unique characteristics to the property, which would constitute a hardship. The applicant was aware of the zoning requirements upon payment and receipt of the building permit application. The approved building plans indicate proper roof-top screening as required by the zoning ordinance and the intent to have the sub- contractor submit an irrigation plan. 7. The denial of the requested variances do not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the variances. 8. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The City Code allows for alternatives to built-in irrigation and varying methods of roof-top screening that are permitted without the variance. 9. The contents of Planning Case 98-093 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 City Council hereby: 1. Upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying a variance to waive the roof top screening requirements and the built-in irrigation system requirements for David Hansen on the property located at 17001 Fish Point Road, legally described in Exhibit A, which exhibit is incorporated into this resolution. r:\council\resol uti\planres\rs981 09c.doc Page 2 Passed and adopted this 21st day of September, 1998. Mader Kedrowski Petersen Schenck Wuellner {Seal} r:\counci1\resoluti\planres\rs981 09c.doc YES X X X X X NO Mader Kedrowski Petersen Schenck Wuellner Page 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description: That part of Lot 1, Block 2, WATERFRONT PASSAGE ADDITION, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the northwest comer of Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 44 seconds East plat bearing along the west line of said Lot 1, Block 2, a distance of 147.00 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the west, having a radius of526.00 feet, a central angle of 02 degrees 50 minutes 26 seconds, an arc length of26.08 feet; thence North 82 degrees 30 minutes 56 seconds East (not tangent to said curve) a distance 195.73 feet; thence South 85 degrees 59 minutes 04 seconds East a distance of217.67 feet; thence South 00 degrees 10 minutes 44 seconds West a distance of 184.60 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the north line of said Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 16 seconds West along said easterly extension and the north line of said Lot 2, Block 2, a distance of 41 0.52 feet to the point of beginning. r:\counci1\resoluti\planres\rs981 09c.doc Page 4 MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPOINT MAYOR MADER TO TIIE SCOTT COUNTY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMI1TEE. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. ~o. NEW BUSINESS: A. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-108 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Gleason's Gymnastics School on Property Located 17001 Fish Point Road. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-108 APPROVING A CONDmONAL USE PERMIT FOR GLEASON'S GYMNASTICS SCHOOL ON PROPERTY LOCATED 17001 FISH POINT ROAD. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. B. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-109 Upholding a Decision of the Planning Commission Denying a Variance Request to Waive Roof-Top Screening and Landscape Irrigation Requirements for Dave Hansen on Property Located at 17001 Fish Point Road. Hansen: Watering system ordinance is useless and wasteful. He will put it in if he can get a variance on rooftop screening. Original rooftop screening ordinance is outdated. Technology now provides advanced and unintrusive units. Urged the Council to throw out the existing ordinance. Questions from Councllmembers: Wuellner: Were you aware of the ordinance when it was built? Hansen: Busy with other aspects of building. Wuellner: Did you know you were going to have a problem? Hansen: It was not of primary importance at the time. Rye: Staff took restrictive view. Staff operating on ordinance currently in effect. The requested variances did not meet hardship criteria. Some concerns are addressed in the proposed ordinance. Kedrowski: What are the changes in terms of rooftop screening? Rye: There are two standards. One in the business park, the other in the community. Screening versus painting equipment to match. Now business park will resemble community standard. Irrigation; currently requires one year letter of credit on landscaping even with irrigation. New ordinance gives option of two year letter of credit in lieu of irrigation. Comments from CouDcllmembers: Kedrowski: Supports applicant. Supply letter of credit for landscaping for two years. No rooftop screening. Petersen: Concur. Schenck: Planning Commission and staff acted appropriately. Brought to appeal process. Supports two year letter in lieu of irrigation. Visual impact of rooftop units can be minimized another way. Mader: Sympathetic view of irrigation. Should not screen something that does not need it. But should not overturn variance based on anticipation of a new ordinance. Prefers that the City and Hansen work out a separate agreement for occupancy if it conforms with the new ordinance. 9219l1.DOC 7 Boyles: We're trying to resolve this on the basis ofthe existing ordinance. Wuellner: Should follow hardship criteria in the ordinance. Should not grant based on presupposed zoning ordinance adoption. Pace: Can approve based on a number of conditions. Identify what conditions you want to see in a resolution overturning the decision, direct staff to prepare and bring back to next meeting. Should be time frame. Schenck: What if it passes and then is amended? Pace: In both cases, within a specific time after the new ordinance is adopted. What needs to be clear is if it is being granted subject to conditions. If the new ordinance is not adopted, he has to comply with the existing code within a specific period of time. This is an agreement, not actually a variance. A variance is subject to appeal by other affected property owners. Hansen: His business is open, he needs permanent fmancing and will conform to the conditions. MOTION BY MADER SECOND BY KEDROWSKI DIRECTING STAFF TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH HANSEN THAT HE WILL COMPLY WITH EXISTING OR NEW ORDINANCE IF PASSED AT THE END OF 12 MONTHS AND A FINANCIAL SECURITY IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO CITY STAFF WILL BE PROVIDED. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-109 UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO WAIVE ROOF-TOP SCREENING AND LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DAVE HANSEN ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17001 FISH POINT ROAD. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK THAT STAFF PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE MORTGAGE COMPANY RELATING TO PERMANENT OCCUPANCY AND THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND HANSEN. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. 11. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 11 :00 p.m. Council adjourned out of Executive Session at 11:37 p.m. Mader: This has been a difficult process for the Mendens and the City Council. No Councilmember indicated their desire for condemnation. The Council authorized condemnation to provide a basis to examine the alternatives to fulfill referendum obligations. Needed to be able to go into Executive Sessions to discuss legal and financial alternatives. The Council has acted in good faith. considered metropolitan interceptors. The Metropolitan Council is expected to act on April 6 and April 9 on this matter. 9) City of Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan 1998 Update: . Attached is a letter from Jane Kansier to Carl Schenck of the Metropolitan Council regarding the 1998 update to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. We intend to encourage the Metropolitan Council to be proactive in its relation to us on this work. Stay tuned. 10) Helen Vierling vs. City of Prior Lake: . Attached is our appeal in the Vierling Case. The district court ruled that there had been a taking of seventeen acres by the City of Prior Lake caused by installation of an outlet pipe on the Vierling property. It was ordered that commissioners be appointed to determine the value ofthe property taken. 11) Joint Powers with Savage: . The staff was directed to investigate cooperative usage of the field striper with the City of Savage. Attached are AI Friedges' findings. 12) TH 13/CSAH 12 Intersection: . The attached letter confirms that the state is aware of problems we have brought to their attention on this intersection and is taking steps to remedy the problems to the best of their ability. 13) Follow-Up Items: . Mayor Mader has asked that I look into the following items. I am sharing my findings in the event others on the Council receive similar inquiries: ,- > . Dave Hanson: Mr. Hanson is requesting a friendly variance from the City both on rooftop screening and landscape sprinkling, both of which may be modified by the new zoning ordinance. It does not appear to be appropriate to consider a variance since there are no assurances that these provisions will be repealed by the Council. Mr. Hanson already has a temporary certificate of occupancy. That certificate becomes permanent when he completes all listed requirements including the landscape, sprinkling, and rooftop screening. I believe there is an equity question since all other buildings in the business park conform to these requirements. Mr. Hanson also received tax increment financing and was aware or should have been aware of the City's ordinance requirements at the time he initiated this project. . Mr. Hennen Property on Ridgemont: Mr. Hennen has asked that the City reduce his $37,000 special assessment for Ridgemont Improvements. The statutory 4298.DOC 3 RESOLUTION 98-21PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE ROOF-TOP SCREENING OF UTILITY EQUIPMENT AND A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE IRRIGATION REQUIREMENT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR DAVE HANSEN BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Dave Hansen has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to waive the requirement for built-in irrigation and roof-top screening of mechanical equipment for recently constructed office/warehouse building on property located in the B-P (Business Park) District at the following location, to wit; That pan or Lot 1, Block 2, WATERFRONT PASSAGE ADDITION, Scott COUIlty. Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at tile northwest corner of Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North 00 de:rrees 10 minutes 44 seconds East plat bearing along the w~t line of said Lot I, Block 2. a dis~nce or 147.00 feel; thence along a unge!ltial C'J.rve concave to the:: west, having a radius of 526.00 feet, a cl:otnl! angle of 02 degrees 50 minutes 26 seconds, an arc length of 26.08 feet; tht::!1ce Norl~ 82 degrees 30 minutes 56 seconds East (nottangenc to said curve) a distance of 195.73 feet; thence S~uth 85 degrees 59 minute:! 