HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 27, 2001
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case Files #01-039 and #01-040 (continued) Consider an application for a
preliminary plat to be known as McCormick Acres and to consider variances to
the minimum lot area for three of the proposed lots for the property located on the
south side of 170th Street, North of Highway 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows.
B. Case File #01-017 - (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.
C. Case File #01-068 - Lawrence Baird is requesting variances to permit a structure
eave/overhang to encroach into the minimum 5 foot sideyard and an impervious
surface area greater than 30 percent for the property located at 5420 Fairlawn
Shores Trail.
D. Case File #01-069 - Consider an amendment to Section 1108 of the Zoning
Ordinance to establish a procedure for site plan review.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:IO I fileslOI pJancommlOI pcagendalag082701.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, AUGUST 13,2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the August 13, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, 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
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the July 23,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case Files #01-039 and #01-040 (Continued) 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.
The Planning Commission initially considered this request on July 9,2001. The
Commission tabled action on the request until August 13,2001, in order to allow staff
and the applicant to assemble additional information.
On August 8, 2001, the applicant requested the Planning Commission further continue
the hearing until the next regular Planning Commission meeting on August 27,2001 (see
attached). The applicant is hoping to provide additional information at that time.
Comments from the Commissioners:
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO
THE AUGUST 27,2001, MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRlED.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN08130 I.doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
August 13, 2001
~
\
B. Case File #01-058 Consider an Amendment to Sections 1101.1000 (Definition
of Elderly Housing), 1106A.200 (Definition of Congregate Care), 1108.506 and
1108.704 (The number of votes required to adopt an ordinance), 1112.200 (The
definition of an Official Map) 1101.503 (1,6 & 7) (Allowable encroachments into a
side yard) 1104.308(2) (allowable encroachments into the lake setback) 1107.1801(1)
(The Lighting Standards) and 1107.2106(5) (Certification of Compliance with the
Tree Preservation requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 13,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The need for the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance is the result of several factors.
These factors included changes to the State Statutes, the need to clarify language in the
existing ordinance, update references in the existing ordinance and change the ordinance
to reflect existing policy.
The staff identified language in the current Zoning Ordinance to be inconsistent with
Minnesota State statutes. Some of the inconsistencies are the result of very recent
changes to the statutes. These changes include the following:
· The definition of elderly housing (1101.1000)
· The definition of congregate care (11 06A.200)
· The number of City Council votes required to adopt an amendment to the Zoning
Map and the Zoning Ordinance (1108.506 and 1108.704)
· The definition of an official map (1112.200)
· Language to include basement egress windows as an allowable encroachment into the
side yards (1101.503 (1))
· Language to include platform decks as allowable yard encroachments (1101.503 (6 &
7)and 1104.308 (2))
· The Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Handbook (1107.1801 (1))
· Tree Preservation Requirements, Certification of compliance with an approved
landscaping plan (1107.2106 (5)).
The staff felt there is a public need for these amendments for several reasons. First of all,
the amendments are necessary to comply with State Statutes. Second, the amendments
will clarify the intent of the ordinance as it is currently administered. Finally, the
amendment eliminating the need for certification of compliance with tree preservation
plans will be more "customer friendly" and eliminate additional expense to the taxpayers.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Agreed with staff that the changes are needed because of the State Statute
requirements.
L\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN08130 I.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
August 13, 2001
· Agreed with the concept of the builder or homeowner certifying the tree replacement,
but if it is determined in the future that the requirements were not met, is there any
enforcement? Kansier said once the City returns the deposit, they would not have too
much recourse. The staff does have the option of doing the inspection if there are
questions.
Stamson:
· Agreed staff was thorough in their justification in the changes. Supported.
Atwood:
· Agreed - Clarifies the intent.
V onhof:
· Agreed with the changes. Staff does well in keeping the Zoning Ordinance up to date
and current with all State Statutes.
· All of staff interpretations of the changes came out of previous discussions.
· Regarding the impact on tree preservation - Would support as long as staff felt
comfortable with the compliance.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case File #01-057 Larry Nickelson is requesting the vacation of a portion of
the Ridgemont Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the property located at 15543
Ridgemont Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 13,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The right-of-way for Ridgemont Avenue at this location was originally dedicated in 1920
with the plat of Condon's Wood Dale. In 1974, the City installed utilities and
reconstructed Ridgemont Avenue at this location. At that time, the roadway surface was
realigned to the west of this property. This left a boulevard of approximately 28'
between the curb and the property line.
In 1999, Larry and Joyce Nickelson requested the vacation of 18' of the excess right-of-
way adjacent to their property at 15543 Ridgemont Avenue. The existing lot is about
50,000 square feet in size. Mr. and Mrs. Nickelson indicated they wanted to subdivide
this area into 3 lots. According to the letter submitted by the petitioners at that time, they
believed vacation of this right-of-way "may avoid future problems for the city and new
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN081301.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
August 13. 2001
property owners if the easements are moved to reflect the true placement of the utilities
and the lot lines end at the street, as they do in all residential districts." The area
originally proposed to be vacated was also required to meet the minimum lot area
requirements for two of the proposed lots.
There is excess right-of-way at this location. However, the revised legal description
includes area necessary to maintain the utilities and the existing streets. The Planning
staff recommended denial of the vacation as currently proposed. The staff would
recommend approval ofthe vacation of 18' of right-of-way adjacent to this property as
originally described, subject to the condition the property owner quit claim a 10' wide
easement for drainage and utilities along the westerly boundary of the property.
Stamson:
. Questioned lot lines extending to the curb. Kansier explained.
There were no comments from the applicant or the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Concurred with staff s opinion. The second description is too inclusive. The hurdle
State Statute sets forth is that it has to be in the public's interest and agree with the
City's Comprehensive Plan. The initial request met the requirements.
. Vacate original requested area.
. Questioned staff on the property reverting to the original owners. Kansier
responded.
. Supported staffs recommendation.
Atwood:
. Agreed. The 10 foot wide easement is reasonable.
Lemke:
. Agreed with staff.
V onhof:
. Concurred with staff.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL VACATE A PORTION OF THE RIGHT -OF- WAY OF RIDGEMONT
AVENUE ADJACENT TO 15543 RIDGEMOUNT AS SPELLED OUT BY STAFF IN
THEIR REPORT.
V ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on September 4,2001.
L:\O I files\O I pIancomm\O I pcminutes\MN08I30 I.doc 4
- ---- -- ._--_._~-~_._._~----_.._---
Planning Commission Minutes
August 13, 2001
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye said the consultants are wrapping up the downtown ordinance and streetscape
materials. The City will then proceed with a public hearing.
Rye briefly explained the new State TIP impact.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN081301.doc
5
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4A
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
VARIANCES TO THE MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE R-l
DISTRICT AND TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS MCCORMICK
ACRES
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
AUGUST 27, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
The Patrick L. McCormick Trust has filed an application for a preliminary plat for the
1.85 acre site located on the south side of CSAH 12 (170th Street), west of CSAH 13 and
east of Pheasant Meadows. The preliminary plat, to be known as McCormick Acres,
consists of 1.85 acres to be subdivided into 5 lots for singe family residences. There are
two existing single family dwellings on this site. The application also includes a request
for variances to the minimum lot area for 3 of the proposed lots.
The Planning Commission initially considered this request on July 9, 2001. The
Commission tabled action on the request until August 13, 2001, in order to allow staff
and the developer to assemble additional information. On August 13,2001, the Planning
Commission further continued the hearing until August 27, 2001 at the request of the
applicant.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site area consists of 1.85 acres.
Ve2etation: There are several trees, primarily cottonwood and elm trees, located on this
site. Development on this site is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Wetlands: There are no wetlands on the site.
Access: Access to the site will be from CSAH 12.
1:\01files\01subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report3.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Zonine and Land Use Plan Desienation of Adjacent Property:
North: The property to the north, across CSAH 12, is zoned R-l (Low Density
Residential). The 2020 Comprehensive Plan designates this property for R-L/MD (Low
to Medium Density Residential) uses.
South: The property to the south is C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and is designated
for Neighborhood Retail Shopping uses on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This
property is currently used agriculturally.
East: Directly east of this property are single family residences zoned R-1 and
designated for R - L/MD uses.
West: The property to the west is the Pheasant Meadows townhouse development, zoned
R-1 and designated for R-L/MD uses.
2020 Comprehensive Plan Desienation: This property is designated for R-L/MD uses
on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Zonine: The property is zoned R-1, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation.
PROPOSED PLAN
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 1.85 acres to be subdivided into 5 lots for single
family residential development. The proposed lot areas range from 10,212 square feet to
13,500 square feet. The applicants are requesting a variance to the minimum lot area
requirement for Lot 3, Lot 4 and Lot 5 of the plat. These lots are 11,007 square feet,
10,683 square feet and 10,212 square feet in area, respectively. All of the lots meet the
minimum lot width requirement.
Streets: This plan proposes no new public streets; however, the plat does dedicate an
additional 17 feet of right-of-way for CSAH 12.
