HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 29, 2001
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-084 (Continued) The Vierling property owners are requesting an
amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan for 320 acres
located in Sections 23 and 24, Township 115, Range 22. The proposal is to amend the
Land Use Map from the current R-HD (High Density Residential) designation and the C-
BO (Business Office Park) designation to Rural Density.
B. Case File #00-083 Rock Creek Homes are requesting variances to minimum lot area and
structure setback to the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a single family
home on the property located at 5690 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE,
C. Case File #01-001 Centex Home is requesting a zone change for 38.9 acres of vacant
land located on the west side ofCSAH 83, Y4 mile south ofCSAH 42, in the East Yz of
the NW Y4 of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The proposal is to
remove the Shore land District designation from this property and to rezone the property
from the current A (Agricultural) District to the R-2 (Low to Medium Density
Residential) District.
D. Case File #01-004 John and Linda Meyer are appealing the Zoning Administrator's
decision to not allow a 24 foot square detached accessory structure on Lots 62 and 64,
Twin Isles.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #00-086 St. Michael's Variance Resolution.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
.J.:\O\fiIes)l!lplan~\OlPC~\I;l\agO~90I.DQC
16200 t..ag e CreeK Ave. ~.t..., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
..
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16. 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16,2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhofcalled the January 16,2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue McDermott, Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V onhof
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the December 11,2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-072 (Continued) Holiday Station Stores are requesting a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a gas station/convenience store and carwash for the
property located north of Fountain Hills Drive at the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 16,2001, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The City of Prior Lake recently received an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
to allow the construction of a gas station, convenience store and automatic car wash on the
property located at the southwest comer of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on this application on December 11,2000. Due to the
number of issues pertaining to the application, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to January 16,2001, to allow the applicant time to address these issue. The applicant
submitted revised plans to the Planning Department on Monday, January 8, 2001.
The staff recommended approval ofthis CUP, subject to the following conditions:
1. The site grading and drainage issues as outlined in the memorandums from the
Engineering Department.
2. The parking plan must provide the minimum parking spaces.
3. An access easement for the shared driveway must be submitted.
4. An irrigation plan must be provided as part of the landscaping plan.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
1
...
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
5. Drainage and surfacing plans for the car wash must be submitted for review and approval
by the City Engineer.
6. Outside Storage and Display: No outside sale or display shall be permitted except
gasoline and other goods consumed in the normal operation of a car and limited to the
following products: oil, gasoline and oil additives, windshield cleaner, windshield wipers,
tires and batteries. No products shall be sold or displayed in any required yard nor shall
the total display area occupy more than 150 square feet in area or be more than 5 feet in
height. No other vehicular parts and non-automobile oriented goods shall be displayed or
sold outside.
7. Public Address System: No public address system shall be audible from any property
located in an "R" Use District.
City Engineer Sue McDermott stated the majority ofthe engineering issues have been revised
and are reflected on the new plans. The major issues were with the driveways. Most can be
worked out with the developer's engineer. The driveway entrance should be moved 10 feet
to the west in order to avoid a catch basin. The Engineering Department also requested that
the applicant hold a pre-construction meeting to meet with the private utility companies to
discuss the timing of relocation of substantial features in the western driveway area.
Kansier said the Holiday plans have identified all the outstanding issues. Some changes will
need to be made to the plan, however the staff did not feel those issues would warrant further
continuance of the items. They are minor items that can be addressed before this goes before
the City Council.
Comments from the public:
Victor Sacco, Manager of Real Estate for Holiday Companies, said they have reviewed the
conditions and will meet the conditions to the site plan. The Holiday Companies' engineer
was also available for questions.
Dave Baden, said he was a close neighbor to the area and questioned the direction of runoff.
Sue McDermott said there is an on-site storm sewer system and in accordance with the
building code they will have to provide drainage in the carwash. She did not see a problem.
V onhof closed the floor.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Concurred with staff subject to the conditions in the report.
Stamson:
. The last meeting concern was landscaping. There was no clear plan. Those issues
have been met.
. The second concern was the impact on the neighbors. The surrounding lots are
heavily treed. There is adequate screening.
. Recommend City Council approve the request.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
Criego:
. Why isn't there a drain basin with this project? McDermott said the sedimentation
holding ponds were graded in with the entire Fountain Hills Addition. The ponds
were graded in at that time. Most of the water will drain to the regional pond on
County Road 42, which was designed to take the drainage from this property.
. Questioned the sidewalk or trail in front of the station.
. McDermott explained the trail on the north side of Fountain Hills Drive, which
covers the industrial park connecting with Pike Lake Trail.
. Asked applicant to discuss the easement required for the second driveway. Sacco
responded Holiday decided it would be good traffic circulation to have the access cut
lined up with the side street parallel with Pike Lake Trail. Another concern was for
the utilities. Holiday will put together an easement with property holder Wensco.
. Kansier pointed out the development had always planned for a shared driveway for
these lots.
. The landscaping was laid out to help the residents. Questioned if there was more
landscaping on the west side of the property. Sacco said they looked for trees on the
southeast side that would block and screen. Pines trees are located on the site.
. Felt there should be larger evergreens to solve the problem.
Lemke:
. Agreed with staff s recommendation.
Atwood:
. At the last meeting there was a question on the Vierling fence. Kansier responded the
issue was with the west side of the plat, not part of this lot.
V onhof:
. Concurred with the Commissioners' comments. Encouraged better screening on the
southeast comer using larger plantings.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A GAS
STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITIONS.
Criego felt there should be more evergreens at a greater height.
Stamson felt the maple trees have a bigger canopy and will cover more area. If too many
evergreens are put in you can see over the top of them. The homes on the hill are heavily
treed as it is.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will most likely go before the City Council on February 5, 2001.
B. Case File #00-089 Jane Crosson is requesting a Variance to permit a deck
structure with a rear setback less than the minimum required.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
3
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated January 16,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Jane Y. Crosson for a deck
addition to be added to a single family structure recently approved under Building Permit
#00-983, to be constructed on the vacant lot at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue. Eagle Creek
Villas, LLC, is the current owner and builder of the subject property, and Ms. Crossen has
purchased the property contingent on securing this variance to construct the deck addition on
the main level.
On September 25,2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 00-12PC granting
variances to lot area and lot width for this subject lot, an existing substandard lot of record.
The original building plans and variance request did not include a main level walkout door or
deck addition to the house, only a lower level walkout door to a ground level platform.
The following variance is requested:
A 13 foot variance to permit a 12 foot structure setback to the rear lot line rather than the
required minimum 25 feet.
The Planning staff believed the hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the
Ordinance requirements and the subject lot in relation to the proposed development plans,
including the previously adopted variance resolution. Staff recommended the Planning
Commission adopt the resolution denying applicanfs variance as requested.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Jane Crosson, said she has a purchase agreement contingent on approval of the
variance. She is a current lake dweller. She would like to build a new house with the
convenience of accessing the barbeque area from the kitchen area. Crosson explained the
proposed structure included the common area not the actual lot line. She did not feel this was
an unreasonable request and stated it would increase the value of the home. She would enjoy
the deck May through October from all levels of the home. The neighbor's view will not be
affected.
Greg Engebos, 4931 Beach Street and 14582 Oakland Beach, felt all ofthe homes in the area
will be rebuilt at some time. He thought most of the neighboring homes do have a second
level deck and would like to keep the aesthetic appearance of the property as high as
possible.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Four months ago when the home was designed without a deck, no accommodations
were made for a deck. It was designed under the ordinance and setback requirements.
It was an obvious conscious decision of the builder to eliminate space for the deck to
accommodate some other needs. The builder would not have done that if he felt it
was a great hardship given the home he was designing.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
4
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
. The hardship criteria has not been met under a number of issues.
. Nothing has changed to create a hardship.
. Deny the request.
Criego:
. This is a substandard lot, smaller than a substandard lot at 4,000 square feet.
. The first variance we accepted was a 3,500 foot change from the original plan. There
have been several variances made on this property that were justified.
. The common area was considered for impervious surface.
. The applicant is stretching this property. Now she is asking for more.
. There is more home than the property can handle.
. Not in favor ofthe request.
Lemke:
. Looked at the lot and neighborhood.
. Does not disagree with the Commissioner's comments, but a deck is customary and
reasonable in Minnesota.
. There is going to be platform underneath it.
. Support the deck.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Stamson and Criego, the deck is an afterthought. In a well thought out
plan a deck would have been included.
. Pointed out at the last meeting, the neighbors felt the varianc~s on-this property
would cause a hardship if they wanted to add on. Questionedflip- flopping the home
as previously discussed.
. Crosson said the plans were flipped-flopped. She pointed out she was not part of the
original plan. She put money down in November and made changes inside the home
to suit her tastes. Crosson questioned why there was no deck and requested the
vanance.
V onhof:
. Concurred with fellow commissions, the hardship criteria have not been met for any
further variances on this property. It is a small property area to provide a deck.
. Will not support.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
001PC DENYING A 12 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF
13 FEET FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process.
L:\O I files\OI plancomm\O I pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
5
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16.2001
C. Case File #00-084 The Vierling property owners are requesting an amendment
to the City of Prior Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan for 320 acres located in
Sections 23 and 24, Township 115, Range 22. The proposal is to amend the Land Use
Map from the current R-HD (High Density Residential) designation and the C-BO
(Business Office Park) designation to Rural Density.
V onhof stated the Commissioners just received information submitted by the applicant and
will not have time to review. However, testimony would be taken by the public and most
likely the hearing will continue to the next meeting.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 16, 2001, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Helen, Edward, Michael and Rebecca Vierling have filed an application for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for the property located on the north side of CSAH 42 between Pike Lake
Trail and CSAH 18. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
from the current R-HD (High Density Residential) and the C-BO (Business Office Park)
designations to the Rural Density designation on 320 acres of land.
This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural). The east 160 acres of the site are
designated as C-BO (Business Office Park) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map,
and the west 160 acres of the site is designated as R-HD (High Density Residential). The
applicants have requested these designations be changed to Rural Density.
The total site consists of approximately 320 acres and has been cropland for several years,
although some portions of the site are wooded. The property is used for agricultural purposes.
There is a farmstead and outbuildings located in the southwest corner of the site. Also, the
site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act.
In 2000, the property owners requested the City approve a request for this property to be
reenrolled in the Agricultural Preserve program. The City refused this request on the basis
the property no longer qualified for program participation. The City has no objection to
enrollment of this property in the Green Acres program, which provides some tax protection
for existing farmland. The City also has no plans to rezone this property from its current A
(Agricultural) district unless requested to do so by the property owners.
The current designation ofthis property for use as something other than long-term agriculture
has been in place since 1995. The applicants have not demonstrated any need to change this
designation.
Staff recommended denial of the request.
Comments from the public:
Attorney Patrick Kelly, Kelly & Fawcett Law Firm, 2350 Piper Jaffray Plaza, St. Paul,
representing the applicants, stated the property does not qualify for the Agriculture Preserve
Program is because of the Comprehensive Plan. Kelly said land under the R-HD zoning
equates to 30 units per acre. Kelly believes his calculations would be 4,000 to 5,000 units
with the 160 acre parcel. This is not part of the MUSA. They studied the area dealing with
L:\OI files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 200 I
well system issues. When and ifthe Vierlings decide to rezone, the City's infrastructure
would be impacted. The Vierlings have been farming this property for 150 years. As part of
the operation the Vierlings utilize approximately 170 acres on County Roads 42 and 21.
They also have 55 acres on Prior Lake. If the operation is shut down they will have no
choice but to develop.
Stamson pointed out the City is not asking for the amendment, the Vierlings are.
Kelly felt by amending the Comprehensive Plan the City has knocked out the farming
process. If they are out of the Ag Preserve they will be piece-mealing the development.
Sections of 20 or 30 acres will become office park or commercial. This is a contradiction in
reality, normally developers come in and want to put 4,000 or 5,000 units or 3 story office
buildings. The Vierlings are asking the City to put them back in the Ag Preserve and farm. It
is an 8 year period. With the Ag Preserve Plan they will maintain farming. It is a benefit of
open space for the community. Their farming is a profitable operation.
Stamson pointed out the Vierlings initiated the 240 acres removal out of the Ag Preserve two
years prior to the City changing the Comprehensive Plan. Kelly said at that time, Helen
Vierling's husband Leo was running the farm and there were other issues going on in the City
of Prior Lake. Leo chose not to re-enroll but he figured he had this 8 year window to take a
look at it and see what was going on with development. Leo passed away in 1995 and his
wish was to continue farming with his son, Michael. Michael has been successful and this is
the direction the family would like to go. Most cities are striving for open space and the
Vierlings are trying to accomplish that.
Stamson referenced the staff report suggesting the alternative of Green Acres. Kelly said it
does not do what the Ag Preserve does. Kelly then summarized the Ag Preserve definition.
(473H.Ol Minnesota Statutes).
Stamson clarified the benefits of the Ag Preserve:
. Better tax advantages
. Protected from eminent domain
. Special Assessments
. Zoning Conflicts
Stamson asked Kelly what Ag Preserve does not do. Kelly responded it involves a tax-type
situation where it allows deferring assessments as soon as the farming operation ends. With
Ag Preserve, the cities can act different ways through the power of zoning. If the farmer is in
the Ag Preserve he does not have to worry about the headaches of conflict with the best
intentions of the city. Green Acres does not protect like the Ag Preserve.
Kelly went on to say there has been correspondence back and forth with the City of Prior
Lake since February of 1999.
Atwood questioned ifthe remaining 110 acres are part of the Ag Preserve. Kelly responded
it was part of the operation of the farm, but there is a drainage problem with the lake
property. It is zoned office/commercial on the corner of County Roads 41 and 21.
L:\O I files\OI plancomm\O I pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
7
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
Lemke questioned what governmental body approves the Ag Preserve. Kelly responded once
the City okays it, it is reviewed by the County and ultimately approved by the Met Council.
McDermott clarified there is trunk sewer and water along County Road 42 and this area.
When the County Road 42 and Pike Lake construction started a few years ago, there were
crossings put in to the north side of County Road 42. She stated she would be happy to
provide Mr. Kelly with the plans.
Stamson asked if there were any other designations besides Rural Residential that would
allow Ag Preserve. Kansier answered there was not.
Comments from the public:
Mike Vierling, 13985 Pike Lake Trail, thanked his neighbors for the support. Vierling said
people ask him why he just doesn't pack up his bags and go somewhere else. Sometimes
money does not buy happiness. He does not want to farm anywhere else. It wouldn't be the
same. Vierling explained some of the problems he will have if he is not in the Ag Preserve.
He would like to see his sons have the opportunity to farm just like his Dad gave him. The
neighbors love the open spaces. He knows he will eventually be forced out. Pretty soon
there is going to houses everywhere. He wants to run the farm like a business. He can't do
that unless he is in the Ag Preserve program and asks for the City's support. What is 8 years
down the line? Even if he wanted to sell it would take years get it right.
Stamson questioned Vierling if 8 years is a long enough period to justify the improvements
he would like to make. Is it enough? Vierling said it was and went on to say he does not
want to put in any improvements until he knows what is going on.
Lucy Vierling Cunningham, stated the family has been farming for many years and are
dedicated to the farm. This is not the time to sell. She has a family, works full time and still
works on the farm.
Dan Klamm, 4130 140th Street NE, has known the Vierlings for 15 years and felt it was great
to see the farm exist for 150 years. Eight years is not long. Maybe the City has had
disagreements with the Vierlings but the community should come together on this issue.
Paul Lindahl, 2560 Muhlenhardt Road, felt the farm is a beautiful setting. The Vierlings are
asking for help. It is hard for a farmer to ask for assistance. It seems like such a minor thing,
at least give them a chance. They have done a lot for the community.
Russ Dunker, 4487 Chestnut Lane, said he does not know the Vierlings well but sees Mike a
few times a year. Mike has a real passion for what he does. Dunker felt it was not
unreasonable for the Vierlings to want the tax advantages. He is in support ofthe Vierlings
farming for as long as they want. They are very good neighbors.
Rita Baden, 13866 Pike Lake Trail, questioned how farm land is taken out of rural density
when it is being farmed. Why does the community feel they can make these changes? If the
Vierlings are willing to farm, let them make the choice. Weare losing our open space.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
8
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
Kansier explained the zoning is still agriculture and farming is a permitted use. The
Vierlings can continue to farm as long as they like. The Comprehensive Plan is a long term
plan to identify potential uses of property to allow the City, County and the rest of the
community to plan for things like municipal services, road systems, the park systems,
including the farm land. The City has no intention of stopping the Vierlings from farming.
The City is required to plan long term. The zoning has not changed and the City is not
requesting the amendment.
Kansier clarified the 8 years in Ag Preserve. Once the property is in the Ag Preserve
Program it does not come out until requested by the property owner. Once they make the
request the 8 year time frame starts. It is not just 8 years, it will go on until the law changes.
Kevin Shadduck, 4841 Beach Street, said the Vierlings have been great neighbors. The only
reason not to help the Vierlings farm is to perceive that the City wants to force them to sell so
the City can get a bigger tax base. It is a terrible motivation not to help a farmer.
Joe Zieska, 5316 Hampton, said he has looked out his window the last 14 years to see the
Vierling property and ifthey desire to farm for the next 100 or 200 years they can. But that
is not the issue. The property is zoned agriculture. He doesn't believe in the history of Prior
Lake (inaudible). To paraphrase Mr. Kelly we have to look at this logically from the facts.
First I would like to straighten out a few facts from Mr. Kelly. He stated the property was
zoned RHD (Rural High Density) - it is not. It is zoned Agriculture. The Comprehensive
Plan is RHD and CBO. He mentioned building 4,500 housing units on the land. The City
only has 3,000 houses. I don't see how he can put 4,500 in that little spot. He talks about
putting manufacturing and industrial in CBO. Those uses are not allowed. It has to be
business office park. Kelly speculated on the needed infrastructure and traffic on County
Road 42. He talks about the breakdown of County Road 42 in Burnsville. There isn't anyone
here that would tell us that 42 in Burnsville is broke down. That is why we need long range
planning. The City has to look at what the plan could possibly be used for in the future. As
the City Engineer pointed out, they oversized and put trunk sewer and water mains in to get
across County Road 42 to get to Pike Lake trail projects in anticipation of future
developments. It is only right for the homeowners who live adjacent to this property.
Anyone who has been on the Planning Commission for any length of time finds when there is
difficult rezoning problems, it is not from the land owner, it is from the adjacent property
owners. When I bought my house I never knew what was going to be there. The property
owners along County Roads 42 and 18, Pike Lake Trail will sell some day or somebody else
moves in and sees the beautiful farm and all of a sudden an office building goes up they'll
say "What happened? There was a farm before." By leaving it in the Comprehensive Plan as
potential uses somewhere in the future those people who purchase that property will know
potentially what can go in there. These are the reasons the Comprehensive Plan should be
left as is. It has nothing to do with present day land use.
Dave Baden, said the Vierlings are hard workers. The cows are good neighbors too. The
open space in Prior Lake is disappearing, we need less development. He hopes the Vierlings
will be farming for another 80 years, not just 8.
Linda Lehman,1323 1 Henning Circle, said she has been working with the Vierlings for the
past 5 years on the environmental compliance for their feedlots. Mike Vierling is looking at
spending $35,000 to $65,000 to come into compliance with the feedlot. He needs to know if
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
9
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
he will be able to farm there for the next 8 to 10 years for that issue alone. Would like the
Commissioners to allow him to continue not only for the cost issue but also for compliance
and whatever protection he needs from the Ag Preserve.
Yvonne Anderson, 13220 Pike Lake, Program Manager for the YMCA Camp and caretaker
since 1982 said the Camp has been on Pike Lake since the 1960's. At some time the YMCA
Camp will be put into a situation of the potential land use. The 80 acres they are on allows
2,500 youth each summer to come and experience the outdoors. Anderson supported the
Vierlings and asked the Commission to remember the green space.
Cindy Stark, 14730 Rosewood Road, enjoys looking over the Vierling property and Prior
Lake. The Vierling farm gives their children the opportunity to see a hard working farm.
Greg Engabos, 4931 Beach Street, appreciates what the City has done in developing the
Comprehensive Plan and understands proper planning. If it is the intent of the City of Prior
Lake to let the Vierlings continue farming, it should be demonstrated they could be put in the
best economic situation possible by allowing the Agricultural designation. Both intentions
would be met.
Jadin Bragg, Carriage Hills Development, said he listened to the Commissioners earlier
determining if there was hardship for a deck. He said it seems ridiculous the Commissioners
are pointing out they cannot change the Comprehensive Plan to let the Vierlings have what
they need. It is causing them economic hardship. Think about the area you live in.
Residents want to drive by a farm not high rise buildings. Bragg said he loves the fact he can
see Jeffers Pond and the cows. Don't change it.
Kenny Landherr, 14612 Rosewood Road, said from his family perspective they feel fortunate
to live next to the Vierling property and was the main reason they moved there. The bigger
issue is that it is a wonderful opportunity for his children to experience the farm.
K.R. Radin, 14211 Shore Lane, enjoys seeing the cows and felt Mike Vierling should have
the opportunity to continue farming.
The hearing was closed to the public.
Commissioner V onhof stated that since the Commissioners received a large packet of
material just before the meeting, they would like to continue the public hearing and give the
Commissioners time to review the information.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO
JANUARY 29, 2001.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson asked for a detailed definition of Green Acres and Ag Preserve specifically the tax
details for the next packet.
A recess was called at 8: 12 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8: 19 p.m.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mnO 1160 l.doc
10
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
D. Case File #00-082 Gary Matson is requesting a preliminary plat consisting of a
total of 0.96 acres to be subdivided into 2 lots for the existing single family dwelling and
one new single family dwelling for the property located on the north side of Centennial
Street, west of Candy Cove Trail and south of TH 13.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 16,2001, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of the public hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary plat for the
0.94 acre site located on the north side of Centennial Street, west of Candy Cove Trail and
south ofTH 13. The preliminary plat, to be known as Matson Addition, is the site of a single
family dwelling at 5366 Centennial Street. The proposed plat consists of 0.94 acres to be
subdivided into 2 lots for single family dwellings. Lot 2, Block 1, is the site of the existing
dwelling. Lot 1, Block 1, is the site of a future dwelling. The proposed lots meet or exceed
the minimum lot area and frontage requirements for the R-1 district.
The proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning
Ordinance. Ifthe preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following
condition:
1. Prior to final plat approval, the developer must submit a landscaping plan as required by
Section 1007.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
2. A minimum 10' wide drainage and utility easement must be provided along the front and
rear lot lines of each lot, and a minimum 5' wide drainage and utility easement must be
provided along the side lot lines of each lot. . A 15' wide drainage and utility easement
must be provided along the west lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, to maintain the existing sewer
easement.
Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat of Matson Addition as presented and
subject to the condition listed above, or with specific changes directed by the Planning
Commission.
Atwood questioned the parkland dedication. Kansier responded. The amount will be minor.
Comments from the public:
Gary Matson, felt Jane explained the situation well.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Approve
Atwood, Stamson, V onhof and Lemke:
. Concurred
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mnO 1160 l.doc
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS REQUESTED WITH STAFF'S
CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
E. Case File #00-00-086 The Church of St. Michael is requesting a variance to the
maximum building wall length to building height for the new addition to St. Michael's
School on property zoned R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) District located at
16280 Duluth Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 16,2001, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received an application for a variance to allow the construction of
an addition to the existing St. Michael's school building on the properly located at 16280
Duluth Avenue. The proposed addition is located on the south side of the existing school,
and is 142' long and 26' high. The following variance is therefore requested:
A variance to permit a structure with a building wall length to building height ratio of
5.46: 1 rather than the maximum ratio of 4: 1 (City Code Section 1107 .2202, ~8,b).
St. Michael's school is located at the northwest quadrant of Duluth Avenue and Pleasant
Avenue. The property consists of a combination of unplatted and platted parcels. It is in the
process of being replatted into one large parcel. ....
St. Michael's is in the process of expanding the school. The first phase, planned for
construction in 2001, consists of the south addition. Phase 2 is planned for construction
within the next 3 to 4 years. There are no specific plans for this second phase. Based on the
applicant's drawing, construction of the second phase also seems to require the purchase of
additional property.
The proposed request does not appear to meet the hardship criteria in that a legal alternative
exists. The applicant can redesign the west side of the addition to meet the maximum ratio of
length to height. The stafftherefore recommends denial ofthis request.
Comments from the public:
Rollie Brouillard, Parish Administrator for the Church of St. Michael, introduced the project
architect John Nightingale.
John Nightingale, Project Manager for St. Michael's from DRL Group in Minneapolis,
explained the project and future phasing for the school. Nightingale felt adding the bump-out
would be a detriment to the building. The homeowners have been notified and if there has
not been any problems, felt St. Michael's should be able to proceed.
Atwood questioned how the bump-outs would affect the master plans. Nightingale
responded it would effect the design of the phasing and be in the way and has no function.
Atwood asked if they would be back to the drawing table. Nightingale said they would and
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
12
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
effect the designer phase. Atwood questioned who sent out the notices to the neighbors.
Kansier responded staff did but St. Michael's had been holding neighborhood meetings. The
variance request was sent out 10 days before the meeting.
Lemke questioned the Phase 2 walls reducing the length. Nightingale said they were going to
be flush walls.
The hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Staff recommends denial based on the hardship criteria. They do not meet criteria #1.
The lot cannot accommodate a building of this size.
. It is important to keep in mind this is in phases. Phase 2 is going to require buying
more land. That current property is not on the market and outside St. Michael's
control. This lot as proposed cannot accommodate the entire project. It is extremely
small for the use.
. It is important to note this lot is 3 acres to house an elementary school. In passing 4
to 5 elementary schools on the way home, the smallest probably sat on 20 acres. It is
on a narrow block, constricted on three sides by public streets. The school and
church has been located there since the early 1900's. It was one of the first buildings
in town and predates any zoning ordinances in the City.
. For those reasons the hardship criteria has been met. This is largely outside their
control. The property is unique.
. The addition provides a valuable asset to the community.
. The problem can be mitigated by adding a condition that any future addition
eliminates this condition. So ifSt. Michael's does add on in the future it will be
eliminated. The final phase will not need a variance. Recognize that this is a phasing
proposal.
. It could also be mitigated by additional landscaping in the short term.
. This is a unique situation.
Criego:
. The east side of the new proposed building meets the criteria because of the
entryway. Kansier said it does meet the criteria and explained the ordinance
requirements for the bump-out.
. The homes on the east side are going to see a long flat building.
. Understand the phasing, but there is no guarantee that this will be done. How can the
Commission legitimately give a variance for something that may not be done? It is
an economic issue and predicated on a lot of things out ofSt. Michael's control.
. There are situations like this with homes and in the past have been very stringent that
the Commission did not want long walls to be built without some breaks. The
ordinance was even modified the ordinance to reduce the impact to make it less
prohibited.
. Cannot legitimately say yes to this variance.
. Serious concern for long flat walls and the appearance of them for the neighbors.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
13
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
Lemke:
. It speaks volumes that the neighbors are not present to object. If they do not object, I
will not object. St. Michael's say they have a master plan to expand.
. To build a 4x4 foot requirement that does not need to be satisfied after the end of
phase 2, maybe not the proper way to look at it from a planning standpoint, but
inclined to let them build it.
Atwood:
. Sees no problem granting the variance.
. The neighbors are not close.
. It is not attractive as it stands now. The material will be Class I.
. Trust that St. Michael's will go forward.
. Agreeable to request.
V onhof:
. Most elementary schools sit on 20 to 25 acres, minimum. This is an extremely tight
base.
. Believed the hardship criteria had been met.
. Suggest this condition be eliminated with any future phasing.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE
WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT ANY FUTURE ADDITION ELIMINATE
THIS VARIANCE REQUIREMENT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Atwood, Vonhof, and Lemke. Nay by Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier clarified the Motion by stating the Commissioners would like staff to prepare a
Resolution to the Motion for the next meeting..
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case File #99-086 Mark Liesener is requesting a one year extension of the
approved Variance Resolutions 99-025PC and 99-026PC for the property identified as
Lot 13, Block 2, Titus Second Addition.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated January 16,2001,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a written request for a one year extension of an approved
variance from Mark Liesener. On December 13, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a
variance to the structure setback requirement. This variance expired on December 13,2000.
The request to extend the variance was submitted on December 6, 2000, after notification by
this office of the impending expiration. Variance Resolution 99-026PC, originally adopted
on December 13, 1999, approved a variance to the minimum structure setback for a single
family dwelling. The variance is described as follows:
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O Ipcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
14
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
A 70 foot variance to permit a 30 foot structure setback from the Ordinary High Water
Mark (OHWM) elevation of a tributary stream rather than the required 100 foot [City
Code Subsection 1104.301: (3) Setback Requirements: Tributary Rivers].
The Planning Staff reviewed the applicant's request for a one year extension oftime. The lot
in question is a nonconforming lot of record. A variance is required before any construction
will be allowed on the property.
On October 9, 2000, The Planning Commission approved a request for a time extension of
one year for Variance Resolution 99-021PC. Resolution 00-0 14PC granted the applicant
until September 27,2001, for commencing construction on the subject property or the
variance will expire. Staff recommends a time extension for this variance request coincide
with the time extension granted on the previous request, on September 27, 2001. If a building
permit is not approved prior to September 27,2001, this variance will also expire.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. Sounds reasonable.
Atwood:
. Questioned ifthe new owner (Daniel Pinkevich) had contacted the City. Horsman
said he has not recently talked to him. Originally Pinkevich was planning to build in
the spring, but does not know if that has changed.
. September 27 is reasonable.
Stamson, Criego and V onhof:
. Concurred.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING EXTENSION OF
THE VARIANCES TIEING THEM TO THE SEPTEMBER 27, 200 1 DATE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
. Councilmember Jim Ericson has been appointed as liaison for the Planning
Commission.
. Commissioners should start thinking of workshop issues and get back to staff.
. Criego suggested talking about the zoning implemented a few years ago from low-
density to medium density.
. The new Subdivision Ordinance will be coming up soon.
. Criego suggested looking at the rezoning districts.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
15
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16,2001
. Vaughn will not be at the next meeting.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\O I files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mnO 1160 I.doc
16
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE VIERLING
PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTIONS 23 AND 24,
TOWNSHIP 115, RANGE 22 (Case File #00-084)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
JANUARY 29, 2001
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
Helen, Edward, Michael and Rebecca Vierling have filed an application for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located on the north side of CSAH 42
between Pike Lake Trail and CSAH 18. The proposal is to amend the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current R-HD (High Density Residential)
and the C-BO (Business Office Park) designations to the Rural Density designation on
320 acres of land.
The Planning Commission considered this item at a public hearing on January 16,2001.
At that meeting, the applicants' representatives distributed a packet of information. The
Planning Commission continued the public hearing in order to review this information.
REVIEW OF KELLY & FAWCETT LETTER
The letter submitted by the firm of Kelly & Fawcett, P.A., representatives of the
applicants, contains several reasons they believe the Comprehensive Plan should be
amended. The following is the staff's analysis of these reasons.
Historical Reasons:
The letter suggests the Vierling farm should be preserved for its historical value. There
are no structures of historical significance on this site. Farmland, in itself, does not have
historical value. In fact, on page 4 of the letter, the applicants note the land will be
developed at some time in the future.
1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-084\OOO84pc2.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
.
..
Loeistical Reasons:
1. The City is not prepared for High Density or Office Parks
The letter suggests the City is unprepared for development of the Vierling property.
The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to identify future land uses. In conjunction
with this, the plan also identifies potential road connections and allows the City to
plan for the extension of utilities and other public services. Specific site development
occurs at the time ofthe development of the property.
The letter also states the proposed zoning of this property will also affect the real
estate taxes. First of all, the property is currently zoned A (Agriculture) and the City
has no plans to change that designation at this time. Although the Comprehensive
Plan identifies this site for other uses, the Zoning Ordinance recognizes the existing
use and investment in the property. Any change to the current Zoning designation of
this property would most likely be initiated by the property owner. Second, the
attached letter from Leroy Arnoldi, Director of Taxation for Scott County, notes taxes
are based on the actual use of the property, not the Zoning classification. As long as
the property continues to be used agriculturally, it will be taxed on that basis. This
letter also suggests the financial implication of removal of this property from the
Agricultural Preserve Program is $1.50 per acre, or about $480 per year. We have
requested a more detailed analysis from Scott County, which should be available at
the meeting.
a. Water Service. The letter states water service is not available to serve this site.
In fact, trunk water mains are located in CSAH 42, directly in front of this
property, and can be extended to serve this site. The City has also received a
permit to construct a new well near The Wilds development, and will commence
construction this year.
b. Sewer Service. The letter also states sewer service is not available to serve this
site. Trunk sewer mains are also located in CSAH 42, directly in front of this
property, and can be extended to serve this site. Furthermore, the letter states this
property is not within the MUSA. As stated in the previous staff report, the City
does not have a fixed MUSA. Rather, the City has utilized an undesignated
MUSA. This approach allocates a certain number of acres for development. The
City has the flexibility to determine which land may be used as part of that
allocation. The Comprehensive Plan identified a Primary Area of MUS A Acreage
Allocation, based on the availability of municipal services. This property was
included within that allocation.
c. Traffic Considerations. The letter states CSAH 42 is not capable of handling the
traffic generated by the development of this site. CSAH 42 is a 4-lane highway,
classified as an arterial street. On the east side of the property is CSAH 18, which
was also recently approved, and which is classified as a minor arterial. The
I :\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-084\OO084pc2.doc
Page 2
.
..
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on CSAH 42 is approximately 13,000 trips, and the
ADT on CSAH 18 is approximately 3,500 trips. The roads are designed to
accommodate up to 27,000 ADT and 7,500 trips respectively. The land use
designation of this property was based, in part, on the fact it is accessible from
these two roads. As the property north of CSAH 42 develops, Pike Lake Trail
will be upgraded, and an internal street system will be designed to accommodate
the traffic on this site.
2. Community buildings on this site.
The letter contends the City is interested in the Vierling property for use as a high
school site, a library/resource center and a fire station. The School District has
identified a location for the new high school in Savage. The City of Prior Lake
completed construction of the new library in the downtown area in 1999. Finally, the
City is planning a fire station on the north side of Prior Lake in the future. All sites
considered for the station have been on the south side of CSAH 42.
3. No Population Growth.
The letter states there is no need for additional housing in Prior Lake. The population
of Prior Lake has increased approximately 40% since 1990. In 2000, the City issued
a record number of building permits for new dwelling units (276).-- An inventory of
vacant lots indicates the City has about 1-2 years supply available for building.
Finally, in a recent report on the availability of rental housing in Prior Lake, Scott
County estimates a 1 % vacancy rate. Other studies by the Metropolitan Council have
indicated there is a need for additional housing in the metropolitan area, including
Scott County and Prior Lake.
4. Orderly Development.
The letter states the Vierlings need time to develop an orderly plan for the
development of their property. The existing Comprehensive Plan provides them with
that time, as well as with an idea of the future uses ofthe site.
Environmental Reasons
1. The City's Mission to Protect the Natural Environment.
The City is committed to protecting the natural environment; however, this
commitment does not preclude development. The City protects the environment
through regulations such as wetland preservation, tree preservation, open space
requirements and other ordinance requirements. The City is actually able to exercise
more environmental control through the development process than on agricultural
land.
1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-084\00084pc2.doc
Page 3
.
The plan also seeks to maintain a variety of residential densities. This is done on a
citywide basis, not parcel by parcel. The designation of this site as High Density
Residential seeks to balance the density overall.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune article cited by the letter also notes that all of the
development that has occurred in the State of Minnesota since 1982 has decreased
land classified as rural by only 1.1 percent. The article quotes University of
Minnesota geographer Fraser Hart, who states, "Most lost farmland was in marginal
agricultural counties with soils of low inherent fertility and topography unsuited to
modem farm machinery."
2. The City's Mission to Preserve Open Space.
The letter states the Comprehensive Plan states that "major open space should be
planned and provided" and that "preservation and treatment of open space shall be a
major consideration in planning and review of all types of development." The letter
is incorrect in stating that current land use designations of this property would not
allow the provision of open space. The City Comprehensive Plan has identified
several locations for neighborhood and community parks. In addition, the City
Zoning and Subdivision regulations include required open space provisions for
development and parkland dedication requirements.
In a letter to neighbors, dated January 8, 2001, Kelly & Fawcett also state that enrollment
in the Agricultural Preserve Program is for a period of 8 years. This is not entirely
correct. Minnesota Statutes ~473H.08 states the duration of the Agricultural Preserve
continues until either the landowner or the City initiates the expiration of the program.
Once expiration is initiated, the property remains in the preserve program for 8 years.
The City may only initiate expiration if the comprehensive plan is amended so the land is
no longer designated for long-term agricultural use.
In 1993, the property owner initiated the removal of the east 240 acres ofthe site from the
program. The land will be officially removed in 2001. The Comprehensive Plan
designation for this area was first amended in 1995, and identified this property as R-HD,
C-BO and PI (Planned Industrial). This designation was based, in part, on the property
owners' decision to remove the property from the Agricultural Preserve Program. In
1999, the plan was updated following a public hearing. At that time, this property was
designated for R-HD and C-BO uses.
ANALYSIS OF APPLICATION:
This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural). The east 160 acres of the site are
designated as C-BO (Business Office Park) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map, and the west 160 acres of the site is designated as R-HD (High Density
Residential). The applicants have requested these designations be changed to Rural
Density.
J:\OOfiJes\OOcompam\OO-084\OOO84pc2.doc
Page 4
The Rural Density classification is intended for land where urban services are
unavailable. Even this designation is intended to accommodate future urban
development.
The Agricultural Preserve program was established in 1980 to preserve long-term
agricultural areas in the Metropolitan area, and to recognize farmland as a long-term use.
Under the law, land is no longer eligible for the program when the Comprehensive Plan
no longer identifies the land for long-term agricultural uses.
In 2000, the property owners requested the City approve a request for this property to be
reenrolled in the Agricultural Preserve program. The City refused this request on the
basis the property no longer qualified for program participation because it failed to meet
the statutory requirements. The current Comprehensive Plan designation of the property
does not preclude the use of this land for agricultural purposes. The City has no objection
to enrollment of this property in the Green Acres program, which provides some tax
protection for existing farmland. The City also has no plans to rezone this property from
its current A (Agricultural) district unless requested to do so by the property owners.
The current designation of this property for use as something other than long-term
agriculture has been in place since 1995. The applicants have not demonstrated any need
to change this designation.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as requested.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #2.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the
Rural Density designation is required.
Kelly & Fawcett, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2350 PIPER JAFFRA Y PLAZA
444 CEDAR STREET
SAINT PAUL, MN 55101
PATRlCKJ. KELLY
SONG LO FAWCETT
STEPHEN KELLY
SIALO
CHAD D. LEMMONS
KATHLEEN M. LOUCKS
ROBERT J. FOWLER
Of Counsel:
JOHN F. BANNIGAN, JR.
MCGUIGAN & HOLLY, P.L.C.
(651) 224-3781
Facsimile (651) 223-8019
E-Mail: kelfawcett@qwest.net
January 8, 2001
Dear Neighbors:
Please be advised that Kelly & Fawcett, P.A. represents the Vierlings who live at 13985 Pike Lake
Trail, N.E. and 14310 Pike Lake Trail, N.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota. As you are aware, the Vierling
family has requested the City of Prior Lake Planning Commission to amend its Comprehensive Use
Plan to re-enroll their property north of County Road 42 into the Agricultural Preserve Program.
Enrollment ofthe property in the Agricultural Preserve Program would allow it to remain farm land
for a period of eight years. After the eight year period, the Vierlings would be required to re-enroll
in the program. A public hearing before -the Planning Commission is scheduled for January 16,
2001 at 6:30 p.m. at the Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, Prior Lake,
Minnesota.
On behalf ofthe Vierling family, I would like to request your support in this matter. Enrollment in
the Agricultural Preserve Program is very important to the Vierling family because the property has
been in their family for decades and they seek to preserve it as farmland. The Vierlings currently
farm the property and wish to continue farming. The Vierling property is one of the few remaining
large tracts of land within the Prior Lake city limits. The Vierlings need your support in obtaining
this designation for the property.
If you have any questions, please do not ht:sitak to cont:?ct me at the above number. Thank you for
your attention and anticipated support.
Respectfully yours,
KELLY & FAWCETT, P.A.
S VIj lo ft()Jtt-7tJ
Song Lo Fawcett
. .
. cc: Mike and Becky Vierling .
Helen Vierling
Edward Vierling
Kelly & Fawcett., P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
...., i
2350 PIPER JAFFRA Y PLAZA
444 CEDAR STREET
SAINT PAUL, MN 55/01
t." _..,._.__.._~..~__.__".__. --------
PATRICKJ. KELLY
SONG La FAWCETT
STEPHEN KELLY
SIAlO
CHAD D. LEMMONS
KATHLEEN M. LOUCKS
ROBERT 1. FOWLER
Of Counsel:
JOHN F. BANNIGAN, JR.
MCGUIGAN & HOLLY, P.L.e.
(651) 224-3781
Facsimile (651) 223-8019
E-Mail: kelfawcett@qwest.net
January 15,2001
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek A venue Southeast
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
The Firm of Kelly & Fawcett, P.A. represents the Vierling Family. As you are aware, the
Vierling family has requested you to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan ("Comp. Plan")from
the current designations ofR-HD (High Density Residential) and C-BO (Business Office Park)
to Rural Residential Density of their parcels. This request by the Vierlings should be granted for
a number of historical, environmental and logistical reasons set forth in this letter. Hopefully,
the information that we provide you in this letter and the corresponding exhibits will allow you
to approve the Compo Plan amendment as requested by the Vierlings.
A. Historical Reasons
The Compo Plan should be amended because of the large amount of history that encompasses the
Vierling family farm. The Vier~ing family farm is over 150 years old and has been a part of Prior
Lake since the settlement of the city. The Vierlings have cared for and farmed this land for that
150 years. Since these parcels has been in the family for several generations, it has a great
sentimental value to the Vierling family which is why they want to preserve it, so that future
generations ofVierlings may take part in their family tradition. The City of Prior Lake must pay
special respect to the significance the property holds for the Vierling family as its legacy in
Minnesota, Scott County and Prior Lake.
The City also has an interest in preserving the Vierling parcels for its own historical reasons.
The Vierling farm is one of the oldest "businesses" in the City because it existed before the City's
incorporation. The City has a.lso expressed that it is interested in preserving history. It its Compo
Plan, the City states that it wishes to "incorporate historical and natural features to the maximum
feasible extent." (Comp. Plan at 25,26 and 42). The City specifically notes in the Compo Plan
that areas of the Vierling parcels (Prior Lake) are considered to be "the natural resource area of
Letter to Planning Commission
from Patrick J. Kelly and
Chad D. Lemmons
Page 2
January 15,2001
greatest historical significance." (Comp. Plan at 117) (emphasis added). Based on its values
expressed above in its Compo Plan and the fact that the Vierling property represents a part of
Prior Lake's heritage, it should be preserved by the City.
B. Logistical
1. City is not currently prepared for High Density or Office Parks
The proposed zoning of the Vierling parcels represent intensive uses of the property and would
best be implemented by an overall plan for orderly development. The real estate taxes which
would result from the proposed zoning could force piecemeal development of the Vierling
parcels. This is not in the best interests of either the City or the Vierlings. In order to solve this
problem, the City should designate the parcels Rural/Residential density. Land is often
designated RuralIResidential Density in order to preserve large tracts of land which can
eventually accommodate orderly planned urban development. (Comp. Plan at 44). In addition,
the City can create the option of parenthetically indicating other classifications for
Rural/Residential Density land. (Comp. Plan at 44). The alternative categories reflect the City's
determination that the property would be eventually conducive to some urban, rather than rural
use. (Comp. Plan at 44). In any event, the City will be amending the Compo Plan after ten years,
which will then allow re-evaluation of the property. Since the City does not currently have water
service, sewer service, proper transportation service to the Vierling parcels, this option would be
the best option for the City.
a. Water Service
The City has not prepared the Vierling parcels for development because water mains do not even
exist to serve them at this time (Watermain Map). In fact, the water mains are not a part ofthe
City's immediate plan. They are a part of the 20 Year Capital Improvement Plan instead.
