HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 29, 2001
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 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 #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 Calmut Avenue.
B. Case File #01-029 - Gary Thomas is requesting a variance to permit a structure
setback less than the minimum requirement from the ordinary-high-water mark
and less than the minimum required setback to the top of bluff for the property
located at 5580 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE.
5. Old Business:
A. Consider modifications to Development District 1 and formation of TIP District
1-3.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
LIOI fileslOI plancommIOlpcagend.\ag52901.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MAY 14, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the May 14, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, 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
Absent
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the April 23, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Stamson arrived at 7:33 p.m.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #01-012 (Continued) Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
permit accessory structures on Island developments.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated May 14, 2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On February 26,2001, the Planning Commission considered proposed language for an
ordinance amendment. The Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing for
this amendment.
On April 9, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
amendment. The original proposal limited the size of an accessory structure to 300 feet.
The Commission discussed proposed options for the amendment and heard testimony
from a "Twin Isles" property owner. The Commission then directed staff to revise the
draft ordinance amendment with conditions to allow limited accessory structures on
island development.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn051401.doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
The revised language limits the size of an accessory structure to 576 square feet, or the
size of the principal structure on the lot, whichever is less. It also requires a minimum
setback of 100 feet from the ordinary-high-water mark.
Whether or not an accessory structure should be allowed on island lots is a policy issue.
The unique circumstances pertaining to island lots warrant limitations on the number and
size of structures and on the amount of impervious surface. However, the current
ordinance only provides for seasonal cabin structures on the islands and equipment
storage appears to be an issue without an accessory structure. It does not seem
unreasonable to allow limited accessory structures; however the size of these structures
should be determined as a policy issue.
The staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment.
Hydrologist Pat Lynch with the Department of Natural Resources submitted comments
for this report. In essence, the DNR would not oppose adoption of the ordinance
amendment as proposed.
Staff did receive comments from two Twin Island residents regarding no accessory
structures or use permitted on a lot without an established principal use. The second
concern was a requirement that all structures contain an enclosed septic system.
Lemke questioned the principal structure pertaining to the variance applicant. Horsman
explained the accessory structure ordinance.
Criego question if the lots were combined, would they ever be able to separate. Horsman
said not for the purposes of subdividing and building.
Comments from the public:
Dave Wuellner, 16930 W alnut Avenue, also owns a cabin on Twin Island, Lots 6 and 31.
Wuellner had three concerns. The first was the language stating there had to be a
principal structure to be able to add an accessory structure. Wuellner was on the
Planning Commission at the time the Zoning Ordinance was written. He said he didn't
realize the way the ordinance was written that it precluded anyone on the Island from
having any reasonable shed. It was an oversight on the Commissioner's part. It is
important to have an accessory structure but the concern is the excessive square footage.
It is a convenient figure that this square footage was given to accommodate someone who
started to build a garage without a surveyor building permit and got caught. Now there
is an amendment to change the whole ordinance just to accommodate him. It is not the
right thing to do in the planning sense. Wuellner stated he did put up a shed, but stayed
below 120 square feet. This garage would be an enormous structure on an island where
the majority of the houses are not even that big. In fact, it was put on 4 lots that just a
few years ago were clear-cut. There is a tree preservation ordinance. This is the last place
on Prior Lake where there are cabins. The rest of the lake is being redeveloped. This is a
seasonal "up north" area. Hate to see this area damaged. The City should not change
ordinances to accommodate one individual.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\mn051401.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
Criego questioned what size structure would be appropriate. Wuellner said he couldn't
speak for all island property owners. Wuellner questioned what would be allowed on the
mainland. What is the norm for the R1 district? Horsman responded 832 feet maximum
for a detached garage with impervious surface conditions. Wuellner felt the Commission
is accommodating a resident who did not abide by the rules and got caught and now he
wants to go ahead and change the ordinance. Criego questioned what would be a fair
accessory size. Wuellner said he doesn't know the right answer, but did not want to
make the decision for everyone and just because someone did it anyway, the law has to
be changed to accommodate it. It is the wrong way to go. Zoning Ordinances are put
together for the long range. The accessory structures have typically been 10x12 foot
(maximum) storage sheds.
John Meyer, 3313 Twin Island, said a number ofthe older cabins are smaller and the
newer seasonal cabins are larger sized. The pattern of residential homes is the same.
Every generation's home is getting larger. Meyer said there is a need to secure one's
property and stated some people have more toys than others. He felt the proposed
ordinance language is correct. Meyer said he talked to the Twin Island residents and all
agreed there is a need for accessory structures.
The hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· No one is arguing there shouldn't be a storage facility.
· It is not inappropriate to bring up the discussion on the size of the accessory
structure. The proposed square footage is large.
. It should be reasonable.
Stamson:
· Opposed the proposal. It fundamentally changes the density on the Island. The
long-term goal has been to minimize developmentandpreserve the Island.
Larger structures were discouraged so residents were not permanently living out
there.
· Allowing a garage-style structure will increase the development.
· Long term it will attract people to increase their cabin size and use because of
having other types ofthings they can store that were not anticipated or allowed in
the past.
· Part ofthe concern is if a 572-foot garage is allowed, 572 feet plus the
surrounding area and driveway will have to be cleared. That square footage turns
out to be at least 1,000 square feet. Many trees will have to be removed. What
happens when 4 or 5 more structures are constructed? People will be clear-
cutting to accommodate larger structures. A significant amount of trees will be
removed.
· Accessory structures are warranted and should be allowed on a smaller scale.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\rrm05I40 I.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
. Agreed with Criego that a 12 x12 foot structure could be allowed. A larger
structure could be put in with minimum destruction to the landscape and trees.
. This proposal is too much. It is too drastic and will affect the character of the
island based on one application. It is unwarranted.
. Very strongly opposed.
Criego:
. Agreed with Commissioner Stamson, his position has been well thought out.
. Against large structures, clear-cutting the trees.
. Keep this island as natural as possible.
. The residents do need large accessory structures out there.
. More than happy to approve a 12x 12 square foot structure.
. Would be against anything larger.
Lemke:
. Did not feel the 24 x 24 foot size was unreasonable. It is 100 feet away from the
lake setback.
. There is a tree replacement ordinance in place.
. Does not see other structures like this that will be able to fit in. These lots happen
to be large enough to accommodate that size structure.
. The property owner has some right to use his property.
V onhof:
. Believed in the general principal of allowing accessory structures on the island is
necessary .
. Agreed with all of the conditions set forth.
. Did have a question on the size. There were previous discussions about boat
storage.
. In previous discussions before this was drafted, boat storage on the island was
determined to be around 300 to 400 square feet.
. Everything else in the draft is acceptable.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
Stamson:
. Disagreed in previous discussions with boat storage. That is why the requirement
of a principal structure had to accommodate it. Most of the lots do not
accommodate a boat getting to them. Especially on certain steep lots. The road
would have to be utilized and that is not maintained. Large-scale items should not
be stored on the Island.
. Storage of boats should be off-site. We are pushing that way with storage off the
Island. The ordinance does not allow boats to sit in the driveway. It has to be put
in the back or side yards.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\mn051401.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
· It is inappropriate to have a structure that size. The storage should be big enough
to accommodate what is on an island during the summer, water skies, and mowers
and that type of thing.
Criego:
· Agreed with Commissioner Stamson. The purpose of the accessory structure was
waylaid. When the issue was brought up, I felt there was a need for accessory
structures. The question is size. Never visualized it to be 576 square feet.
. I was thinking a 12 x 12 structure was appropriate.
· 500 feet or half the size of the cabin is just asking for trouble.
· Agreed there would be a problem with the trees coming down. You can talk
about tree preservation, but for a tree to grow it would take 20 years. Do we want
the Island to look considerably different?
. The residents need accessory structures but nothing of that size. 120 square feet
is good.
Lemke:
. At the last meeting, the Commissioners settled on 300 feet.
. Explained the outside dimensions of the buildings.
Atwood:
. In looking over the Minutes, 300 feet was settled on.
. 576 feet square feet is too large.
Lemke:
. If the DNR, who is as protective of the lake as anyone did not oppose this. Some
weight should be given to that.
Stamson:
. In the past, the Commission has been more restrictive with the island than the
DNR. The Commissioners have always been more restrictive with the Shoreland
area as well.
· If 20 people came forward clamoring for a change it would be different. But to
make a significant change than what has been done in the last 50 years based on
one single application seems imprudent.
· Agreed with having accessory structures but the size should be much smaller.
. Agreed with Wuellner, 576 square feet has a major impact on the island.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE SECTION 1104.309 OF THE CITY OF PRIOR
LAKE CODE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH THE CHANGE IN THE THIRD
ITEM THAT THE STRUCTURE SHOULD NOT BE LARGER THAN 168 SQUARE
FEET.
Vonhoffelt 160 square feet was too small, 300 feet would be better.
L:\Olfiles\Ol plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn051401.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14. 2001
Atwood agreed with 300 square feet.
Lemke said you might as well go with 320 square feet and keep it at building sheet size at
16 x 20.
Atwood felt 240 square feet would be a compromise.
Vonhofsaid the concern is the bulk of the structure.
Criego said he was okay with 240 square feet.
MOTION BY ST AMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO AMEND THE SQUARE
FOOTAGE TO 240 FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case Files #01-026 & 01-027 Consider an application for a Preliminary Plat
to be known as Park Nicollet Addition and a Senior Care Overlay District for a
development to be known as Crystal Care.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 14,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Crystal Care, LLC and Park Nicollet Health Systems have filed an application to develop
the property located south ofTH 13, west of Franklin Trail, and directly south of the Park
Nicollet clinic. The request includes the following:
. Approve a Preliminary Plat for 11.60 acres;
. Approve a Senior Care Overlay District for the development of a 60-unit assisted
living facility.
The proposal calls for the subdivision of the existing 11.60 acre parcel into 4 lots. Lot 1,
Block 1, is the existing site of the Park Nicollet clinic. Lot 2, Block 2, is the proposed
site of the assisted living facility.. The remaining lots will develop at a future date.
Crystal Care, LLC, is the developer of the assisted living facility project. Park Nicollet
Health Systems, the current property owner, will develop the remaining commercial lots.
The staff recommended approval of the proposed preliminary plat and Senior Care
Overlay District subject to the following conditions:
Preliminary Plat:
1. The developer must obtain a Watershed District permit prior to any work on the site.
2. The developer must address the following Engineering Department comments:
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn051401.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
a. Provide the stage-storage-discharge tables and routing calculations through the
infiltration basins. The data will be used for design of the storm sewer and
regional pond.
b. All grading for the infiltration basin is to be accomplished on the site. The plan
shows grading on adjacent Lot 1.
c. Add a hydrant at the end of the 8" main per the Public Works Design Manual.
d. Address the reconstruction ofthe existing section of the ring road. This portion of
the road must be completed with an overlay after it is widened.
e. If the typical section shown on sheet 1 of the plans is for the parking lot area, it
does not meet minimum pavement sections requirements outlined in the Public
Works Design Manual.
3. Provide an estimate ofthe traffic generated by the existing clinic and an estimate of
the traffic that will be generated by the assisted living facility with the final plat
application.
