HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 9, 2001
~
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JULY 9, 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 Files 01-039 and 01-040 Consider an application for a preliminary plat to be
known as McCormick Acres and to consider variances to the minimum lot area
for three of the proposed lots for the property located on the south side of 170th
Street, North of Highway 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows.
B. Case File 01-049 Consider an application to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
allow off-premise nameplate signs in commercial districts.
C. 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.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting.
8. Adjournment:
L:IO 1 file,lO 1 plancommlO I pcagendalag07090 I.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, JUNE 25, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the June 25,2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, and Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
Vonhof
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Stamson: Page 3 of the minutes includes his comments; however, he was not present at
that meeting. These comments were probably from Bill Criego.
The Minutes from the May 29,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved with
the above change.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
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.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated June 25,2001
on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department.
On February 23,2001, the Planning Department received a variance application from D.
Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) to allow an existing deck to remain on the property
located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The deck was constructed in the year 2000 without a
required 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.
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomrn\Olpcminutes\MN062501.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25,2001
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 to the end of May due to business commitments. On May 29,
2001, the applicant requested the 3rd postponement of this agenda item for the June 25,
2001, meeting due to business travel.
The applicant requests the following variances:
1) A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422
square feet (57.5%) rather than the permitted maximum area of2,307 square feet
(30%).
2) A 71 foot variance to allow a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) elevation of904 feet, rather than the required setback of 75 feet.
Staff received comments from the City Engineering Department and the DNR. Amount
of impervious surface affects water quality and stormwater runoff. The DNR
recommended the impervious surface be brought into compliance.
Staff concluded all of the required variance hardship criteria had not been met, and 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. The staff recommended denial of the two variance
requests.
Atwood asked if the impervious surface is impacted by stacking deck over concrete.
Horsman noted the deck would not be impervious surface if the concrete were not below
it.
Comments from the public:
Mark Crouse, 15507 Calmut Avenue, the applicant, stated the contractor took care of all
the variances and permits for the original structure and was in compliance. Noticed
erosion on other lake properties. Recommendation from landscaping company was to
create impervious surface to help with erosion. When he raised house, he would have
moved it ifhe could. People who did concrete work gave incorrect advice about need for
permits.
In terms of hardship standards:
1. Lot shape is weird. Cannot meet setbacks. Other lots with weird shape are within the
75' setback. According to Pat Lynch from the DNR, the impact of runoff is
negligible. His property is next to the Windsong Association which is not going to be
built on. He felt runoff would not be an issue. Neighborhood lots are substandard and
cannot make the setbacks but they all have decks.
L\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\MN062501.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25. 2001
2. Agreed with staff finding. Unusual circumstances because of the nature of the
property.
3. Traveled around the lake and felt well over 80% of lakeshore owners have a deck. It
is customary
4. Agreed with report, the variance is not impacting the air supply.
5. Disagreed with the hardship criteria in the report. Will not affect stated values.
6. If intent is to not block views, he is not blocking view with deck.
7. The impervious surface based on patio and driveway. Intent of patio is to solidify the
retaining wall, not just convenience. (Presented pictures of the property.)
8. Hardship as a result of construction came after the house was built.
9. Financial standpoint - leave it alone.
Kurt Hazekamp, 15654 Fremont, did contracting work on the house in 1995. Worked
with the building official at that time. The variance hardship was never brought up at the
time. Did not know of option to move house forward; just built house straight up to
elevate above flood plain.
Dr. Todd is a new resident who lives 4 houses down from the property. The work on the
applicant's house has added value to his property. Including the surrounding vacant lots
and Windsong area, impervious surface would be below 30%.
Commissioner V onhof closed the public hearing.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
Is there a runoff issue if the Windsong property is included? Horsman explained
Windsong on the Lake plat layout. Applicant is discussing outlots used as open space by
that development. There are vacant outlots near property used by association.
Atwood: Is there a relationship between these lots? Horsman noted they should be
separate. The applicant is making the argument that there is a lot of vacant land adjacent
to him. However, the problem isn't here, the problem is on subject lot with 50%
impervious surface. The recommendation ofDNR and Engineering is based on the idea
that the closer the structures get; "lake creep" is promoted. The Lake Management plan
is to eliminate this.
Stamson: This is a narrow and unusual shaped lot. Hardship criteria were addressed by
previous variance. It was the responsibility of owner to accommodate space for future
deck. Agreed with Engineering's recommendation. Have decided lack of deck can be
hardship, but usually weighs that against magnitude of variance. A 4 foot setback
outweighs hardship oflack of deck. The hardship criteria have not been met in this case.
Choices and decisions were made that prevent construction of deck. Agreed with the
DNR about percentage of impervious surface. Has staff does any calculations on how to
remove some impervious surface? Horsman noted the original permit taken out in 1995,
with house and some part of the driveway, was at 30%. Stamson would like to see some
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\OJpcminutes\MN06250J.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25. 2001
reasonable amount of impervious surface. Rye noted area of house and garage is below
30% by about 150 square feet.
Lemke: The issue before us is deck and not impervious surface. Horsman noted the
issue was originally the deck, but upon further investigation, staff discovered excess
impervious surface. When the home was built, for some reason it was moved forward so
there is only 1 foot left in original variance. It was a violation of the original variance.
The onginal plan was for a deck and meets the Ordinary High Water. For whatever
reason when the house was built it changed. Lemke commented if the deck is removed,
does the concrete still remain? Horsman commented DNR recommendation is that it is
more important to deal with impervious surface. There is still issue of Zoning Ordinance
violation. Stamson noted they are separate issues, but dealing with both now. Lemke
stated impervious surface is necessary to stabilize wall. Horsman stated properly
installed retaining wall would achieve the same purpose. This sounds like his was an
older retaining wall that they are trying to save. Struggling with the need for additional
impervious surface. Felt there is a need to provide parking. There should be additional
impervious surface, but maybe not 57%. Seems like a tough situation.