04 seconds East a distance of 217.67 feet; thence South CO degrc:::s 10 mmutes 44 seconds West a distance of 184.60 reet to the intersection with the easterly exren.sicn of the north line of said Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North 89 degrees 49 minmes 16 seconds West along said easterly extension and the north line of said Lot 2, Block 2, a distance or 410.52 feet to the point of begiDning. .)5 -,;;q {;. --O{)-2 - :L 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #98-093 and held hearings thereon on August 24, 1998. 3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the denial of the proposed variances will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to 1:\98files\98var\98-093\re9821 pc. 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 adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5. The applicant was aware of the zoning requirements upon payment and receipt of the building permit application. The approved building plans indicate proper roof-top screening as required by the zoning ordinance and the intent to have the sub- contractor submit an irrigation plan. 6. Reasonable use of the property exists without granting of the variance. The roof-top screening and irrigation were not an issue when the permit was received by the applicant and no hardship was expressed or variance applied for at that time. 7. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The City Code allows for alternatives to built-in irrigation and varying methods of roof-top screening that are permitted without the variance. 8. The contents of Planning Case 98-093 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 denies the following variances for Dave Hansen on property located at 17001 Fish Point Road: 1. A variance to waive the roof-top screening of utility equipment established in Section 5-5-15 of the City Code; and 2. A variance to waive the built-in irrigation requirement set forth in Section 5-5-10 ofthe City Code. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on August 24, 1998. Anthony Stamson, Chair ATTEST: .~ 1:\98files\98var\98-093\re9821 pc.doc 2 ....... :> Cramer: · Agreed the hardship criteria have been met. · Impressed that with the number of variances before the Commission, especially with smaller lake lots they usually come before the Commission with numerous variances. Attempts have been made to keep it to one variance. · Agreed with Vonhofs amendment. Stamson: · Concurred · Variance hardship criteria have been met. · Commend design of the house. · The DNR opposed this request based on lot ownership, however this is not in joint ownership. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 98- 22PC APPROVING THE VARIANCE TO LOT AREA BE APPROVED WITH THE CONDITION THAT NO ADDITIONAL VARIANCES WILL BE GRANTED. Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #98-093 David O. Hansen is requesting a variance to roof-top screening of utility equipment and a variance to waive the irrigation requirement for new construction. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated August 24, 1998, on file in the office of the City Planner. Staff concluded the variance requests are not substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot and alternatives exist for compliance with the ordinance. Comments from the public: Dave Hansen, builder for the office warehouse on 17001 Fish Point Road, said time was of the essence. His company started the work program and many things were presented that he was not totally familiar with at the beginning. Mr. Hansen said he did not submit a screening plan with the intent in mind not to put them in. His company took a lesser role in construction in the property. He disagrees with the Planning Commissioner's findings regarding screening and feels the ordinances are outdated. Today rooftop units are clean and technologically advanced. He knows of no other fencing that would enhance the property. Neighboring businesses have smaller units like his on the building and look fine. Hansen said there is nothing less intrusive than what he has now. He has a large investment in Prior Lake and wants the building to look attractive. Mr. Hansen stated he will comply with the new ordinance. With regard to the underground sprinklers: Hansen feels the underground sprinklers are not effective. On one side we are trying to be resource smart then on the other side we 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\rrm082498.doc 3 are wasting water. Hansen asked to strike the inground water system because he feels it is a total waste. Kuykendall asked if there were other landscape alternatives. Hansen said there was not. He feels he has the best and needs his Certificate of Occupancy. Tovar explained requiring a Letter of Credit for two years versus the irrigation system. She also read the Business Park requirements regarding screening. Gary Horkey, owner of neighboring Keyland Property, said he complied with all the screening and inground watering system and did not receive any additional variances to comply. The public hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: · Both points raised by the applicant have a lot of merit. · Supports staff recommendations based on the face of the information presented. What is reasonable? When there are architectural considerations that are not tightly defined, it leaves a lot in the eyes of the designer whether or not they meet that definition. · We should look at this ordinance again. · Regarding the water: Standards are imposed so no matter who owns the property it is maintained. There is no assurance if the property is sold the next owner will comply. · Support the staff s recommendation in regard to the inground water system. · Tovar pointed out the City Council has considered Mr. Hansen's suggestion. City Manager Boyles contacted Mr. Hansen a few weeks ago with alternatives which Mr. Hansen did not agree. · Mr. Hansen said he did not comply with the City Manager's suggestions because the funding was very expensive. He also stated he told Jenni Tovar and Don Rye he would be happy to give them a letter indicating he would comply with the new ordinances. · Does not support the variance as is and feels he does not have all information. Cramer: · Asked applicant ifhe would be amicable to a condition on the variance such as painting the equipment to match. Hansen responded he would do it immediately. · Agreed with Kuykendall, could approve the variance with conditions to meet the intent of the ordinance. · Adding any additional rooftop screening will look worse than it already is. · Shared the concern with the inground sprinkler. The propose ofthe ordinance is to attract new business to the area. · Will deny that part of the variance. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm082498.doc 4 MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPOINT MAYOR MADER TO TIIE SCOTT COUNTY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. 10. NEW BUSINESS: A. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-108 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Gleason's Gymnastics School on Property Located 17001 Fish Point Road. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-108 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GLEASON'S GYMNASTICS SCHOOL ON PROPERTY LOCATED 17001 FISH POINT ROAD. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. ~ B. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-109 Upholding a Decision of the Planning Commission Denying a Variance Request to Waive Roof-Top Screening and Landscape Irrigation Requirementsfor Dave Hansen on Property Located at 17001 Fish Point Road. Hansen: Watering system ordinance is useless and wasteful. He will put it in if he can get a variance on rooftop screening. Original rooftop screening ordinance is outdated. Technology now provides advanced and unintrusive units. Urged the Council to throw out the existing ordinance. Questions from CounciImembers: Wuellner: Were you aware of the ordinance when it was built? Hansen: Busy with other aspects of building. Wuellner: Did you know you were going to have a problem? Hansen: It was not of primary importance at the time. Rye: Staff took restrictive view. Staff operating on ordinance currently in effect. The requested variances did not meet hardship criteria. Some concerns are addressed in the proposed ordinance. Kedrowski: What are the changes in terms of rooftop screening? Rye: There are two standards. One in the business park, the other in the community. Screening versus painting equipment to match. Now business park will resemble community standard. Irrigation; currently requires one year letter of credit on landscaping even with irrigation. New ordinance gives option of two year letter of credit in lieu of irrigation. Comments from CounciImembers: Kedrowski: Supports applicant. Supply letter of credit for landscaping for two years. No rooftop screening. Petersen: Concur. Schenck: Planning Commission and staff acted appropriately. Brought to appeal process. Supports two year letter in lieu of irrigation. Visual impact of rooftop units can be minimized another way. Mader: Sympathetic view of irrigation. Should not screen something that does not need it. But should not overturn variance based on anticipation of a new ordinance. Prefers that the City and Hansen work out a separate agreement for occupancy if it conforms with the new ordinance. 92198.DOC 7 Boyles: We're trying to resolve this on the basis of the existing ordinance. Wuellner: Should follow hardship criteria in the ordinance. Should not grant based on presupposed zoning ordinance adoption. Pace: Can approve based on a number of conditions. Identify what conditions you want to see in a resolution overturning the decision, direct staff to prepare and bring back to next meeting. Should be time frame. Schenck: What if it passes and then is amended? Pace: In both cases, within a specific time after the new ordinance is adopted. What needs to be clear is if it is being granted subject to conditions. If the new ordinance is not adopted, he has to comply with the existing code within a specific period of time. This is an agreement, not actually a variance. A variance is subject to appeal by other affected property owners. Hansen: His business is open, he needs permanent financing and will conform to the conditions. MOTION BY MADER SECOND BY KEDROWSKI DIRECTING STAFF TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH HANSEN THAT HE WILL COMPLY WITH EXISTING OR NEW ORDINANCE IF PASSED AT THE END OF 12 MONTHS AND A FINANCIAL SECURITY IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO CITY STAFF WILL BE PROVIDED. