HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 23, 2001
f
~&k
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JULY 23, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for impervious
surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck on the property
located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case File #01-055 Eagle Creek Development is requesting a vacation to a drainage and
utility easement located over the former Holly court right-of-way located on Lot 2,
Block 1, Creekside Estates.
B. Case File #01-038 Charles Boissiere is requesting a vacation of30 feet of the Ashland
Road (Eau Claire Trail) right-of-way adjacent to the east side of Lot 4, Grainwood.
(4120 Eau Claire Trail)
C. Case Files #01-062 & 01-063 Merlyn Olson Development is requesting review ofa
concept plan for a townhouse development to be known as Eaglewood East consisting of
5 acres to be developed with 35 units, common open space and private streets to
authorize the acceptance of an application for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development
of less than 10 acres. This property is located south of County Road 21, north of
Colorado Street, east of West Avenue and west of Duluth Avenue.
D. Downtown Zoning discussion.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
LIO! fileslOlplancommlO I pcagendaIAG072301.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 9, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the July 9,2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:32
p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Lemke, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning
Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
Vonhof
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Correction: Delete "Criego" from the first paragraph.
The Minutes from the June 25, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
corrected.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
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.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 9,2001, on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Patrick L. McCormick Trust has filed an application for a preliminary plat for the
1.85 acre site located on the south side ofCSAH 12 (1 70th Street), west ofCSAH 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.
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
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN07090 1 .doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 9,2001
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.
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.
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, the Tree Inventory must be revised so all trees are
labeled and it must be signed by a registered land surveyor.
2. The water and sewer service locations must be verified.
3. The applicant must obtain an access permit and any other 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.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission defer action on the preliminary plat and
variance to August 13,2001, allow the applicant the opportunity to reconsider the
proposed plat.
Criego questioned if the property south of the applicant was landlocked? Kansier pointed
out the access through Pheasant Meadows. Rye said at the time of the designation the
City had no idea the State would purchase the access off Highway 13.
Criego also questioned the easement location. Rye said the description indicates it is
located to the easterly side of the house.
Comments from the public:
Applicants, Kris Busse and Tim Arvidson, spoke as representatives of the Patrick
McCormick Trust. Busse respectfully disagreed that there is a hardship with the property
as there are two existing homes. With existing homes one does not have the ability to
layout the property in a typical subdivision fashion. Regarding the access issue, Busse
L\OI files\OI plancomm\OJ pcminutes\MN070901 ,doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 9, 2001
did not feel it was a good idea to run commercial traffic through a residential area.
Suggested re-aligning the Highway 13 and County Road 12 access. It would be a better-
controlled traffic area. By placing the burden of access to the neighbors' property is not
fair to the McCormick family. They were never paid for the access rights. It is hard to
understand that someone was paid for access rights and now the McCormicks are
required to provide access. Arvidson pointed out the location of the log house. At the
time it was built, the house met City ordinances. The City required 12,000 square foot lot
sizes after the log home was built. The staff report pointed out that the majority of the
variances are for the additional footage dedicated to the County for right-of-way.
Julie McCormick, said there is some difference in keeping the property in the original
state. McCormick questioned the value of the property if subdivided. She would like to
see the property remain the same.
Judd Dow, (McCormick's fiancee) said they did not get a notice until yesterday. The
family is split two to two on the decision to subdivide the property. Dow felt the family
needed more time for adequate council to study the value of the land. Question ifthere
would be more valuable to keep the existing lots or subdivide.
Commissioner V onhof explained the Commission could not answer those questions. The
surrounding property owners are notified 10 days prior to the meeting.
Kansier pointed out the notice went to the applicant.
Dow said they would like to get adequate appraisals and requested more time to study the
issue. Two of the trust heirs felt the hardship is not there and would leave it as is.
Rye questioned if decisions of the trust were made together or by one person. Dow said
it is up to Kris Busse. Two of the heirs would like more information.
Howard Monnens, owner of the 10 acres south of the property, said he does have an
access from the State to Highway 13. He would have to get a permit. He also has a
water and sewer easement from 1980 though the McCormick property. Monn.ens does
not see the Pheasant Meadows property as an access for the commercial property.
Monnens also stated he went to the State and they were okay with getting access. The
City felt access from the intersection of 170th and Highway 13 was too close to the
interchange for an access. The County said they only thing they could do was to suggest
counting 1,300 feet as a possible access from the westerly side of Pheasant Meadows,
which would not work. Monnens asked the City to look into a long-term solution. He
felt the State, County and City officials should consider the future of the area now.
Mark McCormick, an heir of the McCormick trust, pointed out the older home on the
west side sits up 8 to 10 feet, and is concerned the driveway is too close to the adjoining
lot and will have to be adjusted. Several trees will have to be taken out and a retaining
wall will have to be constructed for access to the old house. The other house has a high
L:\OI files\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MN070901.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
July 9,2001
elevation and would look like an island. He was concerned they would loose value on
the home.
William Baker, resident and representative for Pheasant Meadows Association stated
their concern is for the access trail through the property. He agreed with Mr. Monnens
that the area has to be looked at as a total. Access through a residential area is not
appropriate. The Association would like to maintain the integrity of the area. They are
objecting to any further development access through the area. Baker questioned what the
affect would be if the commercial property would be changed to residential? Pheasant
Meadows is planning on petitioning for a variance on the roadway to prevent a future
access. Baker presented a petition from 64 Pheasant Meadows residents outlining his
comments.
Mike Klingberg representing his parents Bill and Nancy Klingberg, 3655 1 70th Street,
east of the property, are concerned for a potential home 20 feet away from their property.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. Agreed with staff to defer this to the August 13, meeting. There are many issues
which require more information.
Criego:
. Questioned staff: Ifthe applicant does not dedicate the right-of-way at this point, is
that acceptable or is he required to dedicate it? Rye said it depends on what law
book you read. Recent Supreme Court decisions state you cannot compel dedication
by the need of a project. You can compel dedication but what you dedicate has to be
proportionate to the need created by the project. The issue to be resolved is whether
or not traffic generated from this development would be of volume warranting
dedication to the entire right-of-way or some percentage of it.
. Criego clarified.
. Rye said anytime the City approves a plat on a County Road, the County would
always say they need right-of-way. It tends to come up more on County roads.
. Does not like to plat property in a substandard method. Three lots are substandard.
The Commission does their best to keep the standards.
. If the dedication were required would be against approving the application at this
time. There is no question that the driveways proposed would be connected to the
County road. Kansier said the County felt the driveways would have to be combined.
In essence there would be 3 openings. The County requires driveway permits.
. The applicant did not show a need to divide into 3 substandard lots.
L:\O I files\O I pJancomm\OI pcminutes\MN070901.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
July 9,2001
Stamson:
· If you can't compel a dedication, does that mean the City cannot require it at all?
Rye said the City would have to purchase the right-of-way if it is needed.
· Questioned if the City would develop access through Pheasant Meadows? Rye said
the neighbors obj ected to Pheasant Meadows accessing through their neighborhood.
As a result of that, a connection to the west was eliminated. This was retained but the
street itself was not built. It is a platted right-of-way. Dedicated public street.
· Agreed with Criego and City Staff that it is a matter of convenience to split into 5
lots. They do not meet the standards.
· Willing to give the applicant more time to look at the issues.
V onhof:
· More information was received than was in the report. Suggested obtaining more
information before a decision is made.
· Agreed with Commissioners on the variance request. Perhaps 4 lots would be more
appropriate.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO DEFER THE MATTER TO THE
AUGUST 13,2001 MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier clarified that staff should come back with information on access and realignment
of the intersection of Highway 13 and l70th.
Vonhofpointed out that access is in the CIP for the City and County for 2002.
Stamson requested addressing the dedication issue. The City cannot compel the applicant
to dedicate access.
V onhof explained the actions on this issue.
Lemke suggested the trustees should leave their addresses with staff for notification.
B. Case File 01-049 Consider an application to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
allow off-premise nameplate signs in commercial districts.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 9, 2001, on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
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 the signs were presented. Wensco would like to use this type of sign to
identify the various businesses located in the Fountain Hills development. The Zoning
L:\OI files\O I plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN07090 I.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
July 9,2001
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.
Staff felt 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 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.
Lemke questioned the height of the signs in Burnsville. Kansier said the City did not
have that information. The 10 feet above grade is for the intersections that say the name
of the business center. It is 20 feet for other districts, except for the C5 district.
Comments from the public:
Kelly Murray, representing Wensco, the applicant, agreed with Staffs proposed
language. Their only concern is that they requested 25 feet for the size. Their lot happens
to be'on a steep slope along County Road 42. Murray explained the grade and the
problem. They need the full 20 feet to get to the sign they are proposing. Murray
presented the proposed sign. They were going to tie in with a theme for the area. The
sign would be located 15 feet west from the Holiday station lot line.
There were no comments from the public and the floor was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. There should be signage for industry and parks.
. Agreed with the twenty feet. Something can be worked out on what the average is.
. That particular property can only benefit from a high level sign. It should not be a
problem.
. There should be entrance signage into the park. Ten feet is appropriate.
Stamson:
. It is a good idea and beneficial to the City.
. Regarding Item 2b: Should the City be more specific with nameplate signs? This is
more of a subdivision sign. Rye responded the City would be getting into content
regulation. There is nothing to say they can't have multiple businesses within the one
sign. Stamson agreed.
. Addressing the applicant's concern with the grade. Twenty feet is okay. Language
should be added to accommodate the issue with the sloping ditches.
. Kansier said the City would review the language.
. There are very few natural grades along County Road 42.
L\O] files\O] plancomm\O] pcminutes\MN0709OJ .doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
July 9,2001
· Kansier stated that there are unique circumstances and would maybe have to look at
variances. But try to make it apply to most situations.