V onhof: Questions for applicant. Remembered the original variance. Is the boathouse
gone or remodeled? Crouse responded he worked with Pat Lynch from the DNR to clean
it up. There was an existing concrete driveway on lot. Original detached garage was
removed and tuck-under garage was raised and attached garage added to north. Crouse
explained remodeling of house. The retaining wall was built when house was raised.
V onhof asked iflot lines go all the way back to street. Railroad right-of-way is 8' wide
between the lot and Calmut A venue. V onhof questioned who did cement work. Crouse
stated it was Lowell Russell.
Atwood asked for clarification of when the retaining wall was built. Crouse explained
the remodeling in 1995 and the wall settling.
Vonhof: Agreed with Stamson that a number of variances were granted on this lot in
1995. It is unusual lot. There is a section of property between the actual roadway and lot
line. Appreciate applicant's comments regarding hardship standards. In 8 years of being
on the Planning Commission has not seen more egregious violations of ordinance with
regard to impervious surface. The patio area is 2,270 square feet. The allowed
impervious surface allowed on this lot is about 2,300 square feet. It is almost a 100%
increase over what was allowed by the original variance in 1995. Cannot support either
variance. City Code did not create the conditions. Code existed in 1995 and owner was
aware based on variance applications and then preceded to put in additional impervious
surface. Impervious surface is so critical on this lot because of adjacency to lake. The
fragile ecosystem is highly impacted by runoff. The Shoreland District is to protect this
area. The Commission has held very strongly to impervious surface on every individual
lot. Will not support request at this time.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN062501.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25, 2001
Open discussion:
Atwood: Ifvariances are not granted, what happens to impervious surface? Vonhof
noted applicant can remove impervious surface. Horsman noted calculation does not
include right-of-way or impervious surface not on the lot.
Vonhof: Recommend driveway be narrowed to width of garage. Crouse stated majority
of impervious surface is driveway. Horsman noted surveyor can revise calculations to be
more specific about what is include. Maximum width of driveway is 24 feet at right-of-
way. Condition should be to reduce width to 24 feet.
Stamson: Give applicant some time to figure a way to reduce impervious surface. Look
for a reasonable solution to reduce impervious surface. V onhof agreed.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE
CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO JULY 9,2001,
TO LOOK AT WAYS TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
Vonhof: We are going to go ahead and discuss the second variance.
Stamson: Did not see how the hardship criteria in relation to the lot are met for a deck.
It hardships were addressed by the previous variance and the fact that the house was built
that does not accommodate a deck really is not a hardship under the ordinance criteria.
Did not see going back and creating variances to ordinances for that specific reason.
Lemke: There is not much difference between 12 feet and 4 feet. A deck adds to house.
A house without a deck looks odd. Considering where house is, felt the variance is
justified. Without the impervious surface issue, the question is how close to the lake can
the deck be? Stamson noted this had been decided with the original variance. Applicant
did not leave space for deck.
There was a brief discussion between Stamson and Lemke.
Crouse said the City did not inform applicant of option to move house forward to provide
for deck. Ifhe had known that then, he would have done so.
Lemke: How would a person be aware of old variances? Stamson noted it is not the
City's responsibility to make these recommendations. Horsman noted staff today looks
at these issues. V onhof commented that variance resolutions are recorded with County.
Stamson noted that house was built with variances so they knew there were variances.
V onhof noted comments on building permit note previous variances.
V onhof: With regard to deck, variance criteria are not met.
L:\OI files\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MN062501 .doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25,2001
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
008PC DENYING A 71 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT STRUCTURE
SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK.
V ote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, V onhof and Atwood, nay by Lemke. MOTION
CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process. The applicant may appeal decision of Planning
Commission to City Council within 5 calendar days.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #01-029 - Gary Thomas Variance Resolution
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated June 25,2001
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
A public hearing was convened on May 29,2001. After review of the applicant's request
with respect to variance hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft
Resolution 01-009PC approving the variances with conditions.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY VONHOF, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
009PC GRANTING A 2.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 54 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED
56.5 FEET AS DETERMINED BY SETBACK AVERAGING; AND A 43 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A PORCH STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO A BLUFF
IMP ACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FROM THE TOP OF
BLUFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Case File #01-051 - Vacation of the 20 foot wide easement for road purposes
located adjacent to the south side of TH 13, from Franklin Trail to Toronto Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 25, 2001,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The Prior Lake City Council initiated the vacation of the 20' wide easement for roadway
purposes located adjacent to TH 13 and to the E-Z Stop gas station, Velishek's Auto
Sales, Park Nicollet Clinic and the Hollywood Restaurant. The easement presently
functions as a frontage road serving the properties located on the south side of TH 13
between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. The City Council is scheduled to review
this matter at a public hearing on July 2,2001.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\MN062501.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25, 2001
Once the ring road is constructed, there is no need for the existing easement. The
Planning staff recommended approval of this request subject to the condition that the
resolution vacating this easement will not be recorded until the construction of the new
road is completed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke: What happens to road? Kansier explained the City would not maintain this
section of road.
Atwood: What is reaction of other property owners? Rye noted they were not opposed,
but were concerned about timing.
Stamson: Vacation is in public interest because ring road will eliminate unsafe access.
Rye noted easement exists and statute states that City maintenance of private road for 6
years makes it public. Public interest is removing City interest in private drive.