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-109 UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO WAIVE ROOF-TOP SCREENING AND LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DAVE HANSEN ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17001 FISH POINT ROAD. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK THAT STAFF PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE MORTGAGE COMPANY RELATING TO PERMANENT OCCUPANCY AND THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND HANSEN. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. 11. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 11 :00 p.m. Council adjourned out of Executive Session at 11:37 p.m. Mader: This has been a difficult process for the Mendens and the City Council. No Councilmember indicated their desire for condemnation. The Council authorized condemnation to provide a basis to examine the alternatives to fulfill referendum obligations. Needed to be able to go into Executive Sessions to discuss legal and financial alternatives. The Council has acted in good faith. 92198.DOC 8 MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT SEPTEMBER 21, 1998 lOB JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98-XX UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE ROOF TOP SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND BUILT IN IRRIGATION REQUIREMENT FOR DAVE HANSEN ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17001 FISH POINT ROAD. History: On July 31, 1997, DOH Enterprises applied for a building permit to construct an office/warehouse building in the Waterfront Passage Business Park. Based on the plans submitted by the applicant, and approved by the staff, no variances were required for this building. Section 5-5-10 of the City Code (Landscape Ordinance) states "All areas to be lawn and landscaped shall have a built-in irrigation system...Permanent underground irrigation is not requiredfor existing, new or re-established natural or native plant communities". The City received a letter on August 13, 1997, stating the sub- contractor for this project would be submitting an irrigation plan, as required by the ordinance. In an effort to expedite the issuance ofthe building permit, the staff accepted this letter as the contractor's awareness and intention to comply with the ordinance for issuance of a building permit. Section 5-5-15 of the City Code (Business Park Ordinance) states "All utility equipment, such as heating and ventilating equipment, meters and other devices shall be completely screened from eye level view of adjacent residential properties and streets....If on the roof, the equipment shall be screened with a parapet or screen wall of materials compatible with the principle structure. Vertical or horizontal wood slats, fencing or similar materials are not an acceptable screening material." Roof-top screening is a specific requirement in the Business Park zoning district, which, when uniformly adhered to, will create an aesthetically pleasing office/industrial park. Attached is a specification ofthe proposed and approved roof-top screening which was submitted by the applicant and included as part ofthe approved building permit. 1:\98fiJes\98var\98-093\98-093cc.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 I: \98files\98var\98-093\98-093cc.doc In March, 1998, Mr. Hansen requested a permanent certificate of occupancy for the building. The staff refused to issue the permanent Certificate of Occupancy because the irrigation system and the roof top screening had not been installed as required by the ordinance and the approved plans. On August 13, 1998, Mr. Hansen submitted an application for a variance to these requirements. He argues that the ordinance with respect to roof-top screening is being liberalized and he should be treated under the criteria of the new ordinance and not the criteria of the existing one. On August 24, 1998, the Planning Commission held a hearing to consider a variance to waive the requirements of roof top screening and irrigation requirements for Dave Hansen. Upon reviewing the four hardship criteria, the Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation that there are no hardships with respect to the property or unique circumstances of the property that warrant granting of the variances. The Planning Commission thus denied the variance requests. On August 28, 1998, Mr. Hansen submitted a letter requesting an appeal of this decision to the City Council. Current Conditions: The building is constructed and various tenants occupy more then 50% of the space. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued pending completion of building, engineering, and planning items including landscaping and roof-top screening. Rather than complete the project as approved in order to receive a permanent Certificate of Occupancy, the developer is requesting the variances to obtain Planning Department approval of the permanent Certificate of Occupancy. The Issues: The City Council must determine if it concurs with the Planning Commission's decision that the proposed development does not meet the four hardship criteria. While the proposed zoning ordinance has amendments to address roof- top screening and built-in irrigation, the granting of variances based on future ordinance changes is not justifiable under the hardship criteria as stated in the City Code. On July 29, 1998, the City Manager offered Mr. Hansen a compromise. It consisted of a cash escrow, based on bids for the roof- top screening and irrigation, to be given to the city to insure ordinance compliance would be met upon adoption of the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Hansen would have to complete the work within 90 days of adoption of the new ordinance and would have to reimburse the city for costs associated with drafting the necessary documents for this 2 FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: 1 :\98files\98var\98-093\98-093cc.doc agreement. Mr. Hansen expressed to the Planning Commission that he was not interested in the offer based on the conditions. In his appeal letter, Mr. Hansen offers a compromise to install the irrigation if a variance to roof-top screening is granted. On September 4, 1998, he submitted a draft irrigation plan for review. The City currently has a $17,500 Letter of Credit on file which expires on February 13, 1999. The City can draw on the LOC for completion of the irrigation requirement. Conclusion: The petitioner argues that the ordinances are unnecessary and a waste of money. While the proposed ordinance addresses Mr. Hansen's concerns, we cannot issue a Certificate of Occupancy for a structure that does not meet current ordinances on the basis it will meet future ordinances. Mr. Hansen was aware of the ordinance requirements in effect at the time the building permit was issued, and submitted plans complying with those requirements. He chose not to complete the required work. Mr. Hansen has also been offered an alternative by the City Manager which he has chosen not to accept at this time. The Planning Commission and staff recommend denial of the requested variances on the basis the request does not meet all four of the hardship criteria and the variances are unjustified with respect to he property. The granting of variances based on speculation of the proposed zoning ordinance does not comply with the current hardship criteria as set forth in City Code. There is no fiscal impact if the variance is approved or denied. The building is constructed and partially occupied by tenants. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt Resolution 98-XX upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variances requested by Dave Hansen. 2. Deny Resolution 98-XX and direct the staff to prepare a resolution overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and grant the requested variances. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. The staff recommends Alternative #1, adoption of Resolution 98-XX upholding a decision 0 the Planning Commission denying the variance req to w ve the requirements for roof-top screening and b I -in I d ape i gation. 3 RESOLUTION 98-XX RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE ROOF TOP SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND THE BUILT-IN IRRIGATION SYSTEM REQUIREMENT FOR DAVE HANSEN ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17001 FISH POINT ROAD MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by David Hansen. of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a variance to waive the roof top screening requirements and the built-in irrigation system requirements for the property legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variances do not meet the standards for granting variances set forth in Section 5-6-6 (C, 1-4) of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. Dave Hansen has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to waive the requirement for built-in irrigation and roof-top screening of mechanical equipment for recently constructed office/warehouse building on property located in the B-P (Business Park) District at the 17001 Fish Point Road, legally described on attached Exhibit A. 2. The Board of Adjustment reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #98-093 and held hearings thereon, and denied the request on August 24, 1998. 3. David Hansen appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 5-6-3 (A) of the City Code. 4. The Prior Lake City Council considered this appeal on September 21, 1998. 1:\98fi1es\98var\98-093\rs98xxcc.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 5. The Prior Lake City Council 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. 6. The City Council has determined the request does not meet all four of the hardship criteria. There are not unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship, was caused by the actions of the applicant through the design. There are no unique characteristics to the property, which would constitute a hardship. The applicant was aware of the zoning requirements upon payment and receipt of the building permit application. The approved building plans indicate proper roof-top screening as required by the zoning ordinance and the intent to have the sub- contractor submit an irrigation plan. 7. The denial of the requested variances do not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the variances. 8. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The City Code allows for alternatives to built-in irrigation and varying methods of roof-top screening that are permitted without the variance. 