· Overall agreed with staffs recommendation.
Lemke:
· Agreed 20 feet is adequate.
· Do not create a situation where everyone who installs a sign on a graded slope has to
apply for a variance.
· Agreed the language in the ordinance is good.
· Rye suggested wording in cases where the sign is located on a slope that the short
dimension can be 20 feet and the other whatever is necessary to meet the grade.
· Agreed with the suggestion.
Vonhof:
· Agreed there is a need for the proposed language.
· Be consistent.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ST AMSON, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before City Council on August 6,2001.
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.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 9,2001, on
file in the office ofth,e Planning Department.
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.
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
L:\OI fiJes\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\MN070901.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
July 9. 2001
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.
The staff recommended the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until the
next scheduled meeting as requested by the applicant.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO JULY 23,2001.
Stamson questioned the resolution denying the structure setback. Kansier responded it
was acted on.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting.
The Commission adjourned to attend the joint workshop.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN07090 I.doc
8
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
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
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
JULY 23, 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 variance from the
ordinary high water mark for a deck setback, and a variance to the maximum
impervious surface area. The Planning Commission denied the deck variance at
the public hearing (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
believe the applicant provided proof of hardship for the 4,422 square feet or 57.5
% of the total lot ar!3a. The original variance request was as follows:
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].
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.
L:\01files\01variances\01-017\VrRt3.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION:
On July 10,2001, the Planning staff corresponded with Mr. Crouse regarding the
additional information to be submitted for the revised variance request, and
provided him with the approved minutes for the June 25th meeting. On July 16.
2001, staff received an e-mail from the applicant explaining he was currently
business traveling and was scheduled to be in New York on the 23rd of July but
would do what he could to attend the Planning Commission meeting scheduled
for July 23,2001 (Attachment 3 Applicant e-mail).
In addition, Mr. Crouse stated in the letter that he had met with Ron Swanson at
Valley Surveying regarding the impervious surface area as calculated from the
certificate of survey (Attachment 1 Certificate of Survey). The letter states that
Mr. Swanson included the sidewalks and calculates the total impervious surface
area to equal 600 square feet. As the sidewalks measure 4 feet in width they
are considered impervious by definition and shall be included in the total
impervious surface calculations. Sidewalks 3 feet or less in width are not
included as impervious surfaces (Attachment 2 Impervious Surface
Calculations ).
Also, Mr. Crouse states in his letter that he and others at the meeting heard the
Planning Commission mention that the applicant should attempt to reduce the
impervious surface rate down to around 45% instead of the existing rate of
57.5%. Staff has reviewed the audio tape of the public hearing and did not hear
the 45% coverage figure used by staff or the Planning Commission.
Based on his latest correspondence, the applicant is now proposing a 45%
impervious surface area. This would be accomplished by acquiring right-of-way
land from the City (old railroad right-of-way). This land area of approximately
960 square feet wo'uld be combined with the applicants lot area to lessen the
percentage of impervious area. Mr. Crouse suggests buying the property from
the City for this purpose. The staff does not have knowledge of ever allowing
public right-of-way area to be used with private property for impervious
calculations. In addition, vacation or sale of this property is another issue, and
staff does not believe this to be a possible solution as the Calmut Avenue right-
of-way is not for sale nor intended to be vacated.
Finally, the letter states that in the meeting minutes for the public hearing the
total paved impervious surface area was referred to as "patio". This does not
change the actual impervious surface area as calculated by the surveyor and
presented at the Planning Commission meeting on June 25, 2001.
The staff has determined the existing driveway is approximately 41.5 feet wide
and exceeds the allowable width of 24 feet at the front property line and through
the right-of-way to the street. This area of driveway amounts to about 375
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt3.DOC
Page 2
square feet. In addition, the parking area along the garage wall amounts to
approximately 318 square feet and does not meet the minimum setback of 5 feet
to the side property line. By eliminating this portion of the driveway/parking area
of the existing impervious surface by 693 square feet and the sidewalk area of
about 600 square feet would reduce approximately 1 ,293 square feet of area or
16.8 % for 40.7% total impervious surface area. Also, the back yard patio area
of 570 square feet could be reduced to bring the total impervious surface area
into the 30-percentile range.
The subject lot has a total area of 7,689 square feet and allows for 2,307 square
feet of impervious surface to equal the 30% coverage area. The area for house
and garage totals 2,152 square feet. The remaining 155 square feet would
permit a driveway dimension of about 10 x 15.5 feet. This size driveway would
not extend from the garage to the front property line.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the applicants suggested
proposal of 45% impervious surface area as the applicant did not meet the
hardship criteria, and require the property to meet an impervious surface area
the Planning Commission deems appropriate under the circumstances. As a
condition staff recommends the applicant provide a revised survey to depict the
required impervious surface area as adopted by the Planning Commission and
the applicant shall submit a driveway permit application to the City to verify the
conditions have been met.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance as requested by the applicant, in this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to draft a Resolution with findings
approving the Variance request.
2. Approve a lesser variance to impervious surface as deemed appropriate
by the Planning Commission. In this case, the Planning Commission
should direct the applicant to provide a revised survey and impervious
surface calculation worksheet identifying the area to be removed, and
direct the staff to prepare a Resolution with Findings approving the
variance request.
3. Deny the variance as requested by the applicant. In this case, the
Planning Commission should adopt the attached Resolution 01-011 PC.
4. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt3.DOC
Page 3
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends alternative #3.
1. A motion and second to adopt the attached Resolution 01-011 PC
denying the applicants request for a 57.5% impervious surface coverage
area.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 variances\01-017\ VrRt3.DOC
Page 4
RESOLUTION Ol-Ol1PC
A RESOLUTION 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. Mr. 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 #01-0l7PC and held hearings thereon on June 25, 2001 and on July 23, 2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The applicant was directed by previous variance and building permit conditions as to
the amount of impervious surface area, such that the hardship created has been
created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists without the requested
vanances.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\dnyrs3.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required by the ordinance as reasonable
use of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance as 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 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%).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 23, 2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\0 I files\O I variances\O 1-0 17\dnyrs3.doc
2
ATTACHMENT 1
\';
..'~.
. :1 . ~ ,',',
j' ...J.
<(
U
tOflt4(.fI
t4'/4 01 ,0
Of \.
i ,0
Of \.0
i~ UtIL__-.
.oR _/\
o
w
ST t^ n, . .... ~
RItA El,~"r"\. "r .' Z
": "",,',"'.: : 5~
, :i~I'O, ~ l.:~"" I'~: 4
. . ," .,\,.t_ ,.H .' SAN t^H
i '~\:i.,;./r.,,'I';~. . ,
, ." ltd.,. 0
. :., '908;:66 '. 908.41'+""
..1... ',;.,'-''It .:,~\~~ i
fl,tl ", <I.
908,~. i' "
\' ~ ",~~':b:~
Z ~ n -.
,; <1 t' t<l
,.' no . N '."
W '. "I!l oS" t>
> lt tl, J ' t<l,
, .108\ ? ' \I '
<1 t t> ~,
I- .
Ul
'-
\
..
n__\
"" ..
\- ,
.'
..~ \~
o ~
r
ul
&:
-:1
\fl
~
\
~
I
I
'I"''''
'l. .
C /\\~, N
,.f.
i. .
~
~
_..4.... ...,_.. ....,'.".....,._",..__ ._. .>-.~.W.__.._"'... ...-".---..
. :;':
ATTACHME".N'T::~ '2.
. .... p'::: .::.:;:.:0;:.: :.<:~'-':. ':.' .:. ,::" .:. '/' ;:.-::.....;' I.
~ ,..:. ..:......;:.:...:.C....IT. 'y",' "0" .F..'..PRl..:.'.O....R'L:AKE.:. :...., ,:.'. .'. .....
." '.,!", .... . . .' . " '. ,.". .'.,
..' .... ;:;.,~irii'.~~l.yitlus>Surfac~ :calcuiati;li~..':',~." ,.>., '. "".',.' .... '. '. ".""..':.
":":"'<';:-'.' ;:,':;:.:(t~be':s~bmltie~:.with. Bul)ciing Perm.it App'Hcation) '>'; . .::. :.:, '.' ". . '" ,
" .;:' :0':".. ":... ,\,.:F.9r.'~1l_~r.bp~~1:es,'kO:Pated:I.n..~~e,'.S~oreland:J.?istrict (SD),',';:.<.:.,... ,::...' ,...., ".'~ .'
;'.... :. >.'>> .,<'Tpe_:t4aXirti~riOmpervious.':Sutfac~,Cov.e;ragePennitt~d 'in 3D. Percent.. , '.", ".' ':. ':":. ':':,'..
. >Ie ** * * *** **** * ",,,,.it< ljeill * +';jjill>l,t >l<.illilllj<* >fc ",ol'>\<* ill **** ** >Ii ill'" >Ie **li< "'*"':1< ** * ill '" "'*.* ** '" ** '" it< "'* ill >Ie '" >Ie..', '. .'.
" '.,;:,:.,"-::.'-,"<<,:,,:"~~;:~""::"-','.::'''; .'. '''<LJi~GT~''':" '. .':-.;.'. .\v1DTH...:.... . '.. . S'QFEET.'.' . ',. .':.': >,;,';;- '::..': .,:>'>,
;(~~I:Bi~~~0i~>;::c::::~~;i;<;;c~,t;~k"';':!: .........l~~ ..' ..... . .... :. ...... ... ...... .:: . .....~. ...
....':.;. '-:.": '.': .:C". TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... "'"Z,\C:;:z... :':
~E~~CBE~"~{riGS.~:<'> ,. ...; .;:'i" X ,/ ,"'c';' '.' . . '.' .... ....... ";,' '. ..' ." .... .,; .' .... ,.....