Parks: This plat does not include any parkland dedication. Dedication requirements will
be satisfied by a cash dedication, in lieu of land, for each of the new lots. The lots with
the existing dwellings are exempted from the parkland dedication fee.
Sanitary SewerlWater Main: Sanitary sewer and water main is currently located in
CSAH 12. The locations of the services to the proposed lots must be verified prior to
final approval.
Storm Sewer: There is no storm sewer proposed for this site. The plan indicates the
new building sites will drain to the north.
1:\01files\01subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report3.doc
Page 2
Tree Replacement: The developer has submitted a Tree Inventory for this site; however,
several trees on the plan are not labeled. It is most likely that no tree replacement will be
required. However, the Tree Inventory must be revised to label all of the significant
trees, and it must be prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor.
Landscape Plan: The Subdivision Ordinance requires two front yard subdivision trees
per lot. The developer has submitted a landscaping plan identifying the required trees.
DISCUSSION:
The staff originally identified two main issues pertaining to this preliminary plat. The
first issue is the need for variances to the minimum lot area for three of the proposed lots.
The need for variances is caused primarily by the County requirement for 50' of right- of-
way rather than the standard 33' of right-of-way. Ifthe standard amount of right-of-way
were dedicated, Lots 3 and 4 would meet the minimum lot area requirement of 12,000
square feet. Lot 5, however, would still be less than the minimum lot area with an area of
11,681 square feet.
CSAH 12 is scheduled in both the City and the County CIP for reconstruction in 2004. If
the right-of-way is not dedicated with this plat, the City will be required to purchase the
right-of-way from the property owners at that time.
The second issue pertaining to this proposal is access to the property to the south, which
is adjacent to TH 13. Originally, the staff believed that the State had purchased the
access rights to this site; however, we have since learned that the State has not purchased
access control to this property. The State still has the right to issue an access permit to
the site, and through the permitting process will control the location of the access. The
access to this property from Pheasant Trail, the platted but unimproved road to the west,
is an additional access that mayor may not be utilized at some time in the future.
Another option is to create a new access by realigning the TH 13 and CSAH 12
intersection. The City staff plans to discuss this option with the MN DOT and the
County Highway Department as the plans for the improvement ofCSAH 12 proceed.
A third issue was also brought to the Planning staff s attention. This issue pertains to the
existing easement for the installation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water to the
property directly south of this site. That easement must be included on the plat of this
property.
ANALYSIS:
The Planning Commission must first consider the request for a variance to the minimum
lot area. This request must be evaluated based on the hardship criteria listed in the
Zoning Ordinance. The attached letter from the applicant outlines their reasoning for this
vanance.
1:\01files\01subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report3.doc
Page 3
V ARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this
Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a
manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which said
lot is located.
There do not appear to be any unique physical conditions on the property that would
preclude compliance with the Zoning Ordinance while allowing a reasonable use of
the property. By eliminating Lot 5, and moving the lot lines for Lot 3 approximately
3' to both the east and west, there would not be any need for any variances. This
would allow the creation of four residential lots.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
Staff does not believe there are conditions peculiar to this property that do not apply
generally within the R-l District.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The right of the property owner to subdivide their property is not denied by a failure
to grant the variance. Denial of a variance only means one less lot may be developed.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
In staffs opinion, granting the variance would not impair light and air, increase
congestion in the streets or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health
safety, and comfort of the area.
Granting the variance will not have adverse impacts on the character of the area or
otherwise affect values or safety in the area.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Granting the variance as proposed could be construed to be in conflict with the
intention of the Zoning Ordinance, which establishes the minimum lot area to limit
density and to provide adequate buildable area on a lot.
1:\01 files\01 subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report3.doc
Page 4
1. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty .
Staff believes there is no demonstrable hardship in this case. Elimination of one lot
will allow full compliance with the ordinance.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to
the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property.
The owner can submit a plat that conforms in all respects with the ordinance
requirements, and does not require any variances.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not
be grounds for granting a Variance.
The applicant has not stated a need for the variance based on increased costs or
economic hardship.
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Action on the preliminary plat depends on whether or not the requested variances are approved.
Based on the above findings suggested by staff, the requested variances are not justified. In that
case, if the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat must be revised to eliminate Lot 5. The remaining lot lines must be reconfigured
to provide the minimum lot area for each lot.
2. The existing easement for the installation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water to
the property to the south must be identified on the final plat.
3. 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.
4. The water and sewer service locations must be verified.
5. The applicant must obtain an access permit and any other required permits from Scott
County prior to final plat approval.
If the variance is approved, conditions #2-5 should be attached to the preliminary plat.
ALTERNATIVES (Variance):
1. Approve all the variances requested by the applicant. In this case, the Planning
Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings approving the
Variance requests.
2. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated
hardship under the zoning code criteria. In this case, the Planning Commission
should adopt the attached resolution with findings denying the variance.
1:\01files\01 subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report3.doc
Page 5
AL TERNA TIVES (Preliminary Plat):
1. Recommend the Council approve the preliminary plat of McCormick Acres as presented and
subject to the conditions listed above, or with specific changes directed by the Planning
Commission.
2. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific findings of fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1 in each case. This alternative denies the
requested variances, but recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat subject to
the listed conditions.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Since there are two distinct applications, two separate motions are required, as follows:
1. A motion and second to adopt attached Resolution #0 1-0 13PC, denying the requested
variance to the minimum lot area for the three lots proposed by the preliminary plat.
2. A motion and second recommending the City Council approve the preliminary plat subject to
the five conditions listed above.
1:\01files\01subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report3.doc
Page 6
RESOLUTION Ol-013PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT AREA
FOR THREE LOTS PROPOSED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE
KNOWN AS MCCORMICK ACRES
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Tim Arvidson, on behalf of the Patrick L. McCormick Trust, has applied for variances
from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the creation of five single-family
residential lots on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and
legally described as follows;
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10,
Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Northwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter; thence North 86 degrees 45 minutes 05 seconds East,
assumed bearing, along the North line of said Section 10 a distance of 375.80
feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing East along said North line a
distance of 443.00 feet; thence South 03 degrees 16 minutes 58 seconds a
distance of 168.00 feet; thence South 86 degrees 45 minutes 05 seconds West
a distance of255.00 feet; thence South 03 degrees 14 minutes 55 seconds East
a distance of 32.00 feet; thence South 86 degrees 45 minutes 05 seconds West
a distance of 188.10 feet; thence North 03 degrees 14 minutes 55 seconds
West a distance of200.00 feet to.the point of beginning and there terminating.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-040 and held hearings thereon on July 9,2001 and on August 27,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances 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.
]:\0] files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim p]at\mccormick acres\pcres 01-0] 3pc.doc
1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4. Granting the variance as proposed could be construed to be in conflict with the
intention of the Zoning Ordinance, which establishes the minimum lot area to limit
density and to provide adequate buildable area on a lot.
5. The subdivision of this property can be accomplished without variances. Reasonable
use of the property exists in that four lots meeting the minimum lot area requirements
can be created without the need for variances.
6. There is no justifiable hardship in this case as reasonable use of the property exists
without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance 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 property can be subdivided into four lots meeting the minimum lot area
requirements without any variances.
8. The contents of Planning Case File #0-040 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
variance to the minimum lot area for Lots 3, 4 and 5 as shown on the proposed
preliminary plat of McCormick Estates.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on August 27,2001.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pcres 01-0 13pc.doc
2
Location Map
BASSWOOD RD.
1~~
~\\,,\,;
cc 1033
ElM 13
a:
0 ,
CXNXlMN....
o OC 1034
8 SPRING . LAKE 101
~ CXNXlMN....
~ '
0 15
'! 16
~::tt
~.~ tp .
~0~ E1:
rI1~Q v.sreooE
~~ D~I, I~
:i
..J
:i
..J
W
..J
c..
~
2
x
o
z
:<:
PARK
ELM DR.
COUNTY ROAD 12
Location of
rv1cCormick Acres
\7OTH STReET
actg~f3621
,p~ /
12 ffi \ \\ \ 67 111
,15 se\\~~
I M~~ 8d
~ \ PHEASAI<l
l13! \ ~
14 I I ,L!-j
i CICfJ1B~. j ~JGH:~~
I 9. 6. :/1 4 ~1
, 5 ~,~,..::;
I! i '___6 I "-
i pUJr--~iI""" \~j
! 1C!~3'l1 , 0
i ~(\ /<"1))"5//
! \ 1 .~~/'-_/ \; ~/ ~
I ,/f!J'i:PJJOW / //0 /
I ~'/(I0 /'> / ~ ,/
.....-;p- ""',,/ 9 / // //
/ 'y/ /'/
// / .