4. The developer must address the issue of the existing sign at Franklin Trail. This sign
must either be removed or relocated and the developer must enter into a "Private Use
of Public Property Agreement" with the City prior to approval of the final plat.
Senior Care Overlay District:
1. A registered landscape architect must sign the landscape plan.
2. The developer must submit an irrigation plan for the site.
3. The developer must submit restrictive covenants for this use for review and approval
by the City Attorney.
4. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council.
5. Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final
plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the final
approval information. One set will be maintained as the official Senior Care Overlay
District record. The second set will be returned to the developer for their files.
Comments from the public:
Larry Johnson, President of Crystal Care, handed out a packet which included the
description of Crystal Care, their Mission Statement and resumes of the individuals
included in the project. Johnson went on to explain the Memory Loss and Assisted
Living facilities for seniors. Crystal Care is also looking at sites in Minnesota, Iowa and
Wisconsin. One important point is the Crystal Care facility will compliment the locally
proposed senior facilities in Prior Lake.
Bob Davis, Architect with Design One, 9973 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, presented
the design of the facility. All the standards have been met. The roof overhang will be 3
feet because it is a three-story building. Davis also presented the exterior materials of
stone and siding.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancornm\O 1 pcminutes\mn05I40 I.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
Mike Lewis, Crystal Care, 5200 Willson Road, presented the traffic study and stated they
will have further discussions with staff. Crystal Care will be drafting the covenants and
are planning on installing an irrigation system.
Andrea Shuck, 16766 Brunswick, representing 16 owners of the adjoining property
Colonial Estates, stated they are happy with the senior care facility coming into the area
and are not opposed to the project, but are concerned with the size and lighting.
Questioned if an EA W was done on this property? Kansier explained it was not required
because the site is too small. Kansier pointed out the overhead represents the exterior
lighting. Shuck said she enjoys living in Prior Lake and does not like to see the
environment breaking down.
The floor was closed at 7:46 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. It is nice to see the only major requirement from staff is the signage. The project
meets nearly every requirement and design issue by the City.
. The project will blend in well with the other senior housing projects.
. It will be great for Prior Lake. It is a welcome addition.
. The site and layout is appropriate.
. Agreed with the neighbor's comments that this was a large building. But the
structure size is misrepresented on the overhead. It is a residential structure and
the materials they are using will blend in well.
. Supported staffs comments and would like to move forward.
Criego:
. How many staffwill be working at any given time? Terry Pratt, Director of
Operations for Crystal Care, said that any given time (24 hours a day, Monday
through Friday) there would be approximately 22 staff members. The shifts will
be staggered, not only to accommodate the amount of traffic but also for
efficiency in staffing patterns. There will be 12 to 15 staff members on the
weekends.
. Out of the 40 parking spaces, 15 will be used for staff. Will the remaining
parking be adequate for the facility? Pratt responded it would be appropriate.
Most visitors will come in the evening. Weekends will be busier, but there will
be less staff.
. What about sidewalks or walkways? How are they going to get to other areas in
Prior Lake? Pratt said they will have a transportation van. At this time it has not
been determined ifit will be a 12 or 15 passenger vehicle. There will be
pathways around the Memory Care area.
. Mike Lewis responded they would be in favor of sidewalks along the ring road.
They are just waiting to find out how it will work with the City. Kansier said the
L\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn051401.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
right-of-way will accommodate one, probably two sidewalks. Lewis said they did
not want an isolated sidewalk. It should be part ofthe master plan.
· Questioned the lighting issue brought up by the neighbor. Kansier responded the
light standard proposed would not flood anyone's yard. There is also additional
landscaping to soften the area.
· In favor of the development. Prior Lake needs a facility like this.
Lemke:
· It was a great presentation by the developer.
· All requirements have been met.
Atwood:
· Agreed it looks super. Crystal Care will act as a catalyst for the ring road.
· Not opposed to the eave encroachment.
· The parking seems generous.
· How big are the patios? Davis replied they would be 30x30 feet and 30x60 feet.
· As a gesture of good will, could the landscaping be looked at closely to have
some measure to dissipate the lighting?
· Rye said the light distribution patterns could be moved and faced towards the
building. It would reduce the lighting impact.
· Landscape will also help.
· Agreed with Criego on the sidewalks.
· What is the status of Franklin Trail being turned over to the City? Kansier said it
has been turned over the City but the County will maintain it for another year.
V onhof:
· Questioned the sprinkler system and fire doors. Davis responded they were
included.
· Questioned ifthere were any other construction techniques different than
apartments? Davis said the building will follow under the same codes as
apartment buildings. There are no firewalls.
· Confused by the sidewalks not designated on the ring road. City Engineer
McDermott said she believed they are proposed on both sides. It is considered a
collector street and sidewalks are standard. She went on to explain the ring road
should be constructed all the way to Duluth Avenue by 2002. There are still
discussions with the developer.
· It is an excellent proj ect.
Larry Johnson said the neighbor's comments were helpful and will report back on the
lighting and landscaping.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS PARK
NICOLLET ADDITION WITH THE ADDED CRITERIA THAT SIDEWALKS ARE
INCLUDED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn051401.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE A SENIOR CARE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR AN ASSISTED
LIVING FACILITY TO BE KNOWN AS CRYSTAL CARE WITH THE
CONDITIONS AS STATED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before City Council on June 4,2001.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case File #01-031 Consider the vacation ofthe drainage and utility easement
platted on Outlot V, The Wilds.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 14,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Outlot V of The Wilds was originally platted in 1993. A drainage and utility easement,
30' to 70' wide, was platted through the outlot to accommodate the sanitary sewer line.
Shamrock Development is in the process of replatting this outlot as The Woods at the
Wilds. The existing easement will encroach into the buildable area of some of the new
lots.
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is satisfied by the dedication of necessary
easements with the new subdivision plat. The Planning staff recommended approval of
this request, subject to the condition that the resolution vacating this easement is not
recorded until the final plat is approved.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. This is fine, subject to the Final Plat.
Lemke, Atwood, Stamson and V onhof:
. Agreed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION OF THE EASEMENT AS REQUESTED,
SUBJECT TO THE FINAL PLAT.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn05140 I.doc 1 0
..
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2001
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #01-032 Consider the vacation ofthe platted alley and drainage
and utility easement in Block 9, Prior Lake Original Plat.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 14,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
R & K Sales, Inc. has filed a petition to vacate the platted alley and a 20' wide drainage
and utility easement on the property located on the north side of Dakota Avenue, the west
side of Main Avenue and south of Lakefront Park. The applicant is proposing to develop
this property. The proposed building would encroach onto the platted alley and the
easement. The applicant has also filed an application to combine all of the lots as a part
of this development plan.
If the lots are combined and redeveloped, there is no need for the existing easement and
the alley. Staff recommended approval of this request subject to the condition the
resolution vacating this easement would not be recorded until the combination of the lots
is approved and recorded, and a development plan for this site is approved.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Questioned the telephone company's easement. Kansier explained the agreement.
Criego:
· How does this get approved without the telephone company's agreement?
Kansier explained that a signed agreement will be subject to the City's approval
before recorded.
Randy Simpson, President ofR&K Sales, developer of Lakefront Plaza, was present for
any questions.
Lemke:
· Comfortable with recommending approval for the vacation based on the
conditions and agreement with the telephone company. It should not have to
come before the Commission again.
Atwood:
· Agreed.
Stamson:
· No problem with the vacation. It is a better use of the property. It is in the City's
interest. Feel odd approving without the telephone issue being resolved.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn05140 I.doc 11
.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14. 2001
Criego:
. No problem as long as the telephone agreement is mentioned as a condition.
V onhof:
. Agreed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ST AMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION OF EASEMENT SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS: 1) THE VACATION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL THE
COMBINATION OF THE LOTS IS APPROVED AND RECORDED; AND 2) THE
APPROVAL OF THE TELEPHONE COMPANY TO REMOVE THE LINE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
The Tuesday, May 29 meeting will proceed as scheduled.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
Donald Rye
Planning Director
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn051401.doc
12
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
MAY 29, 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 building permit. The deck is attached to an existing single family
dwelling that was constructed in 1995 after approval of setback variances to the
front yard and 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, On April 20, 2001, the applicant/owner
again requested the public hearing be rescheduled at the end of May due to
business commitments.
The applicant requests the following variances:
1) A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coveraQe 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];
L:\01 files\01 variances\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
...
.
2) A 71 foot variance to allow a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinary hiQh
water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the required setback of
75 feet rOrdinance Section 1104.302 (4) Setback Requirements].
DISCUSSION:
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 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: A 63 foot setback variance to the OHWM (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
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 2
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 has submitted comments for this report. In
essence, engineering recommends denial of the variance requests because
approval would encourage the following: 1) Promote "lake creep", the
encroachment of buildings and impervious areas toward the lakeshore; 2)
Increase impervious area adjacent to the lake, thus reducing the infiltration/buffer.
strip, which help in removing pollutants before they reach the lake; 3) Increase
the potential for shoreline erosion with additional upland runoff; 4) Go against the
Land Use Practices and the Comprehensive Lake Management Plan, which is
to, minimize the transport of nutrients, sediment and runoff from city streets and
lands which impact the Prior Lake watershed.
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.
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.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 3
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.
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.
L:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-017\VarRpt. DOC
Page 4
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 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\O 1 variances\01-017\ VarRpt. DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION Ol-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 and paved parking
and patio area 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 May 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 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
1:\01 files\O I variances\O 1-0 I 7\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
has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists without the
requested variances.
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 May 29,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\0 I files\O 1 variances\O 1-017\dnyres.doc
2
\
\.
ATTACHMENT 1
c.Olltlt.ll
1'1'11 ot \0
of I.
"{ \0
Of \..0
ut'~--/f
.7
'.
\
~
\'
w
::>
z
w
.>
<t
..._-\
~ ..
t-
.l!
-~
.
\
~
z.
~
r
ul
~
~
~
\
:(
I
I
\
\-
::>
"~:
. '! ~-:~"~:.
"<(
U
9"'"
... .
. . ~.
, '.
C /,',\\ N
.... . i,
~.~
;. .
\
i
\
ATTACHM.E'NT',2
" ." ""."
.' ..,..'.crrY".oF~RI()R:tA1<E' '.., '
'. ".' ;:Jmp~r"i()4s:.,StlrfaceCa1cul,a,tions '. . .
. ',,'~:::>:;:"':(Tci be)libmJttedwith Building Pennit .A.p'plication): " .
',:F,cir'j\II.:Prbpe#les:~od.ted'lnfhe',ShorelandDistrict (SD);::, .
,', !pe"0aXlml,1nl)mperviou$ Surface' .C?yerag~ Permitted 'in 30 Percent...
.....
",."
...... .
\.: .
..:....,.
;:"';::;~.rop~;1~.:~'ddr..~I.s.,Q ;
".'.
. :1~'"
"'\L~:"3':"'"
'-yO.,
,.,..,........
&\~~--r:.:..~\-,~h~:'..
"."
..~.~
.:., .
. '~otAr~~:C ~i t.~< ..:< .,. ........ .. .:... .. Sq. F ~.etil3 0'10=;..;, ;.;......" ...-z.. ~o:i ... .... ....
