HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 23, 2001
'"'
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 23, 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 #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a
deck on the property located at 15507 Ca1mut Avenue.
B. Case File #01-028 - The City of Prior Lake is requesting a Conditional Use Permit
to allow a public service structure consisting of a City well and a wellhouse for
the property located north ofCSAH 82, south of Wilds Parkway and south of the
existing City booster station at 15248 Wilds Parkway.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:\O 1 files\O I plancomm\O 1 pcagendalag04230 I.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. 5.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Commissioner Stamson called the April 9, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:36 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke and Stamson,
Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue
McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
Vonhof
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 26, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case Files #01-008 and 00-009 (Continued) Centex Home is requesting a
preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit for 38.9 acres of vacant land located
on the west side of CSAH 83, Y-i mile south of CSAH 42, in the East ~ of the NW Y-i
of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The proposal is to create 54
single-family lots and to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow a cluster
development of 68 townhouses.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 9, 2001, on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
Centex Homes and John O'Loughlin have filed an application to develop the property
located on the west side ofCSAH 83, 1f4 mile south ofCSAH 42, in the East Y2 of the
Northwest 1f4 of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The request includes
the following:
. Approve a Conditional Use Permit for a cluster development;
. Approve a Preliminary Plat.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn040901.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
The Planning Commission originally considered this request at a public hearing on March
12,2001. The Planning Commission deferred action on this request until the City
Council acted on the proposed rezoning of the property, At the same time, the Planning
Commission and the staff identified some of the outstanding issues with the original
proposal. Among other items, these issues included the proposed parkland, the need to
extend proposed streets to adjacent properties and the 20% slopes on the site.
On April 2, 2001, the City Council approved the rezoning ofthis site to the R-2 District.
The applicant also submitted revised plans on March 30, 2001.
The original proposal included 122 dwelling units on 33.87 net acres, for a total density
of 3.6 units per acre. This development included 54 single-family dwellings and 68
dwelling units in 17 four-unit buildings.
The following outstanding issues pertaining to this development include the following:
1. Eliminate lots along the north side of Street "A" to provide a more usable park area.
If it is determined a park is not required at this site, the park should be platted as
common area or a part of the proposed lots.
2. Identify the usable open space for the townhouse development on the site plan and
provide the necessary calculations to determine the minimum requirements are met.
3. Eliminate Outlot A since there is not access to this outlot.
4. Revise the landscaping plan to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. An
irrigation plan for the townhouse portion of this development must also be submitted.
5. Include the necessary replacement trees on the landscaping plan.
6. Provide plans and elevations for the proposed monument sign.
7. Submit homeowner's association documents for the townhouse development.
8. Provide a name for the proposed subdivision.
9. Provide street names for the public streets.
10. Address the following comments from the Engineering Department:
(a) Provide a grading plan at a scale 1" = 50' or larger.
(b) Show OHWL for DNR wetland #158w.
(c) Provide revised storm water calculations, along with a drainage boundary map.
(d) Coordinate runoff from C.R. 83 with Scott County. The County has a NURP
pond shown on the SE comer of the property on their preliminary plans.
(e) Provide an access road to the NURP pond for maintenance purposes with a slope
S 8%, and a width of 10'.
(f) Maximum slope of grading in maintained areas is 4: 1. This affects the entire
grading plan. Redesign to 4:1 slopes or use retaining walls as necessary.
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn040901.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
(g) Check backyard swales in Block 3, eliminate/minimize where possible. Try to
eliminate backyard catch basins where possible. Several side and back yard
swales appear to be outside of drainage easements.
(h) The pads on Lots 41 & 42, Block 3 must be 1 foot higher than the E.O.F.
(i) Extend water main along the western part ofthe property to the north property
line for future looping.
G) The water main from the connection at Wilds Parkway extending through to the
north end of Street "C" should be 12" in size. The City will pay over sizing costs
through the Development Contract.
(k) Eliminate the 8" water main loop along c.R. 83.
Staff felt some of these issues could be addressed at the final plat stage. The major
design issues pertaining to the CUP must be addressed before the proposal can be
forwarded to the City Council.
Staff noted the applicant must submit a signed waiver to the 60-day deadline for action.
If the applicant fails to submit this waiver, the Planning Commission should forward this
matter to the City Council with a recommendation for denial on the basis the plan does
not meet minimum ordinance requirements.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
Questioned the elimination of an outlot. Kansier explained the process.
Comments from the public:
Steve Ach, Centex Homes, addressed the issues in his letter to Jane Kansier dated April
9,2001, which included the park area, useable open space, Outlot A, landscaping,
vegetation/tree replacement and the entrance sign.
Stamson:
· Questioned the marketing target for single family. Ach responded late twenties,
early thirties, second-time homebuyers, young professionals, starting families.
The townhomes would be for people moving down or young professionals
looking for a maintenance-free lifestyle.
· Questioned Ach ifhe had a preference for park design between Plans A and B.
Ach stated Plan A was fine; it would function well. Plan B addresses more of
staff s concern regarding open space.
· Questioned if staff felt the plans would work. Kansier said this is the first time
staffhas seen the revised plans and would have to talk it over with the public
works director and maintenance.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\nm04090 I.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9. 2001
Atwood:
. How much land is gained by eliminating the two lots? McDermott responded .4
acres.
Criego:
. How does one pull out of the townhome garage? And how is that affected when
Street C is connected to the northern boundary? Ach said the townhomes were
designed so that the residents would have to back straight out into the street.
There is no opportunity to turn around and drive out.
. Okay for a cul-de-sac or dead-:ends, but when it connects to another street it could
be a serious problem. Ach responded the key is how the road connects to the
north.
. How much acreage to develop vs. wetland and pond area? Kansier responded the
developable acreage is 33.78 acres.
. The requirement is 10% park area of the total. Conservatively that would be 3.8
acres.
. How large is outlot A? Ach said it was .7 acres.
. Ach responded part of their proposal would be to satisfy the dedication with land,
cash, installing some (playground) equipment in the park and building the trail.
. Concerned that area is almost landlocked with county roads and trust land. If
there is going to be a park, this is where it needs to be.
There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. The property seems very difficult to work with.
. Maybe they put forth their best plan but would like to hear other comments.
Criego:
. Liked the layout for the single-family homes.
. There needs to be adequate parkland.
. Concerned for the pullouts for the townhomes as it relates to future developments.
There will be problems. Similar traffic problems with Eagle Creek/Priorwood
residents pulling out into the street.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Criego regarding the parkland.
. Inclined to go with Plan B and remove the 2 single-family lots for more open
space.
. A 70-foot playground area is small. This issue should be addressed.
. Will go along with staffs conditions.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn04090 I.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9. 2001
Stamson:
· Agreed with fellow Commissioners on the parkland issues.
· Plan B is a better option. Liked the increased land and how it opens to the street.
· This design is the best with the slopes.
· Probably looking at a variance with the streets.
· Not as concerned as Criego with the backing out of the townhouses. Will have to
look at the street going to the north. This street will not be a shortcut. The
alternative is to put in a cul-de-sac, but no one liked that option.
· Overall the plan works well.
· Agreed with most of staffs concerns.
· Questioned the 4 to 1 slope. McDermott said the City's concern was with the
single- family area where there is common area that an association will maintain.
In a single-family area, it is more of a concern, as most people want a well-
maintained yard.
· Overall supports the proj ect.
Kansier:
· The City needs to know ifthe developer has signed the 60 Day Waiver. Ach then
submitted the Waiver.
Lemke:
· Agreed it is a difficult piece of property. There is no other alternative but to have
the cul-de-sacs.
· Concern for the park and the elevation of the terraced retaining walls. Ach
explained the contours did not require retaining walls. Plan B is a good option. It
will be visually more pleasing.
Criego:
· With 122 units on small lots, it seems there will be a lot of children, which will
require more park area. 10% of the area is park dedication. There should be
more acreage. They are short with 1.9 acres. There is no other area for children
to play. Maybe some townhouses will have to come out.
· Regarding pulling out of the driveways at the townhomes - Agreed with Ach
when the property to the north is developed, make every effort to ensure there is
not a stream of traffic.
· With staff s recommendations, agreed with the development except for the park
dedication.
