HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 24, 2001
't
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 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 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 #01-061 Matt and Sandra Tofanelli are requesting variances to permit a
structure to be setback less than the minimum required 75 feet from the OHWM; a
setback than the minimum required 25 feet front yard; a setback to the side yard
line less than the minimum required 10 feet; and a variance to permit an accessory
structure not compatible in design and materials with the principal structure for
the property located at 15731 West Avenue SE. The applicants wish to construct
a detached accessory structure in the Shoreland District.
C. Case File #01-076 Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.1104(1) and
1102.1203(3) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the hours of operation for
motor vehicle service and repair and to Section 1107.1907 (4) of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to the need for rain sensors on irrigation systems.
5. Old Business:
A. Case Files #01-066 & #01-067 EFH Company representing Metro Cabinets and
American Glass & Mirror Variance Resolution.
B. Case File #01-017 Mark Crouse Variance Resolution.
LIOI fileslOI plancommlOI pcagendalAG09240 I.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
..
.
6. New Business:
A. Discuss infiltration systems and engineered runoff management.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:\OI files\Olplancomm\OI pcagenda1AG092401.DOC
~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the September 10, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Starns on and
Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Starnson
Vonhof
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the August 27,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Vonhofread the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case Files #01-066/067 EFH Company representing Metro Cabinets
Company and American Glass and Mirror is requesting variances to permit
structure and driveway setbacks to the property line less than the minimum
required, and a building wall length to height ratio greater than the maximum
allowed for the property located at 5418 Cottonwood Lane.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated September 10,
2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received an application for variances to allow the construction
of an addition to the existing commercial building on the property located at 5418
Cottonwood Lane, addressed as Units A & B. The applicants are EFH, Co. (contractor),
Metro Cabinets Company (owner), and American Glass & Mirror Company (owner).
The following variances are requested:
1. A variance to permit a structure with a building wall length to height ratio of
6.6: 1 rather than the maximum ratio of 4: 1.
2. A 7.51-foot variance to permit a 42.49-foot structure setback from a property line
adjoining an arterial road rather than the minimum required 50-feet.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MN09100l.doc 1
.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
3. A 3-foot variance to permit a driveway/parking area to be setback 3-feet from a
side property line, rather than the minimum required 6 feet.
In the narrative submitted by the applicants, they are proposing the additions for various
reasons. These include business growth, insufficient space for assembly, product storage,
and the larger equipment and vehicles that require more space to maneuver in and out of
overhead doors, and more area to serve the public.
In 1995, applicant Guy Selinski, American Glass & Mirror, applied for and received a 7-
foot variance to expand the driveway/parking area to within 3-feet of the east lot line,
Unit B. The current ordinance only requires a minimum 6-foot driveway setback and is
the reason for the accompanying 3-foot variance requeSt.
The Planning staff has determined the variance requests for the building setback and
height to length ratio do not meet the nine hardship criteria, since it is a business decision
to expand the existing building due to economic growth and the need for additional space
for storage of materials and production capabilities. The applicant can redesign the
addition to meet the required setback with a 20-foot addition. However, the existing
building already exceeds the maximum ratio of length to height, as the building wall is
18-feet high and 89 feet long (4.9 to 1 ratio). Therefore, the addition would also need to
be redesigned with a minimum 6.6-foot break (4.9 feet plus 1.7 feet). Staff recommended
denial of the first two requests.
In regards to variance request number three, when the existing building was constructed,
the City Code required the overhead loading doors be located in the side yards, because
the side yards do not have enough depth to allow large commercial vehicles to maneuver
through the doors. With the new addition designed to meet setbacks and a break in the
building wall of 6.6 feet this would eliminate the need for the driveway setback variance
as the recessed wall adds another 6.6 feet area for driveway. Staff also recommended
denial of this variance request, as it does not meet the nine hardship criteria.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Guy Selinski, American Glass & Mirror, requested approval of the variances
and explained how he felt staffs proposal would not meet their business growth. They
need wider overhead doors to get larger vehicles indoor for loading. They definitely feel
the need for a 30 foot addition. The setback issue is only for part of the building.
Selinski pointed out how County Road 21 slants. The ratio of building height to length
was not an issue when the building was constructed with the intention to expand.
Mike Whalen, EFH Company, stated they were the original contractors for the building.
Whalen explained why the building was constructed the way it was with the only
expansion towards the back. They need the 30 feet to get the trucks in.
Lemke questioned the width of the overhead door. Whalen responded it is 12 feet now
and will expand to 14 feet.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN091 OOI.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
Applicant Tim Simmon, owner of Metro Cabinets, said he has doubled in size since they
have been in the business park. Another concern is safety. The applicants did work with
staff at the time of construction. Simmon explained the runoff problems. The only way
they can expand is north toward County Road 21.
The floor was closed for public comment
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Staff did a good job putting the report together.
· Believe the City needs to be as friendly as possible to the business so they grow and
flourish.
· Supported all three variance requests.
Criego:
· Questioned applicant why the asphalt has been added around the perimeter of the
structure. Selinski responded it was for additional employee parking.
· Questioned the asphalt on the west side. Simmon responded it was just to get into the
building.