'..:* ** ** ***~ :fl~:,*,~ "'*~ *.'l4,\, >I<:**~, 'l4*:~ .>it* If< **'l<* * *'l4t* * ~ * ** * '!'** * ** * ** *~ ** *.* * ** ** ** ljc,~* * * If!
r"': .," ,"
"!YIJ?~I-~ ::
.x. ,'"'Z...b ;,
x' ,,'1j~:
"in;.
,::....; .
'. .
; .i: ',,' ,
',.' ~
',. ";'\.=
..:' ,
" ...
=
. .... ~ - '.'
", .
" ",
i'"
"
'x' .:'
. .TQTA~/~R1NGIPLE BT~ U CT~;...;;......;;~;;,..;. '
" '. ',.",. ," .".. . '.' " . ::: ,. .'
. .
. .
".:. .
... . ~
......;..:...
..:, ..~. ='.
, .
':}':1 Q1\~LP.~ YEri ARE;AS .;.~..~~:.~.: !,,,:, .~.. ..... ...~. ...... ;;..
. ....
.' "J.
-z.:.-z:."iC>
. . .
.......
" -
:..:
..'.':x" -
'. ,
,', .'
'.
..
t '.:.1.'
.. ..::<.... ".".~ ......::-:',.. ~.::'..:'.\:~..~.: .:..:...... .'; ",". ..~...t.', ......: . .:
T.OT~AL'..DE C](S....~..,' "t::'.'~ ~.~ ,.".;.. ~,,"'.~"'t:'. ..,.~~~.~..~.~..~.. .'~ ..'~.~...~';
'. . . .. . ~'. . ~ . ", .
.'.':.
.. ""
::':, ""TOTA'L'.1MP~RVIOJS"SU'RFACE':"" ,..'
...'>~~~f'tD~~q~..'> .'"
, .\1r.\\ ~ ~'S\\)~\) E- 1t';JG-&;0i@d\.
"..'
't~.jqii,:;:'.:': '1'"
I- '.' :2.,\\5'.., ;j..
.': .'
'.:/ " '. ',',
~;~ :
:':.
.j'
.Phone # 1.:\1..\1- ~'Sl.o
, .' " ~
.':
. ~ " '.
~
T.... ('''ftln of Iht' I...., Co...,,,,
ATTACHMENT 3
White . Bl!lIdlny
Canary . Engineering
Pink . Planning
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST
r( . r/ ~
NAIvIE OF APPLICANT ~ 'IN,... __ , it (' i ,. -=. / .
APPLICATION RECElVED /,hllf5
The Building, Engineering, and PIC\nning Departments have reviewed the bUilding permit
application for construction activity which is proposed at:
l3J'TtJ 7 ~
Accepted
Accepted With Corrections
Denied ~
4' Reviewed By:. \
Q
Comments: J-. f 'I <"'/.:....::.-<.
I~/-~,
t..., ,,~~_
-/-
~
Date: 2. I .::s. - <J ~
P It........~ <22---':>10:::. ,::>,.
<:"'> ~-::> cJ <- (.:;:., y-\. k '/
f
..:J
1.2 ...:\
~
C-,. "'-,.(:) I ~ I~' r+.:;...
,~~,
~~ c:\..:c...'~+-c..~
(-P?^v"d~ -S.-....>(2~?c..~
\------ ';2EG-, .~..
-,.~ ..~ ~
1: - ~~~;l,'~"f- \
. [<....-,.,'-..J<^- c-Y_ -h ""'~
~ J.;- 1-, R....,.~}.....'- \..
t..:= .~
~
fZE"G)0Ir~~
~_ LIL~;r ( .
c.../'l~' Y"~ I......... /l/'A"
I ~ .~ '
cL_,L.J~'"",*, ~....,......)
, <......::.
0V' t.cY- (/~<. ~
"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."
.
.
.~
It
l
.~.
ij
1,
1\
I
l
f.
~ ,~
r~
J:'
1
.~~
tJiLL J./.<J9!J -~jL ~h~
~v.;Ld,,,, ~L.t--
'~j-,
lh, (""Ifr or Ihf' tall, CO....,t)'
White . Building
Canary . Engineering
Pink - Planning
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DEPARtMENT CHECKLISI
NAME OF APPLICANT ".
........
APPLICATION RECEIVED ! / / //.-
~J/(.----AJf17 )-1, /1J"
The .Building, Engineering, and Planning Departments have reviewed the building permit
application for construction activity which is proposed at:
,
I., .' _ ,
i---
'C
Accepted
-....
. U(Ue~, I I
/ Q) rJif 6 llf- G .q~J1(,lcV
V ,J eJpb . ,1ft"!'> ~ .~,
L \^^ (&..1.1\';) ILl' ....
\ \/1""\ hll\V'l V;'-UJ'
V" rO I JLA;I . \ u/'"
V-'" \ '" /)'
Date: j, 1- 9'j-
Accepted With Corrections
~
Reviewed By: 'tJ!:f
Comments: () (!//~,e.. (4 ,1./?~'l/~L/J
. , Y 0 .
/i1/Ji(Cff1;'7Cj ~ 'Utu: f.<? . fl atJi '-i F~rtjt },''-'<:I :- -;11'-1-
POI! If -II-,/j i 1(7l/v lub: j;~;Wt'2 M';(krC//r;t'<",
-St~Vt<<:. :t - C, a (", (if( / vciY<>:J " fit,;; 5~ kG' -/ Mdvd/4/(,-
/'yn l fa'- \) "-Mf- r /a:)~ c:-hL/{'{::I1?tl Ct-:J t-V.t.~)
~ J:J/t.{jPu~<J /41s/0L qlc-(cC.t ?0~~:hC-1f.-J-
ad >>U(;;, k 01 fO J:~f cr/l dl-o~02.
Denied
1- OI!i::JIJL 3 (cd; , i<1.MfM.ef) -h, ~~ 9:)1" ~ 0 ~Jr,(u IJ-h ~ .
m QINPJhl1\- - 5.,-If'fJCIJ o-t.. (,(.1 FJel ua/!)jU1~
LL vii - ll" - 6'5 - (, y I aluhore. ~. '6 I Fifrrd:~u~ I) UftQ 1/t11U ,
"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 cancsl the provisions of this code or other
ordinances of the jurisJiction shall not be valid." -I, ' 114 ( .
* f(l{ur: ((1'VL,'l?l D (( l1e.L()[y {)/j Off1 cd1 t1^'J (!,J..,YU Uj ex . 61.-.
I'
il
;~
,
,
I'
tt
f
,
~
*
0:/13/1995 11::6
51:938155::
JUSTUS
February 13, 1995
City of Prior Lake
Building !n6pec~or
Go.ry Stabler
DeaI' Gary,
Kurt Hazekamp brought to my attention:
the 30% impervious surface requirement
entry roof. We will delete this piece
floor l~vel is approximately 36" above
a 6tair & platform to the front door.
drawing is required, please call me at
Sincerely,
~
Ron Buchano.n
'_;"
PAGE 01
the building exceeds
because of the front
of roof. The first
grade which requires
If an addendum
938-2741.
;~
f;c
~. ~
.
1,
~
I
. ~
.
~
u
Ii
.~
ADVISORY COMMISSION
_'_~__'_'_~"_M_'__~"~_""______,__,~~~_,,,,,,___,.,
of. Appl i cant or
Address of Applicant
Street and Number of
Legal Descripti on
FOR \',,\RIANCE FROM l11E PqUIH[I,IF:NTS OF mE ZONING orWINMlCE
. ,'-' '") .
Agent ..._qL:-:~'. -jJ:[...r...c.:.:..L:::!lL7-________"honeJ::/.6.:"~2=:::_.~.L~il_..__
L-'L.~~_Y...('_..!_S.L~_.L?t: ..LJL~~....S~~~._______.. _____.________
Affected Premises
i . '. c., . ::; --;.--.-.---. ~;~- -- . ---- - - ..C ~---- --- "-'--'------
J....,~ f 7 -I- ) d I 7' ~[___~ . M_Li~_ G, r'{LI:L~~.:._L_______
Tmprovement s t'>;ow E xi. s t i ng i~:.-,,-C,-.".~,-._..i.L._(kL.,dL"_:iL_-,"':.~_2:.5.~_
cnt Zoning Classification________ ___
D " f h \' . . . d ':J-! ./ I J I ;'
escrlptlon 0 t e 3lTl<mce Apphe For A:c.;'....> (~L-'..'-I;r'.P_~_.1!...!::..~,Yl ">ifr'f'i"-
,. I t 1
.;1 .. ...i,.,~_..{.tL__.__..._ --.......-___.....__.._._____h...___
of Reasons h'hy Variar'l'ce is Being Applied For L1::Lr-&.l''''::' h:)cll3~-{~lLk.{t<7I...s.
I ! I" ~
~~~-E_. ___i'l.._t..~:('JN:t~C'~___J...Y.!_ L.i."'~':..)!::!::.':__L!:___L"'-b_;,_J:;L Ih ~~_J..r';w>(. /.." v &- ,,-~
Ten i!;;'~~~k~O~~~ ;~~ ~~~~,! ;;,:!~:~-{r:;.~~~ 0 ~~1~ ::::; ~ g".:';' ;'::;O'~d ."" p, fif
structures must be filed with this application.
ete The Following:
Li,tc~al. enforcement of the Ordinnnpc would resu1 t in undue hardship with
m) plopcrty. Nof rJ~., s-;;, b 1.(
-- ._..._-_._~~_.,._----~--._---- --.--.-- -- -----.--------------------...---...------.
Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to my property.
----.-.-.-.-----.---.-- -_. -~-_.- -"---
The hardship is caused by provisions of the ordinance and is not the resu1 t of
actions ,of persons presently having an interest in my parcel.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and produces
substantial justice, and is not contrary to the public interest.
permittl~d if all four requirements. are met.Q, c.C-' /J ."
i~ 78 Slgnature,//...........iv:Y'''-, ___ IJ ,.v7:.'p'~~
is to certify hat $ ,;Jrj. D ,) was received this /:..: da< of /N(i~12 __~9~?J
a Variance Application Fee. R '.d B //'jJ 11../ /:./..-::r;;: (iJ-
ccelve y__--LLl ,/;./.~...f-r!U(..t'_,-','../
-- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - -- - -- - - - - - _ _ _ "2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
TI-lIS SPACE TO BJ: FILLED IN BY PLANNING COI.fMISSION
"\ /
X
/~ \
for Variance Granted
Denied
Remarks:
~.
"
~
)'"
........ .
.~
~.
~
...
.........
....
~
<
......
'"
.
LA~
.IX
'(
J..
\J:
.J
~j
~
~
, b
.~
I
I. I
o"dt..( /,t>J.t lit/I t . OPt ItA)'
70 6~ r(w.~vtJ I
~j f/'v~{'''~ I J 9"5. 3
Nt.... 81f fl", f07.S
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
I ~ \
~::I' \ , ,.~/I
. .. r" 1a/~ I'" --- .
I' (
, .
'l--'\ '
I .