// '" / . /,/
// "",><f' // //
/ .,r'" /" ./'
i / ~,,'<f'~.// /
./11' ,..,'f> / ./
V/ /
V
/.//
//
./
./'
/
/'
\
//
/
./
/
//~
~o
'U,
w
~ 1
>N\\.\.O'l
1
4
N
A
300
o
300
600 Feet
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ !>;
~ ~
~
. !::
~ a
~ :
~ ~
.'" ~
~ ~
~ ~
t\..: r.::
~ tl
~
~
~
~
~I/l , , jLh Uli!!" HI,
~ dL .'. L-. d ! ~ II,H d ! d Ii I ~ d : ~ ~ T Ii ~
. ,h ~;l!IHi III I ii~ /', .
o , 0 . . <:f T l!II. ; . l II ! n d I" ,1 I ~
. . 0 . ~ . II' "
'00' '. ,I. :
.. . :r," doicriP .il ~
III ~
I
I
I
I
I
I I ,
'"
I
I ....
1 .
~~
I .;(
/.
I III
"
I
\ I
1 1
I'
1 "
rJ ., .
J l'i:f'!~{
· Jfrl.hl;
.1 If. .j;t,l
j ,,1 :.11
]1 jNi~m
, Ji:::IIl'
111-'J~1JJI'1
. J .I'!. !
~ " :11',;1;
~ 'J ..c".h ~
~ L :m,:jm
.. JA ti') ;;1'
~ !~ lf~fl:".i!j
~ ii jn:?,..,lj
1i iilm.1
....
/ ....
.../ ...~.-~.
.....~...._.
"'.
_.._"'\;"!l....-
\
I
I
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--Z:;"
I~,
I /'))
( I II--r--
"< II I I
v I I
I
~ ---L I
. - --J
i
.
~
i+8 II
!.' I !'
~i 1 J I!!l
T,l ., I!I'
Ii . I ' "
01 II
, ,_ :..1
Ii!;
\
I
I
\
I
~
!Il
s
,
~
~ · ~m~
~ : "<ill":
~ t' aun C
~ I ~m~.. i
~ :. I ~ mn ~ ~ ~
~!fill ~ J ., m~~;:= ~
~ !;d ~ ! ~ nHi ~ J ~ il,,.
~ 1;1;1 h i ~ um ~ ~
~ 1.l;J ~ ~ ::::. ~ i ~
~ " 1 ~ ..... ~ 1 ~ I'
" ~ ..J
If""\
~
h~
. .,
,
, ;
i'
'1
h
11
! j
, f
{ i
n i
~Ilj f
~ !li, !
~"t ~ !
~ i ii'
lj ! ~ ~ 1
--
....
z ~ +
Ii I
~ j
~+:i
~ ~j!r
1 olIIll~
miW r
Illi!
~
~J
. - 1
l)tl
i'(-\
;'-'
I j!"
','- "
f 3:t';
c!~! 'I It
\.:i
.~'"
... '"
o a
o !
" u
, i,
1'1; 'I'
1" t '
l!;hi
r r '11' f
!Ihil,
II J!l 'i
1l,.Hf
llfph .
.t!l.~;l f
,.J,.;1 ~
IIi!!;! :
f1 I ~{il z
,IHal
MRY. 25. 2001 2:20PM
CITY OF WRSECR
NO. 980- .
May 24, 2001
f>t10118 .. .
Pnor1811
Fax 1#
Jane Kansier. AICP Planning Coordinato!.
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Drive SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372.1714
RE: McCormick Acres Preliminary Plat & Variance Application
Dear Ms Kansier:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with my family and I about the abt;we
referenced plat and variances. As we have advised you, our family has owned this
property since the early 19605. The area proposed to be platted was originally the
fannstead for a larger parcel. There still remain the original farmstead home and two
out buildings on the property. In addition, my father developed a single family home
on a portion of the property.
It was always my family's intent to develop this property into five single family
homes, In fact, in 1972 the City installed a new street and replaced utility lines into
the site. The City stubbed five services into the property. It was always our plan, and
the plan of the City, to allow five single family residences on this site. As you can see
from the attached drawings, the placement of the second home was done with car!: to
ensure adequate property to meet typical lot sizes in the area at the time the second
home was built. The property could most likely have been subdivided into five lots
under the subdivision ordinance available at the time.
The County is now requesting that we dedicate an additional 17 feet of our frontage
along each one of these lots for future highway expansion. Although we are not
objecting to the dedication of this property at this time, the homes immediately to the
east of our property are pre$ently located closer to 170frJ Street SW (County Road 12)
than our sites. It is unlikely that the roadway could be expanded to the depths that are
proposed by the county without leaving dwellings with inadequate front setbacks. We
are requesting a variance from the lot area requirements of the Prior Lake Zoning
- I
Ordinance for three of the five parcels located in this subdivision. As I have stated, it
was always our intent. and the City's intent, to allow five lots to be developed in this
area. The proposal of the County to take additional frontage along 170m Street SW,
reduces the lot area available to these properties and creates a substandard condition.
It is, therefore, our request that the City of Prior Lake grant a variance from the area
requirements of the ordinance by reason of the narrowness of the lot and the
extraordinary condition created by the County's request for additional right of way.
This request has resulted in a peculiar and practical difficulties and creates an undue
.
MRY. 25. 2001 2:20PM
CITY OF WRSECR
1'10.980 P.2/2
'~._' _._.. .J... ______ .._._...,..~,.
hardship upon my family acting as developer for the site. We also feel that the
conditions applying to our site arc not unlike or peculiar to the pn>perty immediately
adjoining the proposed platted area. The granting of this easement is the:refore
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of my family, acting as developer of the
site.
The granting of this easement wiI1 not impair an adequate supplY ofliglrt and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, incr~
the danger of fire, or danger the public safety. Further, the granting of the variance
will not unreasonably impact the character of the development of the neighborhood,
unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the surrounding
area, or in any other way impair the health. safety and comfort of the area. The
variance will also not be contrary to the intent of the Prior Lake ordinance or the Prior
Lake Comprehensive Plan.
The gr.urting of the variance is necessary to alleviate a demonstratable undue hardship
or difficulty to our property, The hardships that are created by the strict a:pplicatiou. of
the ordinance are not as a result of the actions of the propertY owners or prior property
owners.
It is therefore our request that the Prior Lake Planning Commission and City CoWlcil
grant the variance to the Lot area as requested by our application. If you have any
further questions about this matter, or need any further information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
~~~
Kris M. Busse
1401 6th Street NE
Waseca, MN 56093
-"- ...
_....~.... ...-......-.--. .. ...........-~,~'............_- ._-.~
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(952) 496-8346
r.:::--.-----~ ~i'~ -=-. -..-:_~-.- 8
.m_________ 'i
JUN , 9 2001
;.J LL
" ;.1
;1.//1
j
Fax; (952) 490:830~
BRADLEY J. LARSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR!
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
L
June 8, 2001
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Preliminary Plat, McCormick Acres
CSAH 12, West of TH 13
Dear Jane:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat as it relates to the Scott County Highway Department and offer
the following comments.
As specified in the recently approved County Transportation Plan, Scott County has adopted the
following applicable policies regarding access to County Roads:
22. Strive to maintain appropriate spacing of intersecting local streets and driveways in
accordance with the Scott County Minimum Access Spacing Guidelines.
24. Encourage the design of a network oflocal roadways to properly direct traffic to collector or
arterial roadways.
25. Support local roadway networks that reduce the need for neighborhood traffic on arterial and
collector roadways for local trips and encourage interconnected neighborhoods.
The plat as proposed creates three new closely-spaced accesses to CSAH 12. We understand that there
are quite a few existing parcels along CSAH 12 with direct access to the roadway, but we would be
willing to work with the City in coming up with alternatives to exacerbating the problem.
In this particular case, the proposal also potentially worsens the issue of access for the parcel to the south.
It is our understanding that the parcel to the south is zoned commercial. Will the City support connecting
this commercial property to Pheasant Trail? If not, it appears as though direct access to TH 13 (an arterial
projected to carry 14,000 vehicles per day by 2020) is becoming the only option. Again, we support local
roadway networks that reduce the need for direct access to arterial roadways. This would also mean the
future development would have only one access point, which would not be ideal for emergency access.
Although we are not in support of the development as proposed (as described above). we have the
following comments if the City does approve the development as proposed:
+ Lot 3 shall share an access to CSAH 12 with Lot 2 or Lot 4. An access permit shall be required for
all new accesses to csAH" 12, as well as for modification of any existing accesses to CSAH 12.
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
_<...' ...~_',,-_:..~....:.....~_::.~::......-~~_~~_,,__'__"""""'~---"_--'--'.o.o..:----=-----',~----;--- ---,_._,-,~",----, ------~---
. We highly recommend a driveway turnaround be installed with each driveway. This will eliminate
the safety issues created by vehicles backing onto the County road when leaving the residences.
. The existing accesses that will not be used as part of this development should be removed and graded
to match surroundings before issuance of a building permit.
General conditions:
. No berming, ponding, landscaping, or signage shall be permitted in the County right-of-way.
. An access permit shall be required for this development.