Stamson:
· What acreage is needed for a development this size? Ach said average lot size is
over 13,000 square feet. People may want to put a play area in their own yards.
Criego:
· Questioned the lot sizes. Nick Polta, from Pioneer Engineering responded.
L\Olfiles\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn040901.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
Atwood:
. With the wetland, the development could err on the side of going smaller on the
park because it is going to feel wide open.
. Ach said the key is to connect whatever park space to future developments to the
north and west. There are further recreational opportunities to the west.
Stamson:
. Said this is probably an adequate amount ofland for a neighborhood playground,
given the lot size. These will not be fields for organized sports.
Criego:
. Why can't Outlot A be dedicated as a parkland area? Ach said the issues were
crossing the wetland and maintenance.
. Rye said it would be hard to maintain a bridge or boardwalk and then get
equipment over it to maintain the land.
. Satisfied if Outlot A would be common area.
Stamson:
. Maybe take the outlot as parkland and not develop it until the property to the
north is developed.
. Kansier said the same problem would exist ifit was common property, there's no
connection. How does anyone get to it? It is a lot with no access. Would rather
see it as an outlot to provide opportunities for future development. It will not be
maintained if it is park or privately owned. It will stay natural grasses.
Atwood:
. What are the contours around the wetland? Concern for small children being
drawn to the wetland. McDermott responded Outlot A is part of a higher knoll
and did not know how usable it would be.
Criego:
. What is wrong with leaving Outlot A a common area and not maintain it? There
is nothing wrong with leaving it natural. Kansier said the City's concern as an
outlot is that there is no access to it. As a City, we would be responsible for this
or to provide access to it because it is a lot. It does not solve the problem.
. It is a compromise.
. Change it to a park. It opens up the area.
Stamson:
. It does not solve the park issue. It makes the technical definition of the park
larger but it doesn't expand the usable space for park.
Lemke:
. Does the City have a separate category for non-maintainable parks? Other than
marshland? Kansier responded the City has a list that determines how much
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn04090] .doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
credit a developer gets for different types of land. When the area to the north
develops it will create some potential for trail connections.
· Any issues with parkland abutting up to commercial development? Kansier said
there are no problems.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, FOR A VARIANCE ON THIS
PARCEL FOR CUL-DE-SAC STREETS A AND B AS PRESENTED BY THE
APPLICANT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL BASED ON THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OUTLINED BY THE STAFF 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUDING
OUTLOT A BECOMING PART OF THE PARK AREA, AS WELL AS PARK PLAN
B PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE PROVISIONS OUTLINED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE SAME CONDITIONS AS
APPROVED IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The earliest it would go before the City Council would be May 7, 2001.
B. Case File #01-012 A Zoning Ordinance Amendment to permit accessory
structures on Island developments.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 9, 2001,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
that would allow accessory structures to be located on general development lake island
lots. This amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission at the public hearing on
February 12,2001. On that date, the Planning Commission considered an appeal to the
Planning staffs interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant contended the
provisions of the ordinance allowed accessory structures on islands. The Staff, however,
concluded the ordinance prohibited accessory structures on islands.
The Commission adopted Resolution 01-04PC upholding the Planning staffs'
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that does not permit accessory structures on the
islands. However, the Commission directed staff to research the issue and prepare
language for an ordinance amendment for consideration. Currently, the ordinance on
L\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn04090 I.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
island development does not allow for accessory structures because accessory structures
are considered a "Use" and "Accessory Uses" are not a listed permitted use under this
ordinance section.
Hydrologist Pat Lynch with the Department of Natural Resources submitted comments in
his letter dated March 29,2001. Lynch stated the DNR would not oppose adoption ofthe
proposed amendment.
Criego:
. What happens when the cabin is smaller than 300 feet? Would the proposal still
remain at 300 feet for the accessory structure? Horsman said it has not been
addressed in this amendment.
. What size lot can this be put on? Horsman said Condition #4 states the minimum
lot size on Twin Island is 15,000 square feet or two contiguous side-by-side
lakeshore lots, whichever is less. This would also apply to the accessory
structure.
. What happens with the common roadway on Twin Island? Horsman said it does
permit lots separated by a private roadway to have accessory structures.
Stamson:
. Questioned the lot sizes on Twin Island.
. The average lot may not meet the requirement, but several lots are side-by-side
and contiguous and owned by the same property owner.
Comments from the public:
John and Linda Meyer, 3313 Twin Island Circle (Prior Lake address), thanked
Commissioners and staff members for their time and suggestion for going forward with
this topic. Meyer addressed some of the above issues including access to the island.
There are a total of 64 lots. Meyers own Lots 43, 44, 45, 62 and 64. They would like to
store vehicles and equipment in a garage on the island. It will make the neighborhood
more appealing. Year-round residency is not permitted on the island. It is not secure or
pretty to have storage outside. Accessory structures will enhance the beauty of the area.
Allowing owners to store grills, lawn equipment, etc., is important. Meyer explained his
proposed garage would be 7% of the impervious surface lot area. Meyer also felt their
property is unique because their lots are interior and at the highest elevation no one will
be able to see the garage. The lots are 26 feet higher than the ordinary high water mark.
The proposed garage is 24 by 24 square feet. Meyer felt the size of the garage should not
be larger than the resident's primary structure. Suggested a detached private garage
should not exceed 25% of the lot area, whichever is less.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn040901.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
Atwood:
· It is hard to know. Felt a 300-foot accessory structure was reasonable.
· The amendment was well done and addressed our concerns.
Stamson:
· This issue was discussed at length over a couple of meetings; the general
consensus was not to promote garage-type structures on the island. Mr. Meyer's
circumstances were not unreasonable but did not square with the rest of the island
and what it would create.
· At this point, there has never been any accessory structures allowed on the island,
or any great clamoring for them. It came about because of Meyer's issues.
Through the Commissioners' discussions it was felt it would be reasonable to
have some type of structure. The island community did not initiate the issue.
· Largely what is before the Commission is what was discussed and agreed upon.
· Would like to see the 100- foot setback or setback from the primary structure
whichever is greater. It is not a water-oriented structure; it is simply a storage
structure.
· The rest of the language is what had been discussed in previous meetings.
Criego:
· Agreed with 100 foot setback and would make that a condition. The structures
should not be visible.
· Questioned the drain field and wells. Horsman said you can't go over the drain
field.
· Rye said under the current regulations it would be difficult to meet the
requirements to put in a new drain field for sanitary systems. Maybe for a gray
water system. The County rules on that. The City does not have the information
for gray water. Depends on the amount of water coming out of the structure.
. A well has to be put in or use the common well.
· There is not a lot of room for accessory structures.
· Mr. Meyer is unique owning 5 lots on the island.
· Three Hundred feet is adequate for the average property owner.
· Should the accessory structure be measured by the size of the lot?
· Kansier said you could make the size a percentage of the lot area. It will be
restricted by the amount of impervious surface (30%). Administratively it is
easier to pick a number.
· Vehicles should not be stored on the islands. The garage is not for auto use.
· Most cabins and out buildings are hidden in the summer. In the winter they stand
out.
· Why do we want to change this ordinance? Most residents on the island have
accessory structures and it makes sense to have something there. It should be
legalized. Okay with 300 square feet for storage area.
· Ownership should have some play into the size of the building.
L: \0 I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn04090 I.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
Apri/9,2001
Lemke:
. Meyer's situation is unique with 5 lots. His proposal does not seem unreasonable.
. The garage is 7% of the coverage of the lot. His size is not unreasonable.
. Which is better aesthetically, a well-designed garage or docks covered with tarps?
. What about limiting the garage to no more than a percentage of the principal
structure?
. Can something be drafted to allow Mr. Meyer to build his 500+ foot garage? No
one else has his situation.
. What about a variance request? Rye said it would be a hardship criteria issue.
Criego:
. There are other islands to consider. If the language was made a percentage, it
might solve everyone's problem.
Stamson:
. Concern for others constructing garages. It will make a big impact on the island.
The City is introducing something to the island that was not there.
. Questioned the DNR rules. Their maximum square footage is 400. Rye explained
the slopes and setbacks. The DNR has to approve it any change.