· The asphalt on the northeast side is also for parking. Horsman said the parking meets
current code.
· Questioned staff on the original location of the overhead doors and if the ordinance
changed. Horsman responded it met the code at the time. The new Zoning
Ordinance limits the length to height ratio.
· Was that ordinance for commercial and/or residential? Horsman said it was for
commercial.
· Would love to see the Prior Lake businesses grow in the community.
· Did not have a problem with the height/length ratio nor the 6.6 foot indenture ratio.
· Has a problem with the street variance not being met.
Stamson:
· Questioned staff if there are any practical problems with the 50 foot area. Horsman
responded that no easements are shown on the survey. It appears the addition would
be set back a considerable distance to meet code.
· As far as the 50 foot setback goes, there really isn't a practical reason for 50 feet as a
setback cutoff point. The hardship is the uniqueness by the county road requiring the
50 foot setback.
· The building was constructed prior to the current code with the intention of
expanding. The City revised the codes and made it difficult for the applicant. That is
the uniqueness of the property and not necessarily city-wide.
· The alternative is to move. It would be difficult to relocate in the area. The hardship
is that there is no commercial property.
· Using the 50 foot setback as rationale - the hardship criteria has been met.
L:\O I files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN091 OOI.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
. Do not have a problem with the other two variances.
. The height/length ratio ordinance in an industrial district should be discussed.
. Pass variances.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Commissioner Stamson. The expansion plans were prior to the rules and
regulations. That is the hardship.
. Not concerned with the setbacks to the buildings on either side.
. Inclined to let it go. It is reasonable.
. Questioned the interior openings. Horsman explained the firewall and separation of
buildings.
V onhof:
. Concurred with fellow Commissioners.
. Was on the Commission when this building was constructed and can speak on the
rationale for the doors on the side. This is a business park that backs up to a county
road. The concern at the time was having people coming into the community viewing
those buildings. Those two factors create a hardship in the design.
. Concurred with Commissioners the building wall in a business park is not as
significant as a residential district.
. The setback from the county road is only 7.5 feet at the maximum point.
. Regarding the streetscape coming into the community, there should be adequate
screening and landscaping.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREP ARE A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE VARIANCES REQUESTED BY THE
APPLICANT WITH THE CONDITION REQUIRING THE APPROPRIATE
LANDSCAPE PLAN BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO APPROVAL.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will continue to September 24, 2001.
B. Case file #01-075 John Teilborg is requesting variances to permit a structure
to be setback less than the minimum required 75 feet from the Ordinary-High-
Water Mark; and a setback less than the minimum required front yard using
setback averaging; and a variance to permit road access less than the minimum
required for the property located at 14358 Rutgers Street.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated September 10,
2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from John & Lorraine Teilborg
for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage to replace an
existing dwelling on the subject lot located at 14358 Rutgers Street. The applicant has
proposed a building plan and site location and requests the following variances:
L\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN09I OOl.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
1. A variance of .5-feet to permit vehicular access to be 907.40 feet rather than
907.9 feet, as required to be not more than 2 feet below the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation.
2. A 4.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 53-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 57.5-feet
as required by setback averaging.
3. A 13.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of25-feet from the front
property line, rather than minimum setback of 38.5 feet as required by setback
averagmg.
The staff believes all of the variance criteria have been met with respect to Variance
number 1) vehicular access elevation, and to Variance number 3) structure setback from
the front lot line. However, regarding Variance number 2) setback to the ordinary high
water mark, a modified building plan will meet a 57.5-foot OHWM setback.
In addition, staff recommends four conditions be met by the applicant prior to building
permit approval and issuance for the subject lot:
1) Submission ofa revised survey with a minimum structure setback of 57.5-feet
from the ordinary high water elevation of 904 feet, and depict the minimum
surrounding grade elevation of908.9 feet within 15 feet of the proposed structure.
2) Year round occupancy of the property be subject to the applicant/owner
submitting an emergency management plan to be approved by the Police Chief
and Fire Chief.
3) All Resolutions adopted by the Commission shall be recorded and proof of
recording be submitted, along with the City Assent Form, to the Planning
Department.
4) The existing garage structure is removed prior to the issuance of occupancy.
The Department of Natural Resources had no comments on this matter.
Stamson questioned the street setback at 25 feet. Horsman responded when redeveloping
a lot can have a varying setback and on even new developments, it can call into setback
averaging. It is required under code not to exceed a maximum of 50 feet.
Criego questioned staffs conditions 2 and 3. Kansier explained the property is in the
flood plain and this has the road access requirement. It is under the State rules and in the
Zoning Ordinance. All approved variances in the flood plain require emergency
management plans. Condition 3 is a City requirement that all Resolutions have to be
recorded.
Horsman explained the Assent Form. It is a standard form.
Lemke questioned the non-conforming lot and the effects ofthe setback averaging.
Horsman explained the lakeside setbacks.