9. The contents of Planning Case 98-093 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 City Council hereby: 1. Upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying a variance to waive the roof top screening requirements and the built-in irrigation system requirements for David Hansen on the property located at 17001 Fish Point Road, legally described in Exhibit A, which exhibit is incorporated into this resolution. Passed and adopted this 21st day of September, 1998. YES NO Mader Kedrowski Petersen Schenck Wuellner Mader Kedrowski Petersen Schenck Wuellner 1 :\98fi1es\98var\98-093\rs98xxcc.doc Page 2 EXHIBIT A Legal Description: That part of Lot 1, Block 2, WATERFRONT PASSAGE ADDITION, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the northwest comer of Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 44 seconds East plat bearing along the west line of said Lot 1, Block 2, a distance of 147.00 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the west, having a radius of 526.00 feet, a central angle of 02 degrees 50 minutes 26 seconds, an arc length of26.08 feet; thence North 82 degrees 30 minutes 56 seconds East (not tangent to said curve) a distance 195.73 feet; thence South 85 degrees 59 minutes 04 seconds East a distance of217.67 feet; thence South 00 degrees 10 minutes 44 seconds West a distance of 184.60 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the north line of said Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 16 seconds West along said easterly extension and the north line of said Lot 2, Block 2, a distance of 41 0.52 feet to the point of beginning. I: \98files\98var\98-093\rs98xxcc.doc Page 4 D.O. Hansen 8140 Flying Cloud Drive ~den Prai .e, MN 55344 dl7 /ff'P r Mr. Don Rye City Planner City. of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake MN 55372-1712 Dear Mr. Rye: I am writing this note to appeal the decision ofthe Planning Comnlission on Monday, August 24, 1998 to the Prior Lake City Council regarding my application pertaining to variances for Roof Top Utility Equipment Screening (Sec 5-5-15) and a Built In Irrigation System. The variance for RoofTop Utility Equipment Screening on my building is sensible and logical. There simply is no reason for the screening! There is absolutely no material etc. that could be used that would look better than what is there now! By insisting that I screen these units, the City is taking the position that this ordinance does not need "attention." It certainly does! The variance request to eliminate an Irrigation System is my "part" to stop needless waste of pure water. Also the system defmitely is not needed. There is no proof that it is. However, I offer this solution. Grant me my variance on the Roof Top Utility Equipment Screening which is logical and sensible on my building and I will put in an Irrigation System even though it wastes our precious water as the City of Prior Lake desires! The irrigation plan must be reasonable. There are "islands" on the north side of the building that cannot be served by an irrigation system. However, there are sill cocks to provide watering of these areas. D.O. Hansen cc: Mr. Frank Boyles, City Manager Honorable Major Wes Mader City Council l~/~ @[gUWl ~rm l.( " 028_ If: ..... " July 29, 1998 Mr. David O. Hansen 8140 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 SUBJECT: Variances Dear Mr. Hansen: Mayor Mader has referred your July 24 letter to me. I understand you have suggested that you would be willing to place an escrow deposit with the City to guarantee the necessary rooftop screening and in-ground sprinkler requirements following adoption ofthe new zoning ordinance. The City would consider your proposal under the following conditions: . The escrow amount is based upon bids provided by you for rooftop screening and in ground landscape sprinkling as required under the present ordinance to serve the roof and landscape areas shown on your approved plans. Bids to be approved by the City Engineer. . You will provide the City with a certified check in the amount of 125% of the bid amount as the escrow deposit. . Any work required by the new City ordinance would have to be completed within 90 days of the effective date of the new ordinance. . The escrow will be released upon approval of the required work by the City. The escrow agreement will provide that after 90 days, if you have failed to install the required equipment the City will install the rooftop screening and in-ground sprinkler. You will provide the City with a non-revocable right of entry to install the improvements, if necessary. . You will reimburse the City for all legal fees incurred in connection with preparation of the necessary documents to secure this transaction. 16200 E~AlRcD<ecS.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Please contact me to advise whether you agree with these conditions so that we can prepare a written document memorializing this matter. cc: Don Rye Suesan Lea Pace City Council DHANV AR.DOC Aug-13-97 10: 30A Cons.--uct ;on 707 Inc _ 1 "'"'1.2 781-0123 P _ 01 . INTENT TO SUBMIT IRRIGATIO~l_ ~~,.... I.?;.IO'~ ~STAUCT1011T '-' ) GENERAL CONTRACTOR ~1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) -- August 13, 1997 City of Prior Lake Attn: Don Rye. Jenni Tovar, Paul Baumgartner 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Re: Prior Lake Industrial Park 17001 Fish Point Road Prior Lake, MN Dear Don, Jenni and Paul: This is in response to the August 1, 1997 letter from Jenni Tovar. General Plan Revisions' The irrigation system is to be designed by a subcontractor. We will submit an irrigation plan for your records at a later date. . Trash enclosure will have a roof. Architect is dropping off a plan this morning. Lighting plan and fixture information has been submitted to you. We added a fire hydrant as requested and is shown on the plans that were resubmitted last week. Revised landscape plan has been submitted to you last week. Dave Hansen's bank is faxing over a Letter of Credit for 125% of the landscape! irrigation costs. BuildinQ Permit Requirements' 1) Certificate of Survey -- we have submitted to you a signed Civil Engineered Survey/Site Plan showing building setbacks, parking areas, 'and elevations. We have hired a professional surveyor to layout the building and site. We will fax you a letter from Paramount Engineering & Design as requested by Don Rye. 2) Tenants will be required to submit for individual sign permits. CONSTRUCTION 70 INCORPORATED. 2808 ANTI-tONY LANE SOUTH. MJNNEAPOUS. MINNESOTA 55418 TELEPHONE (612) 781-0100 C:v.1SWORI<S\JAY\2243ICITY.REVWPS FAX (612) 781-0123 An Equal Opportunity Employer PAR IAL ROOF - TOP SCREENING PLAN ~ A~ MEa1.AN1&JL ROOF tlRf> DETAIL I 1/1." - r ct' ) II 15 ,,-... n'-Q' 'ld-Q' ----@l1 6"tlE ~ AWv'E ENTRy .RE RTU - ('H' aRt> PETAL. "/~ -------------- R T U 6GREEN1NE> f'RB'1N16t'fp lleT /I.. EM:RE:eNc.y fM:NI.DN 6CIPPER t ---.-.------- I'\JflPE RTU ~INE> (..) THIS ROC!" 1fl1:). '~'_ (~T_ ~ ~ WI "'-Q' x ..'-(t' DEf'RE56Ep 9J\f> -0 ~ 1:: ---0 b I ~ ---0 b I .. ..... ~ ~ ---0 -- ---@ ~ i<l ~--@ ~ \n I .... ..... - --CD ~ /-\ r.-- ~ . ~:-. ....~~..-c.:.....__....... P.2 . 12~31-1997 3:iL0PM RrJ~r=:~c)~I~e~~rfJ'~G SPEC.S /1 .,.."-C ,l'..' .rr':l~ .",,0 '(\p. \ \~' \C" / Existing parapet v~""' .1'\"' 2'-0" &; c..~\ ~,-,.- ~ ClCI light gllagB metal frame brace to mechanical unit matching colored break metal screen - '0: .. > top of screen level with top of unit. treated 2x6 pads rooT Screens to be installed on visible sides only of rooftop units when viewed from the streen in front of the building. ~c!tanical S_creen De_tail a 1/2" = 1'-0" CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN date issued: 12123/97 i o ISSUED FOR APPROVAlS'f'RICING ONLY i I . ISSUED FOR CCNSTAUCTlON ref, sheet number: I Brisley Architedure Company bulletin no: I I Prior Lake Industriz..l ! William D. Brisley, AlA 3220 Irving Avenue South B I Prior Lake, Minnesota Minneaoplis. Minnesota 55408 voice: 612.824.8730 fax; 612.822.7537 1 of 1 sheets pager: 6]2.318.1336 I ~ Cramer: · Agreed the hardship criteria have been met. · Impressed that with the number of variances before the Commission, especially with smaller lake lots they usually come before the Commission with numerous variances. Attempts have been made to keep it to one variance. · Agreed with V onhof' s amendment. Stamson: ..::::l!!i~!~!til~ii~iiitt~ttt : ~::::~=::~~o~~beenmel. _^ · The DNR opposed this request based on lot ownership,..:n41t:yl:this is nofiijjjpjnt .'. ownership. ....::.::.~~.~~.i!!J!!J~::::::... ...... "::::{.!!..I:.l..II..II:ii!r}:::' .::;:::;:;::.. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAME~~~_OPTINI:kESOLUTION.::98- 22PC APPROVING THE VARIANCE TO LOT AAE}l!!li::AM'it(5~D WITH THE CONDITION THAT NO ADDITIONAL VARIANCES wtql;l~E GRANTED. V t . di d b 11 MOTION CAltRlED ..:::t{111Iil..:::::::t:!.:1::1::1:::~:::::~:'::~~:':::::::..~.ti~::. oem cate ayes ya . ':::';.i;;~I.;~:::;::::::~~i:~::jjj:!::::i::i:::!i:::t~~~t::::::::... . B. Case #98-093 David O. Hansen is~j,~que.iJHi::!lb~!fi:,:p~::"to roof-top screening of utility equipment and a vari~nce to wai~J.::!ijE::'irriga6ifFfequirement for new construction. ..::::d~:!!!~tJ~!~!I~iiiliIIIIIIIIIIIII11 {!lllliii'.;\. <l:::" Planner Jenni Tovar l?::ff~ented the :gIJIming Rep~ljj9hted August 24, 1998, on file in the office of the City }>!,a"illi::itt:::....::::lJ:!jil:lilllii~IM:i~iili~~i!iiiiii~!iK!i~!~!:!~jjjjt!r?::.. Staff concluded the varian:aiiilin~ests are nor-substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot and..:.i.M_gX~.. exist f'd~i:ipP1pl~.ance with the ordinance. r~c: y nave::li,.:~n, builder fo~ilfe office warehouse on 17001 Fish Point Road, said time was of the eS."l?:~ His conmJhy started the work program and many things were presented that he waS:::ii1::lptallY41furiliar with at the beginning. Mr. Hansen said he did not submit a screening ptaijiiwitf.iHhe intent in mind not to put them in. His company took a lesser role in construciiQ.if'!n the property. He disagrees with the Planning Commissioner's findings regardi'Hg screening and feels the ordinances are outdated. Today rooftop units are clean and technologically advanced. He knows of no other fencing that would enhance the property. Neighboring businesses have smaller units like his on the building and look fine. Hansen said there is nothing less intrusive than what he has now. He has a large investment in Prior Lake and wants the building to look attractive. Mr. Hansen stated he will comply with the new ordinance. With regard to the underground sprinklers: Hansen feels the underground sprinklers are not effective. On one side we are trying to be resource smart then on the other side we 1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\nm082498.doc 3 "... are wasting water. Hansen asked to strike the inground water system because he feels it is a total waste. Kuykendall asked if there were other landscape alternatives. Hansen said there was not. He feels he has the best and needs his Certificate of Occupancy. Tovar explained requiring a Letter of Credit for two years versus the irriga~i.9.nJ:;ystem. She also read the Business Park requirements regarding screening. .,::t!!!!