. Any increase in drainage entering the County right-of-way shall require a detailed stormwater
analysis to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval.
As always, we appreciate the opportunity to comment. Please call me at 496-8060 if you have any
questions or need further clarification.
~~
Brian K. Sorenson, P .E.
Transportation Engineer
Copy: Craig Jenson, County Transportation Planner
Jack Witt, County Highway Utility Inspector
Bud Osmundson, City Public Works Director
Tim Arvidson, Project Engineer, Bolton & Menk Inc.
Paul Czech, Mn/DOT Planning
'l'f"~':""'--'.'::"_C~"" "
117./03/0~.J.~: 04.
If
U
FAX 6128089944
CUB FOODS BURNSVILLE
141 001
:J)
Warranty Deed
Individual to Joint Tenanh
Form No. 5-M
Jllillt.,.J)J\'j, en.. Milll1".1p"li'
1\1inlh."OI,1 l.~nihn'm Con"t'y.Hh'IIH.!' Bl.lnk... CRc."'i"od 19;(~J
m:bi~ 3lnbenturc, .Wade this..............................S!..~rla.y of.............{.~...l.',;:.k..E..<~l-:..... 19..~~.....,
between ............. ~.~~.r..~.~~ ..~.~....~~~~.~s:~...~~4. . !.'1~;y ..~p..~...!:!.~.9.;-~g.~.r....J~;~~p..~c?...~p..?.:..~.~.f..~....................................
of the Om:nty of.sc~~~ai'dA:.M6nneiisiiri'an'&~~~f K~~~=;.liUSbana...anawnr,.j.e.~....
of the fi1 sf; pa77., anel,.. .................... .............. ........... ........ ...... ....... .............. .......... .................. ....... ...... ..... .................. .................. .............. ......................
............................................................................................................................... .........\..................................:......................................, of the Cou,nty of
...........~9.'?~~..........................................a71,d State of.............................~.::~~.~~.~.~..................... ., parties of the second pa7't,
Mitnessetf), That. the setLd parti~.f!l... o{ the {il'st !em,t, in consid,e7'ation of the sum ofJ.~.~..~.~~}.......
.9n.~. ...4gJ..*.?!-.r.....C!-n.4 ..9.~.~.~.r.... ,g9.'?~.. ~.9... Y.?:~.~.~ . .~. ..gg.~~:!:.. .~;~ ~?:~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..:::::::::::::::::::::::- DO LL.1. RS,
to.....t.h~..............ln hand paid by the sai.(l pa,1,ti.es of the. second par.t.. the 7'eccipt whereof is he7'eby aoknowl-
p.dged. no ....... he7'e.by G7'ant, B(/,.~ain, Sell, and COn-/)ey tmto the said parties of the second pa.rt as joint
t(mnnts and not (1,'1 t--e-nants in CO'J}'b71Um, thei7' a.~8idns, the sU7'vivo'r of sa.i,l parties, and, the heirs and
assidns of the 81/,rl:i7:07', F07'ever, all the t7.aet...... or pareeL... of land ~ying an(l beinp in the County of
.............!?.t;;9.tt..........................................a.nd State of Jlfinnesota, described. a~ follows, to-wit:
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township
114, Range 22, Scott county, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Nort
west corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East (assumed
bearing) along the North line thereof a distance of 388.90 feet; thence South a dis-
tance of 168.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described;1
thence East a distance of 175.00 feet; thence North 32.00 feet; thence East a distant
of 741.08 feet more or less to the East line of said Northwest Quarter of the North-
east Quarter; thence Southerly along said East line to its intersection with the
Northerly Right of Way line of State Trunk Highway No. 13; thence Southwesterly alon~
said Right of Way line to its intersection with a line drawn South 4 degrees 52
minutes 42 seconds East from the aforementioned actual point of beginning; thence
North 4 degrees 52 minutes 42 seconds West a distance of 698.13 feet to the point of
beginning. Containing 10.00 acres more or less.
Together with an easement for the installation and maintenance of a sanitary sewer
and water line over, under and across that part of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota
described as follows: A strip of land 20.00 feet in width the centerline of said
strip being described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said
Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of East
along the north line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance
of 641.80 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South
a distance of 168.00 feet and there termin~~ing..
~ .
.-,' .~.'
, ~
,I
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 V onhof, 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 (170th 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 J .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:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\Ol 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 if there
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 ofthe 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. Monnens 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\O 1 files\Ol plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN07090 I.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; If the 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 plancommlO I pcminutesIMN07090 I.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 objected 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.
Vanhof:
. 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 1701h.
V onhof pointed 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. Wenseo would like to use this type of sign to
identify the various businesses located in the Fountain Hills development. The Zoning
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\MN070901.doc 5
t
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4B
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
AUGUST 27,2001
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 area.
At the public hearing held on July 23,2001, the Planning Commission again
. continued the public hearing to allow time for the applicant to provide new
information that proved he also owned the old railroad right-of-way, adjacent to
the front lot line of the subject property. The applicant is requesting to be able to
add this green area, not covered by Calmut Avenue with public street and utility
easements, to his subject lot area to help reduce the percentage of impervious
surface coverage. In addition, the Planning Commission directed the applicant
to reduce his variance request for an impervious surface coverage area in the
30-percentile range (Exhibit A Survey).
As of the date of this report, August 22, 2001, no additional information has been
submitted to staff for this report.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt4.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
t
The original variance request is 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].
DISCUSSION:
A building permit for the house on this lot was issued in 1995. A condition of approval of
the permit stipulated the impervious surface area was not to exceed 30 percent. It
should be noted most of the additional impervious surface area, such as the driveway
and patio, were added after the completion of the existing house.
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
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.
Eliminating approximately 693 square feet of this portion of the driveway/parking
area and about 600 square feet of the sidewalk area would reduce
approximately 1,293 square feet of area (16.8%) of impervious surface. The
total impervious surface area would then be 40.7% of the lot area. In addition,
the back yard patio area of 570 square feet could be reduced to bring the total
impervious surface area into the 30-percentile range (Exhibit B Impervious
Surface Worksheet).
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.
A follow-up inspection of the subject property was conducted on August 6, 2001.
The deck and concrete impervious surface coverage area remain, as
documented on the original certificate of survey. In addition, a metal frame with
tarp boat shelter has been installed on the south side of the property. To my
knowledge, this shelter was not present on site, nor included on the original
impervious surface calculations as surveyed on December 6, 2000. Also, two
docks were present with a pontoon boat tied to one dock, and a boatlift installed
next to the 2nd dock.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt4.DOC
Page 2
According to Patrick Lynch, DNR, the conditions for approval of the Windsong
Marina adjacent to the subject property, allowed only 1 dock for fishing,
swimming, and daytime docking on the appellants lot because a boat slip at the
marina was deeded to the subject property. Another condition required that no
boat lifts or swim rafts be permitted off the shoreline of the property.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of
this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional
or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot
in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which
said lot is located.
The subject property is a nonconforming platted lot of record, but was developed
under the current ownership and they did not meet the conditions spelled out in the
building permit for the principal structure which included a maximum 30% impervious
surface coverage area.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
The existing conditions of the lot area and dimensions are peculiar to the property,
and generally do not apply to most other lots within the Shoreland District. However,
when all required conditions are applied, there was an approved building permit for
the principal structure on this lot that met the 30% impervious surface area.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The approved legal building site precluded the need for the additional variance
requests. The owner created the hardship when he decided on the building
dimensions and location of the structure, as well as the excessive paving of the
subject lot.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the requested variances will not impair light and air to adjacent
properties or increase congestion, danger of fire or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character
and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt4.DOC
Page 3
established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way
impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the variance for increased impervious surface area will adversely
affect the above stated values by reducing the infiltration/buffer area which helps to
remove the pollutants and increase the potential for shoreland erosion with
additional upland water runoff into the Prior Lake watershed and floodplain and
thereby affecting the adjacent properties.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variance is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance or the
Comprehensive Plan by allowing excessive impervious surface conditions than was
originally approved by the City.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the
applicant.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance
to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property.
The hardship results from the actions of the property owner when he constructed the
dwelling in 1995.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone shall not be grounds for granting this variance
request. The property owner helped to create the need for these variance requests
by not following the approved conditions for the original building permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the applicants variance
request of 57.5% impervious surface area as the applicant did not meet all of 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.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt4.DOC
Page 4
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.
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:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt4.DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION 01-011PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 2,115 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 4,422 SQUARE FEET (57.5%),
RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM REQUIRED AREA OF 2,307 SQUARE FEET (30%)
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, and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115, Range
22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Lot 10; thence southerly along the
westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8', a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line
of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its
intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00
feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly
along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southerly along said
shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south li!le of said
Lot 9, to the southwest comer thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of
said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#01-017PC and held hearings thereon on June 25, 2001, July 23, 2001, and August 27,2001.
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.
]:\01 files\01 variances\01-0 17\dnyrs3.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
5. The applicant was directed by previous variance and building permit conditions as to the
amount of impervious surface area, such that the hardship created has been created by the
applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists without the requested variances.