. Questioned DNR's accessory structures on the lake compared to water-oriented
structures. Kansier said if it is not on an island, it is just like any other lot. They
are limited in impervious surface and a maximum detached structure size with
minimum ground floor area. The DNR does distinguish between island and non-
island structures. All the runoff from islands will run into the lake. Riparian lots
have at least some runoff directed away from the lake. As the ordinance is
written, the DNR and City do not allow accessory structures on islands.
Criego:
. Questioned lot size and impervious surface.
. Kansier explained the gray water conditions and setbacks. Standards have to be
met.
. Basically it is only residents with larger lots who can build accessory structures.
. Surprised there are not more island owners present to discuss this matter.
Lemke:
. This issue should be revisited and let the DNR comment on this. They seemed
happy with structures up to 400 feet.
Stamson:
. That is DNR's existing rule. They do not allow general accessory structures. The
City has a more restricted standard than DNR's water-oriented structures so they
are okay with it. Now all of a sudden if we expand it to something they don't
allow at all, it will be a different scenario.
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn040901.doc 10
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
Atwood:
. Questioned staff mentioning it would be easier administratively with a number.
Kansier explained when someone calls and asks what kind of accessory structure
they can have on an island lot, staff can say a maximum of 300 square feet. Ifit's
a percentage then we say how big is this lot? Percentages are harder to deal with.
But it is workable.
. Horsman said there is limited island development. Percentages would probably
work.
. Rye said if there is going to be a sliding scale is should be based on the primary
structure, not the size of the lot.
Stamson:
. Weare discussing an island with a platted road that is rarely used. There have
been no previous requests for this type of building. Now it's going from one
extreme to another based on one request.
. Weare introducing or promoting vehicles where there never has been traffic.
. Large structures are not needed on the island.
. The use is not appropriate for the islands.
. There has only been one request.
Lemke:
. Meyer's request does not seem unreasonable given the size of the lot.
Stamson:
. Not arguing the structure, arguing the use. It is not appropriate on an island. It is
an awful big step to take without other input other than one request for it.
The Commissioners agreed on the 100- foot setback from the ordinary water line.
The property owners on Twin Island were notified of the ordinance. It was not specific
to size of accessory structures.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER
DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES NOT TO EXCEED THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SIZE AND IN NO
CASE EXCEED 576 SQUARE FEET; A 100 FOOT SETBACK NOT CLOSER THAN
THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER ISLAND
REQUIREMENTS.
Criego:
. Weare solving problems for multiple islanders not just one.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Atwood and Lemke, nay by Stamson. MOTION
CARRIED.
Atwood requested staff to notify the island residents.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn04090 l.doc 11
Planning Commission Meeting
Apri/9,2001
Criego:
. Encourage island residents to come forward and give the Commission input.
C. Case File # 01-014 Shepherd ofthe Lake Church is requesting a zone
change for the property located in Section 22, Township 115 North, Range 22 West,
Scott County.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 9, 2001, on
file in the office of the City Planner.
Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church has filed an application for a zone change on the
property located north of CSAH 42 and east and west of McKenna Road, about 1/8 mile
west of CSAH 21. The proposal is to rezone the property from the A (Agricultural)
district to the R-4 (High Density Residential) District.
Staff felt the proposed R-4 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designation. The R-4 district allows residential development with densities up to 30 units
per acre. In this case, the applicant is proposing to develop the entire site as a faith based
community, consisting of religious worship, senior housing, community recreation and
social space, education, daycare and a conference center. The first phase of this
development will consist of a church building. There is no timeline for the development
of future phases.
Lemke:
. Question on extension of services. Kansier explained the process and the
developer's contract.
Comments from the public:
Steve Erickson, BWBR Architects, said the first issue was to have the Comprehensive
Plan amended. The next process is that the rezoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and uses. The applicant's estimation is that the process is moving
along at the appropriate pace. The only other issue is the schedule for water extension on
the site. In the event, the construction on County Road 42 does not coincide with the
Church's schedule of the construction, they would accelerate their plan and enter into a
developer's agreement with the City. They will continue ahead with plans for the
property but have no definitive schedule for breaking ground.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. The request is valid and should be rezoned.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\OlpcminUles\mn040901.doc 12
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
Criego:
· Agreed. The Comprehensive Plan was changed last year and this is step two of
the process.
Atwood
· Concurred.
Stamson:
· This was discussed at length at the time the Comprehensive Plan was changed. It
is moving along in the process.
· This proposal will be an asset to the community.
· Supported request.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND A ZONE
CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURE TO HIGH DENSITY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on May 7.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #01-025 Steven and Susan Balaam are requesting a vacation of a
10 wide drainage and utility easement for the property located at 6096 150th Street.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 9, 2001, on
file in the office of the City Planner.
Steven and Susan Balaam are requesting the vacation of a 10' wide drainage and utility
easement located on the east side of the property at 6096 150th Street. This easement was
dedicated to the City in 1994 when the three lots, described as Lots 10, 11 and 12,
Eastwood, were combined into two new buildable lots. A new house was built on the
west lot in 1994; there has been no construction on the east lot. Mr. and Ms. Balaam own
both lots at this time and have requested the two lots be combined into a single lot.
If the two lots are combined, there is no need for the existing easement. The Planning
staff therefore recommended approval of this request subject to the condition that the
resolution vacating this easement will not be recorded until the combination of the lots is
approved and recorded.
Criego:
· Questioned the minimum lot frontage. Kansier explained the minimums and
combination for lots.
L:\O J files\O J pJancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn04090 1 .doc 13
Planning Commission Meeting
Apri/9, 2001
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Agreed with staff. The public goal served here is that it allows someone to
enhance their property.
. No problem vacating the easement and recommend approval to City Council.
Criego:
. We would not normally request an easement? Kansier explained easements
surrounding lots. Ordinance requires easements around all new lots.
. McDermott responded on the ordinance requirements.
. It will enhance the area.
. Full agreement with staffs recommendation.
Lemke:
. Agreed with Criego. It is nice to see people combining lots.
Atwood:
. Concurred.
MOTION BY CRIEGO; SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APROVE THE VACATION OF EASEMENT AS PRESENTED IN THE
STAFF REPORT.
V ote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Program review.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated April 9, 2001, on file in
the office ofthe City Planner.
Rye gave a brief overview of the draft proposed 2002-2006 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP), noting the redevelopment of downtown.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. We need to keep emphasis on redeveloping the downtown area. Keep money in
the CIP each year. It doesn't have to be specifically identified other than the fact
the money is for downtown. This is extremely important. There should be an
actual number.
. Regarding trails - As the senior development gets developed along Five Hawks,
trails will be developed by the developer and school, is there additional money for
the rest of the project? Rye said the developer is responsible for the trail
connection from Five Hawks through the site. It should all be covered by the
developer.
L\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn04090 I.doc 14
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
Stamson:
· Agreed with Criego on the downtown redevelopment.
· Should include landscaping and lighting for the year 2002 redevelopment.
· There should also be funds earmarked for Main A venue. It could be for parking
lots, acquisition of land or whatever comes up. There should be something in the
budget.
Criego:
· There are multiple purposes for funds. It will depend on the development and
what phase the City is in.
Atwood:
· Questioned Stamson's concern for Main Avenue's accessories for 2002.
· Stamson felt lighting and benches should be included with the reconstruction of
Main Street. The landscaping plan should be done with the reconstruction as
opposed to doing the street now and trying to go back later to do the landscaping.
· McDermott said they have been directed to send out requests for proposals to do
the redesigning. The intention is to tie in any street lighting and landscaping at
the same time.
Stamson:
· The impression around town will be that redevelopment will never get done if it is
not developed with the Main Avenue project.
Criego:
· Downtown should be DakotalMainlColorado down to County Road 21.
· There should be a budget and leave it to the City Council and EDA to decide how
to best use the funds when the opportunity arises.
· Put money in a budget every year and label it "Prior Lake Downtown
Redevelopment". It has to be developed, but the Commission does not know
what the phasing will be.
Stamson:
· Both should be done. Downtown needs to be reconstructed and there should be a
budget for expanding the streets as Dakota and Colorado develop. Money should
also be in the downtown budget for long-term projects.
Lemke:
· It would be nice to have downtown redevelopment funds listed for every year.
Criego:
· Prior Lake is big on trails. Don't see a lot oftrails. Rye said there are 3 trail
projects in 2002.