',' . . ~ ' '\ .
.,,; .'
'" " ~.
.' .": '; <', ::: " ~ '. .... .: .
. .-
:'.' ',."
. '0'
. .
. .. .........,'.:.: '..
'. ..' ,;-"1"
...... :. ..
. . ',' . . ; . .. ~ '..
.': . ',' "
. ~. .' , .
.......
'.: ".
.. . '.>: :~~~ ~':. '
'. !'.. .
.. '. . .. ..
::<TQ-TAL p.A YED AREAS,..~.~:.~~~~-..~~~....:~....,...~...."....;,~... ::.
-z:.-f:'"i "0
'. -. .....,
,:PATIOS/~ORCHESiDECKS.. '..." ..
: (6penDeck's:'(.~' r.nin. op~ning' beiwee{~::'>" ::./
. ;"boards, \vith' a pervious sunDce'beJol'{" " ,,'" . .
are not consic!ered to be iinperiious) ;..' , '
. . .:'1.'
';". ". ,...
... .
,..:...
";'. :".'" '.::"::":- " .'
. . '. ': .' ,- .- '.'." -" . r "... .' .. . . ~ - . . .
. T.OT:A~'- D.E ~l(~...!.-.~'-.. .:-~:'.~'~.~... .............:...'.-~............" ........ I,i '. .
. ., ,..; .' " ,..'.. .
...., :: --~..-T.O~tAL.-. OTHER.,.~,~:~..;..~:,. ~:~~.~-':t..,~~... ,~.t.........~ I'~""" ..,~.~. ..~.'~:..
. ' .' . '.
- .
.:TOTAi'lNIPERVI()US-:..Slh~FACE....:.:'. -'.::0. ....\"~4ii--...,~:l.:::; ,'><'"
" ..J.. .. .' . "... . ' ':. .... . , . '. L-...::l ~
\~$~~!ci~~g~I; . .....pa;e ~...ol.~ns>I' ".
Company~~\\~~'::L~~~,\t,-JG' ~~)P;(\'Phone# l:\~1- 'LSl 0 ..' .. ..... ....... ......
.' . ,..1... '. .','_.,' . .,.w... , ,. '. ..,_,.'
: ~
Page 1 of 1
Steve Horsman
From: Mark Crouse [Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 9:47 PM
To: Steve Horsman; Crouse,D.
Subject: Impervious Surface Variance Request
Importance: High
ATTACHMENT 3
Steve,
I am on the east coast and just received your message. Although I'm scheduled to be in New York the
first part of next week I'm doing everything I can to try to change that meeting so I can attend the
planning commission meeting on the 23rd. Here's what I've learned from meeting with Ron Swanson
at Val~ey. Survey, correlated back to the conversation from the previous meeting with the planning
commISSIOn.
On page 4 of the meeting notes under commissioner Vonhofs comments it states that, "The patio
area is 2,270 square feet. The allowed impervious surface allowed on this lot is about 2300
square feet. It is almost a 100% increase over what was allowed by the original variance in
1995." This data needs to be correctly stated, as this is inaccurate and very misleading. In fact the
patio itself is only about 600 sq ft, not 2,270. It is also a fact that all sidewalks on my property were
included in Ron's calculations, and they account for approximately 600 sq ft ofthe total just the same
as the patio. I would be more inclined to remove the sidewalks before removing the patio due to my
stated concern over the land settling and the security of my retaining wall. Let me also go on record
stating that this is not an old retaining wall as you suggested in the meeting, it was built as a result of
the city's requirement to elevate the structure in 1995.
Although it was not documented in the meeting notes, I and the other parties with me clearly heard
the mention of attempting to get the impervious surface rate down to around 45% from the current
57.5%. That would mean a reduction of approximately 960 sq ft from the current 4422 sq ft. In
meeting with Ron Swanson I learned that in fact the Rail Road Right of Way was not included in his
calculations, as this land is owned by the city. That's unfortunate since it represents a major portion of
my front yard which is not impervious, but rather is nicely landscaped. According to Ron that land
was all originally owned by the Schroeder's, who were the original owners of my property. I need
confirmation, but according to Ron the city bought this from the Schroeders when the street was put
in some years ago. Ifthe city would allow me to reaquire this piece ofland it would add over 930 sq
ft of yard which would. put me very close to the 960 sq ft target. I would like to pursue this option
with the city in an attempt to reach a reasonable compromise to this issue.
I will be travelling all this week, but will be checking email and my voice-mail when possible. Please
let me know if there's anything else you need from me at this point in time. Also, in the message I
sent to you on July 5, 2001 I requested a copy of the audio tape from the previous meeting but have
not received a response on whether that is available to me. Can you please confirm this request? In
addition you mentioned from an earlier conversation that other variances granted in the past few
years for impervious surface were linked to their location next to a common-type area. I have been
advised to request the data related to any such approved variances, and will need this information
prior to our next meeting.
Regards,
Mark Crouse
7/17/01
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
6A
REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE THE DRAINAGE
AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT 2,
BLOCK 1, CREEKSIDE ESTATES (Case File #01-
055)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO-N/A
JULY 23, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
Eagle Creek Development has filed an application to vacate the drainage and
utility easement located over the tormer Holly Court right-at-way located on Lot
2, Block 1, Creekside Estates. The applicant is in the process at developing this
site with a 24-unit senior apartment building. Upon review at the building permit
plans, a deck not shown on the approved site plan will encroach into the existing
easement.
As required by State Statute 462.356 Subd.2, the Planning Commission is
required to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposal or
acquisition at public lands as it relates to compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate
easement or right-at-way by resolution. The statute also states "no such
vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the public interest to do so".
DISCUSSION
The right-at-way tor Holly Court was originally platted in 1977; the road was
never constructed. In 1997, the applicant tiled a petition to vacate the existing
right-at-way. The vacation was approved subject to the condition that a drainage
and utility easement be retained over the entire right-of-way.
In 2000, the applicant received approval of a development plan for this property.
The approved site plans did not identify any encroachments on the existing
1:\Olfiles\Olvacations\OI-055\OI-055 pc report.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
easement. When the applicant filed an application for a building permit, the
certificate of survey indicated a deck that had not been shown on the original
plans would encroach into the easement. In addition, a deck approved as part of
the original plans also encroaches into the existing easement.
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of
the existing easement comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public
need or anticipated future need for the dedicated property?
Comprehensive Plan Review
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss utility easements, other
than as a function of ensuring access to public utilities. The vacation of this
easement is not inconsistent with any specific goal or objective of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Public Need
When the first petition to vacate the right-of-way was filed, the Engineering
Department requested the easement in order to allow the potential for looping a
watermain between Priorwood Street and Cates Street, Since that time, this
plan has been eliminated. There is no longer a need for a drainage and utility
easement over the entire former right-of-way. A standard 10' wide easement will
be maintained across the northerly lot line of this property.
RECOMMENDATION
There is no need for the retention of the entire easement. A standard 10' wide
drainage and utility easement will be retained along the perimeter lot lines. The
Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this request subject to the
condition that the applicant deed the necessary 10' wide drainage and utility
easement along the perimeter of the lot line to the City prior to the recording of
the resolution vacating this easement.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Recommend the City Council approve the proposed vacation of the
easement as presented or with changes recommended by the
Commission.
2. Continue the discussion to a date and time certain to allow the staff to
provide additional information specifically requested by the Planning
Commission.
3. Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny
part or all of the applications based upon inconsistency of the proposal
with specific regulations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and/or
1:\Olfiles\Olvacations\Ol-055\Ol-055 pc report. doc
2
specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1 .
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the vacation of the
easement subject to the condition that the resolution vacating this easement will
not be recorded until the applicant submits a deed granting the 10' wide drainage
and utility easement along the perimeter of the lot.
1 :\0 1 files\O 1 vacations\O 1-055\0 1-055 pc report.doc
3
~ '_ I _""' _.'... ~....'. ..'w I . _I i. I' I '...J
.-...._ '-''-.' I '"""""'W
I o"J. _.-,,- -.,. I ....-..J~.
';
PROPOSED V ACA TJON OF DRAINAGE AND UTlUTY
EASEMENTS 'IN CREEKSIDE ESTATES
- ..- -'.
-- .-- .-
...
I
I
r~
.,
;
!
HOU. y
CJRCLE
\
1-----
1
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,..
,,:
.'
,
.&.J..
I
\
\
"
-
...
..."
LOT 2
CRESCSDE
ESTATES
'.
...~~f': : --T'
.' ,,\,11._1._ ,
1"/"1:::;-;:
\.1 \1'_', . I....
~~~~;;;;il~;"'\".Ii:i";;Z;t. TO SE VACATED
..._...,...._-'-,....~..~.._.,.~.I.~_
:..V.;..I....., ....,~_.
I
I
1
j
I
I
f
I
J
I
i
l
i
-
1--" ___ I, ",'__".
.. . - ..~~'. .--_.- ... .,-.-- . ._-. '.---.--. .-.....----. ---'.- - --~----
t . '-"_.... _'_".
-_.. -- -'--- --"-' ".-.........
..
PROPOSED 10 FOOT DRAINAGE AND lJ11LfTY
EASEMENTS IN CREEKSIDE ESTATES
- -.- - - - .
'-' ..... .......-.
..
I
.
"
(.
'\
. ,
HOLLY
J CIRClE
. .
,----- '\ ~ --
I ~,
I, 5!~ ' i'. r
;\ --_ _0-
/:
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
'",
,
4~
,
\
\
J
I
I
./'
-
...
"...
./
LOT 2
CREEKSIDE
eSTATES
/1 . 1'\ I I \,
~~\.I~-~- !
,
1'" ('\: : ~~ T
\ -' \../ '...' I .. t \
\.