_. -a
\
I" /,- I
-= .:J
:~ .. - -....-
,
'f'-
\
\
\
.'- >\
I ' I
.- - ~,--. -- -..:
I .....:-- \
1 s::: ;: I
I '. '~,
I ~:. rl I
'1\ .~
-" ...
.:~ I.:"
I. I
.......... I ~'...!)
J
t
I
I
. .
I I
I __ _ _ _
J ....
~
ra .....
~
"
r--.
I
}
~
~ 0\ - .- -,-. ,. - i
~I :
:: '<'I
:"iX I
J. "'I
. I
'j
~.
~ "2.
....
......
f--.. ::i
V') -.:
!..u
:-:;: 3
:::. ' C:'. -
.. 1 LL.~ ,
~ " ...,. i
..... . I
'1
""ti - - - - - - _I
tl '-~
~ n
~J(
ct.cO
fW)
~
'?
"
~.. Lei 'I
--'.. "____ 1,/ (}
" " - '..
~o+- B
'I~
.:;;-. - -
-
-, -. :;
Pr/a r
'- _Jr.
cc:
l
, .--
'... .-- ~. - (~:'-)
Iy
eJ
~::
.. 0
- -
.......
'" -....
~ :
~ CQ .
Ir
>.
r-'
{.'" "}. ~ \ '-
I 'C 1..' -
"/
,,'j
',t No
t
It
l'
~
"'r.
,
lc
I
it
~
:,
',j~:
l!iI
~\
i /
!~
l
,t
Ii
h
1"
:i
r:'
'1"
. --':
"
,'\I
.
.'
CITY OF
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA
55372
~.,~ --
"'_ L.-.".'.................'......~_~L'
",; <':_:_:>.~;D::f:.~:(-.:,..-." '.
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING ADVISORY CO~t\lISSION
April 6, 1978
TIlC" meeting of the April 6, 1978 Prior Lake Pl:Jnning Commis~;ion was
called to order by Chninnan Thorkelson at 7:30 PM. l>lembers present
were Commissioners Cavill, Speiker, Johnson, Counci]manBusse 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.
Mr. 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 ]0:30 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 Schroed€:r 24 acre farm. 1>1r.
Graser gave a presentation siting low areas, grade problems and access to
Eagle Creek Avenue. Mr. Schwartz stated that he was in agreement with }'-Ir.
Graser's proposal as to the drive~ays not fronting on Eagle Cteek Avenue
(County Road 21). questions were raised on the interceptor easements, lak.::
access, soil compaction from the interceptor and total number of lots.
overall vie~ of the Planning Commission was that the plan looked feasible
and 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.
. A63 foot lake shore 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
and 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 ga:.e a brief description of the
request a .'. Mr. Langevin then stated that ht ]1a5 an air conditioning un:i t
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 tl:,:: Chairman with 16 si gnatures of the n~ighbor's in
. opposition to the home occupationpermi t. Cavill motioned to c;eny the
home permit because of oppositivn of the neighbors and the
is not in compliance with the ordinance. Motion was seconded
and carried.
~r ", H
r;P 908.91
o
',fjOIJ .15
,'. r
, C,s..
i ,-
-u
;;:
:1
a..
e
..\ .',. i "','i>
'1'r. t~:.
\.' "'S(
0'''09..' ,,!
.~ )~),
"\d
. ,.:',,'..:"
"':),., ,'.:.;,;
~"''';'':r''':':(;'
..... ". :~~
,,'Qa"c,!,.: ,
" '.....:.... .:;," :;~, .t
- --'.\~". r' " ,';:, '7;,'.<~.-f:'.;.;, --"",.~",
:ii~'~ct:~=~{/:~~~~,~:";<t{ .
'~'-. '"""~:~ .
....e. ...,.."....;.".....'...,
';. "- "r" ',"-," ,-, '
,-.'....! '';'
.:).:~.
\r.......~........~
,,t
.-.~,
, ^<[
r: <0
r '
\
9\1.19
1.
~
I'I
"
ATTACHMENT 5
...
colt or of 101 I~._
." 101'11 ,0 North II.ne ..._\
\ l-OT ( .'
r'"
'\
i
"i
'\'
t<' fl.p.\.-I-
'\' \ f .JJ
S€. f 0
f..~
It
l~
"1
, ~ ]1<.;
. .,....
').
-
l 10'
...-. .,..
-tI)
.. N;,
I~
i',.
~. ~
~,
... .
~.
o
U"
~ ::
0'0
.... -
\:) en
u It)
g .
it
pR\ {'
\l
~
I"
t
'~,\^.( 'I
. '.co"';;'
, .\~
it
'1
1',...G
..."t I 5
50 st:
~o\J l'
,.t..1.:;".16
E,\.
,
.\
~\ \
.~ "':' ~- ~
'>. ~.
<\
\&J
\
~~
~.
... 915. ~.-'\
\. ..-' -..- ~
-.------.
t\4
\{)
U)
'-
o
~
-
"
..J
..tjQ,g,'
61 t - - - I
.. "w I
... - - , 5;9" 26' 10 9.--J
SW cor. 0 . . 0 fro'
lot p 5'Iy "ne
-\ B
01' lot
"'--~Il)' /Int
Of REG
; ~
,
,/'
/
tl
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4B
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO A PORCH STRUCTURE
SETBACK FROM TOP OF BLUFF, AND TO THE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK, FOR GARY
THOMAS, Case File #01-029
5580 FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_X_ YES NO
MAY 29, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from property owner
Gary Thomas for the construction of a porch addition in the place of an existing
deck attached to an existing single family dwelling on the property located at
5580 Fairlawn Shores Trail (Attachment 1 Survey). The principal structure is
legal nonconforming dwelling because it was originally built in the bluff impact
zone before bluff setbacks were established. The applicant has requested the
following variances:
1) A 2.5 foot variance to permit a porch structure setback of 54 feet
to the ordinary hiqh water mark (904') rather than the required
56.5 foot setback as determined by setback averaqinq (Ordinance
Section 1104.308: (2) Setback Requirements For Residential
Structures).
2) A 43 foot variance to permit a porch structure encroachment into
the bluff impact zone rather than the required 25 foot setback from
the top of bluff (Ordinance Section 1104.304: Bluff Setbacks).
DISCUSSION:
The subject property is located within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the
Shoreland Districts (SO). The lot is riparian with a top of bluff determination at
the 929 foot elevation contour that runs through the existing principal structure.
The lots dimensions are 87.95 feet by 165.5 feet by 112.04 (100.04+12) feet by
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
181.49 (89.31 +92.18) for a total lot area of 15,679 square feet to the 904 foot
ordinary high water elevation.
According to city records the existing house was constructed in 1962, and prior
to adoption of the bluff setback ordinance in 1995. A room addition was
constructed in 1979, but the only city record for this addition is a copy of the
application. In 1991 building permit #91-211 was approved for the replacement
of an existing deck 12 feet x 28 feet.
As determined on the survey, the top of bluff is the 929 foot elevation contour
and it runs diagonally through the existing principal structure. The required
structure setback from the top of bluff is 25 feet. As the existing deck structure is
already located approximately 18 feet beyond the top of bluff line, the bluff
setback variance required is 43 feet (25'+ 18').
The owner is proposing to add a 12 ft. x 15 ft. roofed screen porch addition over
one end of the existing 12 ft. x 28 ft. deck. The porch plans have been revised
so the roof will not overhang the exterior end wall of the porch and will not
encroach closer to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) than the existing deck
(Attachment 2 Porch Plans). The current deck setback to the 904' OHWM is
54 feet.
The new porch addition does not encroach deeper into the bluff impact zone or
any closer to the OHWM than the existing deck. However, the conversion of the
deck area to a porch addition is a clear intensification of the nonconforming
structure and is not permitted by city ordinance [Section 1107.2303: Special
Requirements: (2) Nonconforming Structures]. .
The second variance request is for 2.5 feet to allow the new porch addition to be
setback 54 feet rather than 56.5 feet as determined by setback averaging. The
existing structure on the adjoining Lot 21 is setback is 63 feet, and on Lot 24 the
structure setback is 50 feet, for an average of 56.5 feet (Ord. Section 1104.308:
(2) Setback Requirements For Residential Structures).
The proposed plans include a total impervious surface area of 3,922 square feet
for a 25% hard surface coverage area, and is within the acceptable 30% allowed
by Ordinance 1104.306 (Attachment 3 Impervious Surface Calculations).
The applicant's representative, Jim Albers, submitted a letter and site plan with
the variance application (Attachment 4 Applicant Letter & Site Plan). The
letter raises some issues with staffs application of the zoning ordinance on this
site. In particular, the applicant states the rise in elevation of 20.9 feet at the rear
of the house were the porch is proposed does not meet the minimum rise of 25
feet in elevation and therefore is not defined as a bluff. However, a bluff does
exist on the sides of the subject lot and therefore any additions or alterations to
L:\O 1 files\O 1 variances\O 1-029\Thomas.doc
Page 2
the nonconforming structure requires compliance with the current ordinance
conditions or approval of the requested variances by the board of adjustment.
Item #3 of the applicant's letter refers to "intensification of a nonconformity" of
approximately 15 sq. ft. or 6.7% for the 180 sq. ft. screen porch. However,
accordinq to city code the entire 180 sq. ft. porch addition is considered to be an
intensification and expansion of the nonconforminq structure, over and above the
existinq deck, with additional footinqs, posts and beams below. In addition, a 2.5
foot encroachment of the required 56.5 foot setback is proposed (Ord. Sec.
1107.2303 (2) Nonconforminq Structures: a. Permitted Construction).
Staff has determined a bluff is apparent in the side yards of the lot on both sides
of the existing structure when the bluff criteria are applied. Along the east lot line
the distance from the 904 ft. OHWM to the 929 ft. elevation contour is 52 feet
with a rise of 25 feet for a slope of 48%, and along the west lot line is adistance
of 81 feet with a rise of 25 feet. It appears the center portion of the lot and bluff
was excavated when the original home was built to accommodate a lower level
walkout elevation of 924.66 feet.
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 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 has submitted comments on this request.
In essence, the DNR is not opposed to the proposed porch addition provided the
slope is determined to be stable and can withstand the footings. The DNR would
like to see the existing concrete slab removed from below the 904' elevation as a
condition of the Variance. If approved, good erosion control measures will need
to be implemented and maintained throughout construction.
Finally, an engineers report will be required prior to issuance of a building permit
(Ord. Section 1104.305: Engineers Report Required). The report shall address
the impact any excavation, fill or placement of structures will have on the site.
The report shall also include recommendations so the site development will not
interfere with adequate drainage for the site or adjacent properties. In addition,
the owner shall provide certification from a professional engineer that the final
grading of the site was completed in compliance with an approved grading plan,
and that all conditions of the engineers report have been adhered to (code reads
in part).
L:\01 files\01 variances\O 1-029\ Thomas.doc
Page 3
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.
By reason of exceptional topography and the existing structures location in a
bluff impact zone an argument for hardship is possible regarding replacement
of an existing porch or deck condition. However, for the conversion of a deck
into a porch addition, an obvious expansion and intensification of the
nonconforming structure is evident. Therefore the variances as requested for
bluff and OHWM setback encroachments for the porch addition does not
meet the hardship standards.