~!ij!f:~:::::::::::::::tti:: .,::::~:::::~ Gary Horkey, owner of neighboring Keyland Property, said he co.1JlJII~~~~!tP. all the screening and inground watering system and did not receive any:l~tionat:!.~ces to :::liC hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. ....::.:..:ii.;.ii.:.:;i~.:!~.:!.~: ~ ::::;lliIIII11::iiiiitt::> ~:E~;~~;;;~~np~_red ~ IS reasonable? When there are architecttital consttl!flki-ons thaf"are not tightly defined, . ~::~~~dl~~o~ :~~e:r~=~~:~=~::"i,":::~;::R8~1:'~~'meet that definition. · Regarding the water: ..:ddaf8i.iim-e imposdiI!~o no matter who owns the property it is maintained. Thereji~i~Ho assur. if the pro~~~:>is sold the next owner will comply. · Support the stami~!~pmme~.gIJ~n in regar~:\i~f"ilie inground water system. · Tovar pointed oht ilii.::lity~:@&.i::_:1!E_dered Mr. Hansen's suggestion. City Manager Boyles contciCiil:iMr. Hansen"a:.'tew weeks ago with alternatives which Mr. Hanse~l::g~ii:.l::!g:~e. ..::::tii::::ilt~:::t:::::.,. .':::'. · Mr...Bliffsen sali{i:!I!m:f.did not c6Jf1W:\vith the City Manager's suggestions because the fjgidi~g was very'~Five.B~:::~so stated he told Jenni Tovar and Don Rye he ..::::{iY~YJd be happy to gi'ii!!:them a letter indicating he would comply with the new :,:::::r ofaJ,mmces. :!:::::1i!!!i' · Doesi:!qRt!i~UPport th9.ljiriance as is and feels he does not have all information. Cramer: ..::::ti:i:::lllil:lllllil!!I::iiiit:/!!!!iiiii:ii::!i::if?' · Asked appli.gjHi ifhe would be amicable to a condition on the variance such as painting th<:t:~quipment to match. Hansen responded he would do it immediately. · Agreed with Kuykendall, could approve the variance with conditions to meet the intent of the ordinance. · Adding any additional rooftop screening will look worse than it already is. · Shared the concern with the inground sprinkler. The propose of the ordinance is to attract new business to the area. · Will deny that part of the variance. 1:\98files\98plconnn\pcmin\mn082498.doc 4 . . , , . Stamson: . · Agreed with arguments to some extent by the applicant. The rooftop units could be painted and provide efficient screening. · The applicant makes good arguments about the irrigation system, however what we are working with and our legal definitions for granting a variance and the conditions put forth just do not warrant a variance. Applicant should negotiate with the City. The variance is not an appropriate vehicle. Jl~~~:~:::::.:... ..::::~~j~1~i~:~:;:::::::::::~:~f~~::: · Does not support granting a variance. ...... .. Vonhof: ^ · Agreed with Stamson on the rooftop screening. The BusinessiBPrk ha~i"'.~r standards than the rest of the City. It was intentional. ..i~::~~::::~Ijt~~~:,,:::;;m,: ..:::tjii~~~!~!t},:::.. · Applicant brings up good points. Sometimes in affest~iiw;~:"can::hot see every 'B~tllipg, obviously. Perhaps variance condition #4, does nqtyr6Iate.th~ intent and spiri(jnd may be met. Agreed with that point. ..::::tfiIIt:,::.. ':;iiiiiilt::.. ,,::,::., · Agreed with Chair Stamson that this is not the ~;~p:l~iehicli~r~~~Aiwlicant is bringing up valid points, this is not the proper vehicle. The st~.. are the standards we set : Eb:::7i;:::=~~ Kuykendall: ..:::,'~(iil~J:~~!~!I!!![~~~~1t. ::~li~:!:!::;:: .:t::::.. · Supports staff' s recq.~mdatiglf.~d woul&:g~ny the variances for the reasons stated. Encouraged the app}~Eant to resiisider the sJig&tions by the City Manager. Cramer: .:::~j::r:~:~~tii:~!!IIIIIIIIIIIIII~!~~t~~:::::~~::Jj~jj:ji~:~~lllliii::~~~~~~~~~!~~~~!!!!~!!!!~!i!!!~:!!~~!ii~!~~itjjjjjj}~::::.. It is apparent ~.~.:.~?ndition \,1;t~:Jwt pass and will support the rest of the Commissioners in den~~j:i#:~~i:Y:.~'lli~::t~~t ..::::~ti::~!!lllll![il!l!:~!~!iljt~::. MqTtl>'N BY VONHb1t1~:~~$ECO~trBY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE RBI.GLUTION 98-21PCiimENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE ROOF-TOP S:cRE!illNG OF UTILI. EQUIPMENT AND A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE IRRIGAil{'I;:~Q7MENT FOR DAVE HANSEN.~ Vote taken si~~ij~iyes by all. MOTION CARRIED. :.;.:.:.;.;.:." Stamson eXPlah{~~' the appeal process. 5. Old Business: 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm082498.doc 5 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 4B CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO ROOF-TOP SCREENING OF UTILITY EQUIPMENT AND A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE IRRIGATION REQUIREMENT FOR DAVE HANSEN, Case File #98-093 17001 FISH POINT ROAD JENNITOVAR,PLANNER DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES .lL NO AUGUST 24, 1998 The building is constructed and partially occupied. A building permit was issued August 14, 1997. The property is located in the B-P Business Park zoning district. The permit was issued with a plan for roof-top screening and a letter of intent for the sub-contractor to submit a landscape irrigation plan. Temporary Certificate's of Occupancy have been issued for the tenant finishes of office/warehouse space. This request is due to the applicant's need for a permanent certificate of occupancy. All outstanding items must be completed prior to the issuance of a permanent Certificate of Occupancy. In previous correspondence, the applicant has expressed concern to the City Council regarding the requirements of roof-top screening and required irrigation. DISCUSSION: Section 5-5-10 of the City Code (Landscape Ordinance) states "All areas to be lawn and landscaped shall have a built-in irrigation system...Permanent underground irrigation is not required for existing, new or re-established natural or native plant communities". The city received a letter on August 13, 1997 stating their sub-contractor will submit an irrigation plan. In an effort to expedite the issuance of the building permit, this was acceptable as the contractor's awareness and intention to comply with the ordinance for issuance of a building permit. Section 5-5-15 of the City Code (Business Park Ordinance) states "All utility equipment, such as heating and ventilating equipment, meters and other devices 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER shall be completely screened from eye level view of adjacent residential properties and streets....If on the roof, the equipment shall be screened with a parapet or screen wall of materials compatible with the principle structure. Vertical or horizontal wood slats, fencing or similar materials are not an acceptable screening material." Attached is a specification of the proposed and approved roof-top screening as part of the approved building permit. Even though, the permit was issued in compliance with the ordinance and with the necessary proposed irrigation plan, the applicant failed to submit an irrigation plan or complete the installation of roof-top screening as approved as part of the building permit. The applicant is now requesting a variance. The proposed Zoning Ordinance allows for no irrigation if the developer posts a 2 year letter of credit (LOC) as opposed to installing irrigation with the current one year LOC. The proposed Zoning Ordinance states mechanical equipment is to be screened from the general public or adjacent residential areas. This allows for the roof-top units to be painted to match the roof to be screened. 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. Reasonable use of the property exists. The applicants hardship is primarily financial. The applicant has also stated he feels an irrigation system would waste water. There is no hardship with respect to the property, as reasonable use exists if the variances are not granted. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. There are no unique circumstances with respect to the property that bring about a hardship with enforcement of the ordinance. The property is situated on a flat, relatively low lying lot. Roof-top units are visible from the adjacent Wilderness Ponds development. The lots in this residential subdivision are situated on a hill over-looking the business office park where the roof-top unit are clearly visible and the metal equipment produces glares on sunny days. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. The building permit was issued with the applicants full intent to provide roof- top screening and to submit an irrigation plan. The hardship is primarily L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-093\98-093PC.DOC Page 2 financial as the applicant has stated in his letters he feels it is a waste of money to screen the roof-top units and to install underground utilities. The hardship is caused by the applicant, as other developers have fully complied with the ordinance (Park Nicollet clinic, Wilds Clubhouse, etc.). 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. Roof-top screening is a specific requirement in the Business Park zoning district, which, when uniformly adhered to, create an aesthetically pleasing office/industrial park. The intent of the ordinance cannot be compensated or protected in any other manner. The applicant has an alternative to the irrigation requirement to use native plant materials rather than sod. This is to preserve the intent of establishing turf and maintaining ground cover that withstands time and weather. The proposed variances are contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance and is contrary to the public interest. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded the variance requests are not substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot and alternatives exists for compliance with the ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. 2. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. ACTION REQUIRED: Adoption of the attached Resolution #98-21 PC denying the requested variances to irrigation and roof-top screening. L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-093\98-093PC.DOC Page 3 ...... .... RESOLUTION 98-21PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE ROOF-TOP SCREENING OF UTILITY EQUIPMENT AND A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE IRRIGATION REQUIREMENT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR DA YE HANSEN BE IT RESOL YED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Dave Hansen has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to waive the requirement for built-in irrigation and roof-top screening of mechanical equipment for recently constructed office/warehouse building on property located in the B-P (Business Park) District at the following location, to wit; That part of Lot I, Block 2, WATE..ttFRONT PASSAGE ADDmON, Scott COUllt"j. Mi:!mesota described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corne: of Loe 2, Block 2, or said plat; thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 44 seconds East plat bearing along the west line of said Lot I, Block 2. a distance of 147.00 feet: thence along a tmge:ldal C'.J.rve concave Co the: west. having a radius of 526.00 fee:, a cl:ntr.ll angle of 02 degrees 50 minutes 26 seconds, an arc length of 26.08 feet; thence North 82 degrees 30 minutes 56 seconds Wt (nonangent to said curve) a distance of 195.73 feet; thence S~llth 85 degrees 59 minute:; 04 seconds East a distance of 217.67 feet; thence South CO degrees 10 mmutes 44 seconds West a distance of 184.60 fect to the intersection with the e:lSte:ly eX1:e:lSiC;l of the llor:.h line of said Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; ilience Norr.h 89 degrees 49 mi.l1u:es 15 seconcis West along said easterly exte:lSioo. mci the nor.h line of said Lot 2, Block 2, a distaIlce or 4~O.52 feet to the paine of begiIming. d5 -;Jq ~ --OO..J. - .:L 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #98-093 and held hearings thereon on August 24, 1998. 