· McDermott said they moved some of this year's proposals. They will finish this
year. The developer puts in most of the trails.
L:\Ol files\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\mn040901.doc 15
Planning Commission Meeting
Apri/9,2001
Lemke:
. Put more money in shoreline stabilization.
. McDermott said the City was only stabilizing the public shoreline.
Stamson:
Questioned the ring road. McDermott said if it's not in next year it is because the City is
trying to get part of it done this year. It is in 2004 with the Five Hawk/County Road 23
intersection phase.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Vaughn will be out of town for the next meeting and asked that the Island Ordinance be
continued to first May meeting. The Commissioners agreed.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9: 12 p.m.
Donald Rye
Planning Director
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancornrn\O 1 pcrninutes\rnn04090 l.doc
16
~-
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
AREA AND STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE ORDINARY
HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE FOR D. MARK CROUSE,
(Case File #01-017PC)
LOT 9, AND PART OF LOT 10, NORTH GRAINWOOD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
APRIL 23, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from D. Mark Crouse
(applicant/owner) to allow an existing deck to remain on the property located at 15507
Calmut Avenue. The deck was constructed in the year 2000 without a required permit,
and is attached to an existing single family dwelling. The existing dwelling was
constructed in 1995 after approval of setback variances to the front yard and from the
ordinary high water mark. Upon processing this application staff determined a second
variance was required to permit the impervious surface coverage area to exceed 30
percent.
On March 26, 2001, the Planning Department received an e-mail from the applicant to
request a postponement of this variance request from the scheduled date of March 26,
to April 23, 2001.
The following variances are requested:
1) A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of
4,422 square feet (57.5%) rather than the permitted maximum area of 2,307 square
feet (30%) [Ordinance Section 1104.306: Impervious Surface Coverage];
2) A 71 foot variance to allow a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinary high
water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the required setback of 75
feet as required by Ordinance Section 1104.302 (4) Setback Requirements (See
Attachment B Variance Resolution 7805: A 63 foot setback variance to the OHWM).
DISCUSSION:
L:\01files\01variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
- ~
Lot 9, and part of Lot 10, North Grainwood, was platted in 1947. The subject lot is
riparian and located within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the SO (Shoreland
Overlay) Districts. The lot dimensions are approximately 62 ft. by 107.5 ft. for a total lot
area of 7,689 square feet (Attachment 1 Certificate of Survey). The lot is considered
a substandard nonconforming platted lot of record. The property owner does not own
either of the adjacent properties.
The first variance request is for 2,115 square feet to allow an existing impervious
surface coverage area of 4,422 square feet for 57.5 % of the total lot area. A break
down of the area shows a structure coverage area of 2,152 sq. ft., and concrete
driveway and patio area of 2,270 square feet (Attachment 2 Impervious Surface
Calculations). This is an existing condition; however, the impervious surface area was
created subsequent to approval for a buildinQ permit to construct the new house addition
in 1995. One of the conditions for approval of the permit was to not exceed the
allowable impervious surface coveraQe area [Attachment 3 Department Checklist-
Building Permit 95-279 (3 pages)].
The second variance request is for 71 feet, to permit a structure setback of 4 feet from
the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The applicant/owner submitted a building permit
application for the deck as a result of notification from the City of an ordinance violation
for constructing a deck without an approved permit. Upon review of the certificate of
survey submitted with the application, the City determined two variances shall be
required to further process the deck permit.
Research for this report discovered a previous owner of the subject lot made two
variance requests that were approved on April 6, 1978; one was a 63 foot variance to
permit a 12 foot structure setback to the ordinary high water mark (904' elevation), and
the other was an 8 foot variance to permit a 17 foot front yard setback. The variances
were approved to allow the construction of a year round dwelling to replace a seasonal
cabin on the substandard lot [Attachment 4 Variance 78-05 (4 pages)].
On January 31, 1995, the builder, Trim Tech Inc., submitted a building permit application
for the owner, D. Mark Crouse, for the house and garage addition. According to the
survey submitted with the permit in 1995, the house was located 13 feet from the
OHWM, and 22.6 feet from the front lot line. This building location is within the variance
parameters approved in 1978, but by moving the house location to within 1 foot of the
required minimum 12 foot setback from the OHWM, this only allows for a 1 foot deck
extension from the principal structure (Attachment 5 Survey-Building Permit 95-27).
The existing deck structure serves as access to the main level and the deck's
dimensions are 10 feet deep by 26 feet long to a step down level 9 feet by 7 feet with 3
foot wide stairs that wrap around to the ground level. Under the deck is a concrete patio
area for the lower level walkout basement. Also, noted on the survey is a ground level
12' x 14' wood deck/platform area adjacent to the sidewalk and is not attached to the
principal structure.
The City Engineering Department submitted comments for this report stating in essence,
approval of the requested variances is contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Lake
Management Plan, which is to "minimize the transport of nutrients, sediment and runoff
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 2
.
from city streets and lands which impact the Prior Lake watershed, and promotes lake
creep, the encroachment of buildings and impervious areas towards the lakeshore".
The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this request dated
3/21/01. In essence, the main concern is the existing impervious surface coverage area
of approximately 60% that poses a problem regarding storm water runoff and lake water
quality. The DNR recommends bringing the impervious coverage area into compliance.
In addition, the DNR is not supportive of issuing an after-the-fact variance for the deck
setback.
Staff has determined there was a legal alternative building envelope that would have
permitted a 6.6 foot deck, had the house been placed to within 17 feet of the front lot
line as provided in Variance 78-05, rather than a front setback of 22.6 feet as built.
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, and 2, the subject property is a
nonconforming platted lot of record, but was developed under the current ownership
and they did not meet the conditions spelled out in the building permit for the
principal structure. Therefore, staff has determined the requests do not meet the
hardship criteria as a legal alternative building site existed that allowed for
development of the subject lot with the originally approved setback variances.
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.
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. However,
when all required setbacks are applied, there was 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.
The approved legal site precluded the need for the additional variance requests.
The hardship has been created by the builder and owner when the decision was
made on the building dimensions and location of the structure, as well as, the
excessive paving of the subject lot.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 3
-..
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 will not impair light and air to adjacent
properties or increase congestion, danger of fire or endanger public safety.
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 variances will adversely affect the above stated values by
increasing structure encroachments upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the
adjacent properties and the 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 variances is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance or the
Comprehensive Plan by allowing increasing encroachment setbacks and excessive
impervious surface conditions than was originally approved by the City.
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.
The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the
applicant.
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 hardship results from the actions of the property owner when he constructed the
dwelling in 1995.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone shall not be grounds for granting this variance
request. The property owner helped to create the need for these variance requests
by not following the approved conditions for the original building permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff has concluded that all of the required variance hardship criteria have not been
met, and that the hardship was created by the owner when the principal structure was
constructed in violation of the building permit conditions, and by constructing the deck
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 4
.
addition without an approved building permit. Staff therefore recommends denial of the
two variance requests.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. 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.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated
hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends alternative #3.
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-008PC, denying a 2,115 square foot
variance to permit an impervious surface area of 4,422 square feet (57.5%), and
deny a 71 foot variance to permit a structure setback of 4 feet, rather than the
required 75 feet setback to the OHWM of 904 feet.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 5
.
RESOLUTION 0l-008PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 71 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK, AND
DENYING A 2,115 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 4,422 SQUARE FEET (57.5%)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an attached deck to a single family
residence on property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) District and the
SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10,
North Grainwood, Scott County, MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-017PC and held hearings thereon on April 23, 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 exists that meets the required setback for the structure on
the subject lot. The applicant was directed by previous variance and building permit
conditions as to the amount of impervious surface area, such that the hardship created
has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists without the
requested variances.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\dnyres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required lakeshore setback as
reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance's, 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 00-017PC 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's for an attached deck to an existing single family dwelling and
impervious surface area greater than 30% of the lot area, as shown in Attachment 1
Survey;
1. A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422
square feet (57.5%), rather than the allowed maximum area of 2,307 square feet
(30%).
2. A 71 foot variance to permit a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinary high water
mark of904 feet, rather than the required 75 foot structure setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 23, 2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\dnyres.doc
2
ATTACHMENT 1
\
\
,
\.