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 bluff is a unique condition of the property and neighborhood, but is not
exclusive to this neighborhood or the subject lot. The OHWM setback is not
peculiar to the subject lot or adjoining property and does apply to other land
and structures in the Shoreland District.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The granting of the bluff and OHWM setback variances can be eliminated by
maintaining the existing conditions of the principal structure and attached
deck rather than adding a porch addition.
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 bluff and OHWM setback variances for the porch should
not impair adequate light and air to adjacent properties nor endanger the
public safety.
L:\01 files\01 variances\O 1-029\ Thomas.doc
Page 4
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 both variances will unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood by further promoting "lake creep" by
permitting additions to existing structures to move closer to bluff zones and
the OHWM.
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 bluff and OHWM setback variances for a new porch
addition is contrary to the intent of the City Ordinance and Comprehensive
Plan because the intent is to eliminate the construction of structures in bluff
zones and to maintain a minimum setback of 75 feet from the OHWM unless
permitted to encroach closer with setback averaging, as in this case up to
56.5 feet.
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 requested setback variances are not necessary as proposed, because
the existing deck structure has less of an impact on the bluff than a porch
addition.
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 requested bluff and OHWM setback encroachment variances are a result
of property owner actions, and could be eliminated by use of the existing
structures.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone are not grounds for the granting of these
requested variances.
RECOMMENDATION:
L:\O 1 files\01 variances\O 1-029\Thomas.doc
Page 5
Staff feels that all hardship criteria have not been met with respect to the
requested variances to bluff and OHWM setbacks for construction of a roofed
porch addition. The staff therefore recommends denial of the requested
variance as proposed on Attachment A Survey.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
denying the variance requests.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-029PC denying the bluff and
OHWM setback variances as proposed by the applicant.
L:\O 1 files\01 variances\01-029\Thomas.doc
Page 6
RESOLUTION Ol-009PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 2.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 54 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 56.5 FEET AS DETERMINED BY
SETBACK AVERAGING; AND A 43 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A PORCH
ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO A BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN
25 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Gary J. Thomas (owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in
order to permit the construction of a porch addition to an existing single family
residence on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and the
SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
5580 Fairlawn Shores Trail, legally described as Lots 22 and 23, Fairlawn
Shores, Scott County, Minnesota. Together with that part of Lot 21, in the plat
ofFairlawn Shores, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows:
(See Attached Legal Description)
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-029PC and held hearings thereon on May 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, umeasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, umeasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-029\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
5. 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
the present structure, as is, without the requested variances for a porch addition.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required bluff and ordinary high water
mark setbacks as reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the
vanances.
7. The granting of the variances, 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.
8. The contents of Planning Case 01-029PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variances for a porch addition to an existing single family dwelling as shown in
attached Exhibit A;
1. A 2.5 foot variance to permit a porch structure setback of 54 feet from the ordinary
high water mark (904'), rather than the required 56.5 feet as determined by setback
averagmg.
2. A 43 foot variance to permit a porch structure encroachment into the bluff impact
zone rather than the required 25 foot setback to the top of bluff.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 29,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\Ol variances\01-029\dnyres.doc
2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
1I~~~~~~" .
..-/" ;:.' .. .~J 'f1'~T1T:~'t~j
~'~.~\ :~:~~tt ::~ ~~ ~; _J'I"~'{'
''8'~.'''~':I.'~ .~.:; i~
,fi!~ l~ ~.. ~i~
rI~ ~~~ ~ !28
.c-e~. -~" (.; \1...... ,... "" 0 .
O.f) :z _ u 0-.
_ <,;- 0 !..... uoo
;;;'<:,i '?i ~ i i j i ~. j
.CO 1;:: .!. ~ ~ ~. ~. ~ .~ ~ ch
Z .~ fl! ~ai ~ !~li !~j~'~:~
'0... .~" o..c.. . .. e" '~. .... .tlO
~ "'!iJoi~!~ IlijJ1
~. !I& i..~ B ::'~ 8 ~ ~S8-S 0 8-
~o ~ U ~,.g ~. ~ .x ~ 4) ~ g ~
'. '-4 ...J r" "Q. loo!ooI ...... __ .c. ;.u ~. co tIS~ ';:
.'~
,.!
.c
. ~,
-
'-
CII-
'"' ""'
-I;
.~ f.t-
:s;~...
~i
je
c(c.
f::O.:..
=.
..-
.....
en
.-
x
Q.#
rA
o
o
c:
'U
Q
~
<<I
e
..Q
)!. .
"t1~
ta
..,.
~x.
N
0'.
. .
v;
uj
r-
,...,
v
Z
N
.....
(J"4
~
I&.
-
k.
~.;
i
ATTACHMENT
1
SURVEY
l\io~
oS' t-",
6''::>0 (/!\-('
'I ~/' 0",
.::>, a "'9', (ot-
a ~ 02/
""
~
\'
~.
f::J
IY/O
IY
~
(41r~
22 tj
23
o
..
r-
" .
L. I
I
!",.
iJ'/,.'.i
/-
(\{<....
)
'J
c. _ ~.r
r'
k
{'OIl' I I
. \.1'"- I .
)-- ----;....r
.
"i...
.'
H('USE
GI\R4Gf
SlllA El
936,2/
~"
';~:"';>:i:.,~~.j~;-:;f~f';':~'!;i~~2:,;~;;; "; ..,. " I~, ,: ~ I'
.:"~.t;1!j.r1.i'fkl'fT . " '"".. ''''l\~'".-"'''-.,'''''' ";)'iif'~"'I",,,.'.t,"_TC.ti
~LA WN . , .:~>I'.":..,~~Ji~ ':;,~:;,,~,t)~t::"'i:_.',,:'('?\;:~~~~;\~Ui~..~rc-l!t.'
.." <~~. :,' .;-,'"~:~(~;"~.t.,~:~", ", ,,'.:/~~~~~~tSii~;~~~~~~i~f:;',~~V:~:"
~....-.,,,,".},~,""l. SH'()'.~ '_"'1lV'\i'~~J...~J,:..t..~~>(.;-,~....:"."';"':--.l:., '_ .f'''''...... . ,.:
_____ '....~., .. t:,-'" > _....':'..,':'-'.....~,4.., ....p.\l..,'J.....II~.. ""_'~
---- .,'" ".. . " RE.... '. "" ;:,..,. .~" . ,.,'"...,
., -~~"~~~~";~~.tl
'-:.
"T
ATTACHMENT 2 PORCH PLANS
I(
27) 01)
old deck to stay
-\NtlI\.~ I: j oi st s ar e 2x 1 0 161) o. c.
wall 2x4 -<:e d~1 wi t h doubl e
2x10 ~~~ headers wi th
4x4 post s 4) o. C.
2) hi gh wall wi t hi) r ail on
top to meet code
roof rafters to be 2x12
241) o. c. wi t h hanger s at ridge
::[!l:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::~: ::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::[!l:::
~
a
N
...-i
I,
I(
7)91)
+
15) 61)
7) 91)
new 421) footings with 201) flares
6x6 treated posts
6/12 pi tch roof
double 121) lam bea
for ridge
...
'"
nj
~
..
~
-~~------------- ::::::::::::::,
----------------
-------------- ------------- ------------- - -------------
~~-~-~-~-~-~--- ------------- ,~~~,~-~-~-~- - -------------
II II tl II 11,1 "II ,I Ii II "
II II II II II II II II II II II II
~TTACHMENT 3 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA
. '.
" .:. ....>...'-:'. .:.'.CITY'OP'PRIQRLA.KE.
. . "','. .imperviou~~utfa'ce.Calculatioris .
'.' '. '.' ,. .' ': ':::"'(1'(,~be' Submi~ed )\;ith Bui~dingPennit Ap'plication) <..' .
,." .. ..,:::;ForAllPrbpertiesLocatedirtthe:Shoreland'District (SD).'
:::.;.::,..' ..:' .",.':The"MiXimu~'~rnp'.ervi~JU~{surf,ice'Cov~ragePe~itted'in 30 Percent. .
::Pr~p~rtYAddr~'s~~"~~eD'...'\fPri~ \~M:.'$hln-S.~~ l....,..
. I."';
..
,'.
. ,\'
. " ':." ," . -.' ,""'
. :i'oCA:reaH':.',~..' .'. \1 . Sq. Fe.er.x.30%.=............... 4Jo~
: .~, * *,** * * '" * *;!c'l<*.*''l' ",'* **>lc~* *** ,j"I';~'" 'fl. *'\<* '" **ljc '" '" **"'*'" '!'* * * *** 'fc '" * * **** '" * * ** ** *** * **
. ..' '.,-'." .. ," . ."... .' . .' . '. .
....... . ". LENGTH.:'. H.. WIDTH: . SQ. FEET'..
.::HOIJSE......,:x.. . .....:=. ...'...;'12;.... .
....~..~. ..~
..x" ..
',:
.". .."", . .
'. {.'f.,. TT ACHEP: G"ARAo'ri .
,....,
...<. x.
,,'
. . .
'. . . .
.;. " .' .~ ..' ;.' ::. . ..' '. .
:p~rAc1f:Ep.f3:~bds:. ..
,.....:-..: . ('d~~iShe.dr... .'. .
. .....,,-. . ,'~ :'. :
;. .
,. .:....>T orAL :PRlN CIP LESTR U CTURE...~...........:~.:...
. .-. ',' '." .' . .
t', .-'."
\ 111,..
..;. .
'. ~. , .
. . . '"., .
. {.o~.
'.'X ."
" ..',.
','. :..: ::. . -.:;;', :....TOTAL.DETACHED BUILDINGS..........'...~.....~~.. .'
.. .:~ -:. '. .,.:. . ~ . ..:.. . ......:... ~.' ~ . . '.' ,-. '. . .' .... .. '.
...- .
. ..(,bB:....:....".:.:....:.
. ".'
'".DRIVEWAY/P AVED AREAS
. .\ <\''2,. ..
:;. ".', -.' (Drivewa~-~avedor.lJ~t)
ll.~: . '.' .'\SidewalkiParkin'g Areas) .
, :~~"..~- . .' .... . .. . '. .
~:..:..u1D'
" . . : '. . , .
. . , '. . .
TO~ ~LPA YED AlU:AS.~..........!~.........~...~...~.;~......_~. .: .'
. ,
'-.-.
. ~ . ,
. . ,. . . .
- PA TIOS/PORCHESIDECKS
=
. " . . " . " . ..
:." (Operi'DecksW~l11in. opening between:,"
.. . boards, with!\ per-dous su~ace below, . .
" B!e nb~ c~nsi;dered lobe impervious) -
. .=
. .",.
'. . .
.' . ..
II,," ...... ..... '.'
~;At~~~;~~
.'c" ". "'_ '. .." '.' ."
. .' .
," ,TOr.AL"D EGKS.!~.,.,.".,....~...,....".,...,.................'~"""_'" .
~.ie0
=.~.
. . .
:rOTALJl\1PERVIOLJS SURFACE
~O~ERi....
~rep~redB '. <J,'.
. .. , . I .
TOTAL OTHEIL...;;.uo.............!.......................~........ ~. .tOO.