L: \0 I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN091 00 I.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10.2001
Comments from the public:
John and Lorraine Teilborg said they were not aware of the condition to tear down the
garage. Teilborg gave a brief background on the need for additional space. The
elevation of the property has caused many issues on deciding to add on or build a new
home. The home improvement remodel costs were cumulative and due to the 50% of the
value addition it pretty much put an end to remodel. The number one problem in
rebuilding is the topographical size of the lot. Two sides have water causing major
setbacks. Teilborg also explained the constraints of a difficult lot. They cannot have a
basement or any kind of lower elevation. A petition was submitted supporting the
proposal from all the neighbors but three. They are within the 30% impervious surface
requirement and mentioned his concern for tree removal.
Mary Fedder lives on neighboring lots 55 and 56, supported the proposal and felt it will
enhance the look of the home and increase the value of the surrounding homes.
The floor was closed for public comment.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Does not disagree with staffs analysis of the request.
. Looking at the house plans, it looks like one could minimally reduce the house plan
and still keep the lakeside setback.
. Agreed to allow the first and third request.
. Standing firm to deny the second request.
Stamson:
. Concurred with Criego. There is a hardship with the first request.
. The third request - The standard is 25 feet. The reason there is a setback averaging is
not to create a house jetting out drastically in front ofthe others. The 38 feet was
created by a single home that sits 85 feet back and would not be legal under our
current ordinance. It is unfair to apply that to a new home trying to meet the
ordinance.
. The curvature of the street actually eliminates the ability of the house to stick out.
Twenty-five feet is appropriate.
. Agreed with Criego the 4.5 foot variance is due to house design. There is more than
adequate space to build a home on this lot.
. The setback averaging is already being used.
. Applicant can redesign the home and meet the setbacks.
. The retaining wall could be moved.
. Teilborg responded said they considered removal of the retaining wall as an option.
Pat Lynch from the DNR showed him how to do the riprap wall. Assuming they
could remodel was not a concern at that time. The water level or mark was not a
L:\OI files\Olplancomm\01pcminutes\MN09l OOI.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10.2001
concern. Teilborg said they would be glad to move the boulders back and increase
the landscaping. He would like to work with the City.
· Seems reasonable.
· Opposed to the second variance.
Atwood:
· Concurred with Commissioners.
· Given the retaining wall, there is room to adjust.
· There is not hardship to work around the 4.5 foot variance request.
· Agreed with variance approval for requests 1 and 3.
Lemke:
· Agreed the hardship standards had been met for variances 1 and 3.
· Felt the second variance request is an improvement. The house setback is currently
47 feet and is moving back to 53 feet. The ordinance has bounced back and forth
from 75 feet to 50 feet back to 75 feet.
· It effects a small comer of the house. They are beyond the 57 feet.
· Supported the second variance.
V onhor:
· The challenges of this property are deceptive. It is large in appearance but it is in a
flood plain and the elevations are critical for establishing a footprint.
· The current house is 12 feet from the road. It is a tight curve. The applicant is more
than 50 feet from the lake. Moving the structure back more than twice the distance is
an improvement.
· It is a modest variance. It is in the interest ofthe City to have the structure further
back and closer to the lake.
· Many homes on the lake are closer than 50 feet. Moving the home back 12 feet from
the curve is more critical.
· The street is not standard. It has less than a 20 foot width.
· Would rather grant the variance on the lake side and still maintain a good distance
from the lake from the 904 than have the structure closer to the roadway.
Open Discussion:
The Commissioners discussed the design and the existing lake views with the following
comments:
· Lake views are not a hardship.
· The setback is really 75 feet. They gained a lot with the setback averaging.
· It is deceptive to look at the size of the lot. The lot is unique.
· The proposed house is huge. It can be modified.
· Staff felt the existing garage is non-conforming. It is too close to the road and the
neighbor's property.
· Horsman explained it could be flood-proofed and moved from the existing location.
L:\OI files\OI pJancomm\Olpcminutes\MN09l OOI.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10.2001
Teilborg said after several discussions with staff he was never told ofthe garage removal.
He feels the home will be upper bracket and one of the nicer homes on the lake. Teilborg
explained the views and the resale value. The lake is always about views. They have
already cut out over 468 square feet out of the proposal.
Stamson:
. Questioned staff on the garage condition. Horsman said it is a recommendation as a
condition to remove the garage.
The Planning Commission considered variance requests 1 and 3:
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE VARIANCES 1 AND
3 WITH THE CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 3 OF THE STAFF REPORT.
There was a brief discussion on the conditions. Lemke and Atwood agreed to amend
their Motion as follows:
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE VARIANCES 1 AND
3 INCLUDING ALL FOUR CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Discussion:
A decision must be made with the garage condition.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion on the second variance request: (A 4.5 foot variance to permit a structure
setback of 53 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark, rather than the minimum setback
of 57.5 feet as required by setback averaging.
Comments from the Commissioners:
. The applicant is proposing everything positive.
. This can be easily redesigned. There is more than adequate space.
. Agreed with Stamson. It can be realigned and avoid the impacts.
. It can be a better fit.
. The applicant built the retaining wall when the setback was 50 feet from the lake.
. The 50 foot setback was 6 months with public outcry. The applicant should be able
to meet the setbacks.
. Don't consider where this structure is. There has been a long-standing philosophy
about going into the setbacks and the Commission used rationale to what makes sense
for applying variances. This is a reduction. This is also a redevelopment of a site.