----'------~- "-1'
. -------- ,
-----..~ - -- - ~ ... -- ..
. ,
PROPOSED EASEMENT
1
I
-
- 1
I
1
I
I
f
I
I
i
I
f
f
-
"
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
68
REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE 30' OF THE
ASHLAND ROAD (EAU CLAIRE TRAIL) RIGHT -OF-
WAY ADJACENT TO 4120 EAU CLAIRE TRAIL (Case
File #01-038)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_YES X NO-N/A
JULY 23, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
Charles Boissiere has filed an application to vacate 30' ot the dedicated right-ot-
way tor Ashland Trail (Eau Claire Trail) adjacent to the east side ot Lot 4,
Grainwood Heights. There is an existing home on the property at 4120 Eau
Claire Trail. The applicant is proposing an addition to the east side ot the house.
Without the vacation ot the right-ot-way, the proposed addition will meet the
minimum required setback.
As required by State Statute 462.356 Subd.2, the Planning Commission is
required to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposal or
acquisition ot public lands as it relates to compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Upon proper notitication, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate
easement or right-ot-way by resolution. The statute also states "no such
vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the public interest to do so".
DISCUSSION
The right-ot-way tor Ashland Road in Grainwood Heights was originally
dedicated in 1974. The right-ot-way adjacent to the east side ot Lot 4 is 100'
wide. The right-ot-way tor Eau Claire Trail to the north, platted in Windsong on
the Lake, is 50' wide. Sewer and water lines are located outside ot the area to
be vacated.
1:\01 files\OI vacations\01-038\01-038 pc report. doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
"
.
"
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of
the existing easement comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public
need or anticipated future need for the dedicated property?
Comprehensive Plan Review
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to "plan for access to and
movement of people, goods and services." The proposed vacation will not
interfere with this goal. There is still 70' of right-of-way at this location, which is
more than adequate for the road with and utilities.
Public Need
There is no need for the excess right-of-way at this location. The remaining 70'
of right-of-way can accommodate a road for local traffic and the utilities.
Vacating the right-of-way will add approximately 2,785 square feet of area to the
lot and allow an addition to the existing house.
RECOMMENDATION
There is no need for the retention of the entire right-of-way. The Planning staff
therefore recommends approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the proposed vacation of the right-
of-way as presented or with changes recommended by the Commission.
2. Continue the discussion to a date and time certain to allow the staff to
provide additional information specifically requested by the Planning
Commission:
3. Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny
part or all of the applications based upon inconsistency of the proposal
with specific regulations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and/or
specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1 .
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the vacation of the
right-of-way as proposed.
1:\01 files\01 vacations\01-038\01-038 pc report.doc
2
.
.
~
.f>..y...~
2
Location Map
11
B
R. L. S.
143
12
Right-of-Way
to be Vacated
1
3
"\
C\a\fe 1fa\
E.aU
B
4
N
A
100
I
100
o
3
2
~
~
200 Feet
I
(f)
w
~
0
I
0
Z
<(
-.J
>-
W
~
~
0
lL.
..c
()
4-1
(})
.:::l
(f)
C
0
4-1
0...
.-
~
()
en
(})
0
~
o
- - - -~-
<
u
w<
~>
(5w
"[0
3nN3^'v' aN'v'lHS\/~:" u
3~:H'v"~8 r'\V-, 0 ~
IIV_:' ~fj
-'Vl
Ujo
/<@;
3..SZ,Lz:.ZON /'/ g:
" /~
"10
C'l\P
~ C'l r-;
....0
b1t"'l
l(j;
...-
I
1-
('~
-~I
I
e 'v'1~11~~1
o
on
---i
Ld
','
;(
w
.
--' 010
o!'l
~~ . N
-I... 0 n
~- ,., f..-
ro
(f) /1
,~........
I "
I I ;'
I ~..
..J....
(59
j;....
I ~.o
. z
.
~I
I
-7
(5
M..SZ,Lz:.ZOS I
I
I
/
i '(/)
n,
~;
(5
(:J
~?
~=
=:
()
~
\oJ
Z
~
~; 1;;
<
\oJ
()
-".
~>
EI
R1"
~
I
I
\I
\
l
-7
.t'--
~-
()
--'
',,/
--
(.)
()
-<::.(
. Z6"lif!
..J
----
,../
u-
M.liZ,LZ-ZOS
CD
t'f'
'-../
--c
~
r-
\
\
\
\\
--,
, \oJ
\ '5 ~
f, ~ g
\~ ~ '15
- ~
\
\
\
-r-
\...-.
t'f'
'-../
\~
'",
\~
uJ
-r-
\...-.
w
~
~
H
:I:
U
~
w
::l
Z
~ ~2 3~
~.r 0'0
z t:"O [J'I
:5 ~~.u-t.
:t <g-~lU"'lt
~ "0 0 0 ~:E -'
~ gvi'o~g.3
o ~ ~ ~ 1: tp~
z <( ~.s g.~ ~
g o:x:~.];o
~ ii 8 ~- c: III
-< l.loc::_Oc
> -~iloUl=
IX 8~u 5i~
o 0 ~ ~ "iii 52 CD
lL.pr')l-'O~w:5
z >.. u~:rj
o "'CC:Ulxog
~ ~ 0___ COo
iE ~ ~ g ~~ ~
~ !:8]~~-
w ~~_c~o
D -' CD_ C>>t:) C
-' _ '1::)..E Ql .2
< o"1;J Q.J: "'0 III
C) T"' 6"'O:"g ~
~ 6 II 0 )(
o o."O~>.~lU
t::: o~ ~"5-5t
o .I: IV L..r 0 CD
& :~ I)~ffi~
Ii <(-o:5rn"ltlV
~
U
UI
-r
\
\
\
\
\=" \
..:(
..J
::d: \
:SW
\.l- U- \
r-
w
~r:::> \- -1
~" ti
",c. 7
-~..:( \
(.)
o
-) z
:. c ..:(
ld1
(/1
..:(
-..../
\
\1
I
~
\
---
---
m
I
I
/
/
I
I
I
~-
o
--'
~-
:)
()
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
---
I
I
I
lC)
cr
o .
>-00
~a~
u-'
""wo
00::.(
tJ~1Il
Z ~
~~
!!!z~
xwz
W::Ew
zW::E
~~~
Wo
~o~
tJ~;::
Z Z
~8<
~!;!1!5
w50
wlllz
j!:~:S
~zo
~fil<
VlffiVJ
o:c:t;
I-w~
l;;:j!:<
~~:r:
~5S!
"-cr~
bOI!!
z:::l!Z
Vlow
wcr::E
o""W
OVl~
:r~w
~wo
w::Ew
~:r:o
IIlUcr
<0
IIlOU
-crw
j!:ucr
ZZ
.W::l
!,. !,.
!~ g~
lOt!! ,..'"
~~~ ~~
~~~ Lr
.~i.g:-1 still
o _U Z"';SN
uli~ f5 o~_ ffi
"I I '" -"'g'"
"C", is ~'" is
~~=fi: jj"l[
~~~'6 I .~'6
~i~ ~ ~j;; f
N::f-'W U)UJ.......w
i I
d
? ~
~ .
q
! !
II
C
I"
Wll
W II r
"'Z c-t< ,
* 09' *'
".. -.. 'f.
,.D.II..
.....*
c:i
o
~~
~~
8~
~...
IIlWO
~~~
1->-0
gjSj!:
"-0,,,
~<;;;
cr::E-
~;;~
"-.j!:~
~o .
;r~g
~:Z~ <-
!!!~~ a:
j!: 5:i d '"
~~~ ~
j!:i7:~ ~
~t;~ C3
::EWIll
ocr
:r:Ci
Or....
~::Eo
~15~
~~:s 0
o::l W
I-cr~ ~
~o. ii\
"wcr
ffi~~
u>-z
m:>
>-
mocr
wwo
crcr>-
~~~
wcr
~lti7:
::E
~
o
q
"
~
10
..,
,r0 ~ r;::::, ~ 0 l""\ ,-; r:::::: r--
f!i'\'ll~ 0L5 '\"'.l~ i "\
li~IU)I;''';::;; ! \.:..' :~;;".'i
r. \.1 MAY 4 4]M1 <! .: I.'
"u "WI, ' ,
j l ~ I! f .! J
I iiVj
.....J l.../
January 10,2001
City of Prior Lake
4629 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
To Whom It May Concern:
My wife, daughter, and I have purchased the lot and built our home at 4120 Eau Claire Trail, Prior Lake. In
the course of working with Key Land Homes to build our house we found that the property line did not
allow enough room to construct the home with a four-season porch on the East side, as we desired. We
eliminated the porch from the plans in order to move forward with construction. The house is now built and
we are seeking a vacation ofland as shown on the Pioneer Engineering sketch "Proposed Legal Description
for Vacation of Ashland Avenue".
Our reasons for requesting this vacation are as follows:
1. The proposed part we seek a vacation of is an excess easement nor needed or required by the city or
any agency, thereof.
2. The retention of this land by the city requires additional unnecessary maintenance and upkeep, costing
taxpayers dollars.
3. The granting of this vacation will put the land on the taxable roles and generate additional revenue for
the city. ,
4. Once the vacation is granted, we will seek approval of a four-season porch addition that will increase
the value of the property and increase tax revenue for the city. It will also increase the value of the
neighborhood.
5. We feel the concept of expanding the tax base ()fthe City, in conformity with other elements of
planning, is compatible with the City's philosophy of protecting its tax base.
For these and any other good reasons we have not thougliofat this time, we request your support and
-approval of our request for a 'vacation'.
,,' 7 "
-/
SiR.cerely,.,'/"" ."
(.
/7
i-.
/
1/ /
/~: ."