(Olltltll
",'14 01 \0
Of I.
i \0
Of \.0
\.\tIE --~..
~ --- \
'.
w
::>
z
w
,>
<1
$1.",8,ll..'
..o...!> GE
Gp.R/\
..._. -\
\>l ..
,- ,
,11
-~ 't
o ")
\
~
&:
-:l
II'
~. ':' ,,"
t fl.(1)"
\~1. 9,9. ,0
10US f_
\ f \ll/O
\.' 910.1
l\..
~
~
\
\
\. ';
,~,
'! J- ~..-'...II
r .
,,<{
U
~ ,~.,.\
of 1.0t 9
~"u ~-'r ;-_
'6. . ~ ...~.".--"-- ..
..U '9." - '~;.-=..~
; :,...1 ;
Ii't., \
'::I" 'O"l.. .' \\\, ----
\.,.0 ~~,~~\ ~:-G6'\g_.. I' of' ..O)~
, 02t---. "" 'k
"r---7 . . \O"W ' ~,
'519026 "9 't.
, Of LU r .;. \ ~ ~
s'L.,.1 -,LINE . \ "\,~<l "l-
': N yo~~
, ~
\ -
\-,-~ y~c~:\
\ C,,\~\N
- \
;.-.. '. i,
..,...& - \6.50 - ''IJ '
5 780 24' 0 ' \ .
.,.. \0- >-,
~ \0 -t- ~
Cj\ ..00 .
. 0- to
u. to-
o ~ - ~
w tOo
z \ "0
- 0:. "
.J 4
~. \
~
..,..:'
(,I. " .
. ATTACH.MI;:NT:'2.
,",'; ~
.;-"
..... :'SQ...FEET' .
. , :'-.= '\\4:\f
\OD~"
..,;'
=
":::"T6Th'DETACH~D'BUrLDINGS.~..:..~;:.;:.;.~:.:~.;
. .... . . " ....~. -' '. . . . '. . . .' .
. ',' ~ ~ \.'
. . -.. . ...~.; . .. '.
. . >:.'::" .:~:' ~': .
." .
. .
",'". ...... .... .{....
.... '.. '~" I.. -,.:,' I;
;.1
", ....
""2.'i:i "0. .
. :,'"
,'. .
. . "1'
':';:::,TOTAij'.IN1PERVlbUSSURFACE
;~ri~~~:';d" ...... . ... ',"
);r:~:;e~BY tJ~~~'1 ". . .... .'
. .... COri1pany\:J~il ~ 1'SL~~ e it ~G- ~~ )p,(\.
,. ," . ,. ," . I' .' . ~ . '. .'
'~ .
;. \ "
. ':'U4ii-',:'.,,',r.::' i:,,':<.:.':': .."
.1' ,-2..\\5 .' :.;1,
.' ",
, ;',,~.
Ph8ne'.#L\1..\1~ ~sl'o '.
.,' ~...
,':
.' ",
ATTACHMEN'T 3
~
White - Building
Canary - Engineering
Pink - Planning
Th.. ('I'nl" or ,a." l.ak, C-OUnl1')
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION...QEPARTMENT CHECKLIST
r:' . ,../ \L
NArvlE OF APPLICANT, '/ h, ." ,', %" / , -". (/'
APPLICATION RECEIVED Ihllf'-
,
The Building, Engineering, and PI::mning Departments have reviewed the bUilding permit
application for construction activity which is proposed at:
/~3ll 7 ~
Accepted
-I-
Accepted With Corrections
Denied k
~' Reviewed By:. \ .
Comments: .J-. Pi ~/~ <..
,-
Date: 2. , ~- '7 ...:.:..
p V.....-., ,'22--:l\ L .:>,
1'2<-/_ ~,
t." ......~~_
.:J
,2, );.
~
c<"'" -"~f I ~
(,..::y~
"'h~ .:...(<-.
\,;.;:., )-\-'" '"
f
_~. l.-.... r" _\ O' \ - \. \
~ '-',........-..-..::::....~~
I .-:Oc~,.c.::>~ ..s...,J(<'~?t...;:,
,
'-2:..C:. ~ ,
5:' ~,-\.l;l,'v"I_ \
, [-c-,,-,,,, c-lt..:.. -h ,""-~
~,.,
~
.~~
~ +-1-, R...,.J,t..." I..
t..:= :=
r:~c-~-'
ti:.-.......,~,IY"~ZIV""or=" .......,.......A"
~ .'-..j ,
cLv~....t-. '1o'v--.)
I ~,
VV' be... (/'~< ~
fZE~0Ir~~
l:::v- ~IL~, !.
"The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and
computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of
any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits
presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other
ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid."
.
.
'f
It
I.
I
po'
1S
!~
,
4
l'
f
',\<
.,'
'I"
{'Jkl., J./.u~s- -:tfL ~-".a-
.:tAIL V J!__ c{l ,. ( __L _ t--
, ~j.-, Ii
lh. Ctntt, or Iht I..il, ("nuft.".
White - Building
Canary . Engineering
Pink . Planning
BUILDING PESMIT APPLICATION DEPARtMENT CHECKLIST
,
1',
NAME OF APPLICANT __' ,
APPLICATION RECEIVED ,1/, i/,'
~.Ilt'-'-)h;T )-1, /1 j
t
The .Building, Engineering, and Planning Departments have reviewed the building permit
apphcation for construction activity which is proposed at:
! I '
;L:
----.I.
/ Ofl (Jt( 5Ut1-~r G ,~t-/-d1(At.V
Accepted With Corrections ,..l CJ.pb , ...,I.j'IV'>, _~
L ,-\'vI r &- v' v I\f) (.v ~ .
\)J [jJv.JL....fllJ\ ",:tP
1)1'
\ (\
Reviewed By: '/d~j Date::J, / - 9'J-
~
Comments: ~ (1/1_t('~ "1 ~~ Cd AN--!/ILf"NJ
111 ~I ( CID; / ~.;c:.c:~ iI" atl :i ~:rtjt ),,~ r -/1~
fa!. 11 - II-/AJ i 1;711,,' lab.. FA:;;W~ f ,?YJM/IL:t.c?
SliV,U 'if) - "1a c. all ./ I/cb#j " MId SLl, kCf~ /I1dva,-t/(,-
/'Yh ) r--M+-{/ a/I- $L/CCI7 t'?1. a~ tv.t.~-,{
~;:JA~j){hV--<J (/)//S/hL t;il/-i tl~~b~hc'N".:/-
ad btj,~;;. k 01 f01.~f 07l cU4J~02.
Accepted
Denied
~
i,
t
I
f
,
1- OIli:::iKJL g r{~, iJJ ,MfM d) n {it 9J't., ~ OdJ {AU IJ-In*
m adW/ifl - 5jfmlJ co,{ 0,1 KMI' (/(lWU1.{'JL
LL VA - 17- 6'5 - (" ~ / i ctltJ/lor~ ~. '3' f?Irrd:~u10 VAil (/t1~U .
"The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and
computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or al1 approval of, any violation of
any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits
presuming to give authority to violate or canc91 the provisions of this code or other
ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid." 6 ' 174 ( ,
*' fYl[t1' (It'vU/r\ D ( l lJtO,tty ()I\ Of{1 aff -fj^'J c!j,,Vi L<) (Y . 61--.
I
0:/13/1995 11::6
61:938155:
JUSTUS
February 13, 1995
City of Prior Lake
Building Inspector
Gary Stabler
Dea:r Gary,
Kurt Hazekarop brought to my attention:
the 30\ impervious surface requirement
entry roof. We will delete this piece
floor l~vel is approximately 36u above
a stair & platform to the front door.
drawing is required, please call me at
Sincerely,
~
Ron Buchanan
, .;y
PAGE 01
the building exceeds
because of the front
of roof. The first
grade which requires
If an addendum
938-2741.
j.
.
4'
i~
'I
:f
:f
~~
-'Ie
1
I
.,
~.
J'
:\,
~
~.
"
~
)'
........ .
,~
't'
~
...
""
....
'r
....-
'"
.
v.~
. v.:
I\(
.1.
'"
III 1'-'
: .:.J
:~ ... ---..-
~. _ ~..._._ __ _.1 I
, oJ.... =--1
I ~ ;: r
I -. . '~,
I 't--:. J:~ I
'1\ 1-
-. -
'....