There are constraints.
. It is easy to want this to happen, the fact of the matter is that there are no hardships.
The house is proposed 70 by 90 feet. It has to adapt. There cannot be a financial
hardship. The fact is the lot is 33,000 square feet. Meet the setbacks.
. The hardship is created by the size of the house.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN09I 00 I.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO DENY THE 4.5 FOOT
VARIANCE.
V ote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Stamson and Atwood, nays by V onhof and Lemke.
MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process.
C. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck
on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated September 10,
2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
On June 25, 2001, the Planning Department held a public hearing for two variance
requests from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) on the property located at 15507
Calmut Avenue. The requests included a 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 August 27,2001, to allow the applicant time to provide new
information that proved he 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.
On August 27,2001, the applicant requested an additional continuance of the hearing.
The Planning Commission continued this item to the regular meeting on September 10,
2001. As of the date of this report, September 4,2001, no additional information has
been submitted.
The original variance request is as follows:
1) A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422
square feet (57.5%) rather than the permitted maximum area of 2,307 square feet
(30%).
L:\OI fiJes\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\MN091 OOI.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
A follow-up inspection ofthe 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 staffs 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 second dock.
According to Patrick Lynch, Hydrologist, from the Department of Natural Resources, 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.
The staff recommended 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 recommended the
applicant provides 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.
Comments from the public:
Bryce Huemoeller, representing the applicant who is out oftown, spoke on the applied
standards for undue hardship; the applicant's overall conceptual proposal; reasons he
believes the proposal is a reasonable use and alternatives. It is their view that a hardship
exists with the reasonableness of the use. Crouse's proposal is to reduce the size of the
driveway to the 24 feet allowed by the ordinance. He would remove the concrete on the
north side of the house and the sidewalk on the southwest, bringing his impervious
surface down to about 44%. Crouse also proposes either to construct alternative
infiltration devices on the property and/or obtain drainage easements over the
neighboring property thereby reducing the runoff. He would also provide the plans and
engineers' certification indicating it meets the impervious surface conditions.
Huemoeller felt the property is a leftover parcel from the Windsong and other adjacent
developments. The house alone is at 29% impervious surface. He needs a driveway to
meet the ordinance. A letter submitted from the contractor indicates the patio and
retaining wall were constructed for stability. The patio is an essential component to this
house and has to stay in its existing condition. The house is consistent with other homes
in the neighborhood. Mr. Crouse's proposal to add the runoff will meet the DNR and
City Ordinances.
Huemoeller felt the property is unique as it is located next to the common area for the
Wind song development. It has to be researched to find out if the infiltration can be
worked out with the common area of the Windsong development. The engineers'
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN09I OOI.doc 1 0
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
calculations will take around 30 to 60 days. They felt it would be reasonable for the
Planning Commission to approve a variance with the condition the 1,000 square feet of
impervious surface be removed and expand the drainage area or provide for infiltration
improvements to approximate the runoff characteristics for 30% impervious surface, or
continue the matter for another 30 days.
Huemoeller explained proposed infiltration methods. Reduce impervious surface, add
physical changes and redirect runoff.
Criego:
· Why was the sidewalk not removed on the lake side? It seems like a sidewalk going
nowhere. Huemoeller said he did not have the answer but Crouse does have an idea to
reduce it.
Atwood:
· Who owns the railroad bed? . Huemoeller said it was vacated, the City owns it now.
Horsman responded the prior owner still owns the right of way. Huemoeller stated
55% of it is occupied by the City street, and went on to say the issue is that the
property is a small lot with a lot of impervious surface; some of it has to stay. What
do you do? Cut down the impervious surface, add some mechanical features that
store or infiltrate water and then try to route it somewhere else so it won't run to the
lake. Huemoeller feels these are reasonable ways to deal with a tough problem on a
small lot.
Lemke:
· How would there be continual maintenance of the mechanical systems so they remain
effective? Huemoeller responded if the applicant did receive the variance it would
have to be recorded. City inspection could be part of a condition. Then the condition
would be of record so if anyone else buys the property it is of record to continue the
maintenance.
The floor was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Brought up reasonable use and the standard. Huemoeller did a great job pointing out
the two extremes.
· Reasonable use in my mind is - Does the applicant have reasonable use? In this case,
the home was built without the patio. It was planned without a patio. The applicant
definitely has reasonable use.
· The history of the home was that the impervious surface was added later. Actually in
defiance of earlier variances requiring the property maintain 30%. That was recorded
when the home was built.
· One of the impact issues is the patio. At this time the Commission has not had time
to review the information Huemoeller presented.
L:\OlfiJes\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MN091001.doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
. An ordinance change may be necessary. A variance process is not the way to do this.
. More time is needed.
. Overall opposed to the request.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Stamson. It should not be addressed as a variance proposal.
. Interested in Huemoeller's letter from the contractor who did the patio calling it the
lateral support for the retaining wall and house. Have the City Engineers addressed
the issue? Horsman responded they were not aware of any engineers taking the
project on other than what the applicant has claimed.
. Find that very interesting.