MOTION BY ST AMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION OF THE 20' WIDE EASEMENT FOR ROAD
PURPOSES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE RESOLUTION
VACATING THIS EASEMENT IS NOT RECORDED UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE RING ROAD IS COMPLETE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Request to initiate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansierpresented the Planning Report dated June 25,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The staff has identified language in the current Zoning Ordinance that is inconsistent with
Minnesota State statutes. Some of these inconsistencies are the result of very recent
changes to the statutes. These changes include the following:
. The definition of elderly housing (1101.1000)
. The definition of congregate care (11 06A.200)
. The number of City Council votes required to adopt an amendment to the Zoning
Map and the Zoning Ordinance (1108.506 and 1108.704)
. The definition of an official map (1112.200)
Since the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1999, the staffhas made a number of
interpretations on the application and intent ofthe ordinance. In a few cases, the staff
feels it is necessary to clarify the ordinance language to reflect these interpretations.
These include:
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN062501.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25. 2001
. Language to include basement egress windows as an allowable encroachment into the
side yards (1101.503 (1))
. Language to include platform decks as allowable yard encroachments (1101.503 (6 &
7) and 1104.308 (2))
The Zoning Ordinance also references technical documents, which can updated on a
regular basis. In order to ensure the reference is current, the language should be changed
to eliminate the specific edition number, and reference the current edition. This
amendment applies to the following:
. The Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Handbook (1107.1801 (1))
Finally, after several discussions, the City Council has directed staff to relax the
certification requirements for replacement trees. This relaxation is intended to be a more
"customer-friendly" approach, especially for single-family homeowners. The
amendment affects the following provision:
. Tree Preservation Requirements, Certification of compliance with an approved
landscaping plan (1107.2106 (5)).
The staff is also recommending an amendment to Section 1108, which would add a
procedure for site plan review. This review is presently done as part of the building
permit review for commercial projects. This amendment would formalize that procedure.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke: What is current voting requirement? Kansier noted the Zoning Ordinance
requires a 2/3 vote of the City Council. The State Statute has changed this requirement to
a simple majority.
Stamson and Atwood: Supported the suggestion.
V onhof: Staff does a great job in updating ordinances and making it a living document.
Review ordinance as a result of situations.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DIRECT STAFF TO
PREP ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SCHEDULE A
PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye: Staff is waiting to hear State legislature's decision on budget. It is having a very
real impact on one pending redevelopment project. As currently proposed, language
would limit ability of City to provide assistance to these types of projects.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN062501.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25. 2001
Stamson: Questioned the House Budget Bill? Rye explained the bill has to do with fees
and with applying those fees to actual costs. Stamson noted the bill he was referring to
had to do with property rights and compensation for effects of regulations. Rye
explained the theory behind this bill. It did not pass.
Stamson: Asked about progress of downtown design ordinance. Rye noted a draft will
be done this week. Staff is trying to schedule a workshop in conjunction with the July 9th
Planning Commission meeting.
V onhof: Asked about process of finding violations. For example, what if a building
inspector discovers a building without permit? Rye stated they would be issued a stop
work order. After that, it depends on the nature of the violation.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Recording Secretary
L\O 1 files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN062501.doc
9
..
..
.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VARIANCES TO THE
MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE R-l DISTRICT AND TO
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO
BE KNOWN AS MCCORMICK ACRES
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
-- -
JULY 9, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
The Patrick L. McCormick Trust has filed an application for a preliminary plat for the
1.85 acre site located on the south side of CSAH 12 (170th Street), west of CSAH 13 and
east of Pheasant Meadows. The preliminary plat, to be known as McCormick Acres,
consists of 1.85 acres to be subdivided into 5 lots for singe family residences. There are
two existing single family dwellings on this site. The application also includes a request
for variances to the minimum lot area for 3 of the proposed lots.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site area consists of 1.85 acres.
Veeetation: There are several trees, primarily cottonwood and elm trees, located on this
site. Development on this site is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Wetlands: There are no wetlands on the site.
Access: Access to the site will be from CSAH 12.
Zonine and Land Use Plan Desienation of Adjacent Property:
North: The property to the north, across CSAH 12, is zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential). The 2020 Comprehensive Plan designates this property for R-L/MD (Low
to Medium Density Residential) uses.
I:\01fi1es\01subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report.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
'"
..
.
South: The property to the south is C-l (Neighborhood Commercial) and is designated
for Neighborhood Retail Shopping uses on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This
property is currently used agriculturally.
East: Directly east of this property are single family residences zoned R-l and
designated for R-L/MD uses.
West: The property to the west is the Pheasant Meadows townhouse development, zoned
R-l and designated for R-L/MD uses.
PROPOSED PLAN
2020 Comprehensive Plan Desi~nation: This property is designated for R-L/MD uses
on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Zonin~: The property is zoned R-l, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation.
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 1.85 acres to be subdivicJed into 5 lots for single
family residential development. The proposed lot areas range from 10,212 square feet to
13,500 square feet. The applicants are requesting a variance to the minimum lot area
requirement for Lot 3, Lot 4 and Lot 5 of the plat. These lots are 11,007 square feet,
10,683 square feet and 10,212 square feet in area, respectively. All of the lots meet the
minimum lot width requirement.
Streets: This plan proposes no new public streets; however, the plat does dedicate an
additional 17 feet of right-of-way for CSAH 12.
Parks: This plat does not include any parkland dedication. Dedication requirements will
be satisfied by a cash dedication, in lieu of land, for each of the new lots. The lots with
the existing dwellings are exempted from the parkland dedication fee.
Sanitary Sewer/Water Main: Sanitary sewer and water main is currently located in
CSAH 12. The locations of the services to the proposed lots must be verified prior to
final approval.
Storm Sewer: There is no storm sewer proposed for this site. The plan indicates the
new building sites will drain to the north.
Tree Replacement: The developer has submitted a Tree Inventory for this site; however,
several trees on the plan are not labeled. It is most likely that no tree replacement will be
required. However, the Tree Inventory must be revised to label all of the significant
trees, and it must be prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor.