Without immediate improvements, present well capacity can not support the immediate
development of the Vierling parcels because the Department of Natural Resources will not allow
any additional withdrawals from the Jordan-Sandstone aquifer and also has concerns about the
City utilizing the Mount Simon/Hinckely aquifer. Therefore, the City would have difficulties
obtaining water service for the Vierling parcels in the near future which would be required to
make it developable.
b. Sewer Service
At present, the City has no sewer service infrastructure in place to serve the Vierling parcels
because they are outside the present MUSA line. (Existing Sanitary Sewer Map). The current
MUSA line is entirely within the City limits but it does not include all of the land within the
City limits, including a majority ofthe Vierling parcels. (Comp. Plan at 254). The Compo
Plan states that development of land within the MUSA will require the extension of municipal
sanitary sewer services. (Comp. Plan at 254). Land outside the MUSA cannot be connected to
Letter to Planning Commission
from Patrick J. Kelly and
Chad D. Lemmons
Page 3
January 15, 2001
the municipal sewer system and must be developed with larger individual lots to accommodate
onsite wastewater treatment. (Comp. Plan at 254). Therefore, because there is no sewer service
to the Vierling parcels, the City is not capable of developing the Vierling parcels at this time.
c. Traffic Considerations
Even if water service and sewer service are not taken under consideration, the Vierling parcels
still faces significant problems with traffic if they are deemed High Density Residential and
Business or Office Park. County Road 42, the main thoroughfare through the Vierling parcels,
is not capable of safely handling the additional traffic that development of the Vierling would
generate. Currently County Road 42 is only four-lane from Femdale Avenue to Highway 13.
(Comp. Plan at 134). In addition, the City admits in its Compo Plan that there is a "limited
availability of transit service," which means that personal automobiles are the only means of
getting around in the City. (Comp. Plan at 154). Since the roads surround the Vierling parcels
are not able to handle the amount of traffic that High Density Residential and Business Office
Park would bring, the City should not develop the land until these changes are made.
2. The City wishes to build community buildings on the Vierling Parcels
If the Vierling parcels are rezoned and developed, the City will lose its chance to build on the
property. The City is currently looking to build a new high school, a Library/Resource Center
and a Fire Station (Comp. Plan at 37 and 200). Ifthe parcels are rezoned, the City will not have
the time that it needs to plan the construction of these buildings because they will be immediately
sold to commercial developers because the real estate taxes from the proposed zoning would
force piecemeal development ofthe property. However, if the City designates the property
rural/residential, it would have the opportunity to have some additional time in considering
purchasing the parcels for its own use.
3. No New Housing is Needed at this Time, Population Has Not Grown
The City has no need for Residential High Density property at this time. In its Compo Plan, the
City states that its population increase has stabilized since 1990 and its desire for a rate of
development may even be lower than private interests would prefer (Comp. Plan at 271 and 124).
In general, the City states that its housing supply is adequate, it already has a reasonable supply
of single family, duplex, and townhouse rentals, a significant amount of affordable and moderate
cost housing remains available (Comp. Plan at 101 and 102). However, the typical uses of urban
high density consist of two-family dwellings, townhouses, apartments, and other designs,
including single family manufactured dwellings and single family dwellings by conditional use
p~rmit and/or Planned Unit Development. (Comp. Plan at 49). Based on the language in its
Compo Plan, these types of dwellings are not needed presently by the City. Therefore, the
Vierling parcels should be designated residential/rural until this need is more evident.
Letter to Planning Commission
from Patrick J. Kelly and
Chad D. Lemmons
Page 4
January 15,2001
4. Orderly Development
The Vierlings understand that as Prior Lake continues to develop, farming will become
economically unviable. To prepare for this, the Vierlings need time to develop an orderly plan
for the development oftheir property. By granting the amendment (and subsequent Ag Preserve
status), the Vierlings and the City have time to agree on orderly development of the Vierling
Property. Denial of this amendment (and Ag Preserve status) increases the pressure on the
Vierlings to develop in a haphazard manner resulting in an ill-conceived development.
B. Environmental
1. The City's Mission to Protect the Natural Environment
The City, in its Mission Statement and in its Compo Plan, states that it is committed to
"environmentally sensitive community development." (Comp. Plan at 25 and A-I). The Mission
Statement of the City reads "[t]he City of Prior Lake is committed to serving the common good
of its residents by promoting community values, environmentally sensitive community
development, robust business growth, financial stability, safety, and diverse recreational
opportunities." (Comp. Plan at A-I) (emphasis added). This Mission Statement is included in
the Compo Plan under Objective Number 5 which provides for "conservation and protection of
the natural environment." (Comp. Plan at 32) (emphasis added). With very little development,
forests, small wetlands and plenty of pastureland, the Vierling parcels represent an ideal
preservation ofthe natural environment ofthe City. By amending its Compo Plan to zone the
Vierling parcels as Rural Residential, the City would be able to fulfill its objectives of preserving
the natural environment because the maximum rural density is one dwelling unit per 40 acres.
(Comp. Plan at 44). This designation would allow the City to preserve the forests, wetlands and
pastureland that give Prior Lake its greatest appeal to its residents and visitors.
In addition, by designating the Vierling parcels as Rural Residential, the City would be fulfilling
another one of its objectives stated in its Compo Plan. The City states in its Compo Plan that one
of its objectives that it wants to "maintain a variety of residential densities." (Comp. Plan at 25
and 113). By zoning the Vierlings' property as office park and residential high density, very
little rural density property will be left in the City, in fact only one area on the outskirts ofthe
City would remain rural density. The City zoned large amounts of area in the City limits as
Urban LowlMedium Density and Urban High Density (Comp. Land Use Map). It is also
important to note that other cities and counties have had great success in preserving a mixture of
densities. Dakota County's mixture of towns, cities and farms have had a great appeal, resulting
in tremendous population gains. (Metropolitan Council, A FARMER FIGHTS TO SAVE
AGRICULTURAL LAND, see www.metr~counci1.org/mnsmartgrowth/citizens_stelze1.htm; and
Peterson, David, "Loss of rural land accelerating in state, study finds," Minneapolis Star
Tribune, January 11, 2001). Therefore, if it maintains the zoning recommended by the Compo
Plan, the City will not be meeting one of its key objectives, maintaining a variety of residential
densities.
Letter to Planning Commission
from Patrick J. Kelly and
Chad D. Lemmons
2. The City's Mission to Preserve Open Spaces.
Page 5
January 15, 2001
By designating the Vierling property as rural residential, the City would create open spaces
which are called for by its Compo Plan. In its Compo Plan, the City states that "major open
spaces should be planned an provided" and that "preservation and treatment of open space shall
be a major consideration in planning and review of all types of development within the City."
(Comp. Plan at 38 and 106) (emphasis added). A large portion of the Vierling parcels has been
designated by the city as either High Density Residential or Business Office Park. (Comp. Land
Use Map). The City defines High Density Residential as "densities up to 30 units per acres."
(Comp. Plan at 48). It defines Business Office Park as "business and office park; corporate
headquarters; and professional and administrative offices; and limited research, development and
manufacturing facilities." (Comp. Plan at 58). These types of land use of the Vierling parcels
would not allow for open spaces to be provided. The Rural/Residential designation calls for one
dwelling unit per 40 acres, which would provide for this desired open space. By designating the
property Rural/Residential, the City would be achieving its objectives set forth in its Compo Plan
by preserving open spaces because rural/residential calls for one dwelling unit per 40 acres.
With very little property designated by the City as rural/residential, giving the Vierling property
this designation is the only way for the City to maintain its objective of preserving open spaces.
Based on the above and the attached Exhibits, the Vierlings' request to amend the Compo plan
should be granted because of historical, environmental and logistical reasons. Thank you for
your time and consideration.
Respectfully yours,
KELLY & FAWCETT, P.A.
~ ft--
Patrick J. Kelly
Chad D. Lemmons
Appendix
Compo Plan
Selected 2020 Compo Plan sections
pp.25-26,32,37-38,42,44,48-49,58, 101-102, 106, 113, 117, 124, 134, 154,200,254~
255,271, A-I-A-2
Maps
Compo Land Use PlanMap, December 28, 1999
City of Prior Lake Land Use Plan Map, Fig 4-1, p. 129
Primary Area of MUS A Acreage Allocation Map, dated December 29, 1999
Comprehensive Water Plan Map, Ex. 8-3
Watermain Map, Fig. 8-1
Sewer Comprehensive Plan Map, Fig. 7-1
Existing Sanitary Sewer System Map
Articles
Metropolitan Council, A FARMER FIGHTS TO SAVE AGRICULTURAL LAND, see
www.metrocouncil.org/mnsmartgrowth/citizens_stelzel.htm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .
Peterson, David, "Loss of rural land accelerating in state, study finds," Minneapolis Star
Tribune, January 11,2001
Neighbors
Email from Kathleen and David Sandvik, dated January 12, 2001
Letter from Michael & Linda Smith, dated January 11,2001
Letter from Kerry Smith, dated January 11,2001
Letter from Karen 1. (KoskeIin) Lucy, dated January 11,2001
SCOTT COUNTY
FINANCE DIVISION
TAXATION DEPARTMENT
200 FOURTH AVENUE WEST
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379
. ..... (612) 496-8115
LEROY.T.ARNOLDI Fax: (612) 496-8135
DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION DIRECTOR larnoldi@co.scott.mn.us
http://www.co.scott.mn.us
January 18,2001
Ralph Teschner
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Taxable classifications
Dear Ralph:
As a follow up to our conversation relative to property tax classification, agricultural property is
assessed as such, regardless of zoning, if it is used as a farming operation. Agricultural property
enjoys the lowest rate of taxation. Agricultural property can also be classified as "Green Acres"
thus enabling the deferment of special assessments. In addition, upon timely application the
property can be.placed into "Agricultural Preserve", resulting in the potential ofthree references
to agricultural property.
What does this mean in tax language??
Agricultural classification:
The lowest taxable classification of property
Green Acres:
A subset of agricultural classification. Generally resulting
in a ten percent reduction in market value from the regular
Agricultural classification.
Agricultural Preserve:
Agricultural property would be eligible for an additional
credit of$I.50 per acre.
I trust this will shed some light on a portion of the classification used for property taxes. If you
have any questions feel free to call.
Sincerely,
~
Leroy T. Arnoldi
Director of Taxation, Scott County
(:'
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
MINNESOTA
(
2020
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ADOPTED BY THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL, APRIL, 1999
APPROVED BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, NOVEMBER, 1999
{
..
,
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
A.
GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT
Encourage the development of suitable housing in a desirable environment.
(
OBJECTIVE No.1: Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality
housing.
POLICIES:
a. Codes and ordinances relating to development, redevelopment, and
maintenance of housing shall be adopted and periodically reviewed to
ensure specific direction is provided regarding affordable uses in each
district and regarding minimum development standards.
b. Review annually the current and planned programs of the Scott County
Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
c. Maintain development standards and housing policies that allow for low
and moderate cost housing opportunities.
d. Develop and consider for adoption a code enforcement program for
existing housing.
e. Develop and maintain regulations that permit a mix of housing types,-.-
sizes and price ranges to be provided throughout the City. '.
(
OBJECTIVE No.2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality
residential environments.
POLICIES:
a. Maintain a variety of residential densities (dwelling units per acre).
b. Ensure that public services and on-site improvements are completed at
.' ..~_the time ,0fresidentiaLdeYelopment.~~c~~~~~~._-~--~-~-~~~--~~~~_.~~~-_.
c. The burden of a satisfactory transition from one density or dwelling type
to another is the rests with the developer seeking development plan
approval.
d. Discourage new residential subdivisions in isolated areas that have little
or no potential to either develop into a viable neighborhood or to
assimilate with an established neighborhood.
e. Consideration of development plans for multiple dwellings in areas so
designated on the Land Use Guide Plan should include the following
design-related items:
(1) New developments should not isolate existing single family
dwellings by inhibiting pedestrian and/or vehicular access. {
I..
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 2
Page 25
(
(
(
(2) New development completely surrounded by single family
dwellings, should be discouraged in favor of large scale planned unit
developments which are more conducive to a mix of housing styles
with shared amenities.
(3) There should be convenient access to collector and arterial streets
and to available transit so to not unduly contribute to congestion on
local residential' streets.
(4) Large common open areas may provide an effective transitional use
to other uses.
(5) Location near permanent public and private open spaces may
compensate for the impact of the higher density.
f. Create and enhance neighborhoods that provide parks and open spaces,
public access to natural amenities located on and adjacent to the site, and
pedestrian linkages throughout and among adjacent neighborhoods.
g. IncOIporate historical and natural features to the maximum feasible
extent.
h. Provide pedestrian access to commercial and industrial centers, public
lands, and schools.
1. Avoid designs that isolate neighborhoods. Provide traffic or pedestrian
circulation within and between developments.
J. Avoid or mitigate encroachment by incompatible land uses which can
have a negative impact on the residential living environment. Mitigation
measures include, but are not limited to, the use of open space, berms,
dense landscaping vegetation, and similar buffers.
k. Allow higher density multiple dwelling housing in areas within close
proximity of existing support services and facilities, and where there is
adequate access to collector and arterial streets.
1. ,..J~~~~....!!~~.~~V€?!~:R!:t!~!ltin~!~~~~._~.~~ig:g.-.f~~tu!~_~~C!!L~_ Qllff~ring,_
screening, and spatial separation from collector and arterial streets; and
from artticipated adveI'se environmental impacts including, but not
limited to, noise and air pollution.
m. Link neighborhoods to each other, and to parks, schools and commercial
centers via local streets or pedestrian trails.
n. Ensure subdivisions are designed to avoid direct private drive access
from and to major collector and arterial streets.
o. Promote innovative subdivision design and housing products through
the use of the planned unit development process and similar techniques.
p. Avoid locating high density housing to primarily serve as a buffer or as
a land use suited for absorbing negative impacts of adjacent land uses.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 2
Page 26
(
g. Promote proactive rather than reactive public safety measures through
regular preparation of a five-year public safety strategic plan.
h. Work cooperatively with the school district to determine the pedestrian
needs of the student population and develop safe walking routes to
school as needed.
1. Encourage the consideration of appropriate crime control measures in
the design and construction of public and private buildings.
OBJECTIVE No.4: Enact and maintain policies and ordinances to ensure the
safety and preservation of property.
POLICIES:
a. Require high standards of design and materials used for all structures.
b. Maintain effective inspection services to ensure compliance with
development and building codes.
c. Ensure that all properties and structures are adequately maintained.
d. Provide for fees to cover cost of development and preservation services.
e. Identify in advance the need for redevelopment of existing residential
structures and plan for such action.
(
OBJECTIVE No.5: Provide for conservation and protection of the natural
environment.
POLICIES:
a. Provide adequate regulations to prevent the development or existence of
any industrial or commercial endeavor which will, through its operation,
create a hazard to the environment.
b. Require all developers to retain the natural environment as much as
~~ ~possible"suchasthepreseMtioIiofdesira.blem1iees~slifiibs~--landTomis, -
swamps, and ponding areas.
c. Effectively and uniformly regulate the development of structures and
other land uses in or near flood plain and drainage areas.
d. Nonconforming land uses should be eliminated over time.
e. Develop and maintain communications with school district to ensure
proper location of educational structures.
f. Require that any waste disposal or processing facility meets or exceeds
all federal, state, and local requirements, and be located in an area which
will not jeopardize future development of the City.
(
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 2
Page 32
E. GOAL:HUMANDEVELOPMENT
Create an environment in which all citizens have the opportunity to develop their full
potential.
OBJECTIVE No.1: Encourage the development of a broad range of educational
and leaming opportunities for persons of all ages.
POLICIES:
a. Coordinate with the school district in school site selection.
b. Encourage joint development and utilization of education, recreation,
and social service facilities and services.
c. A library should be retained within the City unless an affordable
regional facility can be provided elsewhere that provides equal or better
service.
d. Encourage the location of preschool and day care facilities in the vicinity
of major activity and employment centers.
OBJECTIVE No.2: Promote leisure time opportunities and experiences which are
rewarding for the individual and families.
POLICIES:
General
a. Establish and maintain a comprehensive park and trail systems plan;
efforts should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recreation
industry objectives.
b. Park construction and maintenance should be aggressive and completed
in a timely fashion.
c. Develop a year-round system of recreation programs which appeals to
all citizens of the community.
d. Periodically conduct research and surveysTO--idei1tiry- cost effective ways
of responding to community leisure needs.
e. Major sites for park and recreation purposes should be acquired in
advance of their actual need to assure a desirable location in relation to
the area to be served.
f. Establish and maintain a park and open space land dedication policy for
new subdivisions.
g. Acquisition and development of land for parks and trails should take into
consideration potential conflicts with adjacent land uses and on-going
maintenance costs.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 2
Page 37
(
(
(,
(
(
(
h. City funds should be available for land acquisition in those cases where
the Comprehensive Park Plan requires more open space than the
developer is required to dedicate.
Nei~hborhood Level
1. Each neighborhood identified by this Plan should contain a centrally
located park within walking distance of all homes, oriented to small
child and parent activities rather than to organized athletic activities
J. Facilities should be jointly shared with elementary schools where
possible. Programs should reflect consideration of neighborhood needs
and desires and should take maximum advantage of site capabilities.
Community Level
k. Major public open space and activity centers should be made available
within each quadrant of the City, not only for environmental contrast
and passive recreation, but for those major organized active recreation
and indoor group programs which cannot practically be conducted at
school centers.
1. Major open spaces should be planned and provided, notwithstanding
facilities owned or planned by other jurisdictions, and the plans should
incorporate a variety of natural physical elements though not necessarily
within every park area.
m. Since the passive open space involved in City parks should be oriented
to the unique natural features of the land which help establish the
character for each quadrant of the city, a central location in each
quadrant for City open space is not essential.
n. If location and size permit, neighborhood park facilities. can be
incorporated into the design and development of a community park.
o. A large nature-study preserve should be provided, possibly, though not
necessarily as part of a City park. Small neighborhood preserves should
be acquired through the land development process.
__._.._,__'_'.0_' _..... _..__.._.._ __...____ __. .____._._.__'._ __ _._ _ _,._
p. A system of trailways should be developed in the City to link major
areas of interest with special attention given to separation of pedestrian
and bicycle traffic from vehicular traffic.
q. The City should make plans to either acquire or develop desired
facilities which happen to be privately owned as principal uses, rather
than assuming those recreation facilities will continue.
r. The preservation and treatment of open space shall be major considera-
tion in planning and review of all types of development within the City.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 2
Page 38
DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA
These objectives and criteria are intended to guide residential development and
redevelopment throughout the City; they complement the objectives and the development location
criteria for the respective residential areas described in this Plan.
Development Objectives
1. Create and enhance neighborhoods that provide parks and open spaces, public access to
natural amenities located on and adjacent to the site, and pedestrian linkages
throughout and among adjacent neighborhoods.
2. Incorporate historical and natural features to the maximum feasible extent.
3. Provide pedestrian access to commercial and industrial centers, public lands, and
schools.
4. Avoid designs that isolate neighborhoods. Provide traffic or pedestrian circulation
within and between developments.
5. Avoid or mitigate encroachment by incompatible land uses which can have a negative
impact on the residential living environment. Mitigation measures include, but are not
limited to, the use of open space, berms, dense landscaping vegetation, and similar
buffers.
6. Allow higher density multiple dwelling housing in areas within close proximity of
existing support services and facilities, and where there is adequate access to collector
and arterial streets.
7. Ensure new development includes design features such as buffering, screening, and
spatial separation from collector and arterial streets; and from anticipated adverse
environmental impacts including, but not limited to, noise and air pollution.
8. Linkneighborhoods to each other, and to parks, schools and commercial centers via
local streets or pedestrian trails.
9. Ensure subdivisions are designed to avoid direct private drive access from and to
majorroUectol: and-arteciaLstreets..
10. Promote innovative subdivision design and housing products through the use of the
planned unit development process and similar techniques.
11. Avoid locating high density housing to primarily serve as a buffer or as a land use
suited for absorbing negative impacts of adjacent land uses. High density housing
should only be developed in those areas near support and commercial services.
12. Support development designs that are tailored to environmentally sensitive areas
containing rugged topography, wetlands, and woodlands.
13. Code enforcement shall be used to keep illegal uses and physical deterioration from
compromising the value and integrity of the housing stock within the community.
14. Parking lots shall be screened to reduce the impact upon adjacent uses.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 42
('
(
RESIDENTIAL - RURAL DENSITY (R-RD)
(
Purpose
This is a special classification for all land where urban services are unavailable. Land is
often designated R-RD in order to preserve large tracts of land which can eventually accommodate
orderly planned urban development.
This is a special category because, over time, agriculture and related uses may not be the
highest and best for - all land in this classification. Thus, the official Land Use Guide Plan may
parenthetically indicate other classifications for certain R-RD land. The alternate categories reflect
the city's determination that the property would be eventually conducive to some urban, rather than
rural use.
R-RD is primarily determined by availability of public services rather than by proximity to
natural features or to facilities such as streets or certain other land uses, unlike the other Residential
designations. Agriculture is the primary allowable use, pending the approval and construction of
urban services.
This is a means of guiding the ultimate urban development of the community whereby the
R-RD classification may reserve land for another classification, when urban services are physically
available.
Conversion of agricultural land for recreational open space uses in the rural service area is
appropriate, provided the uses can function in a manner that is compatible with both agricultural
uses and the lack of urban services. Such uses however should be planned and designed to
facilitate eventual transition to urban services.
(
Development Location Criteria
All land where public sanitary sewer is unavailable is classified R-RD. While some land
areas outside the MUSA are shown in other land use categories, these are intended to reflect a
build-out condition and the R-RD Designation will be changed to reflect these ultimate uses when
utilities-beeemeavailable.- -
Density
Maximum rural density is one dwelling unit per 40 acres.
Minimum Requirements for Development
Forty acres and frontage- on a public street.
Utilities
No public utilities available.
(
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 44
URBAN HIGH DENSITY (R-HD)
(:
Purpose
This classification is characterized by dwellings other than single family detached houses at
the higher residential densities. The dominant construction form is attached homes and apartments;
single family detached houses may be allowed in a Planned Unit Development. This classification
is intended to provide an opportunity to create population centers and to accommodate the demand
for affordable housing located near community activity areas.