. The Staff Report states removing 57%. There is a discrepancy in the figures.
Huemoeller stated it is 44% without removing the patio.
. Kansier responded they would reduce it by 1,000 square feet to 44%. The Staff
Report numbers are significantly higher. They are double from what Huemoeller
proposes.
. Horsman said he took more out of the driveway than the applicant is proposing.
Lemke:
. The City permitted construction with the home and driveway over 30% impervious
surface.
. There is an ordinance stating one must have a driveway. We can't hold that against
him as far as impervious surface.
. Even with the normal driveway it would be over the 30% with conditions, the survey
and proposal do not exceed 30%.
. Kansier responded the original permit was issued with the condition the house and
driveway do not exceed 30%. The driveway was probably narrower.
. Questioned ifthe ordinance specifies a specific driveway size. Horsman stated the
maximum driveway is 24 feet wide at the curb.
. Not sure about taking the contractor's word at face value. You need a driveway.
. The only issue for me is the sidewalk. The existing sidewalks are over 3 feet now.
. Agreed more time is needed to look at the issue.
. The idea of using mechanical devises is intriguing. As a policy issue for the City, this
is not the place to address it.
Criego:
. The applicant has come up with a creative way to solve the problems. It is difficult.
. What is a realistic percentage? Is the filtration system proposed one that should be
accepted.
. Has a different view other than it is a policy issue. It is a variance issue. Does the
Commission want to undertake the endeavor as a variance issue rather than a policy
issue? Two different things.
. Based on what has been proposed, the structure at 40% to 44% impervious surface is
reasonable.
L:\OJ files\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MN09l OOl.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
· City Council member Mike Gundlach said anything like this in an ordinance has been
going through Watershed District review seeking their approval and permits.
Granting the variance tonight would really require City Council approval as well as
Watershed approval going above and beyond what the Commission's role would be.
· Based on Gundlach's information, propose allowing a variance somewhere in the
range of 40% to 44% impervious surface and go from there. Pick a number and have
the applicant fix the problem. He needs impervious surface.
Vonhof:
· This proposal cannot be looked at here. This has to be evaluated by staff if there is
going to be a fair hearing.
· Recommend continuing the matter.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Criego and Lemke's gist, the house and driveway is going to be over the
30% impervious surface.
· Take the home and add a reasonable size driveway.
· The sidewalks can come into compliance.
· The big question is the patio. The engineer says it is an integral part, but the home
was built without the patio. If the patio was needed to support the home it shoulo
have been built at the time.
· No problem allowing impervious surface for the home and a reasonable driveway.
Question the patio.
Vonhof:
· Question taking the word of a person who according to the applicant, said he didn't
know he needed a permit. And this is the person that we are relying on to say, "Yes,
this needs lateral support"? They didn't even pull a City permit for doing the work.
Stamson:
· A letter simply from a concrete company hardly implies it was done by an engineer.
· I've laid concrete and you wouldn't want to ask me about structural support.
Atwood:
· The Staff Report points out the additions to the impervious surface such as the metal
frame for the tarp boat shelter is not included in the calculations. Reference to the
docks and boat lifts the DNR had addressed - the applicant was above and beyond
what was allowed.
· Horsman agreed. Those were conditions that changed from the last time the property
was inspected. They were not taken into account. They are not even on the survey.
The survey will have to be revised and come up with a proposal that works for the
Planning Commission.
· Question on enforcing this infiltration. I've been out there twice, how many times
will it take to correct this problem for good?
· This should be included in the Motion to continue.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MN091001.doc 13
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
Criego:
. Coming back to this committee on a once a month exercise is not the way to solve the
problem. Set an impervious surface percentage and let staff enforce.
Stamson:
. Agreed. Define the impervious surface number for the house and the driveway
There was a brief discussion on the Motion.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND ALLOWING A
VARIANCE THAT IS 40% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND THAT THE APPLICANT
ACHIEVE THAT PERCENT AGE WITH THE APPROVAL OF STAFF WITH THE
CONDITION HE ELIMINATES THE CANOPY AND DOCKAGE AS
RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Discussion:
Stamson:
. Questioned Horsman on the driveway percentage achieved by staff. Horsman said he
remembered around 18 feet to 20 feet at the property line eliminating over half the
driveway.
. What percentage is the home and cut down driveway? Kansier responded it would be
37%.
. 40% is too much.
. The patio is the problem. The Commission does not have enough detail.
Lemke:
. Shared concern regarding a letter from a contractor that doesn't know he needs a
permit.
. Did not want to see dirt and the wall in the lake next spring because the patio was
removed.
Stamson and Atwood:
. The applicant created the problem.
. The applicant went ahead and did this without the permits.
V ote taken indicated ayes by Criego and Lemke, nays by V onhof, Stamson and Atwood.
MOTION FAILS.
Discussion:
V onhof:
. The hardship criteria are not met in any case.
. Will not support.
L\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN091 00 I.doc 14
- -- - --- --- - - - -- -- -- --- ---
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
Stamson:
· What is staffs take on the driveway? The applicant added a driveway without going
over the 30%. Ordinance requires a paved driveway. Horsman responded variances
are allowed.