1:\01 files\01 subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report. doc
Page 2
Landscape Plan: The Subdivision Ordinance requires two front yard subdivision trees
per lot. The developer has submitted a landscaping plan identifying the required trees.
ANALYSIS:
There are two main issues pertaining to this' preliminary plat. The first issue is the need
for variances to the minimum lot area for three of the proposed lots. The need for
variances is caused primarily by the County requirement for 50' of right-of-way rather
than the standard 33' of right-of-way. If the standard amount of right-of-way were
dedicated, Lots 3 and 4 would meet the minimum lot area requirement of 12,000 square
feet. Lot 5, however, would still be less than the minimum lot area with an area of
11,681 square feet.
CSAH 12 is scheduled in both the City and the County CIP for reconstruction in 2004. If
the right-of-way is not dedicated with this plat, the City will be required to purchase the
right-of-way from the property owners at that time.
The second issue pertaining to this proposal is access to the property to the south.
Although the property to the south is adjacent to TH 13, the State purchased the access
rights to this site several years ago. At the present time, the only access to this property is
from Pheasant Trail, the platted but unimproved road to the west. This will remain the
access to the property, unless the City creates a new access by realigning the TH 13 and
CSAH 12 intersection. Another option is to require dedication of right-of-way through
this plat from CSAH 12 to the property. This would result in the loss of a lot from the
proposed plat.
The subdivision ordinance under which this request is being processed requires that any
parcel being platted must recognize the logical extension of streets to adjacent parcels.
The Planning Commission needs to consider that the only access to the property to the
south is from an undeveloped right-of-way in Pheasant Meadows and the current
Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is Neighborhood Commercial. Either
the Plan designation needs to be reconsidered or access should be provided from CSAH
12.
The Planning Commission must first consider the request for a variance to the minimum
lot area. This request must be evaluated based on the hardship criteria listed in the
Zoning Ordinance. The attached letter from the applicant outlines their reasoning for this
vanance.
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
1:\01files\01subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report. doc
Page 3
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.
There do not appear to be any unique physical conditions on the property that would
preclude compliance with the zoning ordinance while allowing a reasonable use of the
property.
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.
Staff does not believe there are conditions peculiar to this property that do not apply
generally within the R-l District.
3. The granting of the .proposed Variance is necessary f.or the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The right of the property owner to subdivide their property is not denied by a failure
to grant the variance. Denial of a variance only means one less lot may be developed.
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.
In staffs opinion, granting the variance would not impair light and air, increase
congestion in the streets 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 ofthe area.
Granting the variance will not have adverse impacts on the character of the area or
otherwise affect values or safety in the area.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Granting the variance as proposed could be construed to be in conflict with the
intention of the Subdivision ordinance, which clearly contemplates provision of
access to adjacent properties
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 .
1:\01files\01subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report.doc
Page 4
Staff believes there is no demonstrable hardship in this case. Elimination of one lot
will allow full compliance with the ordinance.
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 owner can submit a plat that conforms in all respects with the ordinance
requirements.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not
be grounds for granting a Variance.
The applicant has not stated a need for the variance based on increased costs or
economic hardship.
ANALYSIS:
If the Planning Commission finds the variance to the minimum lot size is justified, the proposed
preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. If the
preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following condition:
1. Prior to final plat approval, tlte Tree Inventory must be revised so all trees are labeled and
it must be signed by a registered land surveyor.
2. Tlte water and sewer service locations must be verified.
3. Tlte applicant must obtain an access permit and any otlter required permits from Scott
County prior to final plat approval.
If the variance is not approved, a fourth condition requiring that all lots meet the minimum lot
area requirement must be included.
ALTERNATIVES (Variance):
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. Deny the application because the Plarming 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.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ALTERNATIVES (Preliminary Plat):
1:\0 1 files\01 subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report. doc
Page 5
1. Recommend the Council approve the preliminary plat of McCormick Acres as presented and
subject to the conditions listed above, or with specific changes directed by the Planning
Commission.
2. Table or continue the public hearing to a date and time certain and provide the developer
with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future Planning Commission
reVIew.
3. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific findings of fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Planning Commission defer action on the preliminary plat and variance to
allow the applicant the opportunity to reconsider the proposed plat.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion deferring action on the plat and variance to a date certain.
1:\01files\01subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report.doc
Page 6
MRY.25.2001 2:20PM
CITY OF WRSECR
NO.980.. P.1/2
May 24, 2001
RE: McCormick Acres Preliminary Plat & Variance Application
Dear Ms Kansier:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with my family and I about the abc;",e
referenced plat and variances. As we have advised you, our family has owned this
property since the early 1960s. The area proposed to be platted was originally the
fannstead for a larger parcel. There still remain the original farmstead home and two
out buildings on the property. In addition, my father developed a single family home
on a portion of the property.
It was always my family's intent to develop this property into five single family
homes, In fact, in 1972 the City installed a new street and replaced utility lines into
the site. The City stubbed five services into the property. It was always our plan, and
the plan of the City. to allow five single family residences on this site. As you can see
from the attached drawings, the placement of the second home was done with carl= to
ensure adequate property to meet typical lot sizes in the area at the time the second
home was built. The property could most likely have been subdivided into five lots
under the subdivision ordinance available at the time.
The County is noW requesting that we dedicate an additional 17 feet of our frontage
along each one of these lots for future highway expansion. Although we are not
objecting to the dedication of this property at this time. the homes immediately to the
east of our property are pre~ent1y located closer to 170frl Street SW (County Road 12)
than our sites. It is unlikely that the roadway could be expanded to the depths that are
proposed by the county without leaving dwellings with inadequate front setbacks. We
are requesting a variance from the lot area requirements of the Prior Lake ZOfling
Ordinance for three of the five parcels located in this subdivision. As I have stated. it
was always our intent, and the City's intent, to allow five lots to be developed in this
area. The proposal of the County to take additional frontage along 170m Street SW.
reduces the lot area available to these properties and creates a substandard condition.