~ " . .:.'
LoW. . :-9
J
,
1
I
. I
...
tl5
~
"
.J
~l
~
. ti
.~
,
\ I
"
'-
~
'?
...
Dodt,.( /,tJ., t J,,, j t
7-D 66. r(~(}vtJJ
~; f t vul, p ~ J S <1 tJ 5. 3
IV,... 8M; fl.., 1'07. S
,
'f~
\
I
\
-'- >\
\
\
\
\
\
'I~
.;;-- - -
-
-, ,~ :.;
j. 1+ Q
'it' /-.0 I
--.....---_ I-I (}
v . r - ....
1
,.,
I."j
',t /J.(j
1
l'
~
;
j,
Pr/ () r
t _Jr.
it
"c'
l .l:
I
I-.-
- .--
,''' -- : - (~.\'..)
\
\
. I
I :'=?J
v-
,!; . -~....., \ /1
~' "-.1' I ~
t:. '2. \ rt. 1t1/~ I "/ '
"
'l ~\\ .
I .
__ -I
\
1--. ;::j
I/) ..:
!..u
;: '3
'" C:'. -
LL.\ '
~of- B
I ~-_.
'.- - - - . ~
.... t
t-. ~
.... ~ 01- .- -,_. ,. - "T
~I .
;: XI
ctr<,
<t~1
-.-'
.;,
-
.. I
l I I
'" -
-. . I
"1
""II . -.- - - _.1
., ......" :
~ n
~.)(
c:tcO
tw')
I~
e.r
.......~
. ~
- -
---
'" -....
~ :
~ CQ .
If'
>.
'.,
I ....
/--.. I, \\ ""
('L l..' -
i~
'\
i/
:t
h
t
1~
.,'
to i
,..t
'(,
1":'
1:
,~
t
'.
CITY OF
PRiOR LAKE, MINNESOTA
55372
~.- --
.,.. '. ...........'.,H_...'....,_~:,
",;. ':.->..i..~.tj,:{:";(::-._' '.
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING ADVlSOHY COl>U>lISSION
April 6, 1978
111(" meeting of the April 6, 1978 Prior Lake P1:Jnning Commission was
called to order by Chail'man Thorkelson at 7:30 PM. Members present
were Commissioners Cavill, Speiker, Johnson, Councilman Busse and City
Planner Graser.
The minutes of the March 16, 1978 Planning Commission were motioned for
approval by Johnson seconded by Speiker and upon a vote taien were
approved as published.
f>1r. Graser stated that he would like to add an item to the agenda. Motion
was made by Cavill to discuss a proposed subdivision for Carlson & Carlson
at 10:30 PM seconded by Speiker and upon a vote taken motion carried.
First item on the agenda was a subdivision discussion for Mr. Dick Schwartz.
Mr. Schwartz is proposing to develop the Vic Schroeder 24 acre farm. 1-11'.
Graser gave a presentation siting low areas, grade problems and access to
Eagle Creek Avenue. Mr. Schwartz stated that he was in agreement with Mr.
Graser's proposal as to the dri ve'~ays not fronting on Eagle Creek Avenue
(County Road 21), questions were raised on the interceptor easements, lak~
access, soil compaction from the interceptor and total number of lots. The
overall vie:. of the Planning Commission was that the plan looked feasible
ar:d the developer was asked to continue worKing with staff to work out
any additional problems.
>< Next item on the agenda was a variance application for Mr. George Borgerding.
. A 63 foot lakeshore setback variance and an 8 foot front yard variance are
requested for lot 9 and the south 42 feet of lot 10, North Grainwood. The
proposal is to remove the existing buildings and replace it with a year-
round home. Mr. Graser gave a description of the parcel inovlved. Motion
was made by Speiker to grant the variance due to the fact that the new
dwelling will encompass the old building envelope and it is a unique lot
arid will be a permanent, year round home. Motion waS seconded by Cavill
upon a vote taken, ~otion carried.
Next item on the agenda was a Home Occupation Permit application for Mr.
Bruce Langevin. Mr. Langevin is proposing to construct light, two wheel,
hor3e drawn carriages at his place of residence, 16078 Cambridge Circle SE.
The parcel is zoned R-l. Planner Graser g2:.e a brief description of the
request a'. Mr. Langevin then stated that hE- l1as an air conditioning unit
and extra soundproofing in the garage. He a:so stated that the noise does
not bother his wife who is immediately above him in the house. A petition
was then given to t}:<;: Chairman with 16 sign&.tures of the neighbor's in
opposition to the home occupation permit. Cavill motioned to Geny the
home occupation permit because of oppositiun of the neighbors and the
occupation is not in compliance with the ordinance. Motion was seconded
by and a mot ion carried.
ATTACHMENT 5
CO" or f 101 10 _,--
""'O""'T 10 NorT,h, lI".e 0 __--\'-
\1. f..",.-/'
r"-
I \
1
~\", ;"
.~ '~
\-
~
~ ,.
\1
'I
~I
I'
~
\
J
"1' ~ H
;.l 91
TOP ~8,.
'0
~ p.~\,.\..
l' \ f -JI
'f~fo
I'
. 'f108 . ."
. .
j'
,
j{
pR\(
: .., .';a ';
'~';'...' .
":)',
OZ.
"W.'
':> ' .~.
:;}:~'-:~~1~"{~:-~~:..',',",!;,;;,:
~~~ . \
~.~
,
~
If
" ,.:.''ti.
'. .
~ '~~~l.,
\\ . L2: ~ . '.
\ r-,.;"-
.~
Y' ~
..J.
<I.
(;;,),
It
1',,.G
..~\s
r;. ..st:
tiO"oUf
a-t.lC: 1 1e
"'p> 90'
E.\..
\
~~
~\
9IS.__~
\.." ----
-~
I,
>. ..
<1
\.IJ
"
N
U)
co
'-
-
~
~
II
...1
_.~Q!9-'
61 t - - I
.- "W I
... - - - 026' 10 .--J
sw cor. of 579 0' 10' 9
101 Iil 5 ' I Y I J nt
-\ 8
of lof
'-w'l)' /IntI
OF tlEG
19
9\1.
1.
\ f.L.'
,C. &6
9,1.
,.
1{
,/
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4B
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PUBLIC SERVICE
STRUCTURE IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT (CASE
FILE #01-28)
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF WILDS PARKWAY
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
APRIL 23, 2001
The City of Prior Lake has filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
allow the construction of a public service structure on the property located 15250 Wilds
Parkway. This site is zoned R-l (Low Density Residential). No variances are required
for this proj ect.
REVIEW PROCESS:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit should be reviewed in accordance with the criteria
found in Section 1102.1203 and Section 1108 of the City Code. Section 1102.1203
includes the specific conditions for the proposed use. Section 1108 includes the general
CUP criteria.
SITE ANALYSIS:
The proposed development includes a 623 square foot pumphouse, which will house the
well pump and other mechanical and electrical equipment for City Well #6. Well #6 is
located on this site, directly south of proposed pumphouse, and is currently under
construction. The proposed building will be constructed to resemble the existing booster
station. It is approximately 11' high with a hip roof. Exterior materials include brick and
accent block.
The pumphouse is located southeast of the existing booster station, 50' from the closest
property line and 85' from Wilds Parkway. The existing driveway to this lot will be
reconfigured to provide access to both the booster station and the pumphouse. Three
1:\01 files\Ol cup\well\well pc.doc I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
significant trees will be removed for the new driveway configuration. These trees will be
relocated to the east side of the site.
Other Requirements: Section 1102.403 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance lists the specific
conditions for public service structures. These are:
a. All exterior faces of all buildings shall meet the provisions of subsection 1107.2200.
b. All structures shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any lot in an /'R II Use District.
c. A bufferyard, Type C as defined in subsection 1107.2005, shall be installed and
maintained along all property lines abutting an "R" Use District.
The first two requirements have been met. The third requirement requires a bufferyard
along the south, east and west property boundaries consisting of 7 canopy trees, 13
understory trees, and 20 shrubs. The attached narrative notes that the City will landscape
this area using a variety of honeylocust, ash and maple trees from the City nursery.