· Allow a home and driveway at 37%. That is reasonable. It is a code issue.
· If the applicant came in beforehand and asked for a driveway variance, it probably
would have been granted. The patio and sidewalk would not have been allowed.
Criego:
· Agreed with Stamson on allowing the house and driveway, the only difference is on
percentage.
V onhof:
· The other issue is the lake side. This Commission should forward to City Council a
recommendation tonight. The applicant can appeal.
· The variance hardship criteria are not met. It is difficult to pick a number out for the
impervious surface.
· Agreed with Criego, the applicant has to resolve this problem.
· Prior to 1995 the lot did not have that extra concrete on it. The applicant created the
problem.
Criego:
· The other option is to deny the request.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION GRANTING A V ARlANCE TO IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE HOME PLUS THE DRIVEWAY AT
WHATEVER PERCENTAGE STAFF DEEMS APPROPRIATE WITH THE
CONDITION ANY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ABOVE THE 30% BE DEVOTED TO
THE INSTALLATION OF THE DRIVEWAY.
Lemke:
· Better off denying the request and let the applicant appeal. This is only going to
delay an appeal.
V onhof:
Go back to the question - Are the hardship criteria met? Either they are met or not.
Stamson and Atwood agreed to amend the Motion as follows:
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO STATE THE COMMISSION
FINDS THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET FOR A HOME AND A
REASONABLE DRIVEWAY AT 36% IMPERVOUS SURFACE WITH THE
CONDITION THE ADDITIONAL 6% IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE PERCENTAGE BE
USED FOR THE DRIVEWAY; AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CONCRETE ON
THE PROPERTY BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE.
L\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN091001.doc 15
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10.2001
The Staff is directed to prepare a Resolution granting the variance as stated above.
V ote taken indicated ayes by Starnson, Atwood and V onhof, nays by Lemke and Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #01-068 Lawrence Baird Variance Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented Resolutions 01-012PC and 01-014PC as
directed by the Planning Commission's at their August 27,2001, meeting.
Horsman noted the existing Exhibit is the original submitted with the variance application
and therefore does not fit the recommended side yard variance.
Stamson:
. Questioned staffs knowledge of the applicant's deck being too large. Horsman said
he looked up the permit and there were no designs on file. It was an approved deck.
. Heard second hand information the deck was built too large and mitigated down to
what it is now. Is there any information? Horsman said that information was not
with the permit.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01-
012PC.
Starnson stated this is the decision of the Planning Commission based on the information
they received.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Vonhofabstained. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CIREGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-
014PC WITH THE REVISED PLAN.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Vonhofabstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Applicant Larry Baird spoke that his understanding at the meeting was that a compromise
had been reached so the 3.9 foot setback would be allowed to the 5 foot setback and 14.5
feet long.
Criego responded that was correct. The intent was to keep the 14.5 feet.
Horsman said as long as they mitigate. The applicant's problem was with the impervious
surface.
There was a brief discussion on the interpretation of the Resolution.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN091001.doc 16
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
MOTION AMENDMENT BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO AMEND
RESOLUTION OI-OI4PC ELIMINATING THE REFERENCE OF A 5 X 8 FOOT
VESTIBULE IN CONDTIONS 1 AND 2. THE APPLICANT MUST MITIGATE THE
EFFECT OF THE VESTIBULE BY REMOVING THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE
FROM EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. V onhof abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Stamson suggested the Commission read the rain barrel information submitted by Bryce
HuemoelIer and discuss at the next meeting.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\OI files\OI pI ancomm\O I pcminutes\MN091 OOI.doc
17
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
SEPTEMBER 24, 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. The applicant requested an additional continuance to September 24,2001, due
to scheduling conflicts.
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.
1:\01files\01subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report4.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
Access: Access to the site will be from CSAH 12.
Zonin2 and Land Use Plan Desi2nation 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-l (Neighborhood Commercial) and is designated
for Neighborhood Retail Shopping uses on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This
property is currently used agriculturally.
East: Directly east of this property are single family residences zoned R-l and
designated for R-L/MD uses.
West: The property to the west is the Pheasant Meadows townhouse development, zoned
R-l and designated for R-L/MD uses.
2020 Comprehensive Plan Desi2nation: This property is designated for R-L/MD uses
on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Zonin2: The property is zoned R-l, 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 Sewer/Water Main: Sanitary sewer and water main is currently located in
CSAH 12. The locations of the services to the proposed lots must be verified prior to
final approval.
1:\01fi1es\01subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report4.doc
Page 2
Storm Sewer: There is no storm sewer proposed for this site. The plan indicates the
new building sites will drain to the north.
Tree Replacement: The developer has submitted a Tree Inventory for this site; however,
several trees on the plan are not labeled. It is most likely that no tree replacement will be
required. However, the Tree Inventory must be revised to label all of the significant
trees, and it must be prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor.
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. If the standard amount of right-of-way
were dedicated, Lots 3 and 4 would meet the minimum lot area requirement of 12,000
square feet. Lot 5, however, would still be less than the minimum lot area with an area of
11,681 square feet.