It is, therefore, our request that the City of Prior Lake grant a variance from the area
requirements of the ordinance by reason of the narrowness of the lot and the
extraordinary condition created by the County's request for additional right of way.
This request has resulted in a peculiar and practical difficulties and creates an undue
MAY.25.2001 2:20PM
CITY OF WASECR
NO. 980
P.2/2
hardship upon my family acting as developer for the site. We also feel that the
conditions applying to our site are not unlike or peculiar to the property immediat~ly
adjoining the proposed platted area. The granting of this easement is therefore
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of my family, acting as developer of the
site.
The granting of this easement will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, incre~e
the danger of frre, or danger the public safety. Further, the granting of the variance
will not unreasonably impact the character of the development of the neighborhood,
unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the surrounding
area, or in any other way impair the health, safety and comfort of the area. The
variance will also not be contrary to the intent of the Prior Lake ordinance or the Prior
Lake Comprehensive Plan.
Tbe granting of the variance is necessary to alleviate a demonstratable undue hardship
or difficulty to our property, The hardships that are created by the strict application of
the ordinance are not as a result of the actions of the property owners or prior property
owners.
It is therefore our request that the Prior Lake Planning Commission and City Council
grant the variance to the Lot area as requested by our application. If you have any
fwther questions about this matter, or need any further information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
* )-q~
!{ris M. Busse
1401 6th Street NE
Waseca, MN 56093
Location Map
--llf /13 I } 115 116 I~
-----L-~J~
BASSWOOD RD. __
6 1 ".:J~ 4 1
1
I
~\\..V
I
r-
(1 0: \51
Z
-J
W
-J
a.
~
2
PARK
ac 1033
EI1>1 13
0::
0
CO\OOMIN"'"
0 Ole 1034
8 .....NG . lAKE 14
~ CCNXlMNlLM
co:
0 15
'<0
~ 16
ff t)<
COUNTY ROAD 12
N
A
300
~LJ
'U,
w
;: 1
'N\\..\..O'f
Location of
McCormick Acres
o
300
600 Feet
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(952) 496-8346
'-~l
JUN , 9 2001
BRADLEY J. LARSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORJ
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
i..._.. :....__'''__~~~~___~__.._,__ '--....'. ;
I .
'--.---- Fax:'T952f496=-836r-.1
June 8, 2001
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Preliminary Plat, McCormick Acres
CSAH 12, West ofTH 13
Dear Jane:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat as it relates to the Scott County Highway Department and offer
the following comments.
As specified in the recently approved County Transportation Plan, Scott County has adopted the
following applicable policies regarding access to County Roads:
22. Strive to maintain appropriate spacing of intersecting local streets and driveways in
accordance with the Scott County Minimum Access Spacing Guidelines.
24. Encourage the design of a network of local roadways to properly direct traffic to collector or
arterial roadways.
25. Support local roadway networks that reduce the need for neighborhood traffic on arterial and
collector roadways for local trips and encourage interconnected neighborhoods.
The plat as proposed creates three new closely-spaced accesses to CSAH 12. We understand that there
are quite a few existing parcels along CSAH 12 with direct access to the roadway, but we would be
willing to work with the City in coming up with alternatives to exacerbating the problem.
In this particular case, the proposal also potentially worsens the issue of access for the parcel to the south.
It is our understanding that the parcel to the south is zoned commercial. Will the City support connecting
this commercial property to Pheasant Trail? Ifnot, it appears as though direct access to TH 13 (an arterial
projected to carry 14,000 vehicles per day by 2020) is becoming the only option. Again, we support local
roadway networks that reduce the need for direct access to arterial roadways. This would also mean the
future development would have only one access point, which would not be ideal for emergency access.
Althou~h we are not in support of the development as proposed (as described above). we have the
following comments if the City does approve the development as proposed:
. Lot 3 shall share an access to CSAH 12 with Lot 2 or Lot 4. An access permit shall be required for
all new accesses to CSAH 12, as well as for modification of any existing accesses to CSAH 12.
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
.
· We highly recommend a driveway turnaround be installed with each driveway. This will eliminate
the safety issues created by vehicles backing onto the County road when leaving the residences.
· The existing accesses that will not be used as part of this development should be removed and graded
to match surroundings before issuance of a building permit.
General conditions:
· No berming, ponding, landscaping, or signage shall be permitted in the County right-of~way.
. An access permit shall be required for this development.
· Any increase in drainage entering the County right-of-way shall require a detailed stormwater
analysis to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval.
As always, we appreciate the opportunity to comment. Please call me at 496-8060 if you have any
questions or need further clarification.
&~
Brian K. Sorenson, P .E.
Transportation Engineer
Copy: Craig Jenson, County Transportation Planner
Jack Witt, County Highway Utility Inspector
Bud Osmundson, City Public Works Director
Tim Arvidson, Project Engineer, Bolton & Menk Inc.
Paul Czech, MnlDOT Planning
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~ 1:l
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
a
. t:
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ i
~ ~
c-..; f::
~ ;j
~
~
~
~
....
'I .,.
I II" I 1",
! I Jar'.'
; irrl:~'!i
i &{rjla!il
10 '1i"6:'.UsfI
. Ill"'!
H ~~liiiii,
-: f; ..8, ~ t
II .i:i~!!!I'1
I I I>.. l
~ l. 1'~II~"!'
~ '! 'ls....'ioliol
~ i~ ImlWi
~ III li:l ;;!~
~ l ,!itli~:l
~ '. >.~r Ill'
a f!!f;~~i!