3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in. the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the denial of the proposed variances will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to 1:\98files\98var\98-093\re9821 pc.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 . " adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5. The applicant was aware of the zoning requirements upon payment and receipt of the building permit application. The approved building plans indicate proper roof-top screening as required by the zoning ordinance and the intent to have the sub- contractor submit an irrigation plan. 6. Reasonable use of the property exists without granting of the variance. The roof-top screening and irrigation were not an issue when the permit was received by the applicant and no hardship was expressed or variance applied for at that time. 7. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The City Code allows for alternatives to built-in irrigation and varying methods of roof-top screening that are permitted without the variance. 8. The contents of Planning Case 98-093 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 denies the following variances for Dave Hansen on property located at 17001 Fish Point Road: 1. A variance to waive the roof-top screening of utility equipment established in Section 5-5-15 of the City Code; and 2. A variance to waive the built-in irrigation requirement set forth in Section 5-5-10 of the City Code. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on August 24, 1998. Anthony Stamson, Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 1:\98files\98var\98-093\re9821 pc.doc 2 ~.-~'...:.:..::~ R~tfr=:T()~I~ERE~i~G SPEC.S P.2 12-31-1997 3:d0PM /1 . .rc.4 .t.... .rr' ;1(2- .".,0 ~\.G- \ \'J.' leO ~ .J,""" :ll~ &;v ~_~\ ~"" ~ - 2'-0" Existing parapet light 911age metal frame brace to mechanical unit matching colored break metal screen - '0: ... > top or scraen level with top oT unit. treated 2x6 pads rooT Screens to be installed on visible sides only OT rooftop units when viewed from the streen in front or the building. ~C~anical S_creen D:.tail a 1/2" = 1'-0" I 12123/97 I I t bulletin no: I ! B I 1 of 1 sheets J CONST~UCTION BULLETIN o ISSUED FOR APPROVALSIPRIClNG ONLY II iSSUED FOR CONSTRUCTlON date issued: ref. sheet number: Prior Lake Industrizl Prior Lake, Minnesota Brisley Architedure Company WiHiam D. Brisley. AlA 3220 Irving A venue South Minneaopiis. Minnesota 55408 voice: 612.824.8730 fax; 612.822.7537 pager: 6J2.318.1336 PAR IAL ROOF-TOP SCREENING PLAN ~ A ~ MEa1INlc.!L Rat" aRt> DEl" AL I 1/2" - r-ct' ) 10 1/ "'-.t" "-'-(7 2d-(/' 15 A ~ ~ 6~ flaI" ~ ~ ENTRy ~ RTU - UP tlRI> --0 l'ET...... .t/~ RTU ~t16 b I !:! --0 ~ r.. '" (~T. t ~ -0 ~ _.@ ~ ~ ~ fUll ~1N6 'i' -@ (.t) THIS Rat' ~ lJ". ~ ", I .... ... (~T. --CD 'i' ~ ROa' ~ WI .t'-(/' X .t'-(/' DEf'REs5i:p ~ ( ,- \ .... " Aug-13-97 10:30A Cons'--uction 70, Inc. 1""1.2 781-0123 P.Ol INTENT TO SUBMIT IRRIGATIO~l_ ~ ~~ 1,~,IO'~ ~""T"uc-no..., '-' J GENERALCONTAACTOA ~ 1) 5) 6) -- August ~~, 1997 City of Prior Lake Attn: Don Rye, Jenni Tovar, Paul Baumgartner 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Re: Prior Lake Industrial Park 17001 Fish Point Road Prior Lake. MN Dear Don, Jenni and Paul: This is in response to the August 1, 1997 letter from Jenni Tovar. General Plan Revisions: 2) 3) 4) The irrigation system is to be designed by a subcontractor. We will submit an irrigation plan for your records at a later date. . Trash enclosure will have a roof. Architect is dropping off a plan this morning. Lighting plan and fixture information has been submitted to you. We added a fire hydrant as requested and is shown on the plans that were resubmitted last week. Revised landscape plan has been submitted to you last week. Dave Hansen's bank is faxing over a Letter of Credit for 125% of the landscape/ irrigation costs. BuildinQ Permit Requirements' 1) Certificate of Survey -- we have submitted to you a signed Civil Engineered Survey/Site Plan showing building setbacks. parking areas, 'and elevations. We have hired a professional surveyor to layout the building and site. We will fax you a letter from Paramount Engineering & Design as requested by Don Rye. 2) Tenants will be required to submit for individual sign permits. CONSTRUCTION 70 INCORPORATED. 2808 ANTHONY Ul..NE SOUTH. MINNEAPOUS. MINNESOTA 55418 TELEPHONE (612) 781-0'00 C:'MSWORI<S\JAY'224JICITY.REVWPS FAX. (6'2) 781-0123 An Equal Opportunity Employer / D.O. Hansen DO H Enterprises 8140 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 flLt ".. b'{}PJ' October 20, 1997 Ms. Lydia Andren, Mayor City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mayor Andren: I am writing this letter regarding your ordinance pertaining to and requiring that I install a lawn sprinkler system with the new office/warehouse I'm building at 17001 Fish Point Road SE in Prior Lake. First, I don't need it. This system is totally unnecessary. Most of my plantings, trees, etc., shall be of the evergreen and pine type, which require "personal" watering, etc. Second, lawn sprinkler systems are a grotesque waste of water! Today, we are trying to conserve and preserve our most important natural resource -- water. We require toilets that only use one and one half gallons to flush (~ey don't work, but the idea is there). We use "saver"'shower heads; etc.' Why would you pass an. ordinance to promote wasting water? Sprinkler 'systems arehombly inefficient. I see precious water running down the gutter wherever they're used. It's just a "lazy" way to accomplish ajob and we pay for it by "waste." I cannot install this system onmy project/property. It's totally against my attitude to conserve and preserve our precious water. May I suggest to Prior Lake to repeal this ordinance which promotes, and forces us to waste, and misuse our water supply. This ordinance is defmitely not needed. Sincerely yours, D. O. Hansen cc: Prior Lake City Council Mr. Don Rye, Planning Commission .. .Mr. Robert Hutchins, Chief Building Inspector D.O. Hansen 8140 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 January 5, 1998 Mr. Wes Mader, Mayor City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mayor Mader: Back in October 1997, I sent a letter to the "past" mayor of Prior Lake and the Council regarding the ordinance for mandatory lawn sprinklers in the city of Prior Lake (copy enclosed), especially pertaining to my new office/warehouse construction at 17001 Fish Point Road SE. I feel that the City of Prior Lake should voluntarily repeal this ordinance. It is totally worthless and wasteful. I was in the process of making an application to the demand that this ordinance be dropped, or repealed, but the $350.00 fee is far too excessive! I feel that the City of Prior Lake should re-examine this needless and wasteful ordinance and repeal it voluntarily. Besides promoting waste of our most precious resource, the ordinance has nothing to do with health, safety, and public welfare of the community. If the City Council wishes me to address this wasteful ordinance, there should defmitely be no cost to me. I would wish yourself, or any councilor planning member to call me at any time at 941-0134. S~'jf'5f. .~Y;~~2 IS, l/{fV4If61t;(/-f D. O. Hansen ( cc: Prior Lake Council Mr. Don Rye, Planning Commission Ms. Jane A. Kausier, Planning Coordinator Mr. Robert Hutchins, Chief Bldg. Inspector David O. Hansen 108 Pioneer Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 April 28, 1998 Mr. Wes Mader Mayor, Prior Lake 3470 Sycamore Trail Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: 17001 Fresh Point Rd. S.E. Prior Lake, MN Dear Mayor Mader: In response to our telephone conversation, I am again responding to the two "problem areas" I have with Prior Lake on my new office/warehouse at 17001 Fish Point Rd S.E. First, your ordinance, or code, demanding roof "fencing" of our utility units. Second, your ordinance demanding in-ground sprinkler systems. I am very unhappy, and in total disagreement, with the response from the Planning Commission regarding these ordinances. It's a perfect example of bureaucracy that defies "change"! The Planning Commission stated on the fencing issue that everyone has had to fence the units up to this point so why shouldn't Hansen have to fence! This is a foolish, archaic and basically untrue response. Just because mistakes have been made up to this point where builders have had to fence where they shouldn't --- we should keep making this mistake (I'm glad your planners aren't physicians). How foolish! Also, it's not true to say all commercial buildings are fenced. There are buildings in Prior Lake that do not have fencing---and they do present themselves cosmetically better! I presented the City Council, and yourself, with pictures of my building showing clean, neat utility units that are defmitely cosmetically and design friendly. "Any" type offencing would be intrusive in this situation. The in-ground watering issue is absurd! I will not waste precious water! On one hand, Prior Lake wants to limit watering days. On the other hand, your Planning Commission wants to promote waste of this precious resource. There is absolutely no reason for this! Yet this bureaucratic area of your local government sees no reason to be sensible or to pursue a logical, and popular, program of conservation! I invite you and the City Council to view my building. This is a quality structure that Prior Lake should be proud to have within its city limits. The two items I take exception with are changes that should be done voluntarily. The ordinances should be changed, modified, or totally revoked. I might suggest that the City Council still has the authority to run the City and to make decisions even though they are "giving up" more and more of this responsibility/right to their bureaucratic agencies or departments. The City of Prior Lake should issue me voluntary variances on both the fencing ordinance and the in-ground watering ordinance. Issuing these variances would display common sense; address these problems ordinances with a positive attitude of change, create a more "builder friendly" attitude in Prior Lake, and it would send a message to your Planning Commission to employ a more open-minded approach over an archaic dogma that refuses change. As I stated in my letter of January 5, 1998, there should be no costs to me regarding variances, or changes, in these ordinances. I will look for a favorable response. Sincerely yours, R,O . kJi,~/y~ D. O. Hansen ~/ Prior Lake City Council City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 ,. 