CSAH 12 is scheduled in both the City and the County CIP for reconstruction in 2004. If
the right-of-way is not dedicated with this plat, the City will be required to purchase the
right-of-way from the property owners at that time.
The second issue pertaining to this proposal is access to the property to the south, 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 may or 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
1:\01files\01subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report4.doc
Page 3
Zoning Ordinance. The attached letter from the applicant outlines their reasoning for this
vanance.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this
Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or
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.
1:\01 files\01 subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report4.doc
Page 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.
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.
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 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.
1:\01files\01subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report4.doc
Page 5
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.
ALTERNATIVES (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 #Ol-013PC, 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:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pc report4.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 of the 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 Qfsaid Section 10 a distance of375.80
feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing East along said North line a
distance 0[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 September 24,2001.
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.
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\pcres 01-0 13pc.doc
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 September 24,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 fiIes\O 1 subdivisions\preIim plat\mccormick acres\pcres 01-01 3pc.doc
2
.. -:..-'~ -~'-""._------------"._''''''':'''. ~'~--':"'--_~___J-
Location Map
iLJ
~LJ
WIU-Olf
3 I
13 14 I 15 16
I
BASSWOOD RD.
1 ":J~
~\\,.'V aC1a3l
Z Z B1.l 13
~ ~ a::
w 2 c ,
~I CCNIlCIMN....
~ cae ....
a..
~ lo:: 8 ....... . .- 14
3: CCKlCMN....
PAR< ~ '
DR. a 15
ELM
'..
!~ 16
i' :;
COUNty ROAD '2
,7lITH SlREET
1
4
ili'~ fP ·
1~0~ ~
13 ~ mrn
4 K~ ESTATE
ac!Jj;
-l ~~I \
-j P-\ \ ~\\~ 111 \
12U=!\t:=r:---l \
-'-1 15 UJ, II ~\ ~,
I \ 10', \'~\ "
; MOOQW ,~.
I i12-i '\ ........"'" \
"-i ~, ~
i ~ r---:i,
~:~I
-; CIC i----!--; 1Q~~
~, ~ i ,:....__~..-.J'
/..... ."',- ....' .". CD
9 /~.' i,.. ,~.", -.....11
-'- 5 ..' i'~ ,;:;
!-~ 6~~'...........
'PH~ .~" 0
- '-J-. ,. - \ '+-'
-~. ..' C
\..3-_-0'00\ }-) 0 /
'---;MOOOW \)/ /0'
/10 /' I-
:>f-;-
Location of
McCormick Acres
//
///
..$>'"
<Q\.
O~O
/ ~~/
/'
...../"
//
,///'
~P.~/// //
r.... /
,?",~~I>' //",- /
,oY'//
el' ./" //
//
,//.,
//
//
----"
N
A
300
o
300
600 Feet
~
~
~
~
;s ~
~ 1Jl
~ ~
\3 ~
~ ~
~ ~
a
~ I::
~ ~
~ !oj
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ <:;
~
~
~
~
II-ft
f H;j,:I ~ :
~ J fldi
j If jJ:.jl .10'
tit;
jl JJi!U2;J ~ JI ~f ~
Jil:1IU.
, ,-8 en 101.:
II tJ';:Jl~ ~ilH X
~ ~. !:~!J~!!j
~ jl1f"I"U!' ~ ~ liii
",UI .1 nl'
~ IA 1"1 ;jl:
I ,. r-~I
~ ~= ~.I!flli. ~
II fIrl'
IE Ii lU.1
, 1 111",;\ Uj
011' I " i ,l, J' I,,' "I I
Z!l 11 I'" I ", ':13 "" /' 2
gd.I.!HdiHHIHilllllildl n~ I!,
.. . .. l!l II II! H ! I - ,11 0
. . 0 . . l) T iii .... .' l II"
. . . . . 0 . ..; ~ . J
.. . .. . .. ~ a .0 .. CI 0'*'" . r . 0
,~ ~ Ifi 2:
III
-
~~--=----=------_.---_..
I
I
\
\
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
"".
...,Uf'I
"".
.
~~
,j..
~..
/
.--
d
'I
~j
i I
11
i J
. f
Ii
fi i
~ ,I i !
~ III I
~ d' !
~ i I I I
li !;! 1
.....
'\
I
I
)1..
I
I
",,/
'./
....
,. ....
i
.,/
'.
.'--
,.
,.
:,0'
--.-..
'\..
----.
..'
--
//J(.~
....
... .--...:\..... ,..------.
. ......
...
....
~.,"--_._....-.
. .
...."'0")' ." ,.-. - ".-..-
; .~~.
1\ fh
/ .'. .... -....-
;, \1 (-;;~:::' ..."....--- .~..d:r' C/'-/'-Efi :
,'",:r. ~\!/\ ""c' /'~)c' '=-'..'+~.
j: I (/ / I --i--
I \ ',,< / I I
'-J I
I
I
I
\
I
i
\
I
\
I
\
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
,
,
\
i
,
"
!i
, i
L. I
; ---.L.., i
i -
.
i
.
. I
~ I II!
i5 : i!J,
f:1T" I!"
tJl. .. I III
,5 ,,__ ;:~!
g, I '."