Ii IHiH:1
...8;..,..rGIIt
....
,:(
~...
,
!
i ~!
III
~l
I
I
"\
"
,.....
,
!'
,
.... /
,.
./ -"..,
".
.__..~.
/
/,/J(
\
I
I
\
I
I
\
I
I
\
I
I
\
I
I
i
I
"
Ii
.
;
.
i
! nm
~ 8 f1;j""~
~ ~ ..... ~
~ I m~~. I
~ ~ nm ~;
~ li~ I ~ ; . !!m ~ ~
~ 1.111 ~ A ~ iiiii ~A
~ iHil ~ f ~ ~m! ~ f
~ - - !j r ~ m.. ~ r
~
~
~
~ ilil~
~
~
~ hl
~o:
,
! ~
~ !
~ f
I'
oJ
II
! }
, t
t i
I:
,/
~ II !
~ II i
~ '! '
~! ~
~ d'
ti ~ t ;
'\
/
'"
.
ti !
f-i
ih~,
~ il ,j "
2 ~l' I';
Ib' i l
z 2 '
0'"'''' -,
~ Illl
~
.~
.'j
lJl ~
t' f-.;~'~
", '
! f
J.
jilt ~
:.! ,~ [
z ... + E3cn g
g
o ~
g I
I j/
flli>!l
'l'trfl'
I I .11
I " 'I f
,Iii I.
IpJl;J
f'fllH :,
I fl I.. .
. I.;' I ~
I'hE)1 2
;!'!pt
'II ,f
f l'li'
;It!al
Hi
01" I i ~ ~ i ! H n : ~ P ~ q i'
~ ~ , I g I : ~ II ! I ! : I ! I : , IIII i : : i! Iii i !l; ~
"".'*PlI';;",;O::. .. III
. .. I; . '" ~ .. l a . ~1'. ~ ~ 0*$ ~Ii jl
hI ~
S+t!11
i. I ~!
~. lJ Nl
r~l ' Ill;
I . I . I
I "-i 'JI.I
. I' 0'
I,j
.
..
t.
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4,fJ
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO ALLOW OFF-PREMISE NAMEPLATE SIGNS IN
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (Case File #01-049)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
L YES NO
JULY 9,2001
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Sign
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant, Wensco, is requesting an
amendment that would allow off-premise nameplate signs in commercial districts.
These signs are generally used by multiple tenant shopping centers to list the
names of the individual tenants. Examples of these signs are shown on the
attached photographs. Wensco would like to use this type of sign to identify the
various businesses located in the Fountain Hills development. The Zoning
Ordinance does not allow off-premise signs. The ordinance, however, does
allow subdivision signs, identifying the name of the development, at the major
entrances to the development.
DISCUSSION:
The language proposed by Wensco is attached to this report. In general,
Wensco is proposing language that would allow off-premise nameplate signs as
conditional use permits in the commercial districts. They are proposing these
signs be allowed along TH 13, CSAH 42 and CSAH 21. The proposed maximum
square footage of the signs is 180 square feet, and the maximum height is 25
feet above grade. The sign materials are tied into the materials used in the
principal structure. The proposed language would also allow this as the only
freestanding sign.
The staff feels this language is flawed for several reasons. First of all, the
language is geared towards shopping centers rather than individual buildings on
separate lots. In other words, adoption of this language would not seem to allow
the sign Wensco is proposing in the Fountain Hills Business Park. Another
1:\01 files\01 ordamend\zoning\offprem signs\pc report.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.
~
..\
problem with the language is the process. While a conditional use permit does
provide the Planning Commission and the City Council with more design control,
it does seem cumbersome for a sign. Finally, some of the standards proposed,
such as size and height, are inconsistent with current sign requirements.
It does not seem unreasonable to allow a nameplate sign for business or
industrial uses along a major road. However, the staff feels this can be
accomplished by amending the provisions governing subdivision signs to allow
for these uses. The staff would suggest the following amendment (new
language in italics):
1107.816
(1 )
(2)
(3)
Subdivision Identification Signs:
Residential Districts. Freestanding signs indicating the name of a
residential subdivision, or neighborhood, or business center shall be
permitted for the purpose of permanent identification. At each principal
entrance to such an area, a maximum of 2 signs, not to exceed 50
square feet of sign area per side with a maximum of 2 sides, excluding
decorative landscaping and sign base, will be permitted on private
property. The maximum height of such signs shall be 10 feet above the
natural grade.
Commercial and Industrial Districts.
a. Freestanding signs indicating the name of a business center shall
be permitted for the purpose of permanent identification. At each
principal entrance to such an area, a maximum of 2 signs, not to ~
exceed 50 square feet of sign area per side with a maximum of 2
sides, excluding decorative landscaping and sign base, will be
permitted on private property. The maximum height of such signs
shall be 10 feet above the natural grade.
b. In Commercial and Industrial subdivisions with frontage along TH
13, CSAH 42 or CSAH 21, 1 freestanding subdivision sign may be
located along the frontage of TH 13, CSAH 42 or CSAH 21. In
the C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 and 1-1 districts, the maximum height of the
sign shall be 20 feet above the natural grade. In the C-5 district,
the maximum height of the sign shall be 10 feet above the natural
grade. In the C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 and 1-1 districts, this sign shall
not exceed 100 square feet in area per side, with a maximum of 2
sides. In the C-5 district, the sign shall not exceed 80 square feet
per side, with a maximum of 2 sides. Freestanding subdivision
signs permitted under this section must also be located at least 40
feet from any other freestanding sign.
Setbacks. In any use district, a Subdivision Identification Sign must be
located at least 10 feet from any property line. The sign may not be
located within a traffic visibility area as defined in Section 1101.506 of this
ordinance.