,../'/
,//
./
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Eau Claire Trail Vacation - #01-038)
for the following:
'\( Water City Code Grading
~ Sewer .,.. Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric Roads/Access
Policy 'f.,.
Septic System Gas Building .Code
Erosion Control Other
Recommendation: / Approval
Denial
Conditional Approval
Comments:
SAIo).Tf\R'! S€:-.uu MAII'~ is EIJa,\E:.D APf'a.O)(IMAit.i'" ,.1 AAJf::, i.$
LOc..A"IQ) RE.'\w\=€.,.J \~ AfJf:> '2.0 FtET' F"R.cM -rHe EAs, Fn.o~E.(<:ry
L.\I'-l~ OF LOi 4 BLot\( I. '->-iIS SHOULD Pa.oV\DE A~E:Q.UAn:.
RoOIY\ rea UCAuf'ti\O/IJ :'\140.../1.....(") THE. W I\.JE ~ 1 E.E.D K€P~la~ j.,-\ THf::.
VuTu<tE.... WA,E..QMAIN /"lK. Loc.4TE.D ERS.T OF'" '\Al\liT19IZ'1. ^)o :\IOa~
~~;>::-~tJi'. r~I~Ii1J~ \~ 'tl'l.~~~Tf:D wE-We, OVT1S"i~E- Or 7t-I15
Signed:
~ :)LU-~::C>~
Date: ~l z. lD 101
Please return any comments by Thursday, July 5, 2001, to
Jane Kansier, ORC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior La_k~, MN 55372
Phone: (952)447-9812
Fax: (952) 447-4245
1:\01 files\01 vacations\01-038\rev referraJ.doc
Page 2
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
6C
CONSIDER AN EXCEPTION TO THE 10 ACRE
REQUIREMENT FOR A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO-N/A
JULY 23, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
Merlyn Olson Development is requesting an exception to the 10-acre minimum area
requirement for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The applicant is proposing to
develop a 5-acre site located on the south side of CSAH 21, north of Colorado Street,
west of Duluth Avenue and east of W est Avenue. Access to this site is presently from
Racine Street, a private street.
Section 1106.405 of the Zoning Ordinance allows an applicant to request an exception to
the minimum 10-acre requirement. This section states the following:
In the case of a project where the applicant is seeking an exception to the 10-acres
requirements, the applicant must submit a Concept Plan for review and approval by the
Planning Commission. -The Planning Commission shall decide, based upon the criteria
set forth below, whether to authorize the City staff to accept and process an application
for a Preliminary PUD Plan for a project less than 10 acres:
~ The proposed project meets all other criteria for a PUD except the acreage
requirement.
~ There are unique circumstances that prohibit the applicant from assembling 10
contiguous acres.
~ The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
~ The applicant intends to provide for greater parks, open space, trails or public areas
than required by this Ordinance.
1:\Olfiles\Olpuds\eaglewood pre pud\exception.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION:
The proposed development consists of 5 acres to be developed with 35 townhouse units,
common open space and a private street as shown on the attached preliminary plat. The
attached narrative explains the applicant's reasoning for this request.
ANALYSIS:
The staff has reviewed this request based on the criteria listed in Section 1106.405 of the
Zoning Ordinance. The staff suggested findings for these criteria are listed below.
~ The proposed project meets all other criteria for a PUD except the acreage
requirement.
The project meets the maximum density based on the gross area of the site. In
addition, the site has a minimum of 200' of frontage on a public road. The applicant
has not provided enough information at this time to determine whether all of the other
criteria have been met.
~ There are unique circumstances that prohibit the applicant from assembling 10
contiguous acres.
The property in question is surrounded by streets on 3 sides, and by existing houses
on the 4th side. Even if the applicant were to acquire all of the existing houses, it is
unlikely the total block area would equal 10 acres.
~ The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The property in question is currently zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and is
designated for Low to Medium Density Residential uses on the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map. The proposed use is consistent with the existing zoning and land use
designation.
~ The applicant intends to provide for greater parks, open space, trails or public areas
than required by this Ordinance.
The plan does not indicate any public parkland or open space other than required by
the Zoning Ordinance.
It is fairly reasonable to say the applicant would not be able to assemble 10 contiguous
acres for a PUD development at this location. The site, however, could still be developed
with townhouses under the Conditional Use Permit process. The need for a PUD is
triggered by the use of a private street within this development.
1 :\0] files\OI puds\eaglewood pre pud\exception.doc
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES:
At this time, the request before the Planning Commission is to authorize the staff to
accept an application for a Preliminary POO plan. Approval of this request does not
guarantee approval of the Preliminary POO plan, or any other plan.
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the applicant's request for an exception to the minimum 10-acre requirement
for a POO, and authorize the staff to accept an application for a Preliminary POO
Plan for a site with less than 10 acres.
2. Deny the applicant's request for an exception to the minimum 10-acre site
requirement for a POO. In this case, the applicant would be required to develop the
site under the conventional provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1. This action does not guarantee approval
of the POO plan, in whole or in part. The action does allow the developer to move
forward.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The following motion is appropriate for this action:
1. A motion and second to authorize the staff to accept an application for a Preliminary
POO plan for a site with less than 10 acres.
ATTACHMENTS: '
1. Location Map
2. Applicants' Narrative
3. Preliminary Plat
1:\01 files\Ol puds\eag1ewood pre pud\exception.doc
Page 3
Location Map
2
en
I-
en
w
~
LAKESIDE
PARK
'"
b
-'
f-
::>
a
'"
f-
a
-'
f-
::>
a
<o'21\(!C..
.y..'f.."--
~'21
G~~O€ ,
'!J~O
---------
I 6
3 2 14 0 9 8 5 4 3 2
AD 'N 1
Colorado Street MAIN
17 18 5 6 7 8 9 21 22 24 25
26 27 28 21 20 1
1 -L
3 2 4 3 12 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
--
N
A
200
o
200
400 Feet
~'. f
.
ERlYN
OlSO
H 0 !vI E
Ucense #3162
6715 Featherstone Drive,
OFFICE (952) 226-6022
Savage, MN 55378
June 22, 2001
City of Prior Lake
Planning Commission
16200 Eagle Creek Ave., SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: 10-Acre Exception Request - Preliminary PUD Application
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Our attached Preliminary PUD Application for developing the proposed land must, according to Section 1106.200 of
the Zoning Ordinance, include a request for an exception to the requirement that such developments be on a
minimum of 10 acres. Please consider this letter our request for this exception.
Our justification for requesting this exception is as follows:
1. No re-zoning is required. The property is already zoned R-3.
2. This proposed project meets all other criteria for a PUD except the acreage requirement. In addition,
no variances will be necessary for this project.
3. We are obliged to request this exception because of limited acreage at this site. The entire site is
located within pre-existing developments or public street boundaries and it is not possible to obtain 10
contiguous acres to fulfill this requirement.
4. We believe this project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. It is
designed to attract both young families and those of retirement age. Within walking distance to
churches, schools, parks, Prior Lake, downtown shopping, library and restaurants, we believe this
project will significantly add to the quality of life in Prior Lake benefiting the residents of the project as
well as the community in general.
.
5. Total "usable open space" is generous - 89,647 square feet (excludes pond and wetland). The zoning
ordinance for R-3 developments (Section 1102.602) requires a minimum of 600 square feet "usable
open space" for each dwelling unit, or a total of 21,000 square feet.
6. Extensive landscaping will add to the overall attractive nature of this project and, with its high visibility
along County Road 21, will benefit the community as a whole.
7. On January 18th of this year, we met with Jane Kansier and Susan McDermott to discuss our Concept
Plan. Both Ms. Kansier and Ms. McDermott indicated that this project was a 'good use of this land.'
8. On February 5th, we met with the City Council to discuss the Plan and answer questions. Once again,
the response was positive.
Thank you for considering our request.
Sincerely,
11
1JZLJ;J}(/~
Merlyn Olson, President
Merlyn Olson Homes, Inc.
Office (952) 226-6022; Fax (952) 226-6023; E-mail: info@merlynolsonhomes.com
h
V)
.~
..~
~
e-.f:::4
~a
I:l;a
~~
~k:)
~~
~\.)
~~
Cl
Z
-Iii
ID~
Z 8100
(;'" ~i:l
ZF I I
1.&1'" ,-10
F~~"
..Clot) ~~
m3z~I5~~
z ....tn--
O<"'1!l .X
15:d;d~
~~
r~
8iii
~lll",
~~Elor::
~f!:~:n~
~~~H
~"~h!~~
e:::5:;:::tl
0:: ~~~~
iil>~[t~.
t jl r I
II I;~d~l l~~il i ~f
~Jl 1~~ ~.~~ h.~i; 1 ~~
~~ ~~~ IJ!~ ~nh~ a ~ i
~& ~~ld tni i!!!
~!4 t~~tt!~ I.~th ",!l
h 1'" !l~ ~]U'" l 'lit
I~ sU'~~ll ~~ltli ., I~
~~t- i~il~~1 :~'1'!1 i~!~
k ~'II ~{~ ~i ~~ lit Is
l'" ~U~i1I ~:i ~'II i'!f
li !lbtl: litH. ~l i!
!~ i:fztii ~~i:::l 11!i
. 'II~ 'lltf~i.'ll '~I!ll~'II '" 1'111
!J- ~ II f ~;t~ 1~lll!H ~ii
1 ~ ~ I!h 1.I~fI' 'll~"'~
li~ &~tillf' 11."t ~. ~l~
!lJ llli'lltt tlll!.l I; 11'1
'II~ .~ ....Ut 'lli../.hi ~c. ~
~11' 'll~~~11 1 fi)~lls ~\ ;11
1:11 111~~tl~ , !~~tl{i , ;! ill
2ul~
Q.~ ~
HH
.,;1---. n. c .