. .. "", , "
,. .,. . f.J ~'\'2.:2..' .'
.J~"..~'.
.I....~.l.~:>
.S; ..."Z.. -'ZOo '0"1 B 2.
"' :"::i,"'
. .." .
...CpmpanY.....'.
) . ..... . ", '.' .... ....
, "t~..,- ~.;..oo
. Phone # '\.\'4"1 -"ZS1 t::).
c.:a'A:~tt~;....:6~:~PO~~~ "13-~~~-..:- ~ ~\.n C!.~k~S~
. .
. """ .
. " .
f c.,-,~Gt,:~;o\~; c
....,..
, ,
Dq,t.6fPlanning and z6ning
City of Prior Lake , .
16200 Eagle CreekAvenueSE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
, ,
. RE: Gary Thomas' request for a lakeside set-back variance.
, .
Dear,Plannine' Staff and Planning 'Commission Members; ,
, '
After several advisory meetings with different Planning Staff members Mr. Thomas has asked for
my aSsistance iJJ. communicating his basis. for 'this, variance request. ' .
The purpose of this' letter'is, to accompany the variance request to the public, hearing' as an'
ex.phination of~urinterpretation of the zoning issues involved in Mr. Thomas' request to build a
screen porch on his existing.~ck.;c, " ",',. ' '. . '. ",' '.
The following three isSueswerebrought Up by Staff members at different times: ".
. 1. The possibility of the ~Xisting deck being located on a bluff A thorough review of the
, c' attached survey showsthat ,the area immediately behind the house rises at it'shighest
pOint to 924.9', only 20.9' above the 904. This area is clearly not a bluff as the
primary requirement. to be 'called a bluff says it must rise a minimum of 25' above
, the 904.
2. The next issue, the one Mr. Thomas is seeking relief from is the lakeside setback issue. ,
Using the allowed setback averaging, averaging the neighbors' setbackS of 63' on lot #
21 and 50' on lot # 24, allows Mr. Thomas to use a set back 56.5'. As you can see the
survey shows the closest the existing deck gets to 904 is 54'. Mr. Thomas is seeking a
variance of 2.5' from the set back averaging clause to allow building on the existing
deck. The area of the proposed screen porch that would encroach beyond the allowed
setback is represented on the attached drawing by the area shaded in blue.
3. This leads to the third issue the Planning Staff's assertion of "intensification of a
nonconformity". The existing deck was legally constructed by a previous property
owner prior to enactment of the current zoning regulations, and is therefore classified as
"legal nonconforming". By Staff definition the construction of the 180 sq. ft. proposed
screen porch would produce approximately 15 sq. ft. of intensification or only 6.7% of
the porch would be nonconforming (the area on the attached diagram shaded in blue).
For a esthetic and functional purposes it does not seem logical to build any thing other
than a rectangular screen porch. The deck has an established lakeside setback that
will not be changed by the addition 'of the screen porch, hence there is no .
intensification. "
~
i!
o
::r;:
3:
m
z
-f
~
)>
"
"
r-
-
o
)>
Z
-f
r-
m
-f
-f
m
:xJ
QO
en
-
-f
m
1:J
r-
)>
Z
,,;,......... . .
...... .'. ~'~.'..' ....... '. .
~$:.<,;. .
\' .'.-.
..
.'
;',.',
'.March 29, 2001
, .
, .
It is our opinion that; ,
* This. is a reasonable request to build a structure that is customary and legally
, permissible within the Use District it will be located. .
, '
*,By reason of the unique topography and the application of the current bluff
_ protection regulationS to the side yard areas leaves the only allowable site for the
proposed screen porch is the one that is planned. .
* The current deck was not buih by the current owner. The current owner did not
create the hardship. It is also possible that the,location of the 904 line may have
been changed due to erosion (since the deck was.,buih) as a result of the high water .
conditions on the lake in recent years. ," , " .- '
. .
. ' .' - -
* The granting of the requested variance will have no nieasurable negative impact of
any type on the neighbors or the neighborhood. . '
, '
* The granting of this variance merely allows for a conventional rectangular design
rather than an unsightly trapezoidal shape that may have a negative impact on the
neighborhood.' '
* That by reason of the explanations this request meets the hardship requirements as
prescribed in the zoning code.
If I can answer any questions or if I can provide any additional information please feel free to
contact me at 952-447-9440.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
//UV.-,y: ~
. Albers
16043 Northwood Road NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
...._-.._~ -
.. ," : ~ ~-:-}.....----- ~: ./
~. -;'" , :' ,,0 ',:: j
,.;; ~
/,>132,S' I ~ ,
; ',! l-
I I:; (I G4RIi, Gf
/ /', ,; Sl"lB E:l 1
! "':( J 93~6'Z7 '"
\0> "\, 'Ii
\ . ", 1.::--1 f
\'\'.. \ /' L-.L /;
,-' " , - , . /00
' '------,~ , '" - ,
\C',,; '.r;.'I" . ";.' [) , . .:; ____ '/'
\, ,', .. '0 " 'h t" "
\"4. . '. I . ~ '/ i"',..
-- 8-" t"\5 --':~':~4,k;:~. ..~~.I ,j"~~;.~~~~~:
' ~ . -.. , /~,
:.1.,,:.....; .... .' SOUrH UN, OF . N7S' 34' 53 "w_ c,,' /' "
',' 1'1"'- ~.. .ors <<8""
""'.", "":'-" .... . I
1-
~
-.!
:- I
-::, ~
-.l _
~J \
~
"}.
:::
-
- .'
'~ "-:"'l
'.l.) ..>~
'.l~ <:::
., '4 "'-.i".
~;: --.
-"-;'-'-"'7-
GAR'!\.G E
SLAB EL,
1130,71
C1I
..,
:r
v
'h <f:t
:;'.:;'''/ ,J:., ' -:" : '~ ;
,:,,:',:_,1:::,'/ :
"j"trii ;>
}tfi II g
tf,. 1,1
W-12,~j\}1_ '.
Ill",,:;!
~_'.:L....-c.:.._,--......:""..--... ..........
:.:'---
.'U~
r-- I'vOR-"f-t
f..ll'vt
t.. 41r~
u
"
-,
~
.D
~
'" '-11
"i' '..:."
- ~
t"-' --
i'" \,f"
II
""----
~l' -"--
..
r
--~. -U'
c-
'~.,~
o
,.,
::::.~
:-.:=~
.~, :;:: ~
2q::j
~i
~.~
~,
-.;...1
-::.
..::;
-- ,
. - i
~ \,~
/
/
i
/
..,-;-
I
/1,1
~ .
I ,I "
I I
, I ':
i - .
/ "I>;
, I.$.'
'~- "'"
'" ~ -'7'-;- '1
' . ~ , ,',. ',~ ~ \: A.f
-"'-'''-.- . "',
/ '--~~7 ,. .-/
.!
l---
'"p
~
~~ l ~
::: /. ,~
j
,.
/
,
/
i
I
~.
<:
~
;
/..
/~
/
,
!"- NOTE It N 9l \l
MARKeD 0
CONC. WALK r
#2~~
,~,~~ -;--';'
U ~ ;:.. -: ,
:i!: v '__ .;;.
O:t" _~ .~
.uJ..t ~
- --~ -
*
!
..
,
I
f
I
i
I
l
I
I
/
/
;
/
I
/"') r~)
c... c.
l,F, W/O
E:L g2~.66
1"
':b- C:i~1
1.,- i
'/\"
'..~ / r'
--' :i ,:
.. I
"'t". .. !
it . .-
'. '. I.
"
/
! '/tiTr-,.__
! ~ --.....
!
i
I
9~,9"',_:___:;.
HOUSE
, ~~c..,
-~
..c. .
--'
'I
/1.
"
,
/
l
l
I
I
I,
t
~. i
DtCKn
r" /1
,'.': ....r
-r J..
' >--;;..
" Ie ,7._
.. .;
93/,6
HOUSE
G4R4Gf
SLAB E:l.
936:2'
.):~3,8~
,.
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
DISCUSSION:
PLANNING REPORT
SA
CONSIDER RESOLUTION FINDING THAT
MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TIF
DISTRICT 1-3 ARE CONSISTENT WITH
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
N/A
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES X NO-N/A
--
MAY 29, 2001
On February 27, 20001, the City Council adopted a resolution
approving in concept the use of tax increment financing to
assist in the development of a mixed use senior housing and
retail facility in the Downtown. The project will consist of 73
condominium units for seniors and 12,000 square feet of retail.
Subsequent to that, the Council directed that a tax increment
district be established and a tax increment fmancing plan be
prepared.
Minnesota Statutes 469.174 , Subd. 3 requires the City find the
tax increment financing plan to be in conformance with the
general plan for redevelopment of the community as a whole.
The Comprehensive Plan addresses redevelopment issues in at
least two locations. In Chapter 1, Overview, on page 12, it
indicates the City should take better advantage of the proximity
of Lakefront Park to Downtown and discusses the transition
between the two areas. In addition, District objectives include
improving access from the Park to Downtown by a trail system
and insuring that redevelopment projects include better
pedestrian access and improved traffic circulation.
In Chapter 2, Goals arid Policies, an objective is to establish a
theme for positive identification of the Downtown area.
L:\Ol files\Ol eda\PLANNING REPORT.doc
16200 Ea~le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
r.
i
.
;.'1
The plan for the Lakefront Plaza project addresses all of these
objectives in a positive fashion.
The plan will incorporate enhanced access to Lakefront Plaza
by additional trail connections to Lakefront Park. In addition,
the building will be designed to reflect the Lake Theme that is
to be developed in the Downtown area.
Tax increment financing (TIP) is provided for a project only
upon a showing that, but for the TIP, the project would not be
feasible. The application for TIP assistance for this project has
made such a showing. The role of the Planning Commission is
to make a finding that the TIP plan for the project is consistent
with redevelopment plans for the City as a whole.
CONCLUSION:
Staff concludes the Lakefront Plaza project is consistent with
redevelopment goals for the City and that the tax increment
financing plan proposed for the project is also consistent with
those goals as it provides a means for the project to proceed.
AL TERNATIVES:
1. Approve Resolution OI-OIOPC
2. Deny Resolution Ol-OlOPC
3. Defer for a specific reason
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution Ol-OIOPC
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to approve Resolution Ol-OlOPC
L\Olfiles\Oleda\PLANNING REPORT.doc
PC
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA
, -
RESOLUTION 01-010PC
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-3
CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to
adopt a Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 and a Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3 (the "Program Modification and Plan") and
has submitted the Program Modification and Plan to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission")
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Program Modification and Plan to determine their
conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the
comprehensive plan for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Program Modification and
Plan conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Dated: May 29, 2001
Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Director
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.c..-....
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for the establishment of
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-3
(a redevelopment district)
within
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.1
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
SCOTT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Hearing: June 4, 200]
Adopted:
This document is in draftformfor distribution to the County and the School District. The Plan
contains t stimated fiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF District. The City
and t ay make chang! to this draft document prior to the public hearing. If changes
are ma)~ a revised draft will be sent to the County and the School District.
o
LDC\
EHLERS
& ASSOCIATES INC
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
(651) 697-8500 fax: (651) 697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
......