1:\01 files\01 ordamend\zoning\offprem signs\pc report.doc
Page 2
(4) Easements/Covenants. When such signs are proposed and
constructed by an individual or firm other than the individual or
association who will be responsible for the maintenance, there shall be a
covenant prepared by the proponent establishing responsibility for the
maintenance of the sign or signs over the entire project or subdivision, to
be approved by the City Attorney, and to be recorded on the property
title(s) prior to issuance of the sign permit. Further, appropriate
easements shall be provided for the approved signs on the property or
properties where the signs are to be located; the easements shall be
recorded prior to the issuance of the sign permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states specific findings which must be
met to change the ordinance.
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this
Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the
City.
3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal
requirements.
Staff feels there is a public need for an amendment to allow nameplate signs.
The proposed amendment also is consistent with the goal of "economic vitality"
in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specifically, the above language is
consistent with the objective that requires the City to "maintain high standards in
the promotion and development of commerce and industry" by encouraging,
regulating, and promoting aesthetically pleasing commercial and industrial
development.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed by the
applicant, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as prpposed by staff, or
with changes specified by the Planning Commission.
3. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment.
4. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
1:\01 files\01 ordamend\zoning\offprem signs\pc report. doc
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #2.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment as
recommended by staff and indicated in the attached draft ordinance.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Amendment
1:\01 files\01 ordamend\zoning\offprem signs\pc report. doc
Page 4
JUN-l~-l~~l (rUE)
l~:j~
(fAX)lD11~~1Hn
~, ~~U~~j
WEN~MANN HOME~
Proposed Sign Ordinance
Off-Premises Retail Name Plate Signs
Shopping Center Signage
(1.) Retail Name Plate Signs .
One off premises Name Plate Sign may be pennittcd to identify tcnanl.:l or building occupants
Subject to the provisions (3) below.
(2.) ShoPpin2 Center Signa~c:
Two Major anchor center signs may be permitted for n center in excess of $150,000 squiU'e feet,
Subject to the provisions of (3) below.
(3.) All Retail Name Plate SlgnslSllopplng Center Signs are subject to n conditional use permit.
The fonowing criteria sh:u1 apply to all 'Retail Name Plate Signs/Shopping Center Signs:
The Property on which the sibrn is to be located shall be zoned B3 -General Business oT
and the si!;Il shall abut County R.ond 42, County Road 21, Hwy 13.
The sign shall be the only freestanding sign permitted for the business center. Such signs
may be placed on any lot within the development or subdivision provided the sign npplic.U1t
controls the land by easement Dr title.
A ma."C.imum of75% of the sign structure cxtc:rior fac~ shall be encased in the same style OUId
color brick, or other approved exterior material, used on the: face: of the: principle building. A
minimum of2S% of the e:uerior face of tile sign structure shall be encClSed in brick, tile, sIass
Dr steel rail similar in design nnd color to the devc:lopments improvements. This maLerial
shall be concentraLed between the finished l:,rround I:,"mde and forty-two inched above said
grade.
The sibrn :;hall be set back a minimum ofthirtt:en feet from the property line, paw\1Iay
easement, or public: street right-or-way line. Such signs may be no closer than three hundred
feet to the nearest freestanding sign on [he Silllle side of the right-of-way, nor closer than fifty
feet to a comer intCTSection of two right-of-way lines.
The ma.~um height of the sign structure: shall be 25 feet above finished grade.
Archite:c:tural desisn details, similnr to the design of the principle building, may extend five
feet above the maximum height of25 feet of [he sign. Sign area shall not exceed] 80 square
feet per side ofthc sign (two sides mou;llnum)
All sh;nage shall have individual, intcmnl backlit letters and symbols. Additional sight-
lighting may be ground lighting. the source of which is concealed from view.
Landscaping plans for the arca around the base of me sign shall be completed and reviewed as
pm of the conditional use permit/site plan approval process.
JUN-B-l~~l (rUE)
l~:j~
WEN~MANN HOME~
(FAX) 10 J 1 ~ ~ J j 018
~, ~~j/~~j
All illuminated sisns shall have an indirect or diffused oight source and be design so as not to
direct rays oflight onto public streets or adjiICent property, lhereby creating a nuisance or
safctly hazard.
There shaH be no ilashing signs permitted.
Setback and Height Requirements:
The following minimum setbacks and maximum heights shall be required for Retail Name Plate Signs.
Minimum Setback from Public Right of Way 13'
Minimum Setback Other Yards 10'
M.oomum Height 25'
Sign Administration
1. Compliance. No siB" shall be erected, inSTalled, constructed or painted in the city, except in
compliance widl c:urrcnt ordinance.
2. Permit Applications. The application for a sign permit shall be made upon forms provided by the
city and shall Slate or have attached the following infonnation
Name Address and telephone number ofappliQQt and owner of the sign
Location of building, structure or lot to which or upon which the sign is to attached or
erected
Position of the sign or other advertising structUres in relation to neilI'by buildings or
strUctures.
A scaled drawing or photograph of the plans and specifications and method of
consuuction or attachment to the building or in the ground.
Copy of stress sheets and calculations showing the structure is designed for dead load and
wind veloc:ity in the amount required by the City Building Code and if requested by thc
city building o1licial.
N;une of person/Contractor erecting the structure.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 01-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1107.816 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. Section 1107.816 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby deleted as currently written
and amended to include the following language:
1107.816
(1)
(2)
Subdivision Identification Si~ns:
Residential Districts. Freestanding signs indicating the name of a
residential subdivision or neighborhood shall be permitted for the purpose
of permanent identification. At each principal entrance to such an area, a
maximum of 2 signs, not to exceed 50 square feet of sign area per side
with a maximum of 2 sides, excluding decorative landscaping and sign
base, will be permitted on private property. The maximum height of such
signs shall be 10 feet above the natural grade.