~~~~
j. /~t FH
,. -~--- r;'8 ~.~
-=F ~~.~~~
,,'r~' \lJ ~,,, c
. ~ :.~"tJj
~ ~ 3.3'0
I
:0
-L .'_
,
'-,
........._---~........
-I
;
~
..
I'
1
mh
un m~~
un i\,,~i~
8m ~~il!U
..~~~~ ~~~~
~:"": 9~9!~
al9999 iiaii~e
~
F
<
~
.
~.
f!tf~ti '::::::~~::::':;;:.;::~-:':~"_________~1f-U__'TU__~_ - _ " ,', ,\,.., \, ,'o,
(i;f ,':_--~-_"~ _~fI--- +--" ,s..------.:\:.l ,/ ': ,~~": :
>:~~.~:.:~.:',~:::::.~~':':::~:..:~.~-~ft---~-T---~-~;f"=-p- i~~..-'-r- ;:1/ 1!~ilf --;t~~II_ -
~ lit Ili~
1;11 12d - ~
.Ilil IH
HHHIH ~
~ ~ ~m~: 1.1 -, :
~
1
~I
zO
F.
:Eg
r.
]1
2i1
.ii
'''0
un nn
nn UH
~~~~ ~~~~
"., I' .. 1.1
ti-N"'. ~_N"".
I1sg9g .9999
Hi UU
m nn
~~~ ~SS~
s~:: s::::
~999 119999
h
V)
'~
~
~
~l:::4
~a
J:t;a
>-.~
~~
~t3
~kl
~
111;11b]
~f I~~ l'111
Q ~u t~~
II 1~~~:!~
~tf l"llll!!l~
H aUi~'
11: ~"'''' A~i
11 lHj~L
l~ ~ U\rtl
11 Il'Ht1
't!.. lIS h ",l-!;
~.. ~ ! ~llli"
L l.!i j11
':5 ',ti'S!.l!,
; l~i III !~~~~
u~<:111
1, 1:1 ti~h
Ii'!: &~!nl-..
t~V U~l',tl
\U Ql"!~U
~:ili h~.l!llll
I!h in!~tl~ ~
))
~.. ,
H~~tl
h~Jt~
~hhi
~llJl
1J!'\;i )
;;Uil
:\tl~!l
~ll ~~
"';il~t
li~::l~ ~
...1l2"l .....
::'I;f:l!l~i
~~'ir~~
~ 1 gJ>hi
h~h~
1\ '6~I~
llht Qt
~jh 81;
,sliJlitll
It.eJ..h i
,"nIt-:
h~hh
.S;
J It
1 l~
~ ,,,1
1; l!!a
~ II
I ;i
-< &il
iw Ii
t:1i 1$
1'1 ~t
il ;~
~ I~
!I i~i
Ii l~~
\jlh
l :::;lj,s
I! lh.s'
l~ !t~
)'6 lit..
if .2'~ II
~ h HI
I
1..1_
,
,
,
,
....'1r_____-,......
71----
~~---
..............
i.
I
TO
,1
C)
~
m~ '
Iw~~~
~z~~
m~~~~~~
z In .._,'---'
13 ~ffi'X
is:J:f;)~iE~
I I,
,
I(
I
1/
I I
I: (
: r :
,\ I
\ \ \ \,
\ ~ ~,', r
,\\ , ...........:t
, ,\ .......--
~
~
~
~
-',
~~
.~
8~
"l>l
z
5= ..J~
~~m~~
~zz~ I
~~2~~
~ ~ ~~~~
~ g5e.....
~>:ga;:x~
(I) ... a.. a.. It-
\~,---_.
!l-~L
~
F
-<
~
o
Q.~
{5a;:
.. 00 NI')
~~....~~~~
~affilii~!J,
~ ~i:i~~
'~o~~~~~
ffi 0::: \I) -< .......---
iw ...>.~
o::solD~itlL.
(J-----
, 'ti -
...----, """
- -
x=----:::-+.:-
b\\
_T
--i'"
..,; ~, '
. ,
( ( (---~
....~ "'::-;::::-
j.
I
,
,
\
I i I I i I a ~
g I I . I I ; i III
z I I I I I I I I I ----y&
I ! I I I I I I I l!i
~
" 0 n oo@ I'
0 a
I; I~ie i
__ -~ ---l -+1'2 ~"tT'"'
, ____v~ I /1 ltl.."ol I
'\l':j2 <:,,-- I I ,IP I I " I
~T' ! .L--;LC1-~i I I _._,f n: ~ J I
~ ",/ I
- " I
I
I
,
,
...0.-.. _ _
,t'''')
c.....," 1'1'
-->;'ct">"
~., ....,~,~ I-
q,,"",,:-. c.
'-'..., J...
-" /:--)
,
<'
f,
..,$
o....~.2
ii: ~ ~'"
c~ :3 ~
o ~
'~ E3'o
~t~~
n.'" 0
WI~E-
5~~:S
bQJ~ki
.1:,E.c-o
... >,- I:
>,.0 '0 :s
'e '2 Ii ~.2
:l~&~a
>- Q..- QJ
11 ~.e~i ~
~lnl-g:i
:~i.3o
~
~
"
~
~
~ 1
II~
.00
F,.,
"0
z"
,~ I
...J
c.!!
....c:
a~
ell
c~
l:i ,!il
~
"j
"
ti
'-'
"-,
~
'i
F
t'
i
I
t
I
I
I
i
I
~
d
I-
I
Ul!i
uu in~~
nn I~~I~
UU~II~
~~~~~ ~;~i:
iil9999 aaa~~
un nn
nnlin
~~~~ ~u~
...--- ...--'"
".1." lOilll
~~~~~ g~~~~
un un
nu\ nn
~~~~ ~~~~
...--- -.........
..,.... -,..,
!~~~~ ~~~ii
un
Ett;
Hit
~~.~~
.;......-
un
sUi
in
~~~~
.........-
... I . . .
!~~~~
.., . . . .
~_.......
iil9999
UJ un
iil nn
~~~ ~~~~
....-- ----
-. . I ... I I I I
!~~~ !~~~~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
DATE: July 19, 2001
RE: Downtown Design Ordinance
Attached is the most recent update for the downtown design ordinance. We will
be discussing this with the consultant on Monday evening. At that time, we will
also discuss some of the specific design issues, such as materials.
I: \01 files\O I ordamend\zoning\downtown \pc memo .doc
REVISED DRAFT - 7/18/01
1102.1100:
1102.1101
07/19/01
"C-3" Specialty Business Use District. The purpose of the "C-3" Specialty
Business Use District is to provide for a variety of commercial and
residential uses within the framework of a traditional downtown area. The
district also contemplates and provides for pedestrian circulation, urban
and civic design and the creative reuse of existing buildings.
The C-3 Specialty Business District is designed to express the City's
commitment to maintain and enhance the vitality of the Downtown area by
establishing minimum criteria for the development and redevelopment of
commercial, residential and public buildings while promoting amenities
intended to attract business, residents and visitors. Specific objectives
include:
. To improve the visual quality of Downtown.
. To reinforce the physical character of Downtown by focusing on
the design context.
. To expand the employment base and residential population of
Downtown.
. To preserve and reuse older buildings as appropriate while
establishing standards for the construction of new ones.
. To reinforce and enhance a compact development pattern.
. To accommodate and promote commercial, residential,
educational, cultural and governmental uses within the Downtown.
. To establish clear development and redevelopment guidelines in
order to provide effective responses to typical development issues.
. . To achieve development consistent with the lake theme contained
in the Downtown Development Guide dated June 2000.
Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the "C-3" Specialty
Business Use District if the use complies with the Commercial
Restrictions and Performance Standards of subsection 1102.1300.
(1) MedicallDentalOffices
(2) Retail - The following types of retail use are considered
appropriate for the Downtown area. Retail stores shall not exceed
5,000 square feet in floor area, except as a conditional use.
. antique stores
. bakeries, delicatessens, bagel shops, ice cream shops and
other specialty food stores
URS
1
.
.
. camera stores
. clothing or shoe stores
. drugstores
. florists
. news stands
. liquor stores
. tobacco stores
. toy stores
. video sales and rental
(3) Showrooms for merchandise such as home furnishing,
appliances, floor coverings and similar large items, not including
motor vehicles, with a maximum floor area of lO,OOO square feet.
[would include fireplace equipment}
(4) Offices
(5) Services
(6) Libraries
(7) Police and Fire Stations
(8) Business Services
(9) fIoteLn\1otel
(10) Printing Process/Supplies
(12) Museums/Art Galleries
. (13) Cafe or coffee shop
(14) Food service
(15) Clubs and Lodges With and Without Liquor Licenses.
(16) Private Entertainment (Indoor).
(17) Restaurants With and Without Liquor Licenses.
1102.1102 Uses Permitted With Conditions. A structure or land in a "C-3" Specialty
Business Use District may be used for one or more of the following uses if
its use complies with conditions stated in subsection 11 02.1300 and those
specified for the use in this subsection.
(1) Adult Day Care. Conditions:
07/19/01
URS
2
07/19/01
a. A minimum of 150 square feet of outdoor seating or exercise area
shall be provided for each person under care.
b.
(2) Dry Cleaning, Laundering. Conditions:
a. The use shall not exceed 5,000 square feet in area.
b. The use is limited to drop-off and pick-up facilities only.
c. Outside storage and parking of trucks involved in the operation of
the business is limited to trucks and vans with a manufacturer's rated
cargo capacity of 1 ton or less.
d. Outside vehicle storage shall be screened from any "R" Use District
by a bufferyard, as determined by subsection 1107.2003.