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 m~rely 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 of2,307 square feet (30%).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on August 27,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\01-017\dnyrs3.doc
2
ATTACHMENT 1
~~~
tO~t4t.~
"", 01 ,0
Of \.
.... ,0
Of \.0'
1\-\ \.\t\E__.
\'lOR _----\,
\
\
\
\.
o
w
z
o
51 tA~_73. . '." ~...
ftllAtL..,........h.l;l.;. " I-
'; ~{R..:.;~\' '.. ~
, :."i;\~ ~ ~~:tl'''t I'~: <1
. . ,'. .-;-t..... ;../ .' ~. 511.\'1. tAl-I
\.' ~\.f..~'~I..,.r' .,.~~.
(. '.,' Tcd.~ O.
:., "Cl,;;li6 '. 90.,41'0 I
,'. ,. . ,,~;~= <~
90.....~ ti.. . .
\' ~ ;:;~~':b:~.
Z .. D --.
.: <1 to to
. . n. . N '."
W ".. d) ~. b
> ~c t.\.. J . to.
, .'0" :> . " .
<( t I> ~,
~ .
Ill. "
~
.7
",
...
\
\
..
n._._\
\>l .
\
t- \
,.,
-t<<,; \~
. ")
~
&:
J.
\
~
~
~. .' -1"
,.
I
)
\. ';
.,'~.
'! . ~ "- . "
r ..;.1.
"<(
U
.....1'
1. .
C I\'l~\ N
,.... . .i,
;. .
\
..1/1','4'_ h 0-_". . . . .._.._... . _ _ _ _.~_... ~. ,........ _.. ,'~'_'''''',,,,, ..........~.... ....."'....,._...--.. ... ~..._~h.~...... .,,", - u_ -..-
" "" .. . .:..,';.........ATTAC.HME..N.T........2:
'. '.. . .. ,....::.~>::;...:.?::..::.;'-.:::-::... .... .:.:..>:.~....:;::.. ::...,';....;.:":;.;::~:..
;"'::'.:!M:i,.j;;t!~l~ip;~bii~;: ..~'.' . . " ;': :~" <
:': ,,,;..,,' ;.:.)ili:p~I.:yiO'us:.$urfa~~.CaIcui.a,ti~.n~ .....~ .... ......., " '.' ".::.... .: ,;......~ '" .:.....::...' :
. '" '::::.' <.':.':(To be' Submitted with'Bu'IJding Pennit Application) .:. . . .:. .'. . ...... .'. .'. '.' ...: '.'
..' <' ..:F.o{A)(Prope~l'es.'Located'in ~he",Shor.eland:District (S1;')'::'.':. .:.... :':. .:'.'.' ',' ..>: .~.;:>.'.:.
. .,'-:"TJie:.JytaXlm\1rri.:'Imp'ervioufSurfac'e' .C.ov~erag~ :permitt~d -in 3'0 Percent.:' ' ".','.. '.<..:. .: ":. :'.:
\~~~e~Y;~~~~\j~:;;j\~;~~fu;-S0\~y~':~~~o0k. ........... . c.. ....... ... ....... ...., '.::::., ':.' ...;
. ~'.~otAr~a::':'. t1 i:to.~'L'<-: ........:.. :.:.' .:':. :. S.q. F~et.;),; 30~o..=..;:.;......;;..!~' '.~"?;>071 ".. ...... .<.><..
. .: * *~ ~* l\t** ~~~;*.l\tojl*>tc *,l!4,*,Ift:*-llC*.. +~:~.~l\t * ~*'\C** ~~;~* *~ * *:* 1)1 ,!,*.?fI * ** * ",* *:!c ** *,**** ** ** ~** * * * ..:.,' ,:. . .. .
:;:.: ", .,:,." .::.,~ :'~~~,':':)~:<" :;:":';;':";:;::"'::;>:\,:~::t~~;9t.H>:~,:~~:';:~/"'~S~A:'.':::.'::;. :;:.~:~;j~.(;Sf~',,:~~~~,: : . ': ,.:"',:"::'::' :".;',':';.:,:. .:':/ '.': '.,': .
., HOpSE.,.:.. ..... ..... ..4i.L..x ,"'2...\.0;". .-\ \4:~ " .... .."', . ....., '. "
,':"'i~'~XR~)~t0R~_>e';:~~;~"":'",B>r;~.~i-...,...'~;""~..i'.!~~~ ... . ." .' .... .' . . :.. ... . . ......: ..,:.,....:,.. .~.~....>. ...
. '.: .,..: ::: ". r: ", ','.": TOTAL PRtNCIPLESTRUCTURE...................... .."Z \'~i...,':'_',' ." .;':.'. ;':
:':'.. "~ ", ,."f:: : .:.::;/t>:.:...:,:..~:~., ;:..::,'z:?,.:';:::.::::...;../:(.....\:>:...<..{:~:.'):t.;.' :. ,:,,;,,:~:.\.:.,.; : . .:..' : . :.' .':' ..: ': . .~:.,:. ...... :" .... .' .... .J':"':'" -': .'."....
. DETACHED BLOCS' ,,'''' ,..... . ',," . . '.' ..... .'. x . .:' ... ''''., ." '.' . . .....: .' . .,': .':'. ..:;.
. , .... ,'. .. -. '.. .' ........ .
. ;-". )':.::: ';:; .:: ': .:.... " '" . . ..: .,.....1:: .: '. ~ . .
. .-:., .., >.:.. ;;.' ~: .. ,': '. '." :.
. . .... .;~:.. ':..';'" .',.:.:. "'. . .... .' .. ....
. .". : :" ..1;:- :.:.~.':~.: .:.:
:::. ..:.:...::.... :':::':'..;/""..:' ~~<:~"::.":.
" .. .
, .
.. .
", ,. . .......
.,' .....
..:.i
,.. ;',' ..
. ~:::..;..;,i.~/:.:;:.:'>>i.bTAt:PA~1J?:.~A.;~(.:.~u~~..:;:':~~.:;...:::...'.;...:::...;:.. ,: :~~-1"b .,' ::"',:;'.>. ',:'.: .'
. :. . . . ' "'.-":J. '. ..' ~... .."..
O':.:.':.;~ .. ~. .: . ~.' '.' ':.. ~'~:' '~'. :.' '. ~ ,..! ....
.,-: .' .....<..x......"::.::-::.,
. .' . e". ....~. '.~
':~:'..~: '>2~70";.
,. .... :." ..... ..:....
.,.,: ."
..'<~.:.>::;.
. :.:' :::
.'
'. ,'.
". '.
'.l".. .
'.:'."PATIOS/~ORC}tEsiDECK~r . .'
"... ..... -. ., ,
.:. .' (Open' DeckS' '/;" mln, opening betwee~'.'..
. ..'. boards, with a pervious surface'belo\'';" ....'
. '.., are not consiejered 10 be impervious) "
.". I
".::. .....
. '.
X"
....=
. . ':"".
:.,
...:.f . '. ....... \
-I.'
''':'x'::. :::.
'.:x .'
:: .=.
": ~ ,. . =
."
., :... . !', :
'.TOT AL}MI'ERVI (:Jlii,SURFA C~ ....... .... ". ...... .... '.:' .'l2:Hiv>: 'I".' ~.' :,
":;uN~,E'~~' '. :/',.'. :'-',' ::.' .....;..'.... 1..'2.\\5';j":.
> prepared.ByQ)~~~'~.-\. ..... ...~.....:.~a;e <'!-..O. . . .....<
.c~~p~kl~\\i4.~t%sH[s~ti~t.@,~'Ph6~e#A~1' 'L~{b ..... .... .........,.. .' ", ".
.! .'. .. ,': .."
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4C
CONSIDER A 1.9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EAVE
TO BE LOCATED 3.1 FEET FROM A SIDE PROPERTY
LINE; AND, A 232 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT
AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 32.5
PERCENT; AND, A 3.9-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 11.1-FEET (Case File #01-075)
5420 FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL SE
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
AUGUST 27, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from Mr. Lawrence
Baird for the proposed construction of a 6.6-foot by 14.67-foot
entryway/vestibule addition to an existing single family dwelling located at
5420 Fairlawn Shores Trail. The following variances are being requested:
1. A 1.9 foot variance to permit a structure's eave to be located within
3.1 feet from a side property line rather than the minimum required 5
feet [City Ordinance 1101.503 Yard Encroachments (1)].
2. A 3.9-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.1-feet rather
than the required minimum sum of side yards of 15-feet [Ordinance
Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8}).
3. A 232 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface
coverage area of 2,981 square feet (32.5%) rather than the allowable
impervious surface coverage area of 2,749 square feet (30%) [City
Ordinance1104.306: Impervious Surface Coverage; (1)].