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(for reference purposes only)
SECTION I - MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NO.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1
Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1
SECTION II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 1-3 ..................................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-1. Foreword.............................................. 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority ....................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Development Program Overview ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District ........................ 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Property for Acquisition ................................... 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Classification of the District ................................ 2-3
Subsection 2-8. Duration of the District .................................... 2-4
Subsection 2-9. Original Tax Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Subsection 2-10. Original Tax Rate ........................................ 2-5
Subsection 2-11. Estimated Tax Increment ...................................2-5
Subsection 2-12. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements .................... 2.,6
Subsection 2-13. Use of Tax Increment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Subsection 2-14. Sources of Revenue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Subsection 2-15. Bonded Indebtedness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Subsection 2-16. Uses of Funds .......................................... 2-8
Subsection 2-17. Local Contribution (State Tax Increment Financing Aid) . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Subsection 2-18. Fiscal Disparities Election. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
Subsection 2-19. Business Subsidies ..................................... 2-10
Subsection 2-20. County Road Costs ..................................... 2-10
Subsection 2-21. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Subsection 2-22. Supporting Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-11
Subsection 2-23. Modifications .......................................... 2-11
Subsection 2-24. Time Factors .......................................... 2-11
Subsection 2-25. Administration of the District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
Subsection 2-26. Administrative Expenses ................................. 2-12
Subsection 2-27. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-13
Subsection 2-28. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-13
Subsection 2-29. Annual Disclosure Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
Subsection 2-30. Reasonable Expectations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
Subsection 2-31. Summary ............................................. 2-14
APPENDIX A ............................................................ A-1
APPENDIX B ............................................................ B-1
APPENDIX C ............................................................ C-1
APPENDIX D ............................................................ 0-1
APPENDIX E ............................................................. E-1
-'
SECTION I
MODIFICA TlON TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.1
Foreword
The creation of Tax Increment Financing Distrct No. 1-3 represents a Modification to the Development
Program for Development District No.1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and
objectives set forth in the Development Program for Development District No.1. In addition, the City
proposes to expand the boundaries of the Development District as indicated in the map below.
For further information, a review of the complete Development Program for Development District No.1 is
recommended. It is available from the City of Prior Lake. Other relevant information is contained in the
Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Development
District No.1.
City of Prior Lake
Municipal Development District NO.1
ITS
City of Prior Lake
Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. I
1-1
'.
SECTION 1/
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.3
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The City of Prior Lake (the "City"), City staff, and consultants have prepared the following information to
expedite the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3 ("the District"), a redevelopment tax
increment financing district, located within Development District No. I.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City has certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
("MS. "),469.124 through 469.134, inclusive, as amended, and MS., Sections 469.174 through 469.179,
inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs
related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-3. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Development Program
for Development District No. I.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The City has prepared a plan for the redevelopment property in and around the downtown area. The
Downtown Plan provides a framework for guiding public and private development decisions. The
development activities contemplated by the TIF Plan are consistent with the Downtown Plan.
The development proposed in the District would result in approximately 78 housing units intended for
occupancy by senior citizens and approximately 12,000 square feet of retail uses. The proposed development
helps to achieve several development objectives, including:
Bringing permanent residents to the Downtown area with the potential to support existing and future
businesses.
Redeveloping substandard and underutilized properties.
Providing a catalyst for additional private investment in the Downtown area.
Providing a catalyst for public improvements identified in the Downtown Plan.
Increasing housing opportunities in the City.
The District is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of property in the downtown area with a mix of
senior housing and retail development (the Lakefront Plaza Project) in the City of Prior Lake. Contracts for
this have not been entered into at the time of preparation of this Plan, but the date when development is likely
to occur is in the Summer of2001. This Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the
Development Program for Development District No. I.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Development Program and the Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of Development District No. I and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Development Program Overview
I. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.3
2-1
the City and is further described in this Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
MS., Chapter ll7 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the City may sell to a developer selected properties that they may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public streets work within the District.
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District
The property to be included in the District includes the following parcels and the adjacent rights-of way. The
proposed development requires the reconfiguration of the property into a common site and single parcel. The
TIF Plan is based on this action. The parcels will be replatted and combined prior to the certification of the
District.
Current Parcel Numbers
25-001062-0 25-001068-0
25-001063-0 25-001069-0
25-001066-0 25-001070-0
25-001067-0
City of Prior Lake
Municipal Development District NO.1
Subsection 2-6. Property for Acquisition
The City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-2
properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City only in order to accomplish one or more of
the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry
out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives
set forth in this plan. The City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase
from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only
when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs.
Subsection 2-7. Classification of the District
The City finds thatthe District meets the criteria for the establishment of the redevelopment district pursuant
to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10. The statutory criteria for a redevelopment district are as follows:
(a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax incrementfinancing district consisting of aproject,
or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the
following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including
outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or
clearance; or
(2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-oi-way; or
(3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as
defined in Section J J 5e, Subd. J 5, if the tank facility:
have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons;
are located adjacent to rail facilities; or
have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently
used.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities andfacilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions,
or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
(c) A building is not structurally substandard ifit is in compliance with the building code applicable
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than J 5
percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the
site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without
an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal
prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the
property is not required, if the municipalityfinds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable
to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permissionfrom the party that
owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion
that the building is structurally substandard...
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-3
(d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the
finding under paragraph (a) if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building within three years of the filing of the
request for certification of the parcel as part of the district with the county auditor;
(2) the substandard building was demolished or removed by the authority or the demolition or
removal was financed by the authority or was done by a developer under a development
agreement with the authority;
(3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was
occupied by a structurally substandard building and that after demolition and clearance the
authority intended to include the parcel within a district; and
(4) uponfiling the requestfor certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district,
the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be
adjusted as provided by j 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (h).
(e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other
improvements unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements.
(f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a
redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of
the district must satisfY paragraph (a).
In meeting the statutory criteria the City relies on the following facts and findings:
The District will consist of one parcel.
100% of the parcels by area are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements within
the statutory definition. '?>(p_ ~ "l
An inspection of the property shows that _% of the area of the parcel is occupied by buildings, utilities
and other improvements. These improvements exceed the 15% minimum required by statute to
determine that the parcel is occupied.
Two buildings are located within the District. The City has undertaken investigations to determine that
the buildings are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance
pursuant to the statutory criteria.
A more complete explanation of the redevelopment findings are contained in Appendix D.
Pursuant to 469.176 Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under
the provisions of Section 273.111 or 273.112 of Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar
years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 2-8. Duration of the District
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must
be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 1 b, the duration of the District will
be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the City (a total of26 years). The date of receipt by the
City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2003. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any
modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2028, or when the
Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2002, the term of the District will be 2027. The City reserves
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-4
the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date.
Subsection 2-9. Original Tax Capacity
Pursuant to MS, Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and MS, Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTe) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2000 for taxes payable 2001. The TIF Plan estimates the ONTC to be $3,675.
Pursuant to MS, Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2002) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. change in tax exempt status of property;
2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries ofthe district;
3. change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. change in the use of the property and classification;
5. change in state law governing class rates; or
6. change in connection with previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value
will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City.
Subsection 2-10. Original Tax Rate
The amount of tax increment is calculated by multiplying the total local tax rate (excluding market value
rates) by the Captured Tax Capacity value of the District. If the current total local tax rate exceeds the
Original Tax Rate (OTR), the amount of tax increment produced by the tax rate above the OTR is distributed
to the taxing jurisdictions as excess tax increment.
The OTR for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2001, assuming the request for
certification is made before June 30, 200 I. The local tax rate for taxes payable 200 I is 124.6060%
Subsection 2-11. Estimated Tax Increment
The City estimates that the total tax capacity value of property within the District upon completion of the
proposed development will be $151,662. The amount of annual tax increment revenue is shown in the table
below.
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity(ONTC)
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)
Original Local Tax Rate (OTR)
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate)
Percent Retained by the City
$125,388
(3,675)
$121,713
124.6060% Pay 2001
$151,662
100%
The City requests 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and
current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2003
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-5
The following factors will determine the actual amount of tax increment received by the City:
· Actual market value of property within the District as determined by the Assessor.
Statutory rates for setting tax capacity values.
Actual total local tax rate.
The cash flow projections in Appendix C show the potential tax increment revenues collected by the City.
Subsection 2-12. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the City shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to MS.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (J 8) months immediately preceding approval of the
Plan by the municipality pursuant to MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the
original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit
was issued.
The City is reviewing the area to be included in the District to determine if any building permits have
been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the City.
Subsection 2-13. Use of Tax Increment
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.176, Subd. 4j, at least 90% ofthe revenues derived from tax increments
from the District must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow the
redevelopment designation These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties
containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements, or hazardous substances, pollution,
or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit
development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of the land, the removal of
hazardous substances or remediation necessary to development of the land, and installation of utilities,
roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. Within this limitation, the City hereby determines
that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity oftaxable property located in the District for the
following purposes:
1. to pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. to finance, or otherwise pay the public development costs of Development Distrct No.1 pursuant
to the MS. Sections 469.124 to 469.134;
3. to pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. to finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. to pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf the City
or for the benefit of Development District No.1 by a developer;
6. to finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
MS., Chapter 462C. MS., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or MS., Sections 469.178; and
7. to accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to MS., Chapter 462C, MS., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or MS., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by MS., Section 469.176, subd. 4.
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-6
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Scott County to the City for the Tax Increment Fund
of said District. The City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as
specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements,
demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for
City administration (up to 10 percent) and the costs of public improvement activities.
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.1763, (1) At least 80% of the tax increment derived from the District must be
expended on Public Costs incurred within said district, and up to 20% of said tax increments may be spent
on Public Costs incurred outside of the District but within Development Distrct No.1; provided that in the
case of a housing district, a housing project, as defined in MS., Section 469.174, Subd. 11 is deemed to be
an activity in the District, and (2) pubic costs within the District shall be limited to reimbursement of public
costs paid before or within five years after certification of said district by the County Auditor and interest
on all such unreimbursed expenditures.
Subsection 2-14. Sources of Revenue
The estimated sources of revenue for the District are contained in the table below.
SOURCES OF FUNDS
TOTAL
$3,025,000
$0
$3,025,000
$110,000
$0
Tax Increment
Other City Funds
PROJECT REVENUES
Interfund Loans/Transfers
Bond Proceeds
TOTAL PROJECT AND FINANCING REVENUES
$3,135,000
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments. The City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the City and the
TIF Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road
maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and
investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs.
In addition to the actual tax increment collected by the City, the TIF Act (MS. Section 469.174, Subd. 25)
places restrictions on the use of revenues derived from the following sources:
· the proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the City with tax
increments;
· repayments of loans or other advances made by the City with tax increments; and
· interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments.
Subsection 2-15. Bonded Indebtedness
It is anticipated that the City will use a pay-as-you-go note to reimburse the Developer for eligible expenses
and interest on the unpaid balance. The City may use an interfund loan or a transfer of funds to pay for
public costs. Tax increment revenues may be used to repay an interfund loan or transfer.
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-7
The City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan.