(3) Group Day Care/Nursery School. Conditions:
a. A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil must be
provided and such space shall be screened with a bufferyard Type C
as defined in subsection 1107.2005.
b. An off-street pedestrian loading area shall be provided in order to
maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any
'roadway designated to the Comprehensive Plan as a principal
arterial.
d.
(4) Park/Open Space. Conditions:
a. The principal structure shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from a
lot in an "R" Use District.
b. Areas designated for group activities shall be located a minimum of
25 feet from a lot in an "R" Use District.
URS
3
07/19/01
c. The entire site other than that taken up by structures, required buffer
yards, or other landscaped areas shall be surfaced with a material to
control dust and drainage.
(5) Public Service Structures. Conditions:
a. All exterior building faces shall comply with subsection 1107.2200.
b. All structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any
abutting property located in an "R" Use District.
c. All service drives shall be paved.
(6) Multiple Family Dwellings. Conditions:
a. Multiple family dwellings with their primary frontage on Main
Avenue or Dakota Street must be in combination with another
permitted use, as specified in Section 11 02.11 03. Residential units
shall not be located on the ground level or street level of the
development.
b. Safe and adequate pedestrian access to open space, plazas and
pedestrian ways shall be provided.
(7) Elderly Housing. Conditions:
a. The building design and placement provide a desirable residential
environment.
b. Safe and adequate pedestrian access to open space, plazas and
pedestrian ways shall be provided.
c. Site access shall be located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
site shall contain a minimum of 200 square feet of usable open
space per dwelling unit, and no more than half of the usable open
space shall be located in the front yard.
e. A minimum of 25% of the usable open space
shall be developed as outdoor recreation or garden areas.
URS
4
07/19/01
f. A minimum of 900 square feet of lot area is provided for each
dwelling unit.
g. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be at least equal to
the average heights of the buildings except where dwellings shall
common walls.
h. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the
curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots.
1. Covenants running with the land in a form approved by the City
Attorney shall be recorded against the property that restricts the use
of the property for occupancy by the elderly.
J. The development shall provide a lounge or other inside community
rooms amounting to a minimum of 15 square feet for each unit.
(8) Live-Work Units. Conditions:
live-work unit may be located within an existing single-family
detached residence or within a new building developed specifically for
that purpose. The following requirements apply only to new
construction.
. The office or business component must be located on the ground
floor or lower level of the building, with an entrance facing the
primary abutting public street.
. The dwelling unit component must maintain a separate entrance,
located on the front or side fayade and accessible from the primary
, abutting public street.
b.
c. Business uses within a live-work unit are limited to offices, services,
business services, studios, and any use allowed as a home occupation.
d. The office or business component of the building shall not exceed 30
percent of the total gross floor area of the building, and may not be
expanded beyond the original building footprint.
e. A total of two parking spaces shall be provided for a live-work unit,
located to the rear ofthe unit, or underground/enclosed.
URS
5
07/19/01
f. The work activity does not involve warehousing, distribution, or retail
sales of merchandise produced off the site, except that storage of up to
200 cubic feet of products and materials used to carry out the activity
is permitted.
g. No light or vibration originating from the business operation IS
discernible at the property line.
(9) Community Centers. Conditions:
a. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to
maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety.
b. Outdoor areas intended for group activities shall be located at least
25 feet from any lot in an "R" Use District and shall be buffered
from such residential lot with a bufferyard Type C as defmed in
subsection 1107.2005.
(10) Bed and Breakfast Establishments. Conditions:
a. The facility shall be owner-occupied.
b. The required parking shall be screened with a bufferyard.
c. The total number of guests shall be limited to 6.
d. Not more than 50% of the gross floor area of the residence shall be
used for the guesthouse operation.
e. . Only exterior alterations, which do not alter the exterior appearance
from its single-family character, will be allowed.
f. Accommodations may be provided to a guest for a period not
exceeding 14 days.
g. Food service shall be limited to breakfast and afternoon tea.
h. Rented rooms shall not contain cooking facilities.
1. Rooms used for sleeping shall be part of the primary residential
structure and shall not have been constructed specifically for rental
purposes.
J. Parking shall not be located within the front yard. No more than
50% of the rear yard may be paved or used for parking.
URS
6
(11) Banks. Conditions:
a. The use shall not include any drive-through or drive-up windows or
facilities.
(12) Wholesale sales, in combination with retail or office use. Conditions:
a. The use shall be limited to 50% of the floor area of the structure.
b. Total floor area ofthe structure shall not exceed 10,000 square feet.
1102.1103 Uses in Combination. In keeping with the purpose of the "C-3" Specialty
Business Use District, combinations of the following uses on a single parcel and/or within a
single building are encouraged. Other combinations of permitted uses (with or without
conditions) may be permitted as conditional uses, provided that compatibility of activities,
circulation, parking and other functions can be demonstrated.
. Multi-family apartments
. Retail
. Offices
. Services
. Studios
. Coffee shops or restaurants
1102.1104 Accessory Uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in a
"C-3" Specialty Business Use District:
(1) Parking Lots, in compliance with the Design Standards of Section
1102.1105.
(2) Incidental repair or processing which is necessary to conduct a permitted
principal use, provided that it shall not exceed 25% of the gross floor area.
(3) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages by a restaurant IS
permitted as an accessory use to a restaurant if:
a. The use is separated from any adjacent residential use by a building
wall or fence. This provision will not apply if the residential use is
located in an upper story above a restaurant.
07/19/01
URS
7
07/19/01
b. No speakers or other electronic devices, which emit sound are
permitted outside of the structure if the use is located
within 500 feet of a residential
c. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. if located
within 500 feet of a residential
d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area
does not exceed 500 square feet or 10% of the gross floor area of the
restaurant, whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same
rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating area in
excess of 500 square feet or 10% of the gross building area,
whichever is less.
(4) Outdoor seating and service of food and alcoholic beverages is permitted
as an accessory use if:
a. All the requirements of subsection 3a-d listed above are met.
b. Access to and from the outdoor area shall be through the indoor
seating area. There shall be no direct access to the outdoor seating
area from the parking lot or street.
c. Food service to t~e outdoor area shall be provided during all hours of
operation.
d. No bar shall be located in the outdoor area, except a service bar for
the exclusive use ofthe employees.
(5) Awnirigs and signs extending over the public right-of-way may be
permitted subject to approval of a "Private Use of Public Property"
agreement in a form authorized by the City Attorney, and the provisions of
subsection 1107.801.
(6) Outdoor Sales is permitted as an accessory use with the following
conditions:
. The items displayed must be related to the principal use.
. The area allowed for outdoor sales is limited to 30% of the gross floor
area of the principal use.
. The area must be landscaped and fenced or screened with a Bufferyard
Type D from view of neighboring residential uses or abutting any "R"
district.
URS
8
07119/01
· A decorative fence or wall a minimum of 3 feet in height shall be
located between the and any public street or pedestrian way.
. All lighting must be hooded and so directed that the light source shall
not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring
residential properties and compliant with subsection 1107.1800.
. Areas must be hardsurfaced with asphalt, concrete, decorative concrete
interlocking pavers, or other equivalent material approved by the City.
URS
9
1102.1106 Dimensional Standards
. Minimum lot width - 30 feet
. Front yard - minimum setback - 0, maximum setback - 20 feet, measured
from the right-of-way
. Side yard - no minimum setback - maximum setback - 10 feet, unless parking
is located within the side yard
. Rear yard - minimum 10 feet [check existing lots)
. Maximum floor area ratio - 3.0
. Minimum floor area ratio- 0.5
. Build-to line. Along Main Avenue, a build-to line is established a distance of
5 feet from the inner edge of the street right-of-way (in most cases, this is the
inner edge of the sidewalk). At least 70 percent of the building fa9ade that
fronts Main Avenue must be built out to this line.
. Maximum height - 35 feet or three stories, whichever is greater. Multiple-use
structures with residential uses on the upper floors may be a maximum of 45
feet.
1102.1107 Design Standards in the "C-3" Specialty Business District
(1) Purpose of standards. The purpose of this section is to provide guidance
and direction in the development and redevelopment of the Downtown
business district
some language from Vision Statement in Downtown
Guide)
(2) Applieability. The design standards shall apply to the following activities:
a. All new construction.
b. Any renovation, expansion or other exterior changes to existing
nonresidential and/or multifamily buildings, including repainting.
c. Any development or expansion of parking areas.
d. Any other Illilll alteration that requires a building permit.
The standards shall apply only to the building or site elements being
developed or altered. That is, changes to a building would be required to
comply with those standards that pertain to buildings, while changes to a
parking area would be required to comply with standards for parking
areas, but not for buildings. The Planning Director will make the initial
determination as to which standards are applicable.
~11'tliAdministration and Review Procedures. The following design standards
shall supplement the standards and process outlined in Section 1107.2200,
07/19/01
URS
10
07/19/01
"Architectural Design." Design review will be conducted by the Planning
Department. If a site plan review is needed, the two processes will be
conducted concurrently.
It is assumed that the intent of the standards shall be met. It is understood
that there may be many ways to achieve the same design objective. The
City may permit alternative approaches that, in its determination, meet the
objective(s) ofthe design standard(s) equally well.
(3) Submittal Requirements. The following information shall be supplied
prior to design review, in addition to any information required for site plan
reVIew.
a. Elevations. Complete exterior elevations of all proposed buildings and
existing buildings ifthey are joined to new development. Elevations
should be drawn at an appropriate scale (usually 1;4" = I') and should
show:
. All signs to be mounted on the building(s) or erected on the site;
. Designations of materials and colors to be used on all exterior
facades
b. Materials sample. Material samples should be presented, including
color and material type for walls and roof.
c. Color samples. Samples of all principal and secondary colors to be
used.
d. Context. Photographs of surrounding buildings on the same block or
street, to address issues of context.