DISCUSSION:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Lot 4, Fairlawn Shores, was platted in May of 1923. The property is located
within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay)
Districts. The lot is riparian with approximate dimensions of 50-feet by 187.5-feet
for a total lot area of 9,162 square feet. The site is considered a legal non-
conforming lot of record and is substandard by today's ordinance requirements.
The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels (Exhibit A Survey).
The original single-family dwelling was constructed in 1980 by a previous owner
(Exhibit B - Building Permit #80-101). The current owner has decided to
expand the main floor of the structure to include an entryway addition, to protect
an existing side yard front door from inclement weather and high winds.
The proposed entryway addition is 6.6-feet by 14.67 -feet, for a total floor area of
98 square feet The applicant is proposing a 2 foot eave that will encroach to
within 3.1 feet from the side lot line because the entryway exterior wall is
proposed to be setback 5.1-feet from the side property line. However, the
existing deck stairs on the northeasterly side yard are 6.1-feet from the lot line.
This will create combined side yards of 11.1-feet or 3.9-feet less than the
required combined side yards of 15-feet (Exhibit C Entry Addition Plans).
The second variance request is for 3.9-feet to permit the sum of side yards to
equal 11.1-feet [1102.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)]. As proposed the
combined side yards total 11.1-feet. The existing structure's deck is currently
setback 6.2-feet on the SE lot line and 6.1-feet on the NE lot line.
The third variance request is for 282 square feet to permit an impervious surface
coverage area of 2,981 square feet or 32.5%. The existing impervious surface
area is 2,883 square feet (31.4%) and includes the concrete area, bituminous
driveway and the principal structure. The proposed 98 square foot entry addition
brings the total area up to 2,981 square feet (32.5%) [Exhibit D Impervious
Surface Worksheet].
Staff has concluded an alternative plan design for an entry addition of lesser
scale and reduced dimensions would work on the subject lot without the need for
variances. For example, a 5-foot by 8 foot addition with a 1.5-foot eave would
eliminate the setback and encroachment variances, and the impervious surface
area of 40 square feet could be offset by the removal of concrete or parking
area.
The applicant has submitted a written statement describing their reasons for the
requested variances (Exhibit E Applicant Letter).
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-068\VRPT01-068.DOC
Page 2
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
The proposed entry addition could be redesigned with reduced dimensions
and eliminate the need for the encroachment, sum of yard and impervious
surface variances.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
The conditions that apply to the structure and land are peculiar to the platted
subdivisions of this era. However, a revised plan could eliminate the need for
the requested variances.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
There is an alternative design and location for the structure that eliminates
these variance requests.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The requested variances would not adversely affect the above stated values
or endanger the public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The variance requests could potentially affect an adjacent property
owner from constructing a future addition or accessory structure less than 10
feet from the adjacent lot line.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-068\VRPT01-068.DOC
Page 3
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the Variance requests will be contrary to the intent of the
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. As the purpose and intent of these
documents are to promote orderly development and to maintain community
stability.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
The Variance requests are not necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty, as an alternative design exists to accomplish the
applicant's objective of protecting the front door to the principal structure.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of
the owners of the property.
Application of the Ordinance provisions does not result in hardship as an
alternative entry addition plan eliminates the need for variances requested.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
This condition does not appear to apply to the variances requested.
RECOMMENDATION:
The planning staff has determined that the Variances requested do not meet all
9 conditions of hardship criteria needed for the Planning Commission to approve
the variance requests. A revised and reduced entry addition plan and trade off
of existing impervious surface area will accomplish similar results without the
need for variances. Staff therefore recommends denial of variances as
requested by the applicant.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Deny the Variances requested by adopting the attached Resolution # 01-
012PC.
2. Approve the variances requested by the applicant or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate under the circumstances. In
L:\01 files\O 1 variances\01-068\VRPT01-068.DOC
Page 4
this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings approving the variances.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative #1. This action requires two motions.
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-012PC denying: 1) a 1.9-foot
variance to permit a structures eaves to encroach to within 3.1 feet to an
adjoining side property line rather than the required 5 feet; 2) a 3.9 foot
variance to permit an 11.1 foot sum of side yards, rather than the required
15-foot sum of side yards; 3) a 232 square foot variance to permit an
impervious surface coverage area of 2,981 square feet (32.5%) rather
than the allowable coverage area of 2,749 square feet (30%).
L:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-068\ VRPTO 1-068.DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION 01-012PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 1.9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURES
EAVE TO ENCROACH TO WITHIN 3.1 FEET FROM A SIDE PROPERTY LINE
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 5 FEET; AND, A 3.9 FOOT VARIANCE
TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 11.1 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED
MINIMUM 15 FEET SUM OF SIDE YARDS; AND, A 232 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE
TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 2,981 SQUARE
FEET (32.5%) RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE AREA OF 2,749 (30%)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Lawrence A. Baird and Mary Jo Briedis, (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from
the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an entry addition 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;
5420 Fairlawn Shores Trail, legally described as Lot 4, Fairlawn Shores, Scott
County, Minnesota. And that part of the plat of Fairlawn Shores, and Government
Lot 2, Section 25, Township 115, Range22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as
follows:
Beginning at the most northerly comer of Lot 4, of said plat; hence northwesterly
along the northwesterly extension of the northeasterly line of said Lot 4, to the
shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southwesterly along said shoreline to its intersection
with the northwesterly extension of the southwesterly line of said Lot 4; thence
southeasterly along said northwesterly extension to the most westerly comer of said
Lot 4; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said Lot 4, to the point of
beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#01-068PC and held hearings thereon on August 27,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health,
safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light
and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the
surrounding area and the effect ofthe proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
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,
1: \01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-068\dnyres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. A legal building location that meets the required setback for the entry addition structure
exists on the subject lot. The applicant has control over the entry plan design and shape,
such that the hardship created has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the
property exists with a smaller building footprint.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required side yard setbacks, as reasonable use
of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve
merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable
hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure to be permitted with a reduced
variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 01-068PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following
variance for a future entry addition to a single family dwelling as shown in attached Exhibit A;
1. A 1.9- foot variance to permit a structures eave to encroach to within 3.1 feet from a side
property line rather than the required minimum 5-feet.
2. A 3.9-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of ILl-feet, rather than the required
minimum of 15 feet.
3. A 232 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface coverage area 2,981 square
feet (32.5%), rather than the allowable area of 2,749 square feet (30%).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on August 27,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-068\dnyres.doc
2
~~
v~
o~
~\
<?
,
0'"
~ ,0'
~v -V
'O\
<D
//\~ ,(,
.' /'/(,'j, ,;;.-,~O'O;:z,-r ~; i
/, ~ ~ ~ :
\ ,," 0 N
\ '/ -::'. "<.... ,
;y\ / \ '-, '
.. '\ -r '';1- \,
w tv ~." ~ ,.
~\~~ ~
, \5',
\\
o '
,0
~ :;:
..
'"
::>
o
J:
~ '
\
f'
\
t-\ '" '?>",.
/' ~ /~"
\ '
;;: I
v' .
,/
':'('
\ J
..
a~
=
EXHIBIT A SURVEY
/'
'1. /
l-:/:,
~.
.;;
;;:
I,.
0:
::8 ~
g~ ~ .'"
It- po ~Q
.. .
- c,\"()
qO ,.\_'
~"O . ..I ooq
<,'
01-"
.-.
,
'r..
~ 3.4
1\
t,
d
r
.p
,,'/
(('i'O~//;
Do ,,'
.,O~ '
/",/;/
~
,.
J..
w'"
~~
~~
'v~
y~\~
/
/
.
."
e
t
~
~'!
'~"\-PJ'? /"
o ' 1(\ ,
\, S .'{
d'
u::,
~"'.'
"
...
o
r ~C;
~o~
C;
\
$
EXHIBITB PERMIT #80-101
-----.------
\ '
1\
L'
: 'I
Wl1lte.Of1I":~
Ye!low .OWf1~
e~lJ. . .n~t01
Pif'lk . Aswuor
;-)
80-101
r
f
,
~
VILLAGE OF PRIOR LAKE
SCOTT COUNTY
PHONE.447.3768
APPLlCAT)ON ~CR BUILDING PERMIT
Dale '5'; - } 3 -'b~ _
Permil No. /.-? I
Properly Ow"~r:"'~'::> ~~~ Ad'!rt'Ss ...LS0_LE,L7?r~'?L_ Phone 5"~7-C/.s25
I
AI)p,'c~nt _. _ __ __._. _______ Ado,~; _ _._ _. Phone ____
Cont'actor _ _ _ .__ ____ :,ddr~ .__ Phone
LD+
i..EGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPEnTY (Attach LOl f':an)
'='-_U:", \.:l'..)"'-~~i~~__u _. ._. u___. ._____
.--.. .___..5Y2c:./i;,..,/......., ,,~ty"Jr;.