Development Location Criteria
· Development of attached homes and multiple family dwellings is appropriate near
major parks and other open space, along collector streets and near Town Center and
other commercial centers.
· The wide range of possible housing styles, and development design flexibility make it
feasible to form a suitable transition to and from adjacent existing or proposed uses, and
to relate new development to most terrain and other natural features.
· Final density and development design will be a function of adopted zoning and
subdivision standards and procedures.
Density
Densities up to 30 units per acre may be allowed, where developments with higher. density
and those with a mix of housing styles will primarily be realized in Planned Unit Developments.
Density should be expressed through one or more zoning classifications which, among other
standards, reflect various minimum lot dimension and area requirements.
(
\,
Minimum Requirements for Development
A site area of at least 1,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit for apartments should be retained;
provided, a density reduction will be often necessary in environmentally sensitive and Shoreland
, Management Areas.
-The -minimum area fOl'Pianned--Bnit- Bevelopments--should-b-e-to- acres-in urderto provide
for the open space and location of multiple family dwellings required for higher density
developments.
Public street frontage is required for all development, unless alternate access is expressly
approved by the City for a Planned Unit Development or similar arrangement.
- Utilities
All city utilities required; utilities must be at least under contract for construction in order to
classify land R-HD.
(
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 48
(
Typical Uses
Two-family dwellings, townhouses, apartments, and other designs, including single family
manufactured dwellings and single family dwellings by conditional use permit and/or Planned Unit
Development; boarding houses; schools; churches; recreational open space, parks, and play grounds
with public utilities; and public buildings.
Corresponding Zoning
R-4 (High Density Residential), including provision for Planned Unit Developments needed
to implement the range of allowable densities and to express the intent of the Comprehensive Plan
for this classification.
(,
i
\"
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 49
COMMERCIAL-BUSINESS AND OFFICE PARK (C-BO)
f
Purpose
This classification is characterized by high-amenity planned developments which have a
low traffic generation rate and a site utilization that is compatible with natural features. Primary
uses are corporate headquarters; and professional and administrative offices; and limited research,
development and manufacturing facilities. Related secondary uses such as restaurants where food
is ordered and consumed on the premises, hotels, and other businesses having limited contact with
the general public and no retail sale of products could be allowed as conditional uses.
Office parks, often formed as Planned Unit Developments, can serve small professional
services in a group setting whereas such uses might otherwise be located in retail centers or in
scattered freestanding buildings. The high design standards should ensure compatibility with high
density housing and the potential for shared parking, open space, convenient housing and service,
and reduction of traffic generation onto public streets.
Retailing should be allowed only as an accessory use when it is clearly incidental to the
pnmary use.
Development Location Criteria
High level of transition to all proximate residential land and development; near arterial
access points, i.e., intersections of arterial and/or major collector streets; high amenity features are (
very conducive to "gateway" recognition; adjoining or very near existing or planned industrial or
multi-residential areas; may develop in conjunction with major commercial centers.
Maximum Building Coverage
35% with all yard and parking minimum standards met or exceeded.
Minimum Requirements for Development
1 acre
Public street frontage is required for all development, unless alternate access is expressly
approved by the City for a Planned Unit Development or similar arrangement.
Utilities
All city utilities required; utilities must be under contract for construction for land to be
classified C-BO.
Typical Uses
High amenity facilities for corporate headquarters, professional, administrative, executive,
medical, research (exclusive of heavy manufacturing and distribution), and governmental offices
without merchandising; very limited retailing incidental to the primary use, e.g., news stands,
I
\.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 58
HOUSING ANALYSIS. ISSUES AND NEEDS
(
In general, the City's housing supply is adequate. The new luxury and move-up housing
adds an important element to the City's supply and gives it diversity, not typically experienced in
the past. except for the houses and properties on the lake. The lake itself probably adds 10 to 20
percent of the market value to the houses which abut the lake and for those with access rights
through a nearby marina. The percentage of lower cost or affordable housing is likely to drop
because: 1) many of these units are being remodeled, expanded or demolished and 2) the volume
and cost of new construction. Within the next 10 to 15 years, virtually all the cottages or
summer homes are likely to be eliminated. However, the actual number of affordable units could
increase if low cost housing is included in some new subdivisions.
A reasonable supply of single family, duplex, and townhouse rentals ex.ist in the
community. These categories total approximately 258 rental units, which amounts to 6 percent
of the total single family, duplex, and townhouse housing stock.
One apparent gap in the housing supply appears to be the inadequate supply of newer
apartment units. A freestanding growth community or a mature suburban community could be
expected to have from 25 to 30 percent of its housing stock in apartments or multiple family
developments. Only 12.85 percent of Prior Lake's housing supply is classified as multiple family
or apartment. This percent is likely to continue to decrease based on the market demand for
single family housing. The vacancy rate could be an indicator that there is an adequate amount (
of multiple family and rental units in the community. However, Prior Lake does not have any
new or modem apartment developments which incorporate amenities such as underground
parking, swimming pool, community room, etc. This need and consideration of families who
would occupy such units has been neglected primarily because the City's focus has been on
family units abutting the lake and the absence of high employment centers has not created the
demand. In addition, lack of direct freeway access also affects this housing type. The new river
crossing and State Highway 169 bypass along with the attraction of more industry to Prior Lake
and increases in empty-nesters will justify construction of this type of housing.
Housing conditions are excellent and benefit substantially by the amenity and
opportunitIes provIdecrDyPnor Lake and Spnng Lake. T1ie1aIres contribute to some minor -- - - - - --
problems since recreational opportunities place additional burden on garages and houses relative
to storing and maintaining recreational equipment. Too often the yards serve as areas for storage
beyond a reasonable amount. Listed below are some of the assets and problems related to the
lakes and the recreational opportunities:
Assets
1. The lake's shape with its many bays provides a substantial shoreline which allows
many properties to have access to the lake.
2. Lake marinas tend to spread the beneficial value of the lake impact beyond the lake.
3. Steep topography and wooded areas add interest and provide scenic views. (
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 101
(
. 4. The lake prevents through traffic from using the residential streets.
Problems
1. Fifteen percent of the yards were categorized as inadequate because of outside storage
of boats, trailers, inoperable vehicles or other conditions.
2. Lake cabins and seasonal houses create some minor problems because they affect the
visual conditions - but most are likely to be removed because of land values.
3. Some site development problems are related to setbacks, hills, slopes and the lakes.
For example, less than minimum front yard setbacks exist in some locations and
garages are sometimes located directly adjacent to the road. (Special setbacks may be
required when a road abuts a lake and when the lot is affected by a shoreland setback
of75 feet.)
4. Certain locations have an obsolete platting layout with dirt roads and a poor lot
configuration.
5. In some cases a lot is split by a street.
6. Because some residential areas are faced with inappropriate on-street parking of
trailers, some streets are signed prohibiting such parking, but the signs are often
ignored.
Other observations not necessarily attributed to the lake include the following:
1. Parking of trucks, cars and other vehicles in front yards (grassy area) is quite
cornmon.
2. Inadequate yard conditions often times appears in pairs or more, suggesting that the
manner in which one owner uses property affects how others use property.
3. The size of the lot and the intensity of the yard deficiencies impact the impression of
the neighborhood. For example, more deficiencies on smaller lots tends to establish a
more blighting condition than would be the case with the same number of deficiencies
on larger lots. If the house and garage are small, it can cause the owner to use the
yard for activities and functions that might otherwise be conducted inside.
4. There is a correlation between dirt roads and house and yard conditions.
5. A substantial amount of infrastructure improvement and new housing is underway in
the..shakepee-Mdewank-antEm-Siou-x-community.--ln-seme-lecatrons-cooditiens--are--- -. - --
spotty because of older and obsolete dwellings, the number of dumpsters in the area
and yard conditions. Housing is quite mixed in terms of type and size, ranging from
mobile homes to large new houses. Some units have attached garages as well as
detached garages.
(
From a demographic stand point Prior Lake is becoming more diversified in terms of
family size, age, and income. Housing costs are accelerating primarily because new subdivisions
are offering substantial amenity, relatively large lots and construction of more housing for the
move-up market. However, a significant amount of affordable and moderate cost housing
remains available.
\
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 102
(
c. Residential Development - Ensure that public services and on-site
improvements are completed at the time of residential development.
d. Industrial! Commercial Encroachment - Protect residential areas from
industrial and commercial encroachment to the maximum practicable extent;
recognizing that the degree of encroachment may vary with isolated single
family developments, which are part of an urban neighborhood.
e. Developer's Burden - The burden ofa satisfactory transition from one
density or dwelling type to another rests with the developer seeking
development plan approval.
f. Viable Neighborhoods - Discourage new residential subdivisions in isolated
areas that have little or no potential to either develop into a viable neighborhood or to
assimilate with an established neighborhood.
g. Multiple family Development - Consideration of development plans for
multiple family dwellings in areas so designated on the Land Use Guide Plan,
should include the following design-related items:
1) New developments should not isolate existing single family dwellings
by inhibiting pedestrian and/or vehicular access.
2) New development completely surrounded by single family dwellings,
should be discouraged in favor of large scale planned unit developments which
are more conducive to a mix of housing styles with shared amenities.
3) There should be convenient access to collector and arterial streets
and to available transit so to not unduly contribute to congestion on local
residential streets.
4) Large common open areas may provide an effective transitional use
to other uses.
h. Code Enforcement Program - Develop and consider for adoption a code
enforcement program for existing housing.
(
OBJECTIVE 3 - Open Space Preservation: Provide suitable passive open space for
the preservation of the natural environment and the enjoyment of residents.
POLICIES:
a. Ponding and Wetlands - Retain natural ponding areas and, as applicable
per state law, wetlands.
b. Large Planned Unit Developments - Promote platting oflarge planned unit
developments.
(
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 106
Policies
a. Density: Maintain a variety of residential densities (units per acre)
I
(
ACTION STEPS
As noted previously, the Comprehensive Plan has increased the range of permitted
densities in the City from the previous high of 18 units per acre to 30 units per acre. The zoning
ordinance expected to be adopted by March, 1997 will reflect this increase in maximum
densities.
b. Community structure concept: Utilize a community structure concept that is focused upon
neighborhoods as the framework for developing and redeveloping residential areas.
ACTION STEPS
The Comprehensive Plan contains a section of specific objectives for each neighborhood
in the City. These objectives cover virtually every aspect of community development, including
land use, transportation, parks and open space, aesthetics, housing and capital improvements.
These objectives will be addressed in the zoning ordinance amendments to the extent possible.
Other items which are not zoning-related will serve as input to the City Capital Improvement
Program. It is not possible to attach a time. frame to this policy as most items will be
accomplished incrementally on a year to year basis. .
(
c. Residential Development: Insure that public servIces and on-site improvements are
completed at the time of residential development.
ACTION STEPS
The subdivision ordinance requires that public utilities and on-site improvements be
installed before building permits or certificates of occupancy are issued. This process will be
refined during the review of the subdivision ordinance which will be completed by March, 1997.
d. Industrial/Commercial: Protect residential areas from industrial and commercial
encroachment to the maximum practicable extent, recognizing that the degree of
encroachment may vary with isolated single family developments which are part of an urban
neighborhood.
ACTION STEPS
The Comprehensive Plan proposes new commercial and industrial development in areas
which are either remote from existing residential areas or where natural buffers such as wetlands
are available. The new zoning ordinance will strengthen the requirements for screening and
buffering between residential and non-residential land uses.
(
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 113
Protection of Watercourses
The surface water management chapter details the policies and recommended actions to
be taken to protect the streams and lakes within the City. In addition, the City enforces a
Floodplain Management ordinance and has recently adopted significant amendments to the
Shore land Management ordinance consistent with the revised rules promulgated by the
Department of Natural Resources.
(
,
Unique and Endangered Species
Objective 5 provides for the conservation and protection of the natural environment and
related policies include developing regulations which will protect the environment and requiring
developers to retain as much of the natural environment as possible. Presently, the City is not
aware ofthe presence of any endangered species within the City.
Prevention of Premature Development
The City presently has a significant portion of its' land area located outside of the
Municipal Urban Service Area. Approximately 380 acres of this land is enrolled in the
Agricultural Preserve Program. Additional acreage within the MUSA is enrolled in the Green
Acres program. Policies in the plan include discouraging or prohibiting urban development
beyond existing utility service areas. Extension of the MUSA is governed by the Metropolitan
Council and presumably any requested extensions will be evaluated by the policies outlined in (
the Regional Blueprint.
Mineral Extraction
In 1991, the City conducted a study of the potential for mineral extraction in the City. It
was determined that there were no gravel deposits of significant commercial potential within the
City and subse<}uently, in 1992, the City amended its' zoning ordinance to eliminate mineral
extraction as a conditional use in the Agricultural District. The current Zoning Ordinance allows
excavation as a temporary use with approval of a conditional use permit.
Historic Natural Resource Areas
The natural resource area of greatest historical significance is Prior Lake and Spring
Lake. Currently, the City enforces both Shoreland and Floodplain management ordinances
which regulate development near Prior and Spring Lakes. In addition, the surface water
management chapter of this plan contains a number of policies and recommended actions will act
to minimize adverse impacts on these two major water bodies.
\
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 117
(
The growth of neighboring communities, the completion and opening of the new bridge
over the Minnesota River at County Road 18 and State Highway 101, the connection of County
Road 21 with 1-35 east of the City, and the development of intense commercial and recreational
uses by the Mdewakanton Dakota Community will likely press development at a faster pace than
anticipated by the projections made earlier in the planning process. The Metropolitan Council
projections assumed residential development to proceed at a rate of 123 units per year. For the
above reasons, the City has assumed a higher rate of growth.
Constraints to development are both natural and man-made. Physical constraints include
topographical conditions, water bodies, soil conditions, and surface characteristics (wetlands, for
example). These are relatively easy to quantify and usually are thus deducted from the total
calculated amount of land in the MUSA. "Developable land," therefore can be determined as a net
number of acres.
There are some man-made constraints to development which are due to external forces
beyond the City's effective control. Examples include the general economy and interest rates,
especially as they apply to construction; state laws and programs that may mandate certain limits on
development tools (tax increment financing, for example) and on the City's ability to generate
revenues for services through taxes; and regional policies regarding housing and the expansion of
the MUSA.
(
Other constraints include local policies that are defined by the City's vision for the future,
including the desire for a rate of development that maybe lower than private interests would prefer.
Certain land uses may be preferred over others and this will be reflected in the City Plans and
regulations.
The development of the Mystic Lake complex can be viewed as an asset which provides
employment opportunities, recreation and hospitality facilities available to the community, and a
destination widely identified with the City). It can also be perceived as a constraint upon City
development as it represents competitive facilities that reduce opportunities for similar uses on
taxable real estate, traffic impact upon neighborhoods that would otherwise be controlled if the
destination uses and operations were under public jurisdiction, and regional agency agreements
with the Mdewakanton Dakota Community that provide sanitary sewer via lines through the Rural
Service Area despite regional policies that strive to retain the Rural Service Area notwithstanding
the desire of landowners to also use the facilities.
The City's primary asset is its people and its continuing desire to plan for the future,
including redevelopment and preservation of areas that established the physical and social, and
political character of the community. This plan accounts for the various assets and constraints
through the various elements.
(,
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 3
Page 124
(
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION
rROBLEMS
EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM
As with all municipalities, jurisdiction over the roadway system is shared among three
levels of government; the state, the county and the City. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MN/DOT) , through its Metro District, maintains the trunk highway system on
behalf of the state and Scott County mainta~ns the County State-Aid Highway (eSAR) and
County Road systems. The remaining streets and roadways are the responsibility of the City.
. Traffic volumes at selected locations on the Prior Lake street system are shown in Figure
4-3. These values are obtained from traffic counts made by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MN/DOT), Scott County and the City of Prior Lake. Multi-lane roadways are
shown in Figure 4-4.
PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS
Capacity improvements to state and county roads in the City of Prior Lake or the vicinity
are already programmed including the following:
(
. TH 13-- That portion of TH 13 that extends from CSAH 44 to CSAH 42 in the City of
Prior Lake will be upgraded to improve capacity, operation and safety. The proposed
design is a "two-lane divided" with left and right turn lanes at access points. The City of
Prior Lake has signed an agreement with MN/DOT on appropriate intersection
geometries. Funding has been approved for improvements at CSAH 12 (Spring Lake
Rd.) and for traffic signal coordination/interconnection from Fish Point Road to CSAH
44.
. CSAH 42--This roadway is currently four-lane from Femdale Avenue to TH 13. An
upgrade to four-lane divided from CSAH 17 in Shakopee to Femdale Avenue is
programmed for 1999, which will establish a continuous four-lane divided facility from
CSAH 17 to the City of Apple Valley.
Improvements to roadways outside of the City of Prior Lake over the next few years will
also have major impacts on circulation between Prior Lake and adjacent municipalities:
. CSAH 21--A new roadway is programmed for construction in 2001-2002 north of Prior
Lake connecting CSAH 18 and CSAH 16. It will ultimately connect to existing CSAH
21 at CSAH 42.
(
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 4
Page 134
(
TRANSIT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
In keeping with the limited availability of transit service, the number of Prior Lake
residents using transit is modest, although stable. Continued population growth in Prior Lake,
severe congestion in the I-35W corridor and transit services improvements will likely increase
transit ridership. Human service needs include .transportation, which are met by a variety of
transit options.
The City supports the continued development of appropriate transit services in the area in
coordination with the Metropolitan Council Transportation Division, the Minnesota Valley
Transit Authority and other transit providers. The City will work with these and other
organizations and individuals to identify the demand for public transit and to design new services
and facilities. Well-utilized transit services can contribute to congestion relief on major
roadways in the community while providing important mobility for certain residents.
TRANSIT NEEDS
The 1996 Metropolitan Council's Trans.portation Develo'pment Guide Chapter/Policy
E.lml (1996) identifies Prior Lake as generally lying in the "outer suburban" transit zone. The
following services are most appropriate in that area:
(
. Peak period express bus service
. Ridesharing
. Local circulation provided with small vehicles or dial-a-ride type vehicles
EXISTING TRANSIT SYSTEM
Re~ular Route Transit Service
Located within the Metropolitan Council metropolitan transit taxing district, City
residents are taxed for regional transit service through the property tax levy. Effective in 1990,
the City of Prior Lake "opted-out" of the regular metropolitan transit system and, along with
other nearby communities, established locally designed transit services. The intent was to
increase the level of service and to develop new services that were tailored to local needs.
The opt-out cities of Apple Valley, Bumsville, Eagan, Rosemount, Prior Lake and
Savage joined together to create the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MYTA). The MVTA
Board of Commissioners includes representatives from each of the cities along with
representatives from Dakota and Scott Counties. An Executive Director administers contracts
for services with bus operators, develops funding agreements with the Metropolitan Council,
conducts marketing programs, monitors existing transit services and develops new transit
servIces.
I'
Jl.,,<,
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 4
Page 154
funding requirements, increase park dedication fees, dedicated park tax, bond referendum,
gambling tax, etc. The 1997 Parks and Library Referendum was successful and included funds . (
for the new LibrarylResource Center, irrigation and lights at the Ponds, new playground
equipment, Lakefront Park development, and Community Park! Athletic Complex development.
This referendum will take care of some our community needs for many years to come. However,
this is a one time development resource, we need to be aware of continued growth, equipment
replacements, improvements, and ongoing maintenance of our parks and trails.
Needs for Indoor Recreation Space
In planning the future of the community consideration should be given to the need for
indoor recreation space. The new LibrarylResource Center will accommodate our dance
program and be available for community events and meetings. The Dakota community currently
has a facility which is open to the public for swimming and athletic activities on a fee basis. It
may be possible to include space in a future school that would be available for recreational
programming. Community school facilities have been very successful in other communities and
communications with school district personnel would include the possibilities of a community
school facility.
Future Needs Assessment and Community
As Prior Lake continues to develop it is critical to the success of the parks and recreation
system that there is an ongoing analysis of the par~s and recreation needs of the community. It is
imperative that a community survey be conducted so that future park and trail development is
driven by the needs of the community and so that recreation programs are based on the
community needs. Ongoing communications needs to exist between city staff and the
community. This communication can be accomplished through surveys, program evaluations,
public meetings, and open invitations to the public to attend Parks Advisory Committee
meetings. As the community develops there will undoubtedly be an increase in school age
children that will participate in sports and recreation programs. With this increase there will be
demands for additional parks and athletic fields. As mentioned there is a conceptual plan that
could meet the existing needs of the community but without further studies and surveys it would
be difficult at best to try to determine the future needs of the community. Future parks, trails, and
recreation programs should have a direct correlation to the demographics and socio-economic
status of the community.
I
\
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 5
Page 200
r
,
PLANNING AND LAND USE
General
Wastewater collection and treatment needs are dictated by the land use, population
density, and the planning period for the study area. Each new connection to the system adds to
the wastewater flow in the sanitary sewer system. Land use and population densities have been
developed and discussed in the City's overall comprehensive plan. This information will be
utilized in conjunction with the planning periods defined here to analyze the City's wastewater
system.
Planning Period
The planning period for municipal engineering projects generally coincides with the
useful life of the particular utility system. Under normal use conditions, mechanical equipment
such as lift station pumps is expected to last about 20 years with good maintenance.
Underground structural components like collection system pipes are typically designed for 50
years of service.
(
For this update, the MCES has requested that the year 2020 be used for the planning
period. In order to consider the ''worst case", the analysis will include a projection of the
ultimate development of the City of Prior Lake including all of the current City limits and the
"orderly annexation area" that may develop at some time.
Land Use
The City of Prior Lake Land Use Plan is presented and discussed in Chapter 3 of the
Comprehensive Plan. Basic data from the City's Land Use Plan will be used for projecting the
future wastewater needs of the City.
The current MUSA is entirely within the City limits but it does not include all of the land
within the City limits. "Development of land within the MUSA requires the extension of
municipal sanitary sewer services. Land outside the MUSA cannot be connected to the
municipal sewer system and must be developed with larger individual lots to accommodate
onsite wastewater treatment. As the land inside the current MUSA is developed, there will be
interest in expanding the MUSA to include additional land within the current City limits and
possibly, the orderly annexation area.
Since it is difficult to anticipate exactly which parcels of land will develop first, the City
is utilizing an "undesignated MUSA" for the defined area within the City limits and the orderly
annexation area. The documentation required by the MCES for the undesignated MUSA is
included in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan.