However, as a condition of approval, the landscaping plan should be revised to identify
the number and types of plantings, and how they will screen this site from the adjacent
residential properties.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.200 of the City Code sets forth the criteria for approval of a CUP.
(1) The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Well and pumphouse #6 are a key addition to the City's potable water supply system.
Goals of the Comprehensive Plan are ensure access to natural resources and utilities,
and to provide for the orderly extension of utilities. This proposal is consistent with
these goals.
(2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare
of the community as a whole.
This proposal will benefit the health, safety and general welfare of the community by
providing an addition to the City's water supply.
(3) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and
the Use District in which the Conditional Use is located.
With the necessary changes to the landscaping plan, this use will be consistent with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
(4) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
services, or improvements which are either existing or proposed.
1:\01 files\O 1 cup\well\we\1 pc.doc
2
The streets and utilities to serve this development are in place. This use will not
adversely affect those services.
(5) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties in close proximity to the conditional use.
With the required changes, the use will be screened from the adjacent residential
properties, and will not have an adverse impact on the nearby properties.
(6) The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape
plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect,
or civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, approved by the City
Council and incorporated as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the
City Council.
The only change necessary is to the landscaping plan in order to ensure the
development is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
(7) The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a professional civil
engineer registered in the State of Minnesota which illustrate locations of city
water, city sewer, fire hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and cable lines,
natural gas mains, and other service facilities. The plans shall be included as
part of the conditions set forth in the CUP approved by the City Council.
With the exception of the driveway relocation, there will be very little grading on this
site. These plans have been prepared under the supervision of a civil engineer.
(8) The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the City Council
may find necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety and
neighborhood character. Such additional conditions may be imposed in those
situations where the other dimensional standards, performance standards,
conditions or requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to achieve the
objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these circumstances, the City
Council may impose restrictions and conditions on the CUP which are more
stringent than those set forth in the Ordinance and which are consistent with
the general conditions above. The additional conditions shall be set forth in the
CUP approved by the City Council.
The only necessary revision is to the landscaping plan to ensure the proper number of
plantings. Once revised plans have been submitted, the Planning Commission and
Council may determine additional conditions are required.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the following
condition:
1. Revise the landscaping plan to provide the required plantings along the south, east
and west boundaries.
l:\Olfiles\OI cup\we1l\well pc.doc
3
2. The building must be located as shown on the approved plans.
AL TERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the CUP subject to the above conditions.
2. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the
issues that have been discussed.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the CUP subject to the listed
conditions.
] :\0 1 files\O 1 cup\wel1\well pc.doc
4
~
_ ~ r' ._, ,-.., ~
r:::-........ r-:J f"'-"\ ,~ r: \ \. ,( ,==-:, . ',- I
! i ,... '.. l ''-1 :-- \:;:J 1 1 \ V i ~ -:::. ;....1
~l : -\ \ ~-.:; '(:::;7 ~ L \-J ,- .-.; _ " 1
l\ 1 \. · \ "
\': "i ! !'
\[l APR - 3 2001 uj
Conditional Use Permit
Application Narrative
For
Municipal Well and Pumphouse No.6
Well and Pumphouse No.6 are a key additon to the city's potable water system
and are proposed to be constructed adjacent to the existing Booster Station at
15248 Wilds Parkway. As described and defmed, the well and pumphouse are
considered essential services in the zoning ordinance (Sectionl101, pages 7 &
12). The well is currently being drilled and is scheduled to be completed in June
this year. The pumphouse, with approvals, should be complete by late fall this
year.
The legal description for the property is tentatively lot 11, block 2 of the Wilds
South subdivision which had preliminary plat approval by the city council on
March 19,2001. The current legal is described on sheet 3 prepared by Steven
Ische, L.S., with WSB & Associates, 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 300,
Minneapolis, MN 55422, phone 763.541.4800, and is a combination oflot 1,
block 3 of Wilds 2nd Addition and part of the proposed Wilds South property.
The combination will be completed with the final plat of the Wilds South and will
allow the city to have both the existing booster station and new well no. 6 on the
same parcel. The city currently holds title to the property.
The zoning of the property is R - 1. The site currently includes a water system
booster station, and across Wilds Parkway are single family homes. The property
south of the property will be developed into single family homes in Wilds South
and is currently used for agricultural uses. West of the site will be a city
neighborhood park.
The proposed pumphouse is 623 square feet and is proposed to be located
southeast of the existing booster station. The location is locked in at this point
due to the well location. The proposed building will house the well pump and
appurtenant mechanical and electrical equipment. It will be constructed to
resemble the existing booster station, including brick, accent block and hip-
shingled roof as shown on sheet no. 7, the elevation and foot print drawings from
the architect Luken Architecture of Minneapolis.
The site plan, sheet no. 6, shows the revamped access drive to the two buildings
(the booster station and proposed pumphouse). The city public works department
will be responsible for landscaping the site including irrigation. Some existing
..
. \
trees will be moved on site and more than will be required will be added from the
city nursery when the building is complete. This may not happen until late fall
and the landscaping may be completed next spring.
.
z.
I
~%~
~ 12.< ;-r
~~I \-
.('7.-f---ib >-~
([ll ......e\ ~ (1'----- t:: '-
q:p: ~I ~ ~ \---, - :::::r
rW;O;dJ, I > !--tV ~~~ T rnR I NG ~:J
~ ~ ~fWELL ND. 1 ,C.l-
- ',0.... b .....
I Lr-i--('\)_ ~R~I~I G tr~~ I
'1 LL . 2
~k~'-l\ ~ . LI~A'
~~ ~I" cJ !;11'
~~~~~~r~ I
PRIOR LAKE
. ~ WELL
-, . . ~~.I. NO. 6 .1
-~ ~ l\~ r ~
- prrt9 ~.1 ,\~.J 6t
U........ ._. -~ I~l..
'::/tlIL - - lLJ: 3:
wL '"
~
-r:~
-...
......::l
p
~
~
~
<1
/'\'
o
y~~
~
.//<
r. 7
"A~:~
~
-
~I n.
i
m
I //-
H ~~[t!.
l~, ~:J;r1
~
~s ~
~ ($;;:::::
~ ~ -rVW -
rN~-
L
o
..
~_ r;;.
~
g, j a
'0
S:"
u...
.;
~ ~
~ 0
.;
I"')
o
o
1500
I
3000
-
- .--' -.-:7::::::1
-c.. i .'1
..._.., ___-.:..... '-' ~. 'I
-- -' I . ~
",1 1
i APR - 3 2001
....
....
N
.;
E
...
WSB
350 V\lestwood Lake Office
844 1 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55426
Well No.6
. WSB Project No. 1244-003
..
~
Date: OcllPlr 13. 2000
- I
612-541-4800
& A_c, JfIC. FAX 541-1700
INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS
Project Location
Prior Lake, Minnesota
.
Figure Number
1
WILDS PKWY
EXISTING CITY
BOosntR STATION
APPROXI ATE
LOCATIO I OF
WELL NO. 6
COUNTY ROAD 82
"
'"
o
'"
....
"
"l
::>
::>
1.-
o .._ 200
~oo
_.._~
I
;-~"' ~ rc2 l~~ ~~ r~ \.1" -:: f:::~ ':::;
" \ 1 .-. "''-'' I:::J II \ - .. I _. I
i 1 ~ , ~ ",-" -= -: ~~..,_=-, :
APR - 3 }nGl
c
D'
o
...
-2
..
..
'::!
"
E
A
WSB
350 Westwood Lake, Ollice
844 1 Wayzata Boulevan:l
Minneapolis, MN 55426
Well No.6
WSB Project No. 1244-003
Date: October 13. 2000
612-541-4800
4';_. JI1C. FIJ. 541-1700
INFRASTRUCTURE . ENGINEERS - PLANNERS
Well No.6
Prior Lake, Minnesota
Figure Number
2
~~~:
'"
o
..J
.,
.,
"-
'"
>-
..J
'"
CT)
I
~. . q.-'
Hi ~rrdi ~idH i
...l !I;€I~PJlllil I
O~. : : : ~ ~: I j i II t 1 B
1--0
/.(
/0.
OJ>.
....
o
..J
",'"
8tj
,.0
ztt:
,--'
//
#(,.-,1
/
/
...................