Ch?(acter;nrc:~
Zoni'lg DiSlricl (che-ck box 1
r;e'''d~ntial:~ Commercial:O Industrrai:O Other; 0 (Specify)
Lrjt size Sq, Ft,; _~ ~\'ldth at 8u:ldlng Set bac~ 11ne
0epth of lot:____._ ___ S,de ya'd IS u.___and _ ___feel. Rea' yard IS . fl. F'ont yard is _____ ft.
Building setbac~ from state or county highway IS __ f~~t.
Building will be lpcated.___._._feet ~f{'.n septic tank. tSewafr ;Jernltt required/.
Cucld:ng wili be louted ____. feet from SOlt absorption syst'" 1
Type of improvement
0<; New Building
( AI teration
( Repal1
{ Move
I O(h"r
R€,idefltial proposed use -
(l{') One family
I "lult'ple ct'llll!IIirl',l___ _ __units
Oth,:r S, ~e ._.._
Non R~sidefllia' prOflOsed 'ffC -
Specify ..6:r_.:L5"~Jcj;-"!Jy.k.._
(;:J1nat',d Budd;ng Co,t, of I,np,evcment - S ~{)1J_.fJ
PrHloClOiJ: type of frame -
{ ) MJ sonr.v
{Vi \/"-/00(..1 Frame
Stru':tufai Steel
Other $0<'><:; fy
I YfY: (d Roof
___ .k?W/_____
~__ lO'..'lT CHn~J
Type of s,,-w"9" d..,posal -
1)(: Public
I 1 Individual
5e'f"fer systt."n~ approved _'_
Se"'iN systr.!'fTI cond!t~onaI __.__
) 1,.~J~',~~uaf ..ve~!
OlmenSlon~
Ba~: ex, Yes I No
StoPe<; abo..e basement I ..
Sq, Fl(O'JTSIOI D'''H.S'O''~l ~...!~.__
Be<Jroums .....:;; 8aths J..
!."al,ng I i Ei"ct"c Q("l Gas
( ) Od ,l None ( I Other
Cyl F;rppliJC-eHow many ~.~,.__._.
M€.-chan.c.al
Air Cond,t.oning ( I Yes tl<"l No
( ) Central {I Unit
o
!:i{f Sf:-(i'U'~ A:>-f'>lKF:- :1~~)
V',',aa:r Sur~p~'i
iJc i P.,.(b1!t
~"'fn->"~ I ,.......~;y C.....l".~ ~.'4i ~r,.. ,.,~\"~..-",, (fJ7'!~,""'""j ,.".~..,.~ '~ur-v"""'" .."...j...... ~<:) 00'''''' p<..,:~ ~~ .r. ao;.(Ofd.rw.... .....!th th.. ""'tH"pllon
......,..... UH iQ.t~ "nd~... '':J.' .~ ~o l."I\oo! ..,.ro.r"",o.~ ot t~ O'<'~,,'...-_(1tt .;,~ p~"c,!" ~../M~' 1.,J"...."'1.,:. I tvr~l5!i.~n.' .'"'l'f r.)l."'...-.d H_("l~.(:.t''!ln' IVb",iUwd
~r-'lth '''&I! !"....-C00'l".<l: P"""l" t!.", """,,~,t .egpi~l()o"'\ '".10 :..'~)o>'r.;e"'l:': '!'\'!ft_, ~!-I\~:.7 'I...."d f(':ll' D<<'. lIt .~ t61 ~t~
~.~ ,r, /.:: ;'-0 -'~4.~- ~~_______
..-h.., ---,- ... -.-,;--~. -------- ;:~vn of o..n.,. /'
t-:f:!~<<~ Paid:
Buddlr1!j P,!n':'"l~:
... /-,'"' 0(1
-> -/- ,'" --- -
s
:-,.:'.'....-]~Y' Syst~;"'"':
IAa!t.:f ~~ystcrn
s
SUi'..:h;:.,I;~
Sur;-:r,J[(].'
S ,};J.Q:"':
f'1.9.S{1
I
j
SJ::' HHa!
s
s
3vh ~ota;
~,
~....) 7 chi); gc
~....,b tota;
s
Pd~" }
s '${.:I:;: cc
S _ I C> 0.'. .
/"(J,' 0
S "'-I (LSD
o
1; ~.",~I'ied. '....,l"l.f)
~/'..t,.-opni;::J,'~ S"rv~c.'~ M,,..,jr:i1b:llt',-' Chare?,.'
P;1fl. FI"~~ Df::dica:~~ :':--) r.,'~J,':::h.;~~:;;~ ..::~~d '....,(yr-,~.~,,. h.:t.;;;.~.;
7?-/g, "'-E,'
rc,'" ,At. r~HJ-'\HGE
I
8./
,1/
'f::!-
A,A,;: f'. f ~;.:
I
U ~;o-....,
-.....:!J/ _.;1,.::;..t!/J/':1/)- ;'
. . \.",,~ ;::j
\
l
:~
,;"';
.....
,')1...;)(;'
" ,.~., i
,.,'\ ,.-,; .'I ~..)' ~.:V'
'[""'1 ,)f r.",_..n'".\~".J ;;.v:~
'J..'f''i :.~; ""J~<~:,~";<'~-';-1
~
";.-1"''''-; b'f
,~' "~.~"<< .,.::-< "~,, ~".e r~(".;;o'.'d of ....!':i{;h lhr. '.:0f11t."1()r
~:'~:! (,.::~,jy ~h~ ;:;,).,,::.-.~ J...,~:~C:'"
1;:~ fL'ft}~.,~ t..H'_:'~ (rNt't,\'lq
]",..'j !n,'''',~::;
'i_.~~ ~ .~( Yl;tii C'" ;::Jr';lq
";~t;l'!""t'_ ~..,~,",\ ~l;,;""d"~,j I;' ['OfflO!~f b~:{ t~i(.:Jr l)i'::(;VrJ.locy
EXHIBIT C ENTRY PLANS
:it
.1.;:-
~~
}~
''',
I
_ __ __. ~e;iW'" t.\a,va-hon _____
Vt;~!';-1!"o'. ---
,'-0" i ~~
..~
II
II
"
, II
II
II
II
. II,
~fo~L.
__.::_VA.:'!.J~:Q. -
" I'
1 0 F/bl//J-'!.
~#JN{.V7 10 b' b "
~
WUi\~ns'hu~-\-I0)"
\-'2~~ ~ ~~\t '5h~a.~
it I'? ~D\t f.eA~
VIj.' ~e, ~f,PJMwVt}W/'~' d,f,>')
'L'~Y1:f~~~ -\!p'o.c...
f.'~'b ,f\~d8~ eatt
4 WI i \ Yo\~ 4 '5/e~h+V-t...
~~OIM~.\Yo\\ (Pn~nuJ,oQ" .-11
Mate..n (!Ir..'~b..Ko~rl~"$~ -' -
VrJ.M ~B -S~~
'1..v..4"~OWlVnt)'lo o.c...
f. . t 9 I b.(Nl::~as ~-tt
4 ~il ~ ~ Y1.'<;'~.
~\JYldot\ o~ .
A~\t ~~pY-ool ~o
'Sc..- '0" CoYle,. 'lO\~. ~
ei )<. '(P" c.o (IV. fT'e:,.
1- ")(oA' fy&wl~' ilP" 0."".
f. \~ r~p.\a5 tbo1f
f~~'fe;hw-r~t ~o\~
- - - - - - - - - ---.- . - -
.-.....-.-.__... -.,. .. --,-..
OJ
;;.! ~'3~~:
,..
'.
;;
; ',~
:--
L
s\ck~la-va+1 (;>
m 1te;"
.'
--
- -
/ / 7
l/
1/ rt'I-UJ" )o\!Oo-\-".:>
/ \(p.o.c...._
/ Lxa. wl <Srec.(,
/
~
/ I IT
I _Ill! .,,"!:-
I.
-
1/
[/: / / /
,
~ t'\ a-xc:=-l
+- _--.-L
- - -
,
i
I
,'.,..,"
I
-
-I---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'\
I
+:--..
:Q
o
..-
,
,.-
I ......
+10(""')
J/e....~t'co~
Q/l'Y/'p'ku?,,;>
l
~b..d
.fQrrb:t:Aa.S(~tlQY::r', .-:. ..
. . .:.::2:.::1L~~:I::o~_
I ~:
~I
.
\
I I
I I
I ,,~v . - I
\; 1Q.1i-- ~.. I
I -_.c O~".1~. .-
I
I
I
I
_Lip -
'S
i
I
I
'<f '
D,
!
'0
.'
-.:f
'0
'0
hQ.",-r fC{ r.r-aQA 1\
,>~'
..
CITYOFPRlOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
. (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD).
. The ~Iaximumlmpervious S~rface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address .. ?'-\~O {Pt\a. \LA~. ~ . S ~(,~5 . ~A.\ \
LotArea ~\lD-z.. ..... .........> ..... .....Sq.Feet X 30% = .............. .-z..\~~ ... .
.************.*********~***********************************************~
. .