(
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 7
Page 254
..
population increase has stabilized since 1990. Population projections for this report were based on ('
the Prior Lake 2010 Comprehensive Plan and discussions with City planners. On this basis and ,
also based on the traffic analysis planning results, the ultimate population of Prior Lake has been
calculated to be 28,950. The past populations from 1980 to 1995 appear on Table 3-9 in Chapter 3.
Also shown in the table are the population projections for the years 2005, 2010, and 2020. The past
population and population projections are shown graphically as Figure 3-6 in Chapter 3.
Table 3-9 in Chapter 3 also presents numbers of households and the persons per household
ratios. This data indicates that, while the total population and number of households are increasing
in Prior Lake, the number of persons per household is decreasing. This is a trend that is occurring
throughout the Twin Cities at this time.
The City of Prior Lake Land Use Plan is presented and discussed in the "Land Use" section
of the comprehensive plan. Basic data from the City's Land Use Plan will be used for projecting
the future wastewater needs of the City.
The current MUSA is entirely within the City limits but it does not include all of the land
within the City limits. Development of land within the MUSA requires the extension of municipal
sanitary sewer services. Land outside the MUSA cannot be connected to the municipal sewer
system and must be developed with larger individual lots to accommodate onsite wastewater
treatment. As the land inside the current MUSA is developed, there will be interest in expanding
the MUSA to include additional land within the current City limits and possibly, the orderly
annexation area. (,
Since it is difficult to anticipate exactly which parcels of land will develop first, the City is
utilizing an "undesignated MUSA" for the defined area within the City limits and the orderly
annexation area. The documentation required by the MCES for the undesignated MUSA is
included in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan.
P AST WATER USAGE RECORDS
One of the most important aspects of any comprehensive water study is having a clear
understanding of how a city's consumers use water. With this information and accurate records of
past usage, projections can be made of future water demand. A course of action can then be
developed to meet this demand.
The City of Prior Lake maintains records of the annual volume of raw water pumped from
its wells, as well as the volume of water sold to its customers. These records permit evaluation of
all the components of water demand--the water used by residential, commercial/industrial, and
institutional users.
The demand imposed on a water system can be defined as the total water consumed by.
users of the system in a specified period of time. Typically, daily and hourly time periods are
evaluated. Daily demands are usually evaluated on the basis of average day and maximum day C
requirements.
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 8
Page 271
"
(
AUENDIXA
l\flSSION
The following Mission Statement was adopted by the City Council on February 3, 1997:
"The City of Prior Lake is committed to serving the common good of its residents by
promoting community values, environmentally sensitive community development,
robust business growth, financial stability, safety, and diverse recreational
opportunities. "
VISION
The Vision of ,the community at full development was also adopted February 6, 1995, as
part of the Strategic Plan. The ultimate community should be comprised of development which is
balanced among residential, commercial, and other land uses.
(
PRIOR LAKE STRATEGIC PLAN
THE VISION
Adopted February 6, 1995
Revised February 3,1997
Revised April, 1998
Revised March, 1999
''At buildout the City of Prior Lake will be balanced between residential,
commercial and business. Strong neighborhoods and homeowner associations will
characterize most developments, neighborhoods will be connected by transportation
amenities for pedestrians and/or motor vehicles. Platting will be encouraged
through Planned Unit Developments which preserve natural features. While single
family dwellings will be the predominant housing type, townhomes (for empty
nesters) and multifamily . developments on 11!ajor arterials are expected.
Annexation will be evaluated and a determination made regarding land areas to
incorporate within the City.
"Neighborhood commercial centers will predominate, although a few community .
commercial centers will exist. Commercial development will be localized primarily
to major arterial intersections involving State Highway 13, County Road 42, County
Road 44, County Road 21, County Road 12, County Road 82 and 83. One regional
center is expected at the intersection of County Roads 42 and 83.
~,
With respect to business, the focus will be on developing a mixture including office,
light industrial, high-tech and light manufacturing. Office, warehouse and
industrial developments are expected along CR 21. One or more corporate office
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Appendix A
Page A-I
G I~ ;l
m ~ 'SEe: ~ 6
:J ~ ~-6>~ O~ 8 Gpj
"E E~ m ~ 8 ~ ~!5 'Ii ~
"" ::JO- 0-- 1"-0.. 13al J!!~
~ {; 0- ~ lo~ o~ 2! P3 0 ~ 1 a-
"0 '5~I~ 8:8:lii~lE 1-0 OolS~
Q) 1Il.r. oo1:~O e: I s
~]~ e:!] ~~~l~ l~ ~t~
.2> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ O!!j a Iii l! ~ ~ ~ ~
~ iO::::>::> ! .......O::F~w :iili:[ ao:::a:!9w
1001 B ~Olll i 1110111
~ m ffi
"w :J a:
Cu
Q) c
~~
a.
E
8
~
~
L-
a
--
L-
a..
o
f>:'
o
III
z.~
'-
Q)
c:
c:
en co
en-
enD.
T""" ~
cxf ~
~~
~.~
~i:
~
~
~
~
rLl
~
~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~o
;
~
~
o
~
~
~
u
."._ h." ....' ..: ....",.."'".".,.'-,..,."...".=."." [
-- _.....,......""'~"..,....."""...'
10 .A" !!I! '\
~ ~.. z4(::
. ~'li = .'
:;e" l.~ .
5.a e ~l" ..
~ B ~ ~.! ~ -~
a g ~ H ~ ~ii.; :i
'D ,,"I! li' ~ '" _ _ .. . .!;;: 'i '
$ x.Ji ~ .. ~ ~ Ii ~ ;: ~J ~ .
~ !U ~ t ~ ~ ~ = ~ iiii ~ l'~
o ;lj:2~8 :' ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~t' t ... ~
O - g -.-,~ -, . ~ ~ ~ ~
'if'll'il:to. .-
O~ "'...J_' 'I.!~ '
.l!1!'" f
:-.s~ 0 I;~
!
Ii \
o \
o \
!id<=>
\ Ii
____.._1..11
! P
. 0
t
ac::>~.
\0
\0
'0
I
I
i
.J.!
I.
o \
o '.,
o "i,
I!. = 6.=
..
...
3
0 '"
c
0 ~
0
l~ 0 r~
:I: 0
"
Page 129
Comprehensive Plan 2020
Chapter 4
~
~
~
o
.-
~
a..
'0
~
o
cO>
mm
<c~c
~ .0
.~~~
0..2<f:
..
~+~
~
c
CO
0>0..
~L..""
~m
a)~
~F
~.~
~~
)
~
~ ~ I
W ~ ~~ i J
~ ~I ~i
<( e:i5J~~
~ ---1 J~~.e:1 _
~ ~....~II~"~
~ i~llI ...Ii)
!!, ~ ~i!" zl;
~ I~~o~%
~ 0 PJ~ c:~
- o!;l ~S _
0:: -cw ~...
Q E <Ii
~ :i
z
S
I
8 II .q I
18 . '
'\
~
rfl i
ti w
>- ~
Cf) ffi
0: c
wCf)~
~t-o
s:z~
cw~
w~;
Cf)Ww
O>~
0...
o.o:~
00.::J
o:~~
o._~
...
I -. ~JIIJJJ I
~i z ~ ~ L I! I
~I II ~ III
· I!!~tlii
. o2!11
~
o
0:
~
10
D-
O
II:
~
>-
o
C\I
o
z
w
C)
W
..J
)
----~...--...------1
,
~
~
~---
1
Ii
I
~ii
..Jq
0.'1
a:
w
~
~
C? w
CX)~
..... en
m Z
:J: W
x :r:
w w
a:
0.
~
o
o
iii
~
<
~ ..--
I
Z co
HH:n!nd!'1 ~
< w
0 ~ (Y
z
w ~ :J
<.:> . . . . . I . . . . . . I I . ~
w \ III 1111+x~o.. C)
-l ~
< lL.
~
:mVAVS
,~
i3dO)lVHS
...,
j;l..
o
~
l:I:
rn
~
33dOXVHS
I.
&1 ~
l1. I C
~ ~
:a rn
rn
~
~
l1.
o
~
=
rn
;f
..
WSS
EXISTING MUSA BOUNDARY
~ FUTURE MUSA SEARCH AREAS
CITY LIMITS
SEWER COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
~ I
o 2000 <lOOO
EXISTING MUSA BOUNDARY
FIGURE
cI~ Inc.
7-1
3dO)lVHS
. I I;L
,,-~le
! II
11!1I!!!!!!!Hm~ II
..~IIIIIIIIIIIIII~1I1
<III
3~VAVS
Page 1 of 1
gallery .
news .
A Farmer Fights To Save Agricultural Land
perspectives .
forum .
Few people have had as great an influence in
protecting Dakota County agricultural land as
Jerry Stelzel over the past 25 years. Stelzel
helped craft the Agricultural Preserves Act of
1980 while serving on a Metro Council
committee. The law helps farmers, through tax
breaks and other incentives, to maintain their
properties as farms rather than sell to developers.
resources .
Stelzel supports smart growth initiatives
because they help preserve rural areas. The
83-year-old former farmer says his main goal is to retain the rural
atmosphere of the county's 13 townships. He lives in Empire
Township, not far from Rosemount and Apple Valley, where two
thirds of the land remains agricultural.
Dakota County's mixture of towns, cities and farms has a great
appeal, resulting in tremendous population gains. Ironically, the high
quality of life that drew people to Dakota County may be threatened
by the demands of a larger population.
Stelzel's work in Dakota County resulted in his selection as
Minnesota Leader of the Year Award in 1987, Dakota County Man of
the Year in 1981 and commendations from seven other organizations
ranging from the International Lions Club to the Dakota County
Planning Commission.
With a laugh, he likens his civic involvement to a "disease" which
captured him years ago. He sees his political career as less about
him, and more about Empire Township.
"It's about what you can do for the township, not what the township
can do for you," says Stelzel, putting a twist on a famous line. And
he's been doing it for the township now for more than three decades.
~ '" '" " ."' '^'" '" ~" ~ "'~ i'4~~~
search mnSmartgrowlh.org .
b';'tJ 11 i&~" '*f h ~;;"~ '4 ~ ~']f~~!!t~ ~
brol,Jght to )'(tubyl ~ Metropolitan
Metropmitan Couodl . 'AA Council
http://www.metrocounci1.org/mnsmartgrowth/citizens~stelze1.htm
1/15/01
Loss of rural land accelerating in state, study finds
Page 1 of2
news freetime travel homezone cars. com workavenue shopping communitie$
Metro I Region Nation I World Politics Business Sports Variety Opinion Fun & Games Talk
METRO/REGION
Tools
.ffi E-mail this story
€t Print this page
P Find related
items
'EntE#.'.~~.~~u..'Cliek'. i<).).......i)......y...
.. .'i ....!i\Yo:U.Seor'eCOltt'e$t!
Loss of rural land accelerating in state, study
finds
David Peterson
Star Tribune
Thursday, January 11,2001
Days after the U.S. Census Bureau reported on just how hot Minnesota's growth
was during the 1990s, another federal agency has arrived to point out some of the
cost of that growth.
The rate at which development gobbled up rural land doubled during the mid-'90s,
according to newly released findings from the nation's National Resources
hlVentory, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's twice-a-decade effort to track
what's happening with farmland.
The amount of developed area in Minnesota rose 12 percent in the most recent
stretch, 1992 to 1997, compared with about 6 percent in the two previous five-year
periods.
"What whacks me across the head like a two-by-four," said Scott Elkins, state
director of the Sierra Club, "is the fact that after people have been living in this
state for 150 years, what sort of weirdness is going on that just in one five-year
period we saw a 12 percent increase in the amount of urbanized land? That's a
remarkable increase over five years."
Other findings:
. The rate at which rural land is being lost is slower than the department reported a
year ago, when it first released data on 1992-97. The estimate then was closer to a
tripling of the rate of development. A computer glitch was later found to have
thrown off all the data, which had been trumpeted by anti-sprawl groups.
. All of the development that has occurred in Minnesota since the inventory began,
in 1982, has only managed to trim a sliver off of Minnesota's vast land resources:
land classed as llrural" declined from 45.8 million acres to 45.4 million, or 1.1
percent.
It's not clear what is leading to accelerating rates of development, whether it's sheer
population growth, more affluence or other factors. Data from the 2000 census that
will emerge soon will help to clarify the matter.
Elkins argues that although there's still lots of rural land, it's troubling that the rate
at which land is being developed is climbing.
It's not clear, however, whether it's a blip or a long-term trend. Some experts
maintain that as baby boomers at their peak earning years begin to leave their big
homes and big yards for townhouses, summer cabins and Sun Belt retirement
enclaves, the rate of loss of rural land will decline.
Another question is whether the loss of rural land is accelerating simply because
the state's population is growing so rapidly, and not because land is being used
http://www.startribune.com/viewers/qview/cgi/qview.cgi?template=metro_a_cache&slug=lan...1/11/0 1
LUS:S OI rural land accelerating in state, study finds
Page 2 of2
.
t Return to top
more wastefully.
The Census Bureau reported late last month that Minnesota's population gain
during the '90s (544,380) was nearly double its gain during the 1980s (299,129).
That compares with the new findings ofa doubling of the rate of urbanization
between 1987-92 and 1992-97.
Elkins agreed that the comparison is intriguing, but said that, from another
perspective, it looks as if land is being used more wastefully. "The population is
increasing at about 1 percent a year," he said, "but if rural land is being developed
at a rate of 12 percent in five years, then each person is using about 250 percent as
much land as existing residents, if you look at it that way."
The area's hot economy, on the other hand, definitely plays some role, he said.
"People are making money and they want their piece of land. There's nothing
wrong with affluence, but it's interesting that once they get there they want to close
the door behind them."
University of Minnesota geographer Fraser Hart, who has studied the issue of lost
farmland extensively, argued in a speech last summer that compared to what we
have as a nation the loss is "hardly noticeable." He added:
"Most lost farmland was in marginal agricultural counties with soils of low inherent
fertility and topography unsuited to modern farm machinery. ... Much of this land
probably never should have been cultivated in the first place."
David Peterson can be contacted at david.a.l1eterson@Startribune.com
@ Copyright 2001 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
http://www.startribune.comlviewers/qview/cgi/qview.cgi?template=metro _a _ cache&slug=lan... 1/11/01
Subject: Vierling Farm
])ate: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17: 18: 16 EST
From: KMSandvik@aol.com
To: Sfawcett@qwest.net
DATE: January 12, 2001
TO: Kelly & Fawcett, PA
FROM: Kathleen and David Sandvik
5410 Hampton St. NE
Prior Lake
952-496-3658
RE: The Vierling Farm
My husband and I may not be able to attend the public hearing on January 16,
2001. We wanted to assist the Vierling Family in their effort to enroll
their property into the Agricultural Preserve Program so that their land may
remain farmland in accordance with their wishes: Please communicate our
support on behalf of the Vierling family.
Thank you for your assistance,
Kathleen Sandvik
10fl
1/]3/018:47 AI
January 11,2001
Kelly & Fawcett, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
2350 Piper J affray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Re: Vierling Farms
To whom it may concern: .
We live directly across the street from the Vierling farm and
defmitely do not want to see them gone.
Our fIrst reason for wanting to see them re-enrolled in the
Agricultural Preserve Program, is that it is their land, has been in
their families for years and they should be the ones to determine
what they do with their land. It is a little scary to think that
someone can take someone else's property from them for any
reason.
The second reason is we enjoy having a farm across the street ~om
us. It gives us the illusion of living in the country.
~ ~~o~ to attend the hearing.
ili~cl& Linda Smith
5313 140th StNE
Prior Lake, Mn 55372
cc: City of Prior Lake
~
January 11,200 I
Kelly & Fawcett, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
2350 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Re: Vierling Farms
To whom it may concern:
We live directly across the street from the Vierling farm and
defmitely do not want to see them gone.
Our fIrst reason for wanting to see them re-enrolled in the
Agricultural Preserve. Program, is that it is their land, has been in
their families for years and they should be the ones to determine
what they do with their land. It is a little scary to think that
someone can take someone else's property from them for any
reason.
The secon~ reason is we enjoy having a farm across the street from
us. It gives us the illusion of living in the country.
We will not be able to attend the hearing.
I<(~~
Kerry Smith .
5299 140th St NE
Prior Lake, Mn 55372
cc: City of Prior Lake
,
January 11,2001
Planning Commission
City of Prior Lake
Dear Sirs:
I have been a resident of 5355 140th St. NE since 1969. My home is located in the First
Addition of North Shore Oaks. I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on
Jamuuy 16. Since it is implied in the notice that I must be at the meeting to have my voice heard. I
am submitting my written comments to be read at that meeting. If any further comments by me are
desired, I am willing to add to them.
The property directly across from my house- has been farmed for as long as I have lived
here, and long before I bought this house. My family has had land in Prior Lake since the 1950's.
The family farm has been an important part of Prior Lake"s history, -and still is a positive part of
Prior Lake. The recent negative attitude shown by the City of Prior Lake toward farming ill this
rural community is a detriment to the quality of life-we have as residents of-Prior Lake.
I support the Vierling fanilly in their desire to continue farming Llteir land. The Planning
Commission should amend their Land Use Map to designate their land as Rural Density.
Sincerely,
Karen J. (Koskelin) Lucy
c
~
~g.
C5:E
- i:: C)
c...c
--
'Oc
~~
o
'"
~+~
111
.- 1\1
i 'Ii:ill
'Il]!i~i ~
a: li-o 8J -0 ~ Zl.
~1'1la::'1J8l!!l!! 111
.~ a:: ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ !
i~f--~f~i' ~I~ it
~i~IJ~f Jj~j ~ ~~
c(~&~~~~336~~~~~
.DDQ~.0@....WDn~~
ill] m m! ill M ~ lfiS. "
..
bAc:I
.5 0
-a~
= II
=!
.a II
~ ~
ail
0...,
.c:I 0
c:I""
1'=
...,...,
-aCeol
c:I 0
II'#.
bAClO
~~
~c2
~-a
~
~1i
a g
.:! g s:i
~ II 0
-
'Q .. ...,
d ..., ~
...-=
.. c:I .b
CeoI = ..
o bA c:I
.. .s 0
:; .. ~
~ = CeoI
~ 0 0
c:I.c:I
~ c:I
..., 0
..., c:I
.. 0
11_
-...,
~ II
.c:I!
~ =
~ ~
:;.c:I
~...,
a ..
00
~o
o
.c:IN
~c:I
II....
~.
Ji
~...
.c:It
lot II
C1C1ClC1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1
llll....CDIO....MN.-_llllt-.CD_C'X'l__....__N.-
NNNNNNC"tI('IlIN'P"~""~~
SJ,IN1l .10 H3S:WnN
CI
CI
CI
N
en
en
en
...
llll
en
en
...
....
.
CD
...
CD
en
.
...
10
en
CD
...
~
~
....
.
.
...
M
en
.
...
N
.
.
...
...
en
CD
...
:I:
~
(;)
~
'"
~
~
....l
~
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4B
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO MINIMUM LOT AREA AND
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER
MARK (OHWM) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5690
FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL FOR ROCK CREEK HOMES,
LLC, (Case File #00-083)
LOT 34, FAIRLAWN SHORES
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
JANUARY 29, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from Rock Creek Homes, LLC
(applicant), representing Christopher Rooney (owner), for the construction of a single
family dwelling with attached garage on the property located at 5690 Fairlawn Shores
Trail SE (Exhibit A Survey).
The following variances are requested:
1) A 418 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 7,082 square feet for the lot to
be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes, rather than the required
minimum 7,500 square feet [Ordinance Section 1104.902: Nonconforming Lot (1)];
2} A 2.1-foot variance to allow a structure setback of 51.2 feet from the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the required setback
of 53.3 feet as determined by setback averaging [Ordinance Subsection 1104.308
(2) Setback Requirements For Residential Structures].
DISCUSSION:
Lot 34, Fairlawn Shores was platted in 1923. The subject lot is a riparian lot located
within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts. The
lot dimensions are 50 ft. by 144 ft. by 50.14 ft. by 140 feetfor a total lot area of 7,082
square feet (Exhibit A Survey). The lot is considered a nonconforming platted lot of
record. The property owner does not own either of the adjacent properties.
The first variance request is for 418 square feet to allow a buildable lot area of 7,082
square feet. A minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet is required for a lot to be
considered a buildable lot without a variance.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-083\RptOO-083PC.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
The second variance request is for 2.1 feet to permit a structure setback of 51.2 feet
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The applicant submitted a certificate of
survey utilizing setback averaging for the adjacent structures along the shoreline within
150 feet of the subject property and this accounts for the setback average of 51.2 feet
(Exhibit B Setback Average). However, the setback averaQinQ from the OHWM is
determined based on the nearest adiacent lot with an existinQ principal structure; staff
has determined the correct setback averaQe to be 53.3 feet. In cases where only one of
the adjacent lots has a principle structure, the average setback of the adjacent structure,
and the next structure within 150 feet may be utilized (Ordinance Subsection 1104.308
(2) Setback Requirements For Residential Structures). In this case, there are
structures on both lots immediately adjacent to this site.
The front yard setback was determined on a certificate of survey by setback averaging
the buildings within 150 feet along the same block front of the subject lot as depicted on
Exhibit S, as required by the ordinance. The average setback for the five buildings is
35.5 feet, as proposed by the applicant on Exhibit A, the certificate of survey
(Ordinance Subsection 1102.405: Dimensional Standards (4)].
The side yard setbacks are 6.18 feet to the east side lot line, and 9 feet on the west side
lot line for a combined sum of the side yards of 15.18 feet. The minimum building
separation is 16.63 feet to the nearest structure on the adjoining lot. The structures
eaves/overhangs are no greater than 1 foot and do not encroach to within 5 feet of an
adjoining lot. Nonconforming lots of record may have side yards of not less than five
feet with the structure as proposed [Ordinance Subsection 1101.502: Required
Yards/Open Space (8)].
The proposed two-story structure consists of a finished main level of approximately 983
square feet and includes a great room, dining room, kitchen, 1/2 bath, laundry room and
foyer area. The 469 square foot tuck-under two stall tandem garage completes the
ground level area of 1,452 square feet. The 2nd floor includes a master bedroom with
bath and closet, with two additional bedrooms and one bathroom (Exhibit C Building
Plans).