Commercial and Industrial Districts.
a. Freestanding signs indicating the name of a business center shall
be permitted for the purpose of permanent identification. At each
principal entrance to such an area, a maximum of 2 signs, not to
exceed 50 square feet of sign area per side with a maximum of 2
sides, excluding decorative landscaping and sign base, will be
permitted on private property. The maximum height of such signs
shall be 10 feet above the natural grade.
b. In Commercial and Industrial subdivisions with frontage along TH
13, CSAH 42 or CSAH 21, 1 freestanding subdivision sign may be
located along the frontage of TH 13, CSAH 42 or CSAH 21. In
the C-l, C-2, C-3, C-4 and I-I districts, the maximum height of the
sign shall be 20 feet above the natural grade. In the C-5 district,
the maximum height of the sign shall be 10 feet above the natural
grade. In the C-l, C-2, C-3, C-4 and I-I districts, this sign shall
not exceed 100 square feet in area per side, with a maximum of 2
sides. In the C-5 district, the sign shall not exceed 80 square feet
per side, with a maximum of 2 sides. Freestanding subdivision
signs permitted under this section must also be located at least 40
feet from any other freestanding sign.
1:\01 files\O 1 ordamend\zonjng\offprem signs\draft ordinance. doc
(3) Setbacks. In any use district, a Subdivision Identification Sign must
located at least 10 feet from any property line. The sign may not be
located within a traffic visibility area as defined in Section 1101.506 of
this ordinance.
(4) Easements/Covenants. When such signs are proposed and constructed
by an individual or firm other than the individual or association who will
be responsible for the maintenance, there shall be a covenant prepared by
the proponent establishing responsibility for the maintenance ofthe sign or
signs over the entire project or subdivision, to be approved by the City
Attorney, and to be recorded on the property title(s) prior to issuance of
the sign permit. Further, appropriate easements shall be provided for the
approved signs on the property or properties where the signs are to be
located; the easements shall be recorded prior to the issuance of the sign
permit.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of
,2000.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
,2000.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1:\01 files\O 1 ordamend\zoning\offprem signs\draft ordinance.doc
2
..
.
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4C
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA 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
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_X_ YES NO
JULY 9, 2001
On June 25,2001, the Planning Department held a public hearing for two
variance requests from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) on the property
located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The requests included a setback variance to
allow a deck to be setback 4 feet from the ordinary high water mark, and to
permit an impervious surface area of 4,422 square feet.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission denied the deck variance at the public hearing on
June 25, 2001, (Attachment 1 Resolution #01-008PC). The Commission
continued the public hearing regarding the impervious surface variance to allow
the applicant more time to revise and reduce the request because the
Commission did not agree with the request for 4,422 square feet or 57.5 % of the
total lot area.
On July 3,2001, the Planning Department received a request from the applicant
to continue the public hearing for the impervious surface variance request from
the scheduled date of July 9, to July 23,2001. The applicant submitted the
postponement request due to the lack of time needed to provide the additional
information.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the public hearing
until the next scheduled meeting as requested by the applicant.
L:\01files\01variances\01-017\VrRt2.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
~
.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Deny the variance requested by the applicant. In this case, the Planning
Commission should direct staff to prepare a Resolution with findings denying
the Variance request.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose as requested by
the applicant.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends alternative #2.
1. Motion and second to continue the public hearing until the next scheduled
meeting.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt2.DOC
Page 2
RESOLUTION Ol-008PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 71 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
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-1 (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 June 25, 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, umeasonably 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, such that the hardship created 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 lake shore setback as
reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
1:\0 I files\O I variances\O 1-0 17\dny rs2.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
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure
to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 00-017PC 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 for an attached deck to an existing single family dwelling, as shown in
Attachment 1 Survey;
1. 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 June 25,2001.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\Ol variances\O 1-017\dny rs2.doc
2
ATTACHMENT 1
,,'
l' 10
of \..0
\..ltlE. __~-"---
--- \
,
\
\
'.
o
w
Z
~73, , ... ~
RIM t\.. "'i'::'\' ~j.;. ,", c1
'; '\.Q ~:~~\ . .,.. Q]
~T ~".. r~";.:_:r.~ 0:'5..
'-: ,", ':/,;1"'."1: :,," SAN. Mt-\
\ ~\~t ,t~.r .;~.
, r...
~ . ',," ,.c~, O.
'" "0":&& " '0,,4~~3-
,. .,1." . '';'''.,It' ';'~~1~ j
"\.'~i :', ~.
90' "~ a:' ,
\' W :: o!, II .
" I,) .': '
:::> . ~" 10
\ Z ~u--.
.: c1 t> to
....', G. . N
W' "d) <:t
> '(c t\.,.J to .
, .\0," :J . II .
<t t t> It.,
I- '
III. 11
~
<6\
uil
<t \ I'IG ON
'1/11'1050 Of
i\..01' f, i'r\ \..\I-IE. liS
I' aU SOU 0 e.
Ul'lE. 0 1'~\E. \..01' I
SOU1''r\ \<.E. /I.\..SOOOf1'. Of ,,>-Ri:..OZ''>;.7"
1''r\E. \../). ~1''r\ 45, ,..oj (,'l"," ,/
1''r\E. N~~1'€."'S~O:,!>" €.. ., /
'1-4'\.. i <:,05'!>'j _
~IJ 5:t---
..48, 'I
.' - 45 ", . .r.! .
45.., ",~
,,' \
\
..
,..._--\
'" ..
t;, \
',0 ~
... ":)
~
~
~
\
~
~
\-';
" 2-
!~, .':,.:
<1
U
"\
.,,,,.,
1.
C 1\,\\ tl
. i,
~:.~
i. .
\