No bonded indebtedness will be incurred by the City without a modification to the TIF Plan pursuant to
app]icable statutory requirements. This provision does not obligate the City to incur debt. The City will issue
bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City.
Subsection 2-16. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate construction of senior housing. The
City has determined that it will be necessary to provide financial assistance to the project. To facilitate the
proposed development, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of
certain eligib]e expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is
outlined in the following table.
USES OF FUNDS
TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition
Site Improvements/Preparation
Public Utilities
Parking Facilities
Streets and Sidewalks
Other Public Improvements
Interest on Pay-as-you-go Note
Administrative Costs (up to ]0%)
$200,000
400,000
350,000
o
500,000
100,000
$1,450,000
70,000
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL
$3,070,000
Interfund Loans/Transfers
Loan Interest
Bond Interest
Bond Principal
$65,000
o
o
o
TOTAL FINANCING AND PROJECT COSTS
$3,135,000
The above budget is organized according to the current State reporting forms. The information in Appendix
A contains additional information about the project.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed the
Total Project Costs in the table above without forma] modification of this Plan pursuant to the applicab]e
statutory requirements.
Subsection 2-17.
Local Contribution (State Tax Increment Financing Aid)
The City elects to make the annual local contribution to the project (pursuant to M.S., Section 273.1399,
Subd. 6) to exempt itselffrom the LGA-HACA penalty setfortll in M.S. Section 273.1399.
The District is exempt from the LGA-HACA reduction if the elects to make a qualifying ]ocal contribution
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-8
at the time of approving the tax increment financing plan. To qualify for the exemption in each year, the C ( "I
must make a qualifying local contribution to the project in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the annual
tax increment for the District. The maximum local contribution for all districts in the City in any year is
limited to two percent of the City's net tax capacity, after which point the City must make an additional
contribution equal to the lesser of (a) 0.25 percent of the City's net tax capacity or (b) 3 percent of tax
increment revenues for that year.
The amount of the local contribution must be made out of unrestricted money of the City, such as the general
fund, a property tax levy, or a federal or state grant-in-aid which may be spent for general government
purposes. The local contribution may not be made, directly or indirectly, with tax increments or developer
payments. The local contribution must be used to pay project costs and cannot be used for general
government purposes. Such contribution may be in form of either lump sum or annual payments (in addition
to tax increment payments) towards costs identified in this Plan or other costs related to that development
or redevelopment. The contribution may also be made in the form of public improvements financed by the
City or other unit of government with unrestricted funds.
Subsection 2-18. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal
disparities. If the calculations pursuant to MS., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause a, (outside the District) are
followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
(1) The original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity shall be determined before the
application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. Where the original net
tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured net tax
capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original net tax capacity is less than
the current net tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current
net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which
the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing
districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the
net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The
local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity
of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated
by the extension of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local
tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the
authority.
The City shall submit to the County Auditor at the time of the request for certification which method of
computation of fiscal disparities the City elected.
The City will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause a.
According to MS., Section 469.177, Subd. 3:
(c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may
elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in
paragraph (b).
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. ]-3
2-9
Subsection 2-19. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S. Statutes 1161.993, Subdivision 3, assistance for housing is not considered a business
subsidy.
Subsection 2-20.
County Road Costs
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.175, Subd. la, the county board may require the City to pay for all or part of
the cost of county road improvements ifthe proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in
the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road
improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years
under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
In the opinion of the City and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little
or no impact upon county roads. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must
notify the City within forty-five days of receipt of this TIF Plan.
Subsection 2-21.
Estimated Impact on OtherTaxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
Scott County
City of Prior Lake
Prior Lake ISD No. 719
2000/2001
Total Net
Tax Capacity
72,745,188
12,927,888
22,722,075
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
121,713
121,713
121,713
Percent of CTC
to Entitv Total
0.1673%
0.9415%
0.5357%
IMP ACT ON TAX RATES
2000/2001 Percent Potential
Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes
Scott CountY 0.317110 25.45% 121,713 38,596
City of Prior Lake 0.264110 21.20% 121,713 32,146
Prior Lake ISD No. 719 0.605510 48.59% 121,713 73,698
Other 0.059330 4.76% 121.713 7.221
Total 1.246060 100.00% 151,662
The estimates listed on the previous page display the captured tax capacity when all construction IS
completed. The tax rate and total net tax capacities used for calculations is for taxes payable in 2001.
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-10
Subsection 2-22. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to MS Section 469. J 75 Subd J a, clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description
of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in MS Section 469. J 75 Subd 3, clause (2).
Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the City's findings:
J A list of applicable studies, if any, will be listed here prior to the public hearing.
Subsection 2-23. Modifications
The City reserves the right to make future modifications to the TIF Plan and District. In accordance with the
TIF Act (MS Section 469. J 75, Subd. 4) the following modifications may be made only upon the notice and
after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan:
1. reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of Development District No. I or the District;
2. increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize
interest on debt ifthat determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease
the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized;
3. increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the City;
4. increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures; or
5. designation of additional property to be acquired by the City,
Subsection 2-24. Time Factors
1. District Enlargement
Pursuant to MS. Section 469. J 75 Subd. 4(b), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but
shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax
capacity by the county auditor. If a housing district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for
the detemlination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of MS, Section 469.174, Subd.
JJ must be documented. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (I) the only
modification is elimination of parcel(s) from Development District No.1 or the District and (2) (A)
the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net
tax capacity ofthose parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the City agrees that,
notwithstanding MS, Section 469. J 77, Subd. J, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no
more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The City must
notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of
Development District No. I or the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget
modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan.
2. Activity Within 3 Years
No tax increment shall be paid to the City for the District after three (3) years from the date of
certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value of the taxable property in the District by the
County Auditor (MS Section 469.176, Subd. Ja) unless:
(a) bonds have been issued in aid of the project containing the district pursuant to MS.
Section 469. J 78, or any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to MS,
Sections 469.152 to 469. J 65, or
(b) the City has acquired property within the District, or
(c) the City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-11
District.
The bonds must be issued, or the City must acquire property or construct or cause public
improvements to be constructed by approximately June, 2004 and report such actions to the County
Auditor.
3. 4- Year Knockdown
Parcels without "qualifying activity" will be knocked out of the District after four years from the
date of certification of the original net tax capacity. MS Section 469.176, Subd. 6 defines qualifying
activities as" demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including
qualified improvement ofa street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including
sewer or water systems" in accordance with the TIF Plan. For purposes of the knock down
requirements, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new
street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
Knock down means that the original net tax capacity of that parcel is excluded from the original net
tax capacity of the District and no tax increment may be collected from that parcel. If the City or
the owner of the parcel subsequently commences a qualifying activity in accordance with the TIF
Plan, the City shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county
auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of
revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The City
must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel
in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following
the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district.
The City, the City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately
June, 2005 and report such actions to the County Auditor.
4. 5- Year Limit
After five years from the date of certification of the TIF District, tax increment may only be used to
(1) repay existing bonds the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are issued and
sold to a third party before or within five years after certification, the revenues are spent to repay the
bonds, and the proceeds of the bonds either are, on the date of issuance, reasonably expected to be
spent before the end of the later of (a) the five-year period, or (b) a reasonable temporary period
within the meaning of the use of that term under S 148(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, or are
deposited in a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund; (2) reimburse a developer or other
third party for eligible expenses paid before or within five year period, including interest on
unreimbursed costs; (3) eligible administrative expense; and (4) eligible expenses under M.S.
Section 469. I 763, Subd. 2 (Pooling).
Subsection 2-25. Administration of the District
("\0.. ~ o-r
Administration of the District will b~ handled by the City A~i~r.
Subsection 2-26. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with MS, Section 469.174, Subd. 14, and MS, Section 469.176, Subd. 3, administrative
expenses means all expenditures of the City, other than:
1. amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-12
project;
3. relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
project; or
4. amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to MS., Section 469.178; or
5. amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in sections I to 3.
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants,
and planning or economic development consultants. Tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and
documented administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total tax
increment expenditures authorized by the Plan or the total tax increment expenditures for Development
District No.1, whichever is less.
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the county's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county may require payment of those
expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to MS., Section 469. 177, Subd 11, the county treasurer shall deduct an amount equal to 0.25
percent of any increment distributed to the City and the county treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to
the state treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of
financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities'
use of tax increment financing.
Subsection 2-27. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Development Program and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the City to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with City plans and ordinances. The City may also use the Agreements to address other issues
related to the development.
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.176, Subd 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the Plan shall at any time be owned by the City as a result of
acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments
from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of25 percent of the acreage, the City
concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides
recourse for the City should the development or redevelopment not be completed.
Subsection 2-28. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.177, Subd 8, the City may enter into a written assessment agreement in
recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value
of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall
be presented to the assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be
constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to
be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,
in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor shall also certify the minimum
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. J-3
2-13
market value agreement.
Subsection 2-29. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to MS, Section 469.175, Subd. 5, 6 and 6a the City must undertake financial reporting for all tax
increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board, County Auditor and School
Board on or before August 1 of each year. MS, Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual
statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
Ifthe City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by MS Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the
distribution of tax increment from the District.
Subsection 2-30. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the Tax Increment Financing Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been
made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private
investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could
reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase
in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of
the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Plan. In making said
determination, reliance has been placed upon written representat!Rs made by the developer to such effects
and upon City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site. A comparative analysis of
estimated market values both with and without establishment ofthe District and the use oftax increments
has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix C, and
indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (Jess the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment ofthe District and the
use of tax increments.
Subsection 2-31. Summary
The City of Prior Lake is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop
substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota
55113, telephone (651) 697-8500.
City of Prior Lake
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-14
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by the parcels listed below.
Current Parcel Numbers
25-001062-0 25-001068-0
25-001063-0 25-001069-0
25-001066-0 25-001070-0
25-001067-0
APPENDIX
B-]
APPENDIX C
ESTIMA TED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT
Project Value Information
Total
Size (sf) or Market Tax
Element Units EMV Value Capacity Built 1 st Taxes
Retail/Office 12,000 90 1,080,000 35,220 2001 2003
Housing 78 100,000 90,168 2001 2003
Total 12,078 1,180,000 125,388
Total Years of TIF Capture 20.0
Tax Increment Projections
Tax Gross Local Net
Tax Capacity Values Extension Tax Retained Semi.Annual Local
Year Base Total Captured Rate Increment 20.00% Increment Contribution
2001 3,675 1.24606 0
2002 3,675 1.24606 0
2003 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2004 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2005 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2006 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2007 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2008 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2009 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2010 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2011 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2012 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2013 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2014 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2015 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2016 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2017 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,6.62 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2018 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2019 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2020 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2021 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60,665 7,583
60,665
2022 3,675 125,388 121,713 1.24606 151,662 (30,332) 60.665 7,583
60,665
Total 3,033,234 (606,647) 2,426,587 151,662
APPENDIX C-I
APPENDIX E
BUT/FOR QUALIFICA nONS
To be added to prior to the public hearing
~/
- ~~ ~
~< ~~c'~ '\ \y
~- V~i- ,jJ\
-~~
\iJ
APPENDIX
E-l