The proposed impervious surface coverage area totals 2,122 square feet. The lot area
of 7,082 square feet allows for a total coverage area of 2,125 square feet. The structure
meets the maximum allowable impervious surface area of 30% (Exhibit D Impervious
Surface Calculations). The lowest floor level is proposed to walk out to the lakeside.
The proposed walkout level will require a pervious surface area, such as a wood
platform with a minimum of 1/4 inch deck board separation and a maximum height of 29
inches to avoid structure setback requirements and to meet the definition of a pervious
surface area (Ordinance Subsection 1104.306).
Department of Natural Resources Hydrologist Patrick Lynch submitted comments on
this request. In essence, the DNR is not opposed to the proposed variance provided the
correct setback averaging is utilized, and the applicant is advised that any future
requests for a variance to add a deck will not be viewed favorably by the DNR (Exhibit
E DNR Letter).
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-083\RptOO-083PC.DOC
Page 2
Staff has determined that a legal alternative building envelope exists, which meets the
front yard set back of 35.5 feet as proposed, and meets the lakeside setback averaging
of 53.3 feet. This provides for a building footprint of approximately 47.9 feet by 34 feet
for a total area of 1,628.6 square feet.
A resident adjacent to the subject lot submitted a letter with views opposed to the
requested variances.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of
this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional
or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot
in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which
said lot is located.
Regarding variance request number 1, the lot area is a condition over which the
applicant/owner has no control. The subject property is a nonconforming platted lot
of record, and was developed when current ordinances did not exist. Without the
variance to lot area the property remains unbuildable. However, variance request
number 2 does not meet the hardship criteria as a legal alternative building foot print
exists that meets the required setback averaging from the ordinary high water mark.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
Variance request number 1: the existing conditions of the lot area and dimensions
are peculiar to the property, and generally do not apply to most other lots within the
Shoreland District. Variance request number 2: If all required setbacks are applied,
there is a buildable area on this lot.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
Without a variance to lot area the site is not buildable (Variance 1). A legal
alternative site precludes the need for variance request number 2.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the requested variances (lot area and setback) will not impair light
and air to adjacent properties or increase congestion, danger of fire or endanger
public safety.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-083\RptOO-083PC.DOC
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the requested variances to lot area and deny the setback variance request.
2. Approve all the variances requested by the applicant. In this case, the Planning
Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings approving the
Variance requests.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
4. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated
hardship under the zoning code criteria. In this case, the Planning Commission
should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings denying the Variance
requests.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
Two actions are required:
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-005PC, approving a 418 square foot
variance to permit a lot area of 7,082 square feet, rather than the required
minimum area of 7,500 square feet for a lot to, be utilized for a single family
detached dwelling purposes.
2. Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-006PC, denying a 2.1-foot variance
to permit a structure setback of 51.2 feet, rather than the required 53.3 feet as
determined by setback averaging from the ordinary high water mark of 904 feet.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-083\RptOO-083PC.DOC
Page 5
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character
and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair
established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way
impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the variance to lot area will not adversely affect the above stated
values. However, encroaching upon the established lakeside setback average will
adversely affect the adjacent properties and defeat the purpose and intent of the
setback averaging regulations.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variance to lot area on nonconforming lots of record is not
contrary to the intent of the Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan as long as all
other ordinance criteria can be met. However, the granting of variance to lakeside
setback averaging will be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
Without the first variance request no new structure can be built, and hardship exists
and is not merely a convenience to the applicant. The second variance will allow the
applicant to construct what they proposed.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance
to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property .
The lots area and dimensions are existing conditions and not a result of actions of
the property owner. The setback variance request is a result of the actions of the
applicant/owner.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Hardship is created by the existing lot area conditions, and financial considerations
alone are not the grounds for granting this variance request.
RECOMMENDATION:
The subject property is a nonconforming platted lot of record and staff feels all of the
variance hardship criteria have been met with regards to lot area staff therefore
recommends approval of Variance number 1. However, as proposed the setback
averaging does not meet the variance hardship criteria. The staff recommends denial of
Variance number 2.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-083\RptOO-083PC.DOC
Page 4
RESOLUTION 01-005PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 418 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT
A LOT AREA OF 7,082 SQUARE FEET FOR A LOT TO BE UTILIZED FOR
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING PURPOSES, RATHER THAN THE
REQUIRED MINIMUM AREA OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Rock Creek Homes, LLC, has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in
order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling located in the Rl (Low
Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at 5690 Fairlawn Shores Trail,
Prior Lake, MN, and legally described as follows:
Lot 34, Fairlawn Shores, Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case File #00-083PC and held hearings thereon on January 29, 2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of existing lot area conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding
property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed
variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The pre-existing lot of record does not meet the current Ordinance for minimum lot
area in the Rl District: This situation creates an unbuildable lot and a hardship with
respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
owner.
I:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-083\aprsO I-OOS.doc I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the minimum lot area required today and the
platted lot of record. Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the
granting of the variance to permit a buildable lot for a single family dwelling.
7. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant,
and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #00-083PC are hereby entered into and made a
part ofthe public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following variance for the proposed structure as shown in the certificate of survey labeled
Exhibit A Survey:
1. A 418 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 7,082 square feet rather than the
required minimum area of 7,500 square feet for a lot to be utilized for single family
detached dwelling purposes.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. The permit is subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable agency
regulations.
2. The resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department pursuant to Section 1108.400 of City Code . An Assent Form must be
signed pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null
and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed structure
within one year after adoption of this resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 29, 2001.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\00files\00var\00-083\aprsO 1-005 .doc
2
RESOLUTION 01-006PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 2.1 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 51.2
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 53.3 FEET AS DETERMINED BY
SETBACK AVERAGING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Rock Creek Homes, LLC,(applicant) and Christopher Rooney (owner) have applied
for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a
single family residence with attached garage on property located in the R-l (Low
Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following
location, to wit;
5690 Fairlawn Shores Trail, legally described as Lot 34, Fairlawn Shores,
Scott County, MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #00-083PC and held hearings thereon on January 29, 2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. A legal building envelope that meets the required setback averaging for the structure
exists on the subject lot. The applicant has control over the house design and shape,
such that the hardship created has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of
the property exists with a smaller building footprint.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-083\dnyres.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
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required lake shore setback as
reasonable use ofthe property exists without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure
to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 00-083PC 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 variance for a future single family dwelling and detached garage as shown in
attached Exhibit A;
1. A 2.1 foot variance to permit a structure setback of 51.2 feet from the ordinary high
water mark of 904 feet, rather than the required 53.3 foot setback as determined by
setback averaging.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 29,2001.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-083\dnyrsOO-083.doc
2
Location Map
Location of
5690 Fairlawn Shores Tr
7 6 5 4 3 2
12 8
ROAD
8 7 6 5 2 2
4 3
4 3
1 6 2 9
5 14 15 16
12 13
3 10
6 5 4 3 2
2
7
4
11 12 13 14 15 16
3
MAVES TRL.
N
A
100 0 100 200 Feet
-
-
-------------
- - - - - - ::-----~-
----........---..................
----------
---
------
50.14 N8oo05'14"W
---
" - ~
---~----l;~..
. " -"" '00' ""- I ::- -':~--C"~'g\!!:
5 ___
0.00 5780J6'J70( _ _ _
LOT 34
G
~.:::
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I .-'>>
I ~
~ I
~ I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
.. tRONfoo "
I I
, I
, I
,
,
,
,
,
.>
w
917.8~
-->'s-_
"- ------
-a;:- ""'5g,2J.,.... ...... _ _ __
-...-
---
---
---
9<1.1
~
~
::)
tn
c:(
.....
-
m
-
J:
><
W
~
.
~
;"
l"-
"-
?;j
g
O'~
.~
-
~
I
I
I
I
J,
.,
..
~ , ".,.
It I L.V I
9.J,1 I
I
I
---.J.....
----
_ r-
"\ -,
.......
w
"
<C
a:
w
~
~
o
<C
Ie
I-
W
en
Ie
I-
-
Ie
-
~
><
w
....... ....... '-' - ~ '.s;;;;;;. it!..j . t:: U <J 0 .x~ I
""':..c o.:cs "" u t-= .s::. -;> ,...., QJ.c 0 Q.v _ t.O -..;. '"C
\&,I ~ '- '- "-
m 0..0..0..0..
I
r r'os
---
l r'Z9 -
w
~
<(
-.J
0::
o
0::
0...
of A I(
f~ 1'1
Ii;:f$ I. 'I a
f#~~ II~
gf#1. I 8
~gl! I :
; i/'II / l
a~ f/
$~; I
In ;::::.. ~..~
/' / --S'i"-.
1 I-- ~?~
I. /
1 l-
I. /
1 /
I. L.
l L -.,,-
J / "--9.,~
I
/
/
/
/
---.. I
"'~ -I
I
I "'
I
I
I
I
I
I
~'Z~ --J
I
I
I
I
:z:
-
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~'~-J
/
I
I
I
~'Z,,- I
I
I
I
I
I ::::!
I ~
'.Z-! ~
V)
~4J i.Jj
g.~occ
0'0
v>P ;:c
~Vj
CI)
~
~
iE
"'"-
~
"0
EXHIBIT C BUILDING PLANS
!~."J~~ ~'i'~;""~ ;t( {:i::!:~-~ ,:~...~,: ':t- ~~: I,i~\
'.' ;~ 1.:' :........
.1
,~:~{.~(
.!.:
~.
,. '\',: ~:~,
.. 1:0.. ~.~ :~ :..
"~'.'/i'
'.~\
" ;r.~: >, l"'!i T,
.1 -fl.'l.J'. ;'Ji"~~
~(..,;{' \.t;~:..
~l:"l'('~'"
:~1i:f~{~~~:1
'\~I~,j.h.1.
"oj. .1"-4 ,f ~~".~I.!~.~'~
....):.,t..}. ~",'t..
.~'t.1Th) ;~r;'"..;.'~,
. ~~ ;~,..' . ~\l~'
~'~t .~. )~~,... ~:7'
f3E" "
.. . ~.
v:-.. ...
.,t,,'
;t, . ',1.. t, " " ?".
j!; . i'~ . .~,..~.. ': ":;"'.: I.;' ,1,2. i'
.;. ..'~.
..,~,..,\' ":''t.'':.~.''''~;~
." '7'. '...:."\..' j. : '~'.., ,;. l.: .:...'....
:' . -,. ",,' ~.'
~ .... ,I" ".
I, ."I'~' ...' . ~,;,
,..' .' .......
";::': ~ tl \..
.':"
...~ ij.. , ~ .'\
. ~~, L:....; "". ..
:'f- .
'.. ,.; ~. :.S "
~.. '.1 '.
I: .." :,.' '. ~.. . 't
~ ...',':
).,.... I, .".' .
.... ,> \~ >;~.f
.;t':.
"1'.7
. :..
.... \ .
:,"fi.
'. ".l
't,. '
'12. " ...." .i~~t;;Tt:~~
'..:~~~:{~j~:~~.\:.'; :;> :'<:::;.~/
.. J ,'~u"r". '
': r '-:
....
\'..
"
;,'j'
'"
'~~
.'
.~;
! ~ ~' ,.:., .,,;..:: l}it I.;;.. , II
Il.~::.'~~.:....~i....::: ,'" ~"
;.,:'
I I.
.,..
"
!..~.~':;;;.~. .~':,'tl,\:,~
.. I~ . " Ib'~ '. ~"~".' .
'(,~ ,. ,. ~~~"."" ...~, ,
..' . ~~~I:'i .\' ,.'1.. ",it.;. ,
il:~\.~:~~\i\\=;~~; ,
M~;::~;'~!f~r~~;'
'~ ,.
',"
~ ~"~
~,I '
~. .!
.:" ,....,:
:-',:!, :,'
~ :'1 ..
, '1,,'.,'
"
"'..'
.,." ..
'.' ;". . ,.'
" . .', ,\" ~:b: I'
..:.', f ::. ..'~ I.~ t ~... .,..>>
-!. r,\":;.,
, ,~,'1 '. ,., .It~' "" .'
, . t.;..~,' '_,01 ", ::: .~~.:
, ~ .~ .',; . .'.... ";:~'
. '.l .. _.1'::' I. "~.\l, I
'':''''~'.'/','''Sj.' .:;1'
.:4.......'" it:.:...:--:'
"'r'
.... .,
,I
. .', " ., ,.... '. " .;,l..., '10 .' ~ ': . , .... ,,',;.. ....
',1 'w".
. .1 't~ . : .:. .
'.'
"
~ .!, ,
"
~ ~ .
: ..
, .
;r
; :
t. t
~ "
r
,; :.
~ .;.'
:' ...
. ,
~..
. ~..
.~
, ,
, "
I
l ....
l
tI;J
[lJ
I'
.~ '.
:.:.;~.t.
',I ,'~
;~
::"
.. ,.
i. J. .,;
1':
I:
I'
'.
, J
q
" "
"
.. ,.
'.
,
"
_,4,.
.' ~..
~ .~ J
, ;
.. ;;
'.
.'"
'. . -
. ~ ~
.. ;,
. "
- 'f :", .. '!. ~
t: :: : : ,: _ ,,' '
: l.,\.; j ~:; ,
, ..
",
"
'.
. i
f
- .
::: I :
.
;
EEl
~.
- t.
GoP" 24.:lZ.
,;,pltI11t,_
'2,'12.\' . .... >>"'~ .
~
c:.1-'''" """,0 W/
...,;Z ""
2,16"1..111.. .w~
.:.p1l....~"lO "'I
<O<)"'-/:) -t!U'LJ-:.
.;. . =tL. po.-"t_
· :. ....<I.z.... S-r.t . .
:;1'f-u;';'''' .l2J >;1..;1. . ~ "WL-
'I ,-
.I
OJ
$:>I"'eio>f'IEfl. ~
FP flAbtr.v ~<
. C1 f--EA T
IZ';'~"""W t. "'FOP.
s.:./'rIT . . .
.tl J
.!D'
~ ,0
. Dl.~
~~~~
II ~ ~
@ ~~
\II
~
r
> 1$l:p "L40 L.MT.:>
'1'2.",:)QI t-"'l'rE'~p' WPCoL,
01.4 ~"~. r~ .
. , '
/ .
I
I
I
I,
, \
\
\
.....-
,/
./
/ I
._~. >>'W....':""~F~# .~~'r~UW...__, _ \
- - 11~ --Jri--
fI "~.,
, ':'1l~'2QU.
;2..2. ".10"11'111/..
o~.
I "",,' ,
;;< ....:;r l..-IU~"" ~~ I-Q.>~
V'I,>o.u 1_' ""-""Llj4_ '-"""7'
:;TI'/~
ro'
".ol~_
Q "'~ ~LJIL.t'Il~ f;j~
'r llLj.IL..:t'IL.J.
s-6" fl'J fWO.,...te.v c, w tl
ow. w............:; .4olJp ~
..-.to "'....Il.' ="",,",01+ rtb .'
I _41...,-' ~
I ~~ ~ ~ fi. A~~'$~~
I <II> 01 .dp 'd
J'f":7"""vpuC-c;At.I1~dl..' "'l...::;T~p.1Ll-l.,~~7'iL,~L-
" 11. ~ I , " . I.
'~Vi I N 2\.1.., 1=~.~'W""'~L-IU91
Pl 1/_' .c.-e../Ex11!4P fL~j4..
I ,.~:' ,(== ~~~.~~~~~~~ 1_.'
: \. ~ Ifr---------t:-j
.~~_;;,-o;:,~-= d ~-=-=.::;:=-:~~.~E'-~_t!I~--=- _~-=I=.
'2 i ."....,1.. ~" ':1+'1........ ~ '
/
/
l'
I I' /
--~ J:L._ _.:.-
I .
4 "UOLU:.. tort"lu~ J.../....Ul>ISt:.r<.
Me", 6~e:.Sl,.OrJl. f""""l"-R>
'14.f-'- ......'" I":;' '. ' ,
'/ '
.:
.bul:.p;.~
12-"
. I.z.~.,,"
'2 ','~ 10'
--
&2."",,", ,,;..'L
1.......4
2. z,".. 0"
'::U'-1' S1''''"
'lJ.t st"'~1:.
CITY OF PRlOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Applicarion)
F or All Properties Located in the Shor~land District (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address L of;
54) FCf.;,laWN S'hoYi?..5
Lot Area 70 t'2- Sq. Feet X 30% = .............. 2/ 2,5
*******************************************~****************************
HOUSE
LENGTH
;1-ofJosecA
,
WIDTH SQ. FEET
x r/:;~ tJ 0~"'4"~ = /70Cf
-'
x
=
ATIACHED GARAGE
x
=
TOTAL PRlNCrPLE STRUCTURE...................... J 70:S'
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage/Shed)
x
X
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.......................
DRNEWAYIPAVED AREAS f,o;:Jos-ed
.
=
356
x tJ,':vt!l/Iq y
I
(Driveway-paved or not)
(SidewalkIParking Areas)
x
=
x
=
P A TIOSIPORCHESIDECKS
b' 3"'
x
=
(Open Decks '/.- min. o:;ening becw~n
boards, with Ii pervious SUrUce b:::low.
ar:: not considered [0 bo= impervioiJs)
x
=
x
=
TOT.~ DECKS..................._......_......................... h g--
OTdER
x
X
=
=
TOT.~ OTHER...................... .......................- ......
TOTALI~ERVIOUSSURFACE
C~OVER
Prepared By f?o~ ~
Company ~m~5 f. J-1!//) //JC.
l z, / 2.. -z..
[ ~3
Date / I Ils/oO
I t
Phone # r&CfO-bottq
m
><
:I:
-
OJ
-
-I
C
-
3:
."
m
J:J
<
-
o
c:
en
en
c:
J:J
~
o
m
o
:t>
r-
o
c:
r-
~
-
o
z
SENT-BY: DNR METRO;
1-19- 1 3:53PM; 6517727573 =>
6124474245;
#1/1
EXHIBIT E DNR LETTEfr
Minnesota D~par(menl. of Natural Resolln~l~s
Mc.l.ro Waters - 1200 Warner Road. St. Paul, MN 55106-()793
Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 77'2-7977
J.U1l1.lI'Y 19.2001
St.(;~v(' Hursman
Cily of Prior L.lkc
16200 Eagle Cr'eek Avenlle SE
Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372
RE: V<lriam:cs to Lot. Area and Lake Setback, Rock Creek Hl)me~ <5690 F<lirlawn Shorcs) & Appeal
of Stafr Decision Not to Permit clCCL.:Ssory Stl1.1C'LlJre. on Twi.n Island (John & l.inda Meyer)
DcaI' Mr. 1l000srmm:
I have reviewed lhe. IlUllerillls you submitted relative tc.) the tWll subject zoning malLL:rs :1I1d offn th~
following cmnmelHs for consideratiofJ.
.Minimum 1,111 Area and Lake Setback Variances. (lock Creek Humes (5.6.9f...Ji'airlawn Sh(~rcs Trail I
DNR is not opposed te) the proposed variance provided tl.1L: footprint Oflhc sLrUcl.ure is cOllsislenl Wilh the
uvcrag.t': sctoack of the structurC!oi on adjoining p",rce1s. The sl.ructlll'e on adjacent Lot 35 appears 10 be set
huck 62.43 feet from the ordinary high wat~r elevmlon. II. is not ck.ar if there is a strm:LlIre on .~d.ial':cnl
I.ot 33. or what I he. sedlack of a structllre on that lot is. I note that no deck h; depictcd on the propl.'lsl~d
~Iruc.:rure. II is advise.able LO carefully review huilding plans for the structure. If sliding doors are propost:d
for a fUlure deck. the al>J,licanl should he advised thal future requests for sc~th.u:~k variance to add a deck.
will 1101 be viewed favorahly by the DNR. Perhaps u condition of any variancl~ could stipulate llu cgress
d()or~ arc allowed on the structure clbovc grade.
ADDC~J. Accessurv St.nacture on Twin Island (Lots 62 and 64, Twin Isles). John and. Linda MCY~r
I looked ut this one and h,tve no comment Oil this item.
If you have any questions. plca....c call me .Il 651-772-7917.
Sincerely.
.-- "'\
h~\.-\'l~~' -:L.~
Palril.:k .I. Lynch III
DNR Arca Hydrologist
l)NI~ IlIl'urllIali\Jll: (1,,~1-2')6-6157 . IIUHl-()4(1-6J67 . TTY: (,:":'I..:!I)(,.';,IX,,\ . I Xll!) (,~fl-W';>.~)
:'" r..lllalll(lI'IIIIUlllly l(lIIphl~I'(
Who Vallll" 1 'i\"',,il~'
f'.llIhod em H,:.~y,lclll,l.II~\"I (:""l~lImu.e..
r..,'JllunIIUJI III' IU'A. P,\~.l ('UII..,ulmT \V:I....I<<..
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4C
CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY
CENTEX HOMES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN
SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 115 NORTH, RANGE 22
WEST (Case File #01-001)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
JANUARY 29, 2001
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
Centex Homes and John O'Loughlin have filed an application for a Zone Change for the
property located on the west side of CSAH 83, ~ mile south of CSAH 42, in the East ~
of the Northwest ~ of Section 28, Township lIS North, Range 22 West. The request is
to rezone the property from the A (Agricultural) District to the R-2 (Low to Medium
Density Residential) District, and to remove the Shoreland District designation from the
site. .
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Existing Use: This property is currently vacant land. There is a wetland located on the
northwest comer of the site. There is also a stand of trees located at the south end of the
site.
Adjacent Land Use, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation: The property to
the west and south is Shakopee Mdewakanton Trust Land. The land to the south is
developed with residences and businesses, while the land immediately to the west is a
wetland mitigation area. To the north of this property is vacant agricultural land, zoned A
(Agriculture) and planned for Hospitality General Business uses. To the east, across
CSAH 83, is The Wilds golf course and residential development, zoned PUD and planned
for Low to Medium Density Residential uses and Hospitality General Business uses.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for Low to Medium
Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property
also meets the criteria for the extension of the MUSA.
1:\Oltiles\Olrezone\Ol-OOl\Ol-OOlpc.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
.~
Access: This property is accessed from CSAH 83. The access point is located across
from the entrance to The Wilds. It may also be possible to access this property from the
SMDC land to the south.
Utilities: Sewer and water services can be extended to serve this property from the
existing utilities located in Wilds Parkway and CSAH 83.