{These provisions might be more suitable for Section 1107.2200, which also
requires design review. See also 1107.2203.cfor similar language applying to
one and two-family houses only]
(4) Design Standards
Compatibility with lake theme. Site elements, including landscaping,
lighting, signage, etc. should be compatible with the lake theme for public
improvements within the downtown, as expressed in the Design Theme
Standards and Criteria [an attachment to ordinance].
Building Design
Renovation of Existing Buildings. Inappropriate fa9ade additions should
be removed to the extent feasible during building renovation. These may
URS
11
07/19/01
include, but are not limited to, wood or plastic shake mansard roofs,
plastic or oddly shaped awnings, window opening infills or surrounds
designed to reduce the size of window openings, modem siding materials
inconsistent with the original fayade, and light fixtures inconsistent with
the building's original style or the downtown lake theme.
. Masonry buildings should be cleaned as necessary to lighten the
overall color.
. New masonry work should match the color and materials or the
original fayade.
. Wherever practical, fayade renovations should not des~oy or cover
original details on a building. Brick and stone facades should not be
covered with artificial siding or panels.
. Original window and door openings should be maintained wherever
practical. New window and door openings should maintain a similar
horizontal and vertical relationship as the original.
General infill principles. Intill buildings should reflect the original
design of surrounding storefront buildings in scale and character. This can
be achieved by maintaining similar setbacks, building height and
proportions, cornice lines, horizontal lines of windows and openings, and
compatible building materials and colors.
Building fac;ade width and articulation. Buildings should be oriented
with the primary axis perpendicular to the primary fronting street. A
building width of 40 feet or less is encouraged. Buildings of more than 40
feet in width shall be divided into smaller increments (between 20 and 40
feet) through articulation of the fayade. This can be achieved through
combinations of the following techniques, and others that may achieve the
same purpose.
. Fayade modulation - stepping back or extending forward a portion of
the fayade
. Vertical divisions using different textures or materials (although
materials should be drawn from a common palette)
. Division into storefronts, with separate display windows and entrances
. Variation in roof lines by alternating dormers, stepped roofs, gables, or
other roof elements to reinforce the modulation or articulation interval
. Arcades, awnings, window bays, arched windows and balconies at
intervals equal to the articulation interval
URS
12
07/19/01
Building fac;ade articulation - horizontal
. Most traditional storefront commercial buildings have a strong pattern
of base, middle and top, created by variations in detailing, color and
materials. New buildings should respond to this pattern.
. New buildings should have articulated tops. This articulation might
consist of pitched roofs, dormers, gable ends, cornice detailing, etc.
. The ground level of any multi-story structure should be visually
distinct from the upper stories. This can be achieved through the use of
an intermediate cornice line, a sign band, larger window openings,
projections, awnings and canopies, changes in materials or detailing,
or similar techniques.
. While diversity is encouraged, materials, colors and textures on all
levels of a building's facade should be drawn from a common palette,
and should be visually compatible with each other.
Two-story expression. One-story buildings should be designed to convey
an impression of greater height through the use of pitched roofs with
dormers or gables facing the street, or the use of an intermediate cornice
line to separate the ground floor and the upper level.
Entrances. The main entrance should always face the primary street, with
secondary entrances to the side or rear, and should be placed at sidewalk
grade. Entrances should be emphasized and made more obvious through
the use of the following techniques or similar ones:
. Canopy, portico, overhang, arcade or arch above the entrance
. Recesses or proj ections in the building facade surrounding the entrance
. Peaked roof or raised parapet over the door
. Display windows surrounding the entrance
. Architectural detailing such as tile work or ornamental moldings
. Perinanent planters or window boxes for landscaping
Windows and doors. Windows and doors should comprise at least 40
percent of the area of any ground floor fayade facing a public street
(defined as extending from ground level to 12 feet in height). Windows
should have a generally vertical orientation.
Windows and doors should comprise at least 10 percent of the ground level
side or rear fayade facing a public right of way, parking area or open space.
Qualifying windows or doors must be transparent, allowing views into and
out of the interior, or may include display windows set into the wall.
Reflective glass is not permitted.
URS
13
Awnings. When awnings are used, they should extend only across
individual storefronts, not across more than one storefront or building.
Awnings should be a simple shed form;
Side and rear facades. Side and rear facades that contain customer
entrances or that adjoin off-street parking areas should be treated as
extensions of the storefront or front fal(ade. Building materials should be of
similar quality as those on front facades, although detailing may be simpler.
Entrances should be clearly delineated using the techniques mentioned
above.
Mechanical equipment screening
see 1107.2202 (1) for screening of rooftop equipment
see 1107.2202 (4) for screening of utility and service structures -
consider modifying this section to state:
Utility service structures, etc. .., must be inside a building or be entirely
screened from off-site views by a decorative fence, wall or screen of plant
material at least 6 feet in height. Fences and walls shall be architecturally
compatible with the primary structure. Loading docks or doors should
always be located on a side or rear elevation.
Materials
see 1107.2202 (6) for classes of materials - this may be completely
adequate for C-3
Colors. Building colors should consist predominantly of subtle, neutral or
muted colors, with low reflectance. Recommended colors include browns,
grays, fans, beiges, and dark or muted greens, blues and reds. No more than
two principal colors may be used on a fal(ade. Bright, white or primary
colors should be used only as accents, occupying a maximum of 10 percent
of building facades. This standard does not apply to murals or other
approved public art.
This should rule out franchise colors; materials standard should cover
franchise design
Signs
The sign standards need to be amended to limit the total area and size of signs and
permit projecting (blade) signs in the C-3 district. For example:
Within the "C-3" District maximum sign area per property shall not exceed 1 square foot
of sign area per linear foot of street fal(ade at the front yard. One sign is allowed for each
07/19/01
URS
14
usable public entry to a building. Wall signs and projecting signs are permitted. Free-
standing signs are permitted only in an existing front yard. [???]
Projecting signs: Projecting signs shall not exceed 8 square feet in area and may project
no more than 4 feet from the building face. Signs must maintain a minimum clearance of
9 feet above a sidewalk and 15 feet above driveways or alleys. No projecting sign shall be
located within 25 feet of another projecting sign.
Sign design guidelines [again part of C-3 district guidelines]
Signs should be architecturally compatible with the style, composition,
materials, colors and details of the building, and with other signs on nearby
buildings. Signs should be an integral part of the building and site design.
Signs should be positioned so they are an integral design feature of the
building, and to complement and enhance the building's architectural
features. Signs should not obscure or destroy architectural details such as
stone arches, glass transom panels, or decorative brickwork. Signs may be
placed:
. In the horizontal lintel above the storefront windows;
. Within window glass, provided that no more than 25 percent of the
window is obscured;
. Proj ecting from the building
. As part of an awning
. In areas where signs were historically attached.
Sign Colors. Sign colors shall be compatible with the building fa<;ade to
which the sign is attached. No more than three colors should be used per
sign, unless part of an illustration. To ensure the legibility of the sign, a
high degree of contract between the background and letters is preferable. A
combination of soft/neutral shades and dark/rich shades (see Building
Colors standard) are encouraged.
Materials. Sign materials should be consistent or compatible with the
original construction materials and architectural style of the building facade
on which they are to be displayed. Natural materials such as wood and
metal are more appI'Opriate than plastic. Neon signs may be appropriate for
windows.
Illumination. External illumination of signs is permitted by incandescent,
metal halide or fluorescent light that emits a continuous white light. Light
shall not shine directly onto the ground or adjacent buildings. Neon signs are
permitted. Internally lit box signs and awnings are not permitted, with the
exception of theater marquees.
07/19/01
URS
15
Parking [this provision may be more appropriate in Section 1107.202J
Off-street parking is not required in the "C-3" District. However, should the
City undertake the development of one or more public parking facilities
within the district, the City may assess business property owners for a
proportional share in such a parking facility equivalent to the amount of off-
street parking that would be required. [check with City Attorney! Not sure
this is legal! J
Parking location. If off-street parking is provided within the "C-3"
District, it shall be located to the side or rear of the principal building, not
between the building and the street. Parking may not occupy a comer
location.
Parking lot screening. Parking lots adjoining the sidewalk or a walkway
shall be separated from it by a landscaped yard at least 4 feet wide,
containing a decorative fence or wall between 2 Y2 and 3 feet in height. One
canopy tree shall be provided for each 25 linear feet of parking lot frontage
on a public street or accessway.
Compare to 1107.204 (J 1) - requires a much wider bufferyard, which is
less appropriate in a downtown setting.
Parking lot landscaping. The comers of parking lots and all other areas not
used for parking or vehicular circulation shall be landscaped with turf grass,
native grasses or other perennial flowering plants, vines, shrubs and trees.
Such spaces may include architectural features such as benches, kiosks or
bicycle parking.
The interior of parking lots containing 20 or more spaces shall contain
landscaped areas equal to at least 15% of the total parking lot area, including a
minimum of one deciduous shade tree per 10 parking spaces.
Definitions
Coffee shop, cafe -An establishment engaged principally in the sale of coffee and
other nonalcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises or for carryout,
which may also include the sale of a limited number of food items.
Live-Work Unit. A dwelling unit in combination with a place of business within
the same building, where the resident occupant lives above or behind the shop,
studio or other place of employment that is located on the ground floor of the
building. A live- work unit may be located within an existing single-family
residence where permitted. The use is similar to a home occupation in that it is
limited in scale and does not create off-site impacts. However, it is intended for
use in or adjacent to commercial centers, and is therefore more clearly identified
07/19/01
URS
16
07/19/01
as a business use. The size and nature of the work space are limited so that the
building type may be governed by residential building codes. An increase in size
or intensity beyond the specified limit would not prohibit the use, but would
require the building to be classified as a mixed use building.
URS
17