'TT.","'0'..~.. ..:..;<,.~. ,.._~ Planning Case File No. Property Identification No. City of Prior Lake LAND USE APPLICATION 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional o Rezoning, from (present zonin~) to (proposed zonine:) o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance o Subdivision of Land o Administrative Subdivision o Conditional Use Permit -d . '(t~oopr()f' INr1c-~cfieB/V/ll.Jt:- ~ Vanance '/ ,-hJ '-I /' ..:i}/.4r..JoGc.-9'd. ~&.IUJ/J f"!::> ,,"'I fVnl'.I}..Jf.>o o Other: g }",>n~nf q"6 ,Ol\:? Applicable Ordinance Section(s):~ fC., ~ Applicant(s): Address: Y; Home Phone: Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]: Address: Home Phone: Type of Ownership: .5J:7 /11 /~ Work Phone: Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement~ Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): UJhR l' tJ 1= j" + I, 8J-k :J. J IIJ 4 rEI/ I~rr()~ r ~SSAGe AtJ[) IV .$ c;o1r ep t"y THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL APPROVED APPROVED CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee lu-app2.doc DENIED DENIED DATE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING -~ I( ~~ / AJ 7 6;=!lt7-6 F 1fr'..o~.. City of Prior Lake VARLANCEPROCEDURES 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 OVERVIEW When a person wishes to maintain/build/construct a structure in a way which does not comply with the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance, a variance is required. Specific requirements for property in each Zoning District are contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Section 7.6 of the Ordinance sets forth the procedure and requirements for the review of variance requests. The Ordinance is available for review or purchase from the City's Planning Department. PRE-APPLICATION PROCEDURES Before making application for a variance, persons are advised to meet with a member of the planning staff to discuss the following: * Zoning requirements which apply to the property. * The development or building plan for the property. * The applicability of the Ordinance specified criteria to the development or building plan. * Alternatives to the proposed development. * Variance procedures. If a decision is made to proceed after the advisory meeting or meetings, a formal application is made. APPLICATION PROCEDURES In order to be considered, the application must be complete. A complete application consists of the following (additional items may be required in individual cases): A. Completed application form (including complete legal description and Property Identification Number [pID, this can be obtained from county property tax statement]). B. Filing fee: $1~.eO review fee:I/SD,OD C. Certificate of Survey for the property and adjacent 300 feet showing the existing and proposed development in relation to; 1. Property lines, 2. Ordinary High Water Mark (OHW), bluffline if applicable, 3. Proposed building elevations, 4. Drainage Plan (topography), 5. Buildings (existing and proposed), 6. Easements, 7. Utilities. D. Mailing labels of the names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. A copy of the half section map indicating those properties listed (within 100 feet of exterior boundaries of the subject property). The property owners list and map may be obtained from the County Auditor (496-8165) or a certified abstract company. Two such firms are: Scott County Abstract & Title Inc.. .Ph. 445-6246 Kohlrusch Scott Carver Abstract Co. Inc.... Ph.445-1050 " . ) 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, substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. 6. Close Hearing 7. Appeal: The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by submitting a letter to the City requesting an appeal within 5 working days of the Planning Commission hearing. The City Manager will then schedule the appeal on the next, available City Council agenda. 8. Recording: If the variance or variances are approved, the applicant becomes responsible for recording a copy of the certified resolution at the Scott County Recorder's Office. The certified copy of the resolution must be stamped by the County Recorder as proof of recording and returned to the planning offices of the City of Prior Lake before the issuance of a building permit for the project. The applicant must provide proof of recording to the city and received a building permit within one 1 (1) year from the date of approval or the variance becomes null and void. I V ARGUID4.DOC UPDATED 10/2/96 .",.H..:~................_._._....~.,".,_ , . __~"".",,"",,"'._a,~ _ ,",~...:r""-':".~-_ E. A copy of deed restrictions or covenants on the property, if any exist. F. The site development plan showing existing and proposed conditions including: buildings, parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. Within ten days of submission of the application, the applicant may receive formal, written notice from the City whether the application is not complete. If the application is complete, no written notice will be given. Within 60 days of receipt of a complete application, the Planning Commission must approve or deny the application, unless a 60-day extension is taken for specific reasons, or the applicant agrees to an extension beyond 120 days for making a decision Notice of Hearing: Public hearings are scheduled for the Planning Commission on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month. Complete applications must be submitted to the Planning Department at least thirty (30) days prior to the scheduled meeting to allow publication of hearing notice. The Planning Department will notify the applicant and other, affected property owners of the date and time the proposal will be heard by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING PROCEDURES: The following procedures are followed by the Planning Commission in reviewing variance requests: 1. Call to Order: The Chairperson calls the hearing to order at or near the scheduled time contained in the notice. 2. Staff Report: A member of the City's Planning Staff reviews the request and staff recommendation for the Commission. 3. Applicant Comments: The applicant is given the opportunity to make comment regarding the request, including the following items; a. Reasons and rationale for the request, b. Specific details of the proposal, Applicants are invited to use the overhead projector provided, and the exhibits prepared by Staff. Any additional exhibits submitted by the applicant (at the hearing or prior to the hearing) such as photographs, petitions, etc. must be entered into the public record and submitted to the Planning Department for the file. 4. Public Comment: Persons interested in the request are given the opportunity to comment or ask questions of either the applicant or Planning Commission. However, any questions should only be answered after direction by a Commissioner. 5. Planning Commission ReviewIDecision: After all comment is received, the Commission will discuss the request, and may approve, deny or table/continue the request. In reaching its decision, the Commission will determine whether the request meets the following Ordinance criteria; 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship respect to the property. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. ) DAVID O. HANSEN ~ I r 108 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN ~!a~~~king 1'6~4-4646 . MEMO ~ IIiii 117' U I .~ -, J"" I i smu<<iGEWFfY I -- ;' :=::~_.. ---:-.:--- ., CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE SE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 (612) 447-4230, (612) 447-4245 RECEIPT # 32485 DATE: 9!l3/7Y dollars for the purpose of $ ~U")OU BUILDING PERMIT # BUILDING PERMIT # Building Permit Fee Plan Check Fee State Surcharge Plmb Pmt pp# Mech Pmt mc# (Heating only - $65.00) (Htg & Air - $100.00) (Fireplace - $40.00) (Air - $40.00) Swr/Wtr Pmt sw # Other 1 ,200.00 700.00 1,500.00 Building Permit Fee Plan Check Fee State Surcharge Park Support Fee SAC Plmb Pmt pp# Mech Pmt mc# Mech Pmt mc# Swr/Wtr Pmt sw# Pressure Reducer Water Meter Tree Preservation Deposit Swr/Wtr Connection Fee Water Tower Fee Builder's Deposit Other Total Total ", v '.. ""~........" ~bank. ~24-HOur Bank~ing 1-612-244-4646 r MEMO~ r~~~ - -1 o IlaxL . _ ,~ '0 ; ~.J! ~ ~ r/""":;, ~.... '-'- ..' <~ ~ "" - ~"~ ~~ . \ \ ! \ NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES FOR A BUILDING IN THE BUSINESS OFFICE PARK (B-P) ZONING DISTRICT: A VARIANCE TO ROOF-TOP SCREENING OF UTILITY EQUIPMENT AND A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE IRRIGATION REQUIREMENT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED AND P ARTIALL Y OCCUPIED. TillS REQUEST IS DUE TO THE APPLICANT'S NEED FOR A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE B-P (BUSINESS PARK) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 17001 FISH POINT 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 24, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: David Hansen 8140 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PROPERTY OWNERS: Same SUBJECT SITE: Legally described as: That pan of Lot 1, Block 2, WATERFRONT PASSAGE ADDITION, Scott County, Minnesota descnbed as follows: . Beginning at the northwest comer of Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 44 seconds East plat bearing along the west line of said Lot I, Block 2, a distance of 147.00 feet; rbencc along a t:mgential curve concave to the west, having a radius of 526.00 feet, a c~ntnll angle of 02 degrees 50 minutes 26 seconds, an arc length of 26.08 fel;:t; tht:ncl;: North 87 degrees 30 minutes 56 seconds East (nottangenc to said curve) a distance of 195.73 feet; thenc; . S~uth 85 degrees 59 minutl;::l. 04 seconds East a distance of 217.67 fet:t; thence South 00 degrees 10 mmutes 44 seconds West a dIStance of 184.60 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the north line .of said Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 16 seconds West along saId easterly extension and the north line of said Lot 2, Block 2, a distance or 410.52 feet to the point of beginning. d5 -~q ~ ...O()..)-:1- L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-093\98-093PN .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 - - S //2 SEC. 9 ~ " '.., ~ ~ \. ....::::"- ~~ / T. //4 ~ '- '="l .JQ ".J ~ '..... ... ~~ I 2NO . I I Ao- -qDI, D.;/Ito '0...0' ....... L/ t.j,? A ........ A lJ; Ide (fLeSS 70llctS ...nOT . rS)nd QddvL ~S'- 33~ et.IHll --'-""" OUTLOT -;- - "'- kINO "~"KE ~ 5. ~ q f.p -110 . ooz-0 ft.,c WATE' (J,-J..q(p- OO.2-f ;1)" e'd gf1!1g " AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF SCOTT ) )ss STATE OF MINNESOTA) b ~Ofthe City of Prior Lake, County of Scott, Stale of Minnesota, being duly sworn, says on the , ?:>f1aayof ~ ~8, she served the attached tist of persons to have an interest in the CJr - a ~ J~ , by mailing to them a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope, postage prepaid, and be depositing same in the post office at Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties. Subscribed and sworn to be this day of , 1998. NOTARY PUBLIC MAILAFFD.DOC PAGB .. .- S //2 SEC. 9 ~ . .", "J :.:: \ ,~ ~~ / T. //4 ~ ...:... -.)8 ..,: ~\... .... ~~ l 2ND . I I A~-qO/1 Oo//to 1/ tf/ '7 A OUTI.GT . lJ; JdeIrLeSS 7011Js.. OJn.OT · d ncf Odd VL ~S'~33?? "'MICI$ SlCLL Ill..IHO I ~I --............ OUTl.OT -;- - """'- !~I.I ~, I BI.IND . I.AKE ADO'N OUn..OT .. ;2 \, \ .,.. /'.. ) '" 1,,1'_- ..J - q.., I.P lZo f7 ~ OOZ-0 I I I WATERF :J.~'J\g/p- OO~-f jlJC.'d gf1!18 . 0 0 0 0 ... >-:l otIl 0 0 0 0 ... III -J::O f-I f-I t-.J f-I ... ~ '-0 0 aI -.J 0... !\J IC !\J w IC... III IC>-:l 1111 00 -.J 111... '< '-Ill II" 1111 111 w 111... (1) f-I>< I ... t"! IC ::0 '0 I '0 '0 '0'" ICto l>l ::0 I ::0 ::0 ::0... 00'< 0 H I H H H'" III 0 I ... rt ~ ~ ::0 'Of-IOO 'Of-I:J;< I~~ 'Of-IOO'" Z f-I(1) 0 ::OalHH ::O-.J ::OalHH... III oS to ~~~~ HO~ 00<: Ht-.J~~... S O!\J H 00 ... (1) 0 '0 ::00 ::Of-l:I: '00 ::00 ... 0 ::0 t"'l>l~~ H ~O... ~ <- ~ H t"''':Il>l toOO t"'l>l >::I'" 0 ~ :J;<:J;<:3: :J;<H~ toZ :J;<:J;<:3: ... 5: -.J ~G:lH'O ~to l>ll>l~ ~G:lH'O'" -~ l>l l>lt"'Z::O l>l:I:l>l Zl>l l>lt"'Z::O'" P. 0 0 l>lHH ::0 ::0 l>lHH'" t"! ~ toO ~'O'O ~>-:l~ ~ too... (1) O>-:l::O 0::0 O>-:l::O'" III ~~t"' HH ::oz ::o~ ... III VJ 111~~ t"' l>l t"'... 111l>l>-:l:J;< 111 111l>l>-:l:J;<... 111~0~ 111 to 111 111~0~'" Y w ::Ol>l w::o w w ::Ol>l'" :::J- -.J:J;< -.JO f-I -.J:J;< ... !\J<: !\J -.J !\J<: ... ~ tr.l ... l>l ... ~ ... ... ~ ... t; ... c. ... ... ~ !\J t-.J !\J !\J 0 0 0 0 0 1-'- u1 0 0 0 0 III t-.J !\J !\J !\J rt 0 0 0 0 Z 00 00 00 00 >-:l III 0 0 0 0 '- S 0 0 0 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 to 5: -J -J -.J -.J C'l f-I I f-I f-I f-I ::r P- IC I IC IC IC t"! I (1) I III I 111 I 111 111 111 to III I 01 0 0 0 '0 I ICI IC IC IC f-I t"' I (1) I Oil LQ I '0 III I t-.J I-' I I f-I f-I f-I f-I to :3: I aI aI aI aI 'tl 0 I I II" II" II" Ii> W P- I (1) I 111 111 111 111 to I-' I 0 0 0 0 '0 (1) 111 111 111 111 II" t"! 111 111 111 111 to 0 0 0 0 '0 -.J -.J -.J -.J 111 tr.l '0 aI to 'tl -.J to '0 00 tr.l '0 IC f-I f-I f-I f-I >< IC IC IC IC (1) IC IC IC IC III IC IC IC IC t"! ::0 ::0 ::0 ::0 ::0 t"'~!\J t"'~!\J t"'~t-.J t"'~!\J '0 OHl11 0:J;<111 0:J;<111 0:J;<111 III >-:ltr.l >-:It"'w >-:l>-:lt-.J >-:l>-:l!\J >-:l>-:l!\J t"! :J;<o 10f-l Il>lIC Il>lIC Il>lIC C'l ICO Ol>lOO o::Oal o::Oal o::Oal (1) :::~ '~O 0":10 0>::10 0>::10 I-' t"' 111 !\J::Oo f-I::Oo f-I::Oo t"' l>l0 ow Ot-.J O!\J # 0 tIltoo gl~O gl~!\J gl~O ~ t"'to 0 0 0 0 0'0 0'0 0'0 0'0 t"' ~o ~:J;< ~:J;< ~:J;< (1) ~~ lto Itr.l Itr.l LQ I oto oto oto III '0 oto 0:J;< 0:J;< 0:J;< I-' 0 :J;< !\JG:l !\JG:l t-.JG:l tr.l l>l l>l l>l >-:l I ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ G:ll>l l>l::O to to rt H III ~ rt r:: f-I III AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE AND DAVID O. HANSEN CONCERNING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17001 FISH POINT ROAD, PRIOR LAKE, MN. WHEREAS, David O. Hansen (Developer) is the owner and developer of property located at 17001 Fish Point Road, Prior Lake, MN., and WHEREAS, Developer applied for variances to waive the requirements for in-ground irrigation of landscaped areas and rooftop screening and the application was denied by the Board of Adjustment on August 24, 1998, and WHEREAS, the Developer appealed the decision of the Board of Adjustment to the City Council and the City Council upheld the decision of the Board of Adjustment on September 21, 1998, and WHEREAS, the City Council passed a motion directing staff to enter into an agreement with the Developer whereby the Developer will comply with either the existing or new zoning ordinance within 12 months and financial security in a form acceptable to the City will be provided, THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS; 1. Developer agrees that, prior to September 21, 1999, he will comply with the provisions of the zoning ordinance of the City of Prior Lake in effect as of the date of this agreement regulating in-ground irrigation of landscaping. In the event that the City of Prior Lake adopts a new zoning ordinance prior to September 21, 1999, developer will comply with the provisions of the new ordinance regulating in-ground irrigation of landscaping and rooftop screening. 2. Developer agrees to extend Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 0080-2 issued by Security Bank and Trust Co., Glencoe, MN. to September 21, 1999 and to extend the coverage of the Letter of Credit to include the rooftop screening. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF PRIOR LAKE BY: Wesley M. Mader, Mayor BY: Frank Boyles, City Manager DEVELOPER BY: David 0 Hansen Reviewed for form and execution By: Suesan Lea Pace City Attorney September 18, 1998 David Hansen 17001 Fish Point Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Agenda and Agenda Report Dear Mr. Hansen: Attached is a City Council Agenda and Agenda Report for the September 21, 1998, meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230. Sincerely, Cl.~ ~nSier. AICP Planning Coordinator -~;r2Z~ --- ,...-,,-~ Enclosure .~ - _'->..i>:"_'':_-~';' 16200 I!j~~I~~~t;gg~.~I~BY Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~\47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO. 735 11TH ST. E. · P.O. BOX 218 · GLENCOE, MN 55336 · (320) 864-3171 FAX NO. 1-320-864-5133 · TRUST DEPARTMENT - · ~ (320) 864-5134 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 0080-2 August 13, 1997 City of Prior Lake, City Administrator 4629 Dakota St. SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Sir: In conformance with provisions between the City of Prior Lake and David Hansen regarding the installation oflandscaping and watering equipment we hereby issue this Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of$17,500. The drafts drawn under this Letter of Credit are to be endorsed hereon and must bear the clause "drawn under the Security Bank and Trust Company Letter of Credit No. 0080-2, dated August 13, 1997. Security Bank and Trust Company agrees with the City of Prior Lake that as holder of the Letter of Credit that the same shall be duly honored upon demand at Security Bank and Trust Company on or before February 13, 1999. This Letter of Credit is subject to the uniform customs practice for Commercial Documentary Drafts/ICC Publication No. 400. Except as otherwise expressly stated herein, this Letter of Credit shall be subject to and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota, including the Uniform Commercial Code as applies to Letters of Credit. JAG/mv OFFICES AT -735 11TH ST. E. . GLENCOE . (320) 864-3171 2110 9TH ST. E.. GLENCOE. (320) 864-3107 128 4TH AVE. N. . BROWNTON . (320) 328-5222 8 THIRD ST. S.W. . PLATO. (320) 238-2208 FILE COpy July 27, 1998 Dave Hansen 8140 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Variance Application Dear Mr. Hansen, The City is in receipt of your variance application from the roof top screening and irrigation requirements. The following information needs to be submitted prior to continued review of your application: . The fee for a nonresidential variance is $200.00. You submitted $350.00. The payment must be for the exact amount. The $200.00 fee covers both variance requests. Enclosed is the check you originally submitted for $350.00. Please submit the proper amount. . Part of the submittal for a variance includes the names and address of all of the property owners extending 100 feet beyond your property boundaries. The list must come from the Scott County Auditor or a certified abstract company. The names must appear on a list, be printed on labels, and include a map detailing the parcels listed. Such a list was not submitted with your variance application. If we receive the information by 4;30 p.m. on Monday, August 10, 1998 we can process your application for public hearing on August 24, 1998. (The deadline for the August 10,1998 meeting is today, July 27,1998.) If we receive it after that day, then we will proceed to schedule your item on the next available Planning Commission agenda. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, /[, f#U j~taU '-/!i Tovar i/Planner cc: Frank Boyles, City Manager Don Rye, Planning Director 16200 5~'fe8t!r~~'A~r.~~-p~~~~~~.1~i~~l}i~~~ 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER D.O. Hansen 8140 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie MN 55344 July 22, 1998 City Council City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake MN 55372-1712 RE: 17001 Fish Pt. Road SE Variances: I. Rooftop HAC Screening II. In-ground Sprinkling System Dear Council Members: Today, I am applying for the two variances I have requested through the normal channels with the Planning Commission etc. I am submitting a three hundred fIfty dollar fee (which I fully intend to be reimbursed) to initiate a hearing/preventation to obtain the two variances. I'm aware the City of Prior Lake is in the process of pursuing changes, modillcations, etc., in these ordinances, but I need my Certificate of Occupancy ASAP. It may take the City months to finalize good, workable ordinances. As for the roof top units, I would certainly paint the units. If the City desires and if the City feels it would create a "cosmetic plus." The in-ground watering system is totally unnecessary and extremely wasteful. My landscape/trees are all in. I certainly will replace any dead trees (I have three to replant at this moment) and I certainly agree to maintain my topography in an excellent manner. .\ D.O. Hansen cc: Mayor Wes Mader J\jl 7- L \~~)l\ ~~:/ \ ..._-_.~...._-_.~.- J '~.~ L--,-- I _ ~. <.. ./ _&r~" .. ~ r&~ &z~~. , r!) ~C'-JY' ()R-t~(, J~ )'A v ~/Y?I ~<< -d~ ,y-J~. lUC1 ~~-t/~ _'d!&i cf ~~!. _ _- --- , (I.. .dH/' 7 C'.Lu5?Jlo . , f~/ /uV~ ~ ---.--- ------~--- --., --~---_._._-----~ -- S //2 SEC. 2NC 7.&2 Ii 9 ~J . '" " .~ ~ ~~ I 'r I I ;< ';) .- C; D / - OJ.} I 0 I r / ,7 //4 ~ --- .~. ....)~ . -.J _1 .....\ .....:::;.... ~~ I a.m.aT . ~J; Ide (rltSS 7unc{s "'MT , 'incl il J j rY - 0tOO VL o1s-332? ,.-os SIOi(u. / / / 1'-' " 111/ 11 3<.;..0 -- ?UTt..aT J -""",,- 3L.lHO . 1....1J(E: d..... ~/', ~.J' J ~I i - '7'. . VJ '1. . OOl-oOr;,L 'NA7':. :J.J'J\9~- OO:2..-f jLt c'cJ g(1!1S