ANALYSIS:
This application includes two proposals. The first is a request to rezone the property from
the current A (Agricultural) district to the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential)
district. The second request is to remove the existing Shoreland designation from this
property .
A to R-2: Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the following policies for
amendments to the Official Zoning Map:
. The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical
or administrative error, or
. The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of
the area, or
. The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will be appropriate on
the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
The proposed R-2 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designation. The R-2 district allows residential development with densities up to 7.2
units per acre. This would allow townhouse development, as well as 6,000 square foot
single family residential lots.
The City Council recently adopted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that
identified criteria to be considered when determining what Zoning District should be
applied to areas designated for Low to Medium Residential uses. These criteria are as
follows:
. The topography of the site.
. Capacity of utilities serving the site.
. Type and nature of abutting or nearby development.
. Type and quality of access to local, collector and arterial streets.
. Effect on traffic levels of service.
. Market conditions.
. Any costs incurred by the City as a result of the development.
. The degree to which significant natural features are preserved
1:\01 files\O 1 rezone\O 1-00 1 \0 1-001 pc.doc
Page 2
. Whether the proposed zoning supports the logical extension of existing
neighborhoods.
. Whether the zoning district is delineated by logical natural or artificial boundaries.
. The impact on drainage patterns and conditions and the degree to which any adverse
impacts can be mitigated.
. Potential impacts on the physical condition of streets and roads serving the site.
The Planning Commission should identify any characteristic of this property that may not
meet these criteria.
Shoreland District: This property is located within 1,000 feet of Mystic Lake, and is
therefore located within the Shoreland District. Mystic Lake is classified as a Natural
Environment Lake; therefore, the minimum lot area lot width for a nonriparian single
family lot is 20,000 square feet and the minimum lot width is 100 feet.
The Shoreland District is generally defined as follows:
Land located within the following distances from protected waters: (1) 1,000 feet from the
Ordinary High Water Mark of a lake, pond, or flowage; and (2) 300 feet from a river or
stream, or the landward extent of a floodplain on such rivers or streams, whichever is
greater. The practical limits of shorelands may be less than the statutory limits where such
limits are designated by natural drainage divides at lesser distances, as shown on the.
Official Zoning Map of the City.
Both this definition and Minnesota Rules allow the reduction of the Shoreland District if
the natural drainage area of the property is away from the water body. In this case, the
property lies outside of the Mystic Lake drainage area and drains to the northwest. The
view of this property, both to and from Mystic Lake, is also limited due to the elevation
of CSAH 83. Therefore, this property lies outside of the practical limits of the Mystic
Lake Shore land District.
The DNR has also reviewed this request and has no objections. A letter from Pat Lynch,
Area Hydrologist for the DNR, is attached for your information.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval ofthe Zone Change as requested.
2. Recommend denial ofthe request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1. The proposed R-2 district is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation. In addition, the property lies
outside ofthe practical limits of the Mystic Lake Shoreland District.
1:\01 files\O 1 rezone\O 1-001 \01-00 1 pc. doc
Page 3
ACTION REQUIRED:
The following motion is appropriate for this action:
1. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Zone Change from the A
(Agricultural) district to the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) district and to
remove the described property from the Mystic Lake Shoreland District.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Applicants' Narrative
3. Letter from the DNR
4. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
5. Zoning Map
1:\01 files\O 1 rezone\O 1-00 1 \0 1-00 1 pc.doc
Page 4
Location Map
I
-L
-
i
I
-
i
I
~~Jr-J /
~~~~
~~~~ ~
"~r -; '~M'
"- ,~
l-.
__. __0 --.
Property f--- i L r ~
.4t~\~~ '" -?
1/ -- i~~~~ - '--...
, ~lr ic~
C: -.= ~~-~-i1..-~ ~--
\ -..-- rT:U::[T1 . - .- ~ - I
- ~ '- _ I
&r .~ _
l~}:"? -i'~ ,;.,::~
~. _..t . Pf. ;.;" _. 1--'-"':- ~ ~ fT .'75 i8. i
;~~ .f~~.12~ ~~:~~ i.
I' 1..;.l.:.J: . I. ., \J -.. ~ -:1LL-It)"..
: Y1;.I. LV - '\ _ -
- )) ~
i ~ '
Ii[l':~~
l~ T_~./-
~l\
"\
~
'! I
-
~t
I
N
A
1000 0 1000 2000 Feet
I
"'**it
* PIONEER
~ engineering
*.*.
Civil Engineers . Land Planners · Land Surveyors · Landscape Architects
December 11, 2000
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Re: Centex - O'laughlin Parcel
Prior Lake, Minnesota
P.E. # 1 00468
Dear Jane,
On behalf of our client, Centex Homes, I am requesting the removal of the Mystic Lake Shoreline
Overlay District for the above mentioned parcel. The parcel is approximately 40 acres located
immediately across from Wilds Parkway at County Road 83. Per our telephone conversation I
have attached a rezoning application and supporting documentation for your review.
The parcel falls within the 1000 foot Shoreland Overlay District for Mystic Lake (DNR 70-79W),
as measured from the ordinary high water mark of960.0. The shoreland ordinance is designed to
preserve the water quality and natural characteristics of the protected waters. The shoreland
ordinance states:
"The practical limits of shorelands may be less than the statutory limits
where limits are designated by natural drainage divides at less distances, "
This property lies completely outside of the existing watershed for Mystic Lake. I have attached a
copy of the City of Prior Lake, Stormwater Management Plan depicting the drainage boundary
for Mystic Lake following the centerline of the existing County Road 83. The property in question
drains completely to the north, through a series of wetlands and under County Road 42.
The second purpose of the ordinance, to preserve the natural characteristics of the protected
water, likewise is not impacted by the removal of the subject property from the Shoreland
District. The view from the shoreline (elevation 960.0) towards the property is through
approximately 100' of trees and underbrush, across the County Road 83 Right of Way (4'-8'
higher than the shoreline elevation), with the majority of the subject property significantly lower
than the shoreline. I have attached a cross section of the view from Mystic Lake towards the
subject property for your review.
As we discussed this request will need to be forwarded to Pat Lynch at the DNR for comments
2422 Enterprise Drive. Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 · (651) 681-1914 · Fax 681-9488
625 Highway 10 N.E. . Blaine, Minnesota 55434 · (612) 783-1880 · Fax 783-1883
before the Planning Commision or City Council will act. I have taken the liberty of copying the
DNR at this time and would appreciate the forwarding of the formal request to the DNR as soon
as possible.
If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
7j7/i~.A
Nicholas Polta
cc: Steve Ach, Centex Homes
Pat Lynch, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
..
1
.......---.-
~.
[If
I
I ~
I
~
I \'. .
; .. ,_.J-'"
. I ....'~ "
.... . .~--~I
t~r1 . .,\~~~~~I
V-jl) I \J "l
i .-
. .
I
&
~!
,
i ..:
\.
"i
~
l'
~
..
........
-7T-:----~
~ J
~
----
---. ':.. ---...
'-'
;:
o
ci
>
()
I
:c
:::iE
Q)
()
a..
<(
~
C)
Z
Z
o
N
~
w
~
<(
-!
a:::
o
W-
~a:::
~a..
~
w
w
:c
(f)
o
o
I
.q-
-
I
N
-
"0
Q)
Q) (II
'0 'S;
o ~
... ...,
... ...
~f 7
~~ ~
~~~!oj ~
=t~ ~~~
.~t~ ;3j:g
~J:.!. ~Zl
~!: a.2~
N-8_i:fi
~!; ~~~
_.....,.ClCCCD
~
.. i;l
e
~ 0
z ~
< w ~
CL ..
"
@j)~~
(Qb~ I i
I!illI ~ ~ ~
I!illII ~ ~
d~
* (Q) @j){f.*
~@:~ l)
*1Vl*{I
-.
.ott**
*illQ}{t
-tl 2J c:::2 *
J;!. *'~ J;!.
ii II
Ii i~
i ': @'Q}
~ ~ -0
~ i >
~ a
PI ..
n
i3
~~~ ~i:~
~~.lJI N!h.
-..I~~:!~
QII!:'!l- QII 0 :>
<rz~ r:tti
0; Ul"< o;.!'l
c:o~- -:TLi
0(".10 .... tiG
~.~ r!:~
~ . a.:
CD 2!UI
'" I -
1.. ~~
e ~
::0 0
CD 0
< -
iir CD
CD
a.
(f)(f1
--l::r:
o~
;0-1
~:::!
:E~
)>
--l
rrl-o
;0;0
~o
)>;0
Zr
)>)>
G)^
rrlrrl
~
rrl
Z
--l
~-o
~r
0)>
~z
-
--
N
I
--
VI
I
o
o
I~:-="-';:'- -_" J ___.-"\......" "\ \ I 1 \ ji\.' " - //>JI) i (> I......J J ( ~ ('...... t,; ))..
&/~" d ;;;JI.' ' .' ." ] -- '-.J I '--
(~i! /~ G ~ ~ . '''7 f f I "\<~ :~-::::::::!l7/ J \..\1 \ '1 0 '-' t, \~
Ii \ '. J I\.-'" r . ( jr r-: ,I " ~ ( / 1 ~ r~ · Q (\--...,~
i \i \ \...r)~ \ -? f/r J(rN '- , l I U \ r · c....---""'-,
~)j(~~~'1 V~~(J ,<<f((; \ <:'--~~ J ()~") QJl )1
R ~ ~i \ ,-",,<.12 VI"~ ~\ J...l ~ ~ t) ~(" . U./
~ )ni, jJ1f ('{/ ~~,)\\:~~~~jL (- ('\ '- ,)'-
~\1)1. - \.~', \r'>\C/~ [f( \."-'(' ~ r-- /
\~\ ,-" \ ~ . '-J~~,g~~\ )~~. 5~ ~~;s S'S:si ~
./l~~-' \" ~'- ... V ~ ~ t rrilt
~:-- ! ~ , '-'?\~ ..)'... ~ -Mh..~ r;::.
7"tJI1)/ I \~. I" ~ ",~~\1 C"i,.;;-;;- _1->:~
~iJ; __ \...J ) 1"'" ~jS~ i",~~~--'Il !.! J
~/V~ N ,( \ ~) ~ll~'~ '~-!~
__ 1 r-., ~ _~ "'Il1\I')\\'::;-"~ ~I. ~~) 1\ \~ ....
~;J~ ~\v-~"rr' '(-~~i~ '; l!ol(~' ~~2)'~~~:
__ ~~ ,,-,,'- <"'~r~' \~~ I ~ ~ $( jl
...., , i CD ~ en J \,( ~ 1.-.: r / :.\.) .-.' I) \'/ 1
J! "\. ~ 01 w.xr~ -~ -" r: <'> ,----p ~
)'--~ -. .~'" t \ t '/.
~ _ ~ !!-.?/, / I f D ; ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~' J \ V' ~
'&:~\ )t~st~~R'D;}~\~~~II1! ~\/ r?\
k...t -\ I \ '\... f?;1::::. ~in; Lj ~\ ~~ " , II r-; ,\~!;J
)~~ I'~,..JM "':;:f~\~ ~j~~tJ.:A-'1-~~S ~v:jl. ~~~~~ ~~~ o"v-" 't:)\t"""
( \. ,/ '-__ f..2 ~~ p-y 1/ -~--:::':R .. <iq SJL
~~(~~l ~<~,\~",,~~~k\^'v,;-{~A';fl1( h~ tJ];!I)rll''':'<J~ ~
'-- ~ I r--F'\ fA' I " '~'0j~) }j, :!l 0: > ~/o I ~ /~. ~
_('-....... .... ~ ". .....jr/'';.. ~/&J t::==~ ' )) /./ T
~j(.~~^<JQ~' .1'1 (LVJf(f(r!t~~1
J ./\-.:7}"~;~ ' _<.,~ A~ ~j!K ,1,~1ffl IV ~
~~~l ~~ ,0 a~::-~~~ ~~~ k~ f,- p! f "PI
~ ' ~' ./ /;~ M~:' ~..--::: ,'~'-~I~ ,,) ~~......- r-
_ I"'\.-JI{ ~'^fi.".r \'1< --,~.~ -' L;..''-: - ( I .
f ~ . . ,Vi Ij J.""!.!/ r;::.,-'- ,':. \ ..-::: '~ '\;'./ ,!J'I! I ~ -/,...1::'- 't-?:::'
~ ~ 7 'j::~J r'~ \..> I .JK(.~JY~~~~::~ - ~. ~ ,/ i Gi'?j
.J (r- ....,'- li"r /)< ,) I~, I ~ (-'. ,~,,?( ~~ -- j"'.~;.:' , "G f ~ rz. ,,) / ~~
........vr' v>....."w"..<)(\. ~~' 'I. ,-- ~~: ~~~---....~. ~ ~
-...:-,/ j '),;-'~~ ~ ~ ii'::;' -- !'~ ..i J I \~'~ "-,,,~...- ~A i,...t"f! '/(" ~'
~ II ,''V .,--< .,..\~= ......f'~:J ~ --z., '( ~ or- '
~~r,..J) .) ~/. ~~ '. ,.' .~ '~~~~\"11''''''':\ _~~', rl. -.7- J
l' F---...../'~ I .~~x'''',.,=~' ~ ~V ';:'9. l.J 'Nt\'~ l' L-'JI' ~--- ('- .
V1 :i~i!? ,~~~ e; ~/; ,'_, "->'W 'l. " '~~~ \ "II, 0 ",---' II.~. f7r
:; '..... ,_..... '.-
;Ii
m
III
0;1
I-I
'.
tI
I!
e
n
~
~
...
i
~
E
I
~
a
x
!
(I)
~
"'0""'06666
o ,..,..,.
~g:g:2.2.~
o "'O:E "'O!!!. 0
~ 0 CD 0 :l ;l!
o x-g:~'i-5-
30;io_o3
:ra; ~o
c::0003CD
en u a; .. = c
;l! ~~ _~~
~o ~~!Il
-. III
g N~O.'
0.0(,,10 m
oPo'mUl
:l 0 0
0. .
"
o
:l
!;
I
I~
I I
.
i
--
::;Z::3ilo.
".....
., 0
o .....
III !a-
lii
oQ
CD CD
:l 0
III ..
;::;:
':<;(,,1
CD
("lie
No
o
c:: .,
:l CD
;::;:11I
III
.........
o
o
.,
CD
o
>
-t
~
~
to
o
o
:i.
. -liB-
I
;'i
ih
III
.il
I"'
.1
II
{!
I!
II
./
p
I
I
I
~
.
i:
~
~
o
."
:II
g
!;;
I~~
I · g
. z
i . ~
I
e
PI
x
%
~
...
en
I
q
~
~
c:
Z
."
,.
:II
~
I
!
n
:1
~ 1
: ~ 1
... ..1
~ ~ I
; ;1
: :1
~ ~ I
.i~ ~.
:~
~;
,...,' .
.:1.. ;.
lL
.:. .:. .1.
: : : .\: : : :
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
-.' ... ........ .....
~iia~ii
to:
:J.
1
E
,.n
,.n
~
~. "f
I.
Ii
:::-. If
.!? I '{
_0 E'F- =- .;.. .Y
..
I,
I.
9
..
's
.
I "I
! II
III
PI
f
I
I
s
(
I
mil
rill
~I
I
--
-
I
. \.
\ : .
'1' .
\t
i)
J//I
'/ . \
./r.j: ... '\ I
f,'. t t. t I
. I IT~ I
( 1..., · " I ~............\ · I ·
" II. ,I
. "........",..., I _-1
- -
.-.-.-.-.- (
. I I
. .A
;~
.
I
I
S
~
\
\
I
I
,..>
-
!?
~
I
I
I I
f
.
.,
.
s
.
I
.
S
I
I
.-A.
~.
~.
,> .
-
J?
............ -.
--
~
Je
rs
If
r
.
-=---_: -
l(
l(
. ..........
~ .Ai \:.~....... ~ --
.........4.... :6._
--.....
tm"'~
c o. . Do .. S ~ UD DIIIYZ)
l)
I.
.. \:~
=-~~-1
~ .,
~I
~I
t
II
I
J II !llliJIII
f 4! III iil~1 t n}!u! 'i pl{
mil I ~t I lis; p Jill>
Ii jll""!.~ I Ulbi n J !II
IS ...1. t-t
t I~ I c r'll is
I I 1U1(' i t ut-3
I ii ~. >
I ! ! I i (picl! f ;:[ ..........
iiI; I J i ,Iiill J I JI>
I I " I .. I'J 1 I t :liP U)
GJ .. "' I JIUti . !! (')
.~ · I ,~
ill Ii Ii .~ " tis. s;::
(~ 15 5- 1 H .tl I I Ii
i J I) . 11!11~! I II 1"%
r' ~ f . ill~li I I ri U)
-. C
I ~ i1 .
I 'p~~! ;;
lilt: ._ ~ I. S -{ ~
l.ll . i n li~ 1~111 i ~~ <
1- t111-< 1110' f rt?=:l
ell . 0 t
> . t lj i II i! ~
:;; l
. I
ill
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax.: (651) 772-7977
January 22, 2001
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Centex Homes Rezoning Request, 38.9 Acres, Mystic Lake (#70-79W) Shoreland District
Dear Mrs. Kansier:
I am in receipt of the rezoning proposal submitted on behalf of Centex Homes Development.
Based on my review of the exhibits submitted (zoning map, stormwater management plan,
topography, etc.), the DNR does not object to the removal of the O'Laughlin parcel from the
Mystic Lake Shoreland Overlay District. Runoff will generally flow towards the northwestern
portion of the site, away from the shoreland basin. In addition, if the berm and plantings along
County Road 83 as depicted on the plan and profile sheet dated December 15,2000, are
implemented, the visual impacts of the proposed development will be minimized.
Please note a portion of DNR wetland 70-158W is in the northwest comer of the site. This is the
direction of drainage from the majority of the site. Any stormwater routed through this wetland
should be treated first. The DNR basin should not be used for primary stormwater treatment.
Any work below the Ordinary High Water Level of this wetland may require a DNR protected
waters permit from this office.
If you have any questions regarding DNR's position on this zoning matter, please call me at 651-
772-7917 .
Sincerely,
~
Patrick J. Lynch
Area Hydrologist
(1\DI~ ~ I~ 0'\\/7 r~ r\,,!,
t.= ~ 1..:__ - -,. I;';:
l\ r :' ' '
/1 1':1 I:,
\ \ I ' 'I
~!\: \ I JAM 2 4 2001 \;j i;
~I 11""
r I; , I
L L~/ I
Steve Horsman, City Zoning Administrator
. Bud Osmundson, City Public Works Director
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 . TrY: 651-296-5484 . 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
fb.1f'\ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
~1lf Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste
CRITERIA FOR EXTENSION OF MUSA
In order to insure that development which is proposed does not strain City
resources, the City will apply the following criteria in judging whether a proposed
development is eligible to have sanitary sewer services extended.
. Property shall be contiguous to property already within the MUSA.
. MUSA designation shall only be given to developments having a recorded final
plat and a signed developers agreement with surety covering necessary
infrastructure improvements to be installed as part of the development.
. Where applicable, utility improvements will address health, safety and
environmental issues and concerns.
. The development will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
. The development will provide adequate water supplies.
. The development will provide adequate roads and streets to serve the
development.
. The development will provide for adequate sanitary sewer facilities.
. The development will proceed consistent with applicable environmental policies
and regulations.
. The developer and benefiting property owners shall assume the primary
responsibility for financing improvement costs. The City will participate in
such financing only under extraordinary circumstances.
. Preliminary plan approval shall not constitute a guarantee that a MUSA
allocation will be made to the subject property.
. The development shall proceed under the understanding that the project will be
maintained in accordance with the limitations imposed by the City and the
Metropolitan Council regarding MUSA availability and potential sewage flows
from the project. The City and Metropolitan Council shall be indemnified by
the developer against any claims arising as a result of future limitations on
MUSA availability.
. The City agrees to annually report on all allocations of undesignated MUSA
reserve to the Metropolitan Council.
1:\comp2020\musacrit.doc
~ Q) C
.- C/) co
. (jj :::J a:
Cu
Q) C
~~
a.
E
8
~
~
s....
o
--
s....
c..
'0
~
a
'"
z+~
G f~ Ul
~ f J 1"2 "; i G ~
"'0 ~ 1'-~ Ol~ c: D~
c: ~~ u ~~ e ~ 11\S c: i
.5 6 I! l~g> ~ ~ D 'Ii 1 <'t ~
Inli! (fili Ii lU~~ !
,,001 j tilllilllll ~ I ~ 1011
o
o
o
N
~
T"""
~
~
l.-
e
--
I.-
e..
'0
~
~
G
C)
co..
-c co
~~
lii
~ ]! lii
~....llI~1ll'Q
.- "':z::> -0'- ~
gJ ~ t: .- 1;; 00
O::Q)~gJ~ 0000
6 :C'iil 0::'- 8"~ lR ~ lii
"i}l:n&~~ !4.~as l;i
":> 0:: ~ l'! Iii 00 .1: i!: ~
~~f~~f!~~~~~ ~i
~~~~5~.8~~~~~ -E t:
~~~~~~'81~~~ S~
0:: I 8~ @~
<{~&~~;1~33~~5:~~~
IDD~II~~IIIIIDD~~
~
z*m
~
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4C])
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO NOT PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
ON TWIN ISLES, Case File #01-004
LOTS 62 AND 64, TWIN ISLES
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
JANUARY 29, 2001
The Planning Department received an appeal notice from Attorney Bryce D.
Huemoeller (Applicant), representing John & Linda Meyer (Owners). The appeal
regards the Planning Departments decision to not permit construction of an
accessory structure on two vacant lots on "Twin Isles" (Exhibit A, Notice of
Appeal). The applicant's request to allow the construction was submitted to the
City in a letter dated December 15, 2000 (Exhibit B, Applicant Request). On
December 28, 2000, staff responded and denied the request with an explanation
and the option to appeal the decision (Exhibit C, City Response).
This case originated from a complaint in September 1999, regarding the
construction of an accessory building on two vacant lots on "Twin Isles",
specifically Lots 62 and 64. Upon inspection, staff determined the construction
had commenced without the necessary building permits. The property owner
was notified of the violation and halted construction. The owner's first option was
to apply for a building permit to construct a seasonal cabin on the vacant lots
because accessory structures are not permitted.