LENGTH. WIDTH
HOUSE. x
,
~ x
. ,
. ATIACHEDGARAGEx
SQ. FEET
=
=
=
TOTAL PRlNCIPLESTRUCTURE...~.................. "2.. \"2... \
DETACHED BLOGS
(Garage/Shed)
x
.. x .
. .
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.......................
. DRIVEW A YIP A VED AREAS
. @rlveway-paveg)or not)
. . .
(SidewalkIParking Areas)
x
x
=
=
~ \,II 0
x
TOT AL"'P AVED AREA~......~.....................~...............
PATIOSIPORCHESfDECKSumc.r-e.k . X
(Open Decks ~." min. opening becween Pt12..ec... 's . .. X
boards. with apcn-ious surface below,
. arc noc considered to be impervious)
=
\ D'2-
=
x
=
TOT AL DECKS... ......................~..............................
OtHERN-t~ ~~O\.~.
\ 0'2... v"
X
'\~
=
x
=
TOTAL. OTIfER...........~............................................ ~ CO.
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDE~ ... ... .......
Prepared By 3)"'~~I"".l .
.companY~B' t~S~f'."e.~i V\~t.. I
I ~'\ e ,I
. l .z.~,- I
.... ... .... Date~\~ ( ~ I
. rLPhone # 1..\ ~ 1- -z..c; -rn
m
X
:I:
-
.tIJ
-
-f
C
-
:s:
-0
m
:D
<
-
o
c:
en
en
c:
:D.
."
)>
o
m
:e
o
:D
~
(IJ
..J:
m
m
-I
EXHIBIT E APPLICANT LETTER
26 July, 200 I
To the City of Prior Lake
Our property is located at 5420 Fairlawn Shores Trail, described as Lot 4 Fairlawn
Shores, with a Torrens decree for the land between lot 4 and the shoreline of Prior Lake.
We desire to modify our entryway into the house to correct a problem we experience
during the cold weather months. There is a substantial wind that comes across the lake
and is concentrated due to the bluff resulting into a wind tunnel effect between our house
and the neighbors. When we open our door, which is unprotected from the wind, the cold
air and snow rushes into the house, and on several occasions has damaged the storm door.
With this design our front door can be unusable during many winter months.
Our desire is to add a vestibule/entry area, which extends 6.5 feet west of our present
house wall, and turns the exterior door to face south, away from the Northwest winds.
The proposed addition would loose 50 square feet of grass, slightly increasing the
imperviousness of our property. Please refer to the enclosed pictures that show wooden
stakes with a string line outlining the outside perimeter of the proposed addition. The
west wall of the proposed addition is shown 5 feet from our property line. The long
string line in the pictures is stretched between the two surveyor's markers of our lot line.
When the house was purchased in 1996, our lot was 45% impervious. The Torrens
decree substantially reduced that percentage. Also at that time the adjoining lot was
vacant. Since then a house has been built next-door creating the wind effect. We are
requesting the City of Prior Lake to allow us to add a total net increase of98 square feet
of impervious area to correct an unusual wind tunnel circumstance that impacts our
house. This will still keep the imperviousness of Lot 4, 13% less than when purchased.
We have hired an architect to design the vestibule so it blends in with the house and
neighborhood and achieves our desire to decrease our energy usage. We would like an
addition that is proportionate in appearance to both our neighbors and us.
We hope the City concurs that our proposed improvement is in substantial compliance
with the intent of the present ordinances ofthe City. We request your consideration in
our special circumstances, and grant us a building permit for the modification to our
entryway.
Please feel free to contact us at 952.447.6644.
Sincerely,
Larry Baird
Mary Jo Briedis
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4D
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
APPLICATIONS
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
AUGUST 27,2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
establishing a procedure for the review of site plan applications. The need for this
amendment is twofold. First of all, it establishes a formal procedure for a process already
in place. Second, the draft of the downtown design ordinance refers to a site plan
procedure; this amendment will provide a specific reference.
DISCUSSION:
The attached draft ordinance outlines the proposed amendment. The ordinance is divided
into the following 6 sections:
· PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of the site plan review procedure is to identify
all of the relevant issues pertaining to a use.
· USES SUBJECT TO REVIEW: The site plan review procedure will be applied to uses
that do not otherwise require a public review and approval by the Planning
Commission and the City Council. Specifically, it will apply to certain temporary
structures, any use permitted with conditions in the "R" Use Districts, and all
commercial and industrial uses. The procedure does not apply to single family homes
or other uses permitted outright in the "R" Use Districts.
· ApPLICATIONS: This section outlines the required submittals for a site plan
application. The information requested is intended to provide staff with the
information needed to review the plan based on the Zoning Ordinance and other City
Ordinance requirements.
1:\01files\01ordamend\zoning\site plan\pc report.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
. PROCEDURE: This section outlines the site plan review procedure. This procedure is
administrative, unless there is a need for a variance or other public review. The
Planning staff will coordinate the review of these applications with the other City
departments and outside agencies.
. ApPEAL: This section allows an applicant to appeal the decision of the Planning staff
to the Planning Commission.
. BUILDING PERMITS: This section notes that no building permit will be issued until a
site plan has been approved.
ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states specific findings that must be met to
change the ordinance. These are:
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this Ordinance, the
Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the City.
3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements.
Staff feels there is a public need for this amendment in that it formalizes a procedure
already in place. Furthermore, the site plan review procedure will provide staff the
opportunity to review these plans against the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Subdivision Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and other City Ordinances and plans.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with changes
specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment as
recommended by staff and indicated in the attached draft ordinance.
1:\01files\01ordamend\zoning\site plan\pc report.doc
Page 2
- -.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 01- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1108 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that Section 1108 of the
Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add the following section:
1108.900 SITE PLAN REVIEW
1108.901 Purpose and Intent. The site plan review procedure is an administrative review
performed by City staff for uses, which because of their nature, operation and
location in relation to other uses, require a more thorough review procedure. The
purpose of this procedure is to identify all relevant issues and permit requirements
prior to the application for a building permit. To achieve this, this subsection
describes the procedures governing the application and review process.
11 08.902 Uses Subject to the Site Plan Review Procedure. Site plan review' shall be
required for all of the following uses:
(1) Temporary Structures, allowed under the provisions of Section 1101.510 (3).
(2) Any uses permitted with conditions in the A, RS, R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Use
Districts.
(3) All uses permitted and permitted with conditions in the C-l, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5
and I-I Use Districts involving new construction or substantial building
alteration that may impact required parking, landscaping or other requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance.
1108.903 Application for Site Plan Review. An application for a Site Plan Review shall be
on a form provided by the City and shall include the name, address and telephone
number of the applicant, the name, address and telephone number of the property
owner, and the Use District(s) in which the property is located. The application shall
also be accompanied by the following information:
(1) A certificate of survey of the property.
(2) A detailed site plan, based on the current survey. The site plan must include
the following information:
~ Site dimensions.
1:\01 files\OI ordamend\zoning\site plan\draftord.doc
PAGE 1
&.---
~ Site conditions and eXIstmg development on the subject property and
immediately adjacent properties.
~ The proposed use of all areas of the site.
~ The proposed density, type, size and location of all dwelling units, if
dwelling units are proposed.
~ The general size, location and use of any proposed nonresidential buildings
on the site.
~ All public streets, entrance and exit drives, and walkway locations.
~ All parking areas.
~ Trash enclosures.
~ Outdoor mechanical equipment.
(3) Landcaping Plans, including irrigation plans.
(4) A tree inventory and tree preservation plan.
(5) Lighting plans, showing all outside and building exterior lighting.
(6) Signage Plans.
(7) Grading and erosion control plan, including stormwater drainage calculations.
(8) Utility plans.
(9) A fire protection plan, identifying fire lanes, hydrant locations, post indicator
valves and Siamese connections.
(10) Building plans, including exterior wall elevations, exterior building materials
and cross section floor layouts.
(11) Any other information the City may request to determine whether the proposed
project meets the requirements of this subsection.
(12) Summary sheets which include the following:
~ Proposed densities, ground floor areas, and floor area ratios.
~ Acreage or square footage of individual land uses on the site.
1108.904 Procedure for Approval of a Site Plan. After receipt of a complete application, the
Planning Department will refer the application to City Departments and to other
interested parties. The Planning Department will then review the proposed
development for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Subdivision Ordinance and other applicable ordinances. Within 60 days of receipt
of a complete application, the Planning staff will take action to approve or deny the
application.
1108.905 Appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The decision of the Planning staff
may be appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment within 5 days of notification of
the decision of the staff to approve or deny the site plan application. Appeals shall
I :\0 I files\O 1 ordamend\zoning\site plan\draftord.doc
PAGE 2
be processed according to the procedure outlined in Section 1109.300 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
1108.906 BuUdin!! Permits. No building permit shall be issued for any property for which a
site plan has been approved until the applicant has paid to the City all required fees
and has filed any required letter of credit.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of
o
, 2001.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
,2001.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
] 6200 Eagle Creek A venue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1:\01 files\O 1 ordamend\zoning\site plan\draftord.doc
PAGE 3