...----...------..:::-[ . '" /,/
___ ....___11/
---==!!=:-~:f.//
.,
'"
/ ///.
"
/
/
/
/
C5
c::>
C'J
.. :; '0 ~ ,
~f Fq~~~~
'!i! HH!H!
'h~ :~i:~;f~
~H U~ ~~j ~ ~
, H~ iHiHH
I f;; ~~~~~f~1
:J , L~ ::i::~q;
-1 Hi wwm
~ ~Q~ Clt~O~:~~~
." ;;~~ ~::rt~~~
I 1;1 iWwi!
; ~. ".--"-.'.'
~ ~~f r~:P~::~
~ g~~ 'Ib.d=~r
J ni I~iH!~H
, m:.Hdd
b
:~:
g~~ j
~~;) 5 ~
;q; "~
...:::i ........ ~:;:
~a! ~. i
:...~:
. . . . l!
_ m ~ 1 ..
.' '
II: 0'" ..
H~~ ~
% '" .. ';
-;~~
-<(
-
1:i
:.c:
>,
J.Li
ro
o
VJ
:8 ~
:il !::
~ ~
.~ ~ oj'
.~5~ -@
._<0=<= ......l
~ ~ C;
o 'j:
U p..
::; 4.,
_l 0
.~.
U
J'U
....,II...
'101_. II'" au 10 -'-':"1
......n_J -'1___' _....,..., I""
_ 10...._ U)lo\I"'"".., ....4~ JUI
1110.0)' 1IO'''w:I.J3..,.,,,,,,, """ ......>> ...>>1'
IlJOS3UUlW '3~1l1 JO!Jd
}O -'I!J aql JO)
DO!13nJ)IDoJ 9 'oN 3!noIl1l3A\
ZZt9!i HW........
OO&8l!fIS
AeMtAH..,..... '-.c> 05U'
""1I~IlIoI...r.""':I:I:J~I"U"," -=1I"IHllllll:t.JII:I~I.
OOU'IWW VYJ
~~M'ftt
.*t....,-rrr
-
SSM
T
I
/'9
6,
.,
~
~~
'"'
~
Cl
"~
c
"
,"
c-
c'
r.'
cr"
I
O'
O.
Cl
-<
(;i~o.
f~-,; ;
''':.1.
:~,
o
'1)'_
,-co
I"
,-
,.)
;
!
I
I
j
,;,:.-..:'// /:
/ 1/':1 (/,.../
, / ",,/ 1<".1
/ ///' /' -,/ /';'
.' /' /
'i",,'
, .' ~
.'
.,: :
." ,11
,/:
,/
~:
m .\
:z:
III
\!!
..
0
Ii;
w
ili
z
:'i
"-
W
t-
in
o
@
'"
W
III
::;
:>
z
t-
U
!!l
o
'"
"-
~
u
t
.~
I
i
~
~~~:
'-
I
~
<t
-.J
"'"
i i
I I
,-+-t
I I
I I
, I
'< ,
~ i
~ i
g ,
?
I!
\"1
\ 'i
\ .'1
q
I
~
"'
;:
?
"
0:
.... 0
z Cl
w ..,
:>
'" 0
VI Z
.., N
W VI
>- 0
,. ...I
:; i
.... W
::J :r
....
o
Z u.
.., 0
llJ 1-
'" "'f
.., ...I
Z ll.
~ - - - -
- - - - -
'<
't)
- ~ I ~ E I .
ffi', ,;; PdH i
o ~riji:.iJHIH~~tl!
~ ~~[~~!;~HiiiHH!!
O~u~0~*~.lllllll' I""m
I: rf iii
VI '"
J ~
U <t
j
oJ
o
~ J
~
() ~
l-- ~
~
~o
:... /-('
( ~ /Q
~ ~ Of-
I.\. ~
:)
~ ~
VI
~r
't
,j ~
II) ~\
j ~
" "l
.j
J
j
\
~
\11
't "
, ~
k ~
.. 't
~ ~
" "
~ ,~\ ~
~ ~ \~
:t J
..\
~ 1
:s-
ol
,III ~
:r'l\
1-
<:.J
o
3
~
::s-
"Q.
~ ~
k
\;vi ~ :r-
-t .)
I- ~ <t
.J
~ "( ~
~ ~
~ ~
<l 1.1.\
~
G
~
~
o
VI
'l
~
~
~
~
~
I~
':)
o;t
'"
~
t-..
I.\)
~
~
')
i'J'
~
....
~
~
0:
o~
uu
o
"...1
Zm
''-,'
/
/
,:1'
I
----- ~ ,//
.~C_~~
~ffi ;
//
/'
/'
/
/
/
/
...-.-..--..--...
/
8~~~\ i:
~ \~'
~ H~
-'t:
,00
6;~
i t.~
.~ ~~;
f' ~:3
Lg
b ~ ~
.b ih
6 ~;~
! .~ ~ ~
; ~~~
tI ~ ~ ~
o f g b
i - C II
,. .
'uf:H~
~., d. ~r,
:~6:.~~',;.
::: :;;.;:! ~. i.
~S!.i,~t:~l
;,:~~~o;~
r.:~:;:i~~
1H.IHff
Vlon..o~'o~
~~:;t:;~y~
f '0 r. ~ t, :: Ii ~
...... OJ ,,_.
.. ,- ..... .. n 0
..... .. ...... ,
: ::!o~:::J~
~;j~jI,~.~!
~~~ni:f~~
f:~~:~~'f~
\. t., _ .. .. '" _ '"
".- ..., IJ In " c.
if.;~~~~;~
~f~~:tib.~
..b;...~.-
n~~a;H
~tlb~1i t.;-~
o!u ......
.f~l!:!~.i.~'
!pjj.~;~f~
h
~E
H~ J ~
8~~ ) r ~
Hh d ;1
:~~;~~ ~ g
.... '!' -'... ~
~~i~ . ~
~;.. r ~
~~~~ ~
~
Oil
j -<(
~ ...
~ ~
..I:
><
I-Ll
~
I
~
cd
......
o
en
Q)
C
.5
~
...
:E
:EJ
><
I-Ll
t:l \0 oj'
,2 0.><:
.., .... Z cd
'OcS _ ...J
:g V 0
~ 13: 'i:
o p~
U c..,
o 0
....1
.f?
u
.~~~ '._~.~z
IJpt
!a)1 ~.~ ~
. '
Ifi
ljl
1;l
~~I'j
~
~
..
w
z
(;
Iii
~ /
~I/
I
[[I]~
z z
() ()
i= i=
<. <.
~~ >9
w=-
-1ii -1 .ft
w;' w:t
......
I- I
l- - l- Iii
Ii~ =>:i..
()< ~~
Z ~
~
\)
~
@ ~
\!) \!)
~~ ~~
\)\) \)\)
0< 0<
~ ."-,1:> irlSi ~ "r,1:> irlSi
w < :z: wit w < :z: wit
N ~ ~~ b \)0 N ~ ~~ b ~~
W <Il... W
it .' < .' Il...- it < .' < .' Il...-
~I C) ~~ ~I ~ ~~
Il... Il... 2 Il... Il...
D D -:ci ni:2 o~ D D -:ci ni:2 o~
() g ill...: Itw ~ () ill...: Iiw
~ . w ~ . w
~ ~\J) ~\Il
z z
() ()
l- I-
<( b <('
> I >~
~ ~
ill II ill II
..J ~ ..J;'
ill \) ill::::
~ I- Iii ~ I- Iii
U'l ...I 0)...1
\) <( .( ~ W.{
it \) :r~
m ill III
~
"<t
I
/
/
/
~
<(
~
.{
IL
D
()
~
&
z
","Sl
-' .(
~!:
~Q
IU~
"V-, I:>
\!)
),[~
\)\)
().{
....In..
mill
IUD:'
0()
.{IL
IL_
~~
()d:l
D:'w
, w
"<till
o
~
rri~
"<t
IU
N
IU
it
IL
D
~
.{
~
.{
IL
D
()
~
&
z
~Sl
.' .(
~!:
-:ci
m....=
llv-.b
.t-.' \!)
),[~
\)0
().{
ulfu
IUD:'
b ~Uc
b lL_
Q ~~
. iL () d:l
miL D:' w
, W
"<till