On September 18, 2000, the City adopted Ordinance Amendment 00-22 that
permits accessory structures on two or more nonconforming lots under single
ownership that are separated by a private road or driveway from the lot
containing the principal structure. The owner is now proposing to combine lots
62 and 64, with Lots 43, 44, and 45, which contain the principal structure, and
complete construction of the accessory building.
L:\01files\01appeal\01-004\ApIRpt01-004.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
DISCUSSION:
Lots 43, 44, 45, 62 and 64, "Twin Isles", were platted in September of 1925
(Exhibit D, Survey). They are nonconforming lots of record, substandard in
dimensions and area. Lots 43, 44 and 45, contain the existing seasonal cabin
(principal structure), and Lots 62 and 64, contain an existing shed (accessory
structure), and a partial slab for the proposed 2nd accessory structure. The plat
for "Twin Isles" provides for a 20-foot wide private driveway dedicated for the use
of the respective property owners. This driveway divides lots 43, 44 and 45,
from Lots 62 and 64 (Exhibit E, Twin Isles).
In the applicant's request (Exhibit B), they referenced the City Code in defense
of their interpretation. The request states in part, "Based upon the amendment
to Section 1101.501 of the City Code, we believe the Meyers are entitled to
combine their five platted lots into one parcel and build the accessory structure
on Lots 62 and 64". In addition, the request refers to the island development,
and states in part, "The plain language of the island development ordinance
speaks in terms of permitted uses, rather than structures", and further states in
part, "The ordinance does not suggest in any way that structures on private lots
are limited strictly to cabins; in fact it explicitly contemplates accessory
structures, in Section 1104.309(8)': end of quote.
The amended Ordinance Subsection 1101.501: Lot Provisions: (3,d), follows
and is a part of Ordinance Section 1101.500: General Provisions. However,
Ordinance Subsection 1104.309 Island Development is defined as a special
provision, with specific limited conditions for island development, under Section
1104.300: Zoning Provisions (Shoreland Regulations). The Code provides
for interpretation of individual ordinances when Qeneral provisions conflict with
special provisions. City Code Section 1101.300 Rules of Construction:
1101.308 Conflicts, states in part, "the two shall be construed if possible so that
effect shall be given to both. If the conflict between the two provisions is
irreconcilable, the special provisions shall prevail and shall be construed as an
exception to the general provision unless the general provision was enacted
subsequent to the special provision and it shall be the manifest intention of the
City Council that such general provisions shall prevail':
In regards to the applicants reference to permitted uses, in all zoning districts
specific "uses" are listed. In the R-1 District, Subsection 1102.404: Accessory
Uses: a detached private garage is a listed permitted use. Also, Subsection
1102.800: Residential Performance Standards: (8) "Accessory Structures" are
a listed permitted use. Therefore, because accessory structures are considered
a "Use", and the fact that accessory uses are not a listed permitted use is evident
in Subsection 1104.309: Island Development.
L:\01 files\01 appeal\01-004\ApIRpt01-004.DOC
Page 2
Finally, the applicant refers to Subsection 1104.309: Island Development: (8),
that states in part, "any construction project shall require a restoration plan to be
submitted and reviewed by the City to ensure that natural vegetation is retained
insofar as possible to screen seasonal structures and other buildinqs on site".
The stated reference to other buildinqs on site is explained in condition (1) of the
same subsection 1104.309, and states in part, Recreational facilities, such as a
pavilion or picnic facilities for a homeowners' association, may also be permitted
by conditional use permit, end quote. In the definition for a pavilion, the terms
structure and buildinq are included.
As proposed on the survey, the accessory structure's dimension of 24 ' by 24'
feet totals 576 square feet. The applicant did not submit building plans or
impervious surface area calculations prior to completion of this report. Staff
estimates the total area for Lots 62 and 64 to be approximately 8,000 square
feet, and Lots 43, 44 and 45 to be approximately 14,000 square feet in area.
This appeal request was referred to the Department of Natural Resources. They
responded with "no comment".
The following Exhibits are included references for this report :
A) Notice of Appeal; B) Applicant Request; C) City Response; D) Survey; E)
Twin Isles Plat.
RECOMMENDATION:
An appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator is not site specific and
affects the way in which the ordinance is applied in all situations. In summary,
the listed permitted "Uses" for accessory structures in the qeneral provisions
code section are not listed permitted "Uses" in the special provisions code
section for island development. In addition, the City staffs long-standing policy
has been to interpret the ordinance as not permitting accessory structures on
"Twin Isles". The staff therefore recommends the Planning Commission uphold
the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal as requested.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the appeal as to staffs interpretation of the City Code, as requested
by the applicant, or approve an interpretation of the Code the Planning
Commission deems appropriate under the circumstances. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a Resolution with findings
approving the request.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
L:\01 files\01 appeal\01-004\ApIRpt01-004.DOC
Page 3
3. Deny the Appeal request because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated support for the applicant's interpretation of the Zoning Code.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #3.
Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-004PC, denying an Appeal of the
Zoning Administrator's decision to not permit an accessory structure to be
permitted on island development.
L:\01 files\01 appeal\01-004\ApIRpt01-004.DOC
Page 4
RESOLUTION Ol-04PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO NOT PERMIT AN ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE FOR ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Bryce D. Huemoeller, representing John & Linda Meyer, has filed an Appeal from the
Zoning Administrator's decision to not permit an accessory structure to be
constructed on "Twin Isles" property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential)
District and the SD (Shoreland) District at the following location, to wit;
Legally described as Lots 62 and 64, "Twin Isles", Scott County, MN
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the request for an Appeal as contained in Case
#01-004PC and held hearings thereon on January 29,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the Zoning Administrator's interpretation
and decision regarding the general provision code for accessory structures on platted
lots of record and the specific provision code for island development that does not
permit accessory structures and the effect of the proposed Appeal on the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
4. The Shoreland District and specifically island development provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance are special provisions that are applied over and above the general
provisions ofthe ordinance.
5. Section 1101.308 of the Zoning Ordinance specifically states when general provisions
conflict with special provisions of the ordinance, the special provisions shall prevail.
6. The appellant has not demonstrated reasonable or factual support to justify his
interpretation of the ordinance provisions.
7. The contents of Planning Case #00-004PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
1:\01 files\O 1 appeal\O 1-004\denyres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following applicants Appeal from the Zoning Administrator's decision to not allow
construction of an accessory structure on island development (as shown in Exhibit D,
Survey);
1. To permit the construction of an accessory structure on platted lots described as
"Twin Isles".
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 29,2001.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 appeal\O 1-004\denyres.doc
2
EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF APPEAL
~, .
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
P.O. BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
-~- ! I ~;;
. ! ~ l
52001 )ill!!
I.! : Ji
IVI
JAMES D. BATES
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
January 5, 2001
Telephone (952) 447-2131
Fax (952) 447-5628
City of Prior Lake Board of Adjustment
c/o Planning Department
Mr. Steven Horsman, Zoning Administrator
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: John and Linda Meyer
Accessory structure on Twin Island
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO THE BOARD OF ADmSTMENT:
This letter is intended to serve as a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Ordinance 1109.301,
of the attached decision of the Zoning Administrator, which was received in this office on
January 4,2000. The ground of the appeal is that the Zoning Administrator has incorrectly
interpreted Ordinance Section 1104.309 to prohibit accessory structures on island lots, for
reasons set forth in the attached submission by this office dated December 15,2000.
The appellants request that a hearing be held on this appeal between 10 and 45 days
from your receipt of this notice, as provided in the ordinances. If anything further is required
in order to process this appeal, please contact this office.
Sincerely yours,
(' n
'~~~
Bryce D. Huemoeller
BDH:bj
Enclosures
cc: John and Linda Meyer
EXHIBIT B APPLICANT REQU~ST_,m
HUEMOELLER & BATES J'd !ii
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEG I 8 2(D)/i I!:
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL , . II) )1'
P.O. BOX 67 tJ \J V
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
JAMES D. BATES
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
December 15, 2000
Telephone (952) 447-2131
Fax (952) 447-5628
Mr. Steve Horsman
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: John and Linda Meyer
Accessory structure on Twin Island
Dear Mr. Horsman:
We are working with John and Linda Meyer, who own several lots in the plat of Twin
Isles, specifically Lots 43,44 and 45, on which they have a cabin, and Lots 62 and 64, on
which they wish to build a 24 foot square accessory building. Lots 62 and 64 are separated
from the main lots by a private driveway dedicated in the plat of Twin Isles.
Based upon the amendment to Section 1101.501 of the City Code, passed by the City
Council on September 18, 2000, we believe the Meyers are entitled to combine their five
platted lots into one parcel and build the accessory structure on Lots 62 and 64, as shown on
the attached plat and survey copies. However, an objection has been raised on the contention
that Code Section 1104.309, dealing with island development, prohibits accessory structures
on island lots. We do not agree, for the following reasons.
New Code Section 1101.501 states that a detached accessory structure may be built
on the portion of a lot which is separated from the principal structure by a private driveway,
if the Plamling Commission determines, after a public hearing, that "the design and location
of the accessory structure are compatible with the surrounding properties in terms of
architecture, building materials and placement on the lot." This provision is effective for lots
in R-l residential districts, which would include the plat of Twin Isles.
However, we have been directed to Code Section 1104.309, which states in part:
1104.309
Island Development: Development on islands without municipal sewer
and water shall be subject to the following conditions:
(1) Permitted uses on islands are limited to seasonal cabins, public parks and open
space. Year-round residences are not permitted. Recreational facilities, such
as a pavilion or picnic facilities for a homeowners' association, may also be
permitted by conditional use permit as set forth in subsection 1108.200.
Mr. Steve Horsman
December 15,2000
Page 2
We see no reason why this ordinance should prevent a landowner from receiving the benefit
of the new ordina,nce on accessory structures. The ordinance must, according to long-
standing principles of law, be construed as a whole (1) according to the plain and ordinary
meaning of its terms, (2) strictly against any restriction of the owners' right to use their
property, and (3) in light of the ordinance's underlying policy goals.
The plain language of the island development ordinance speaks in terms of permitted
uses, rather than structures. Section 1101.400 of the City Code defines the term "use" as "the
purpose or activity for which a premises is designed, arranged or intended for which it is or
may be occupied or maintained." The ordinance does not suggest in any way that structures
on private lots are limited strictly to cabins; in fact it explicitly contemplates accessory
structures, in Section 1104.309(8):
(8) Any removal of vegetation in conjunction with any construction project
shall require a restoration plan to be submitted and reviewed by the City
to ensure that natural vegetation is retained insofar as possible to screen
seasonal structures and other buildings on site.
The island development ordinance itself, then, contemplates a seasonal cabin and an
accessory structure for storage, such as a garage, on an island lot.
Construction of structures accessory to use of a lot for a seasonal cabin is consistent
with the evident policy of the ordinance to limit the use of island lots to a seasonal basis.
There is no policy basis or other justification for attempting to read in a prohibition on
accessory structures, and we request that Meyers be allowed to submit their application for
building permit so that the Planning Commission may consider it in the manner contemplated
by Section 1101.501.
Bryce D. Huemoeller
BDH:bj
Enclosures
cc: John and Linda Meyer
.
EXHIBIT C CITY RESPONSE
December 28, 2000
Huemoeller & Bates
Attorneys At Law
Bryce Huemoeller
16670 Franklin Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: City staff's response to Accessory Structures on Twin Island
Dear Mr. Huemoeller:
The City of Prior Lake received your correspondence and interpretation of the recent
adoption of Ordinance Subsection 1101.501: Lot Provisions: (3,d), as it relates to the
Meyer's Twin Island properties, and their desire to complete construction of an
accessory structure on Lots 62 and 64, which are separated by a private driveway from
Lots 43, 44 and 45, the site of an existing cabin.
In all zoning districts "Accessory Uses" are listed, and in the R1 District this includes
Subsection 1102.404: (which states in part) A detached private garage not to exceed
832 square feet. However, accessory structures are considered a "Use", and the fact
that accessory uses are not permitted, is evident in Subsection 1104.309: Island
Development.
The island development subsection is a special limiting case within the City Ordinance,
with specific permitted uses identified. The city staff's long-standing practice has been to
interpret the ordinance as not permitting accessory uses or accessory structures on
island development.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter or you wish to appeal the staff's
decision to the Board of Adjustment, call my direct phone number at 447-9854 between
8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I will assist you. Enclosed is a
copy of Subsection 1109.301: Right to Appeal from the Decision of the Zoning
Administrator.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
I. ~
St .. en Horsman
Zoning Administratorllnspector
16200 ~la~reek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY El'vlPLOYER
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
- JOHN MEYER
8300 EWING ROAD
BLOOMINGTON, MN. 55431
_-7-
'("J _I
\ \
\l
~.?o,,~ ~
/ well~
4:; E
Y .H
~
DESCRIPTION:
Valley Surveying CO., F!A.
SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (6/2) 447-2570
EXHIBIT D SURVEY
t33...
I
I
I
I
150APU
I
8 )
w ~
c
~
b 12" L1NOrN
<;t 0 I~~'(
0
C\l ,)
..,. 2 I
'"
dl
N
'"
.. i
2 I
, 9')'1'
...
0
OJ
.5
lXl
III
~ .
:
CO
R
I
J ,.... LlNDrN
.,.,~.,. 0
14" LINDtN
0
.,,0.0
~
TWI HI'" . 20"
L1m
9)1.'
\
\
\
\
\
\
. ~
8. =
III ....
'" N
N
q-
0
\D
z:
<t
'"
ell
.')0.'1 N
'"
..
2
a
Q) OJ
q- ~
\D ?:
N W
20"~m
.
I
I
.;.
"0'''.0'' %.1
"'. <to
;DiD
.
i
.." LINDrN
o
" (. ~
"h.:
Lots 62 and 64, "TWIN ISLES", Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location
of the proposed building as of this 29th day of June, 2000.
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 932.25 Top of concrete slab on lot 64.
931.7 Denotes existing grade elevation
x
(931.5) Denotes pr~posed finished gmde elevation
-+ Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage
~s:'\
f\ ( l\
="'-
~
s ~~ ,.
-0
jf'
............
" , ~
.'----
~
~,
('
i
,
.
.
"
m
><
:%:
-
OJ
-
-4
m
-4
:E
-
z
-
(J)
r-
m
(J)
...d r
..~.. \
~ )Or ~
~ .~r : l if I~ ~ tl~' r: f~
f r lil !l ~;l-
ii\ ~'''1; -t f ll, ll, ~ 'if
~ 5 ,~ , 'r- t~ {tLo~ r
i: ~ Ul t "'~ If ,~~ [ ~t~~
. .. ~!~ -t ! It ..
~~ i ~ ~~: "'l~~ ~
itt ~~ I\):. l" t lii T
t t~ ~!' :;-" l
l:~ ~,~ r:.\~ . ~~
~ ~r H~ ,~ ! ~,~
it_ ......~ alt~l ~t....
~ 'f! Hr \>' tl ~
. ' ~r .1 r f >", ~
i i\\ ~ n~ -lg f.b J !d
11: ' 0 Ii ~~ ;;lr"" g A ~"i
tt ~ !-~ :;~ i!:.. ~ ~t
'"\. ~ ~ - f"- l,
-!,o o. it.. l l-
' ~ ;1J ~'< ~ ...~ .5:'" -
If 'II, '0 r ~ ~~ 0 t il~
Jlt :z ~ IlIH, ~irt\ ::i
f It ' ~ ~~ I-~~ :!I
'r ,!;>~ ~~ I ~' ~
! ! la
~', !l p1~
~r~ ' l( b .ti'
\ -it! _ ~E
.' h U [, ~ ,$\ ~!:\ ~;t
r I'~ : i .~ ~ .
,I n. .ll I\, ~ t A. ' rt l~~ & 1
I. ~ '; ~ l)> t ~l
-; ~.~ J I f Ii Ii!
" ~ t ./
. l
~ . c:-
.,
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5A
CONSIDER RESOLUTION 01-003PC APPROVING A
VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING WALL
LENGTH TO BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE NEW
ADDITION TO ST. MICHAEL'S SCHOOL IN THE R-2
DISTRICT (Case File #00-086)
16280 DULUTH AVENUE
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES ~ NO
JANUARY 29, 2001
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 16, 2001, to
consider a variance request by St. Michael's parish to allow the construction of
an addition to the existing school building on the property located 16280 Duluth
Avenue. After reviewing the applicants' proposal with respect to the variance
hardship criteria, the Planning Commission'directed staff to draft a resolution
approving the requested variance.
The following variance is approved in Resolution 01-003PC:
1. A variance to permit a structure with a building wall length to building
height ratio of 5.46:1 rather than the maximum ratio of 4:1 (City Code
Section 1107.2202, ~8,b).
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached resolution is consistent with the direction provided by the Planning
Commission. The Planning Staff therefore recommends approval of Resolution
01-003PC approving a variance to the maximum building height to building
length ratio as proposed in Exhibit A.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Resolution 01-003PC.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
A motion and second adopting Resolution 01-003PC approving a variance to the
maximum building wall length to building height ratio.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-086\OO-086pc2.DOC
Page 2
RESOLUTION Ol-003PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING WALL
LENGTH TO HEIGHT RATIO
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. The Parish of St. Michael has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of an addition to the existing St. Michael's school on property
located in the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) District at the following location, to
wit;
16280 Duluth Avenue SE, legally described as follows:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, Block 1, "WESTS IDE ADDITION TO
PRIOR LAKE", Scott County, Minnesota, together with the east 15.00 feet of Lot 6, .
Block 1, of said plat.
Also together with that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 2, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter and the center line of Main Street (extended westward) of the
Village of Prior Lake; thence south along said east line a distance of 371.0 feet to the
center line of Pleasant Avenue (extended westward) per the plat of CATES'
ADDITION TO PRIOR LAKE; thence Westerly along center line of Pleasant
Avenue extended a distance of 183.00 feet to the easterly line of the plat of
WESTSIDE ADDITION TO PRIOR LAKE"; thence north parallel along said east
line a distance of 389.50 feet; thence east parallel to Pleasant Avenue, a distance of
183.0 feet to said east line ofthe Southeast Quarter ofthe Northwest Quarter; thence
south a distance of 18.5 feet to the point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
File #00-086 and held hearings thereon on January 16,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health,
safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light
and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the
surrounding area and the effect ofthe proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-086\res OI-003pc.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
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the proposed
variance will not unreasonably impact the character of the existing neighborhood and in any
other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The existing lot is smaller than the average elementary school site. The school has existed
on this lot for several years. The location of the addition will not impact the adjacent
properties, and can be reasonably screened through the use of landscaping.
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the existing lot area. This lot is smaller than the
average elementary school site by today's standards.
7. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the
applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
9. The contents of Planning Case #00-086 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public
record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following
variance for an addition to the existing school building (as shown in attached Exhibit A):
1. A variance to permit a structure with a building wall length to building height ratio of 5.46:1
rather than the maximum ratio of 4: 1 (City Code Section 1107 .2202, ~8,b).
The following are conditions that must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the proposed structure:
1. The applicant must obtain all necessary permits and approvals prior to construction on the
site.
2. The resolution approving the variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to
the Planning Department within 60 days. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant to
Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null and void if the .necessary
permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within. one year after adoption of this
resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 29, 2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATIEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-086\res OI-003pc.doc
2
. ,
,'1 t'~ :'r ." ~; 1'4
-_.: --~ -~;)
\ _;_~, "'J .
\ .', "
\ ~: ~jl I
\ - [; ,L;.., >.~: JJ I
I I' I --1-" I l ,I
; ~ " I
: .~: ':r~~l ~tflmmt:~ I _I I
\1_:l:\I~I, '
, !!;. II II ~ I I I I
\ ;Il! \ I I .'j.!JL:L=-,,- I I,
~;l'~ III .-r' 0 0 .;11--.-. - @ ~ ,j
, ,;,"';;::r-:: ~=-!.-L---!" /:
: ,!~. -::<_ .__ """"....... tr : /: .
"r-, I .:<_. .--. '-c:.~~-~--<<____...__-<<_______-<<_______-<<____~__-<<_______-<<---------t./ I :
.-- --.." ___ ,L:-t-__. .,~r'<C ~4~,r/ollY.91OF. DULU n I A VENUE : I '
--~"",\--';~~i ri~...~ .~__ u. . --- .-~~_~~~~;~~~~_~~-_~~~~~~~~~~;;:~~~~~~~~~~~~-_~~~_~~~~~~~~~_~~:~)~~~tj-.i"
'. ~..l..... ',",' ','
'I~.._~.> .! .. .,-
~ . -il -.. :1 I
6 ~ 11 i
~ " ,
:r .. I
EXHIBIT A
;
-: _ ,;
,
.,
- :. .\
I
-i- .1
~ . ~I
-;,:- 1 !: I
'~i \~.. ~ "41..,
: \ ~ ~
- - ~ Ill,f>, :
i : 'IiI' 1I :
, : 1I,!i,
. ~ -: Ie' !:
, : ,) ~
- -: ~ .r:l,..g ~ '
.~ ,~
I!ll .. <: _
rlli.\/
. ''-
- ~. ----,.,
, "
,-
:
I
I
. -.t..
I. I
- ...~."
,../
./
?J
\I,iN
hv
I :;m
::l
: :..)
.
fl
~
v
~
~
~
:-
\
0'1'
CJ I
r'
0,
~;
:-:->
C)~
!
\".
'J .
-Ii
\
\\
1\. ~'!/l
~f;;l
I~IIIIIIII
nUl ~ I
I ('ll
i ~ l
r;Ulllq ~
II,iI,i 0
,;
~~
~~
,.
"
p ~ ; P\
Ii "
I' H
t~ .. II , : Ie II II
."0 Ii "
~~ ,: II
po ~;II Ii
:e :e II
z z
~ 0
~ i
~~
s~ . <I) '\ ~. iunlfij ~ iiUi ~ l (.H~::l rn rnn
f ~=-rt' ~=
'00 ,. hlil I 'iPd ~ II( Ii=' ==~
II. r ~n e:~
~ = 0
Iii' ., =: n
r-Il 1~ I > CO =-
I 1101 n=
, -il i =-== Eo
. I I =- ~
I . ....
=:
I C t"'1oJ:j
=