Wi
\
I
I
I o'
j"
I I:Y!' J!
I 1" 11...
.J9 ~ I'!
I .. , ~ j ,
~ .." ~ j'
<; '-/- ~ .
," I! ! ~ Hl~
~ -
,
i
· ilm
~ : jf::;:;::::: !
~ ~ aun E
N I f:i5955 , I
~ _ ; Jim ~!
~ I i- J ..' m.z:: :
~ It:H ~ I ~ ii~;; ~ I
~ -if!.. " d ~ nif- ~..
, ,:.;1 ~ , ,.,""1 ",,'
~ HjeJ !:S .. ~ ::::'" ~..
l.o\ ~ 1. .... 9999S ~ '1
R
"
~
~ ~~:?
~
~ '
~ g~
"
.:. _\1
l~tl
i'(1
jr
lJ!'"
'j!" C
1 l~t.;
,l ~,!. :~."
'..\
~
~ g
i
1 ,.
,'//1
i!;dJ
qarj"
iln ,tl
l' "11'=
:Jhll!
I !IJ1'l
. "
I ' ,! i
I,Hi .
1 ~ I ~ ...
.nl~;! ~
J. 'J I, 1 c
ilifl'1 -
~" o.!
fi I :ji'
ilf!!!1
.....:---'....;.'_........:......L..:..-..._~-____.___.~_ __.......
~.25.2001 2:20PM
CITY OF WASECA
May 24, 2001
f>t1or1. t .
Pnone t
Fax.
Jane Kansier. AICP p]~nn;ng COordinatol
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 abQve
referenced plat and variances. As we have: advised you, our family has owned this
property since the early 1960s. The area proposed to be platted was originally the
farmstead for a larger parcel. There still remain the original fannstead home and two
out buildings on the property. In addition, my father developed a single family home
on a portion oithe 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 mect typical lot sizes in the area at the time the second
home was built. The propcrty 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 presently locatcd closer to 170rb Street SW (County Road 12)
than our sites. It is unlikely that the roadway could be expanded to the depths that are
proposed by the county without leaving dwellings with inadequate front setbacks. We
are requesting a variance from the lot area requirements of the Prior Lake ZOfling
Ordinance for three of the five parcels located in this subdivision. As I have stated, it
was always our intent, and the City' s intent, to allow five lots to be developed in this
area. The proposal of the County to take additional frontage along 170m Street SW,
reduces the lot area available to these properties and creates a substandard condition.
It is, therefore, our request that the City of Prior Lake grant a variance from the area
requirements of the ordinance by reason of the narrowness of the lot and the
extraordinary condition created by the County's request for additional right of way.
This request has resulted in a peculiar and practical difficulties and creates an undue
.
_u
'--" -~- _._--------- _..:---:.._~....:.
..~.~~-'..........,_..:.........~~ .
MAY.2S.2B01 2:20PM
CITY OF WFlSECA
I'K). 980 P. 2/2
hardship upon my family acting as developer for the site. We also feel1hat the
conditions applying to our site arc not unlike or peculiar to the property immediat"ly
adjoining the proposedp1atted area. The granting of this easement is therefore
necessary for the presexvation and enjoyment of my family, acting as developer of the
site.
The granting of this easement will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to 1;he
adjacent property. unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, incre~e
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 nC?t be contrary to the intent of the Prior Lake ordinance or the Prior
Lake Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variance is necessary to alleviate a demonstratable undue hardship
or difficulty to our property I The hardships that are created by the strict application of
the ordinance are not as a. result of the actions of the property owners or prior prop~
owners.
It is therefore our request that the Prior Lalc;e 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 infonnation, please do not
hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience.
. Sincerely,
* h-t~
Kris M. Busse
1401 6d:1 Street NE
Waseca, MN 56093
..~......;.-._-~.._----- -_._._._-_.------'--_._-----~-----_._---_.__..
, "
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(952) 496-8346
BRADLEY J. LARSON
PUBUC WORKS DIRECfORl
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
itJ ~L
L
JJN , 9 2001 :,'
;.'.' !.;
I:: :,1
;c;./ j
Fax: (952) 4~{)-~j6.s I
June 8, 2001
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, 11N 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 of local roadways to properly direct traffic to collector or
arterial roadways.
25. Support local roadway networks that reduce the need for neighborhood traffic on arterial and
collector roadways for local trips and encourage interconnected neighborhoods.
The plat as proposed creates three new closely-spaced accesses to CSAH 12. We understand that there
are quite a few existing parcels along CSAH 12 with direct access to the roadway, but we would be
willing to work with the City in coming up with alternatives to exacerbating the problem.
In this particular case, the proposal also potentially worsens the issue of access for the parcel to the south.
It is our understanding that the parcel to the south is zoned commercial. Will the City support connecting
this commercial property to Pheasant Trail? 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 proDosed (as described above), we have the
following comments if the City does approve the development as proposed:
. Lot 3 shall share an access to CSAH 12 with Lot 2 or Lot 4. An access permit shall be required for
all new accesses to CSAH 12, as well as for modification of any existing accesses to CSAH 12.
An Equal OpporTUnity/Safety Aware Employer
-..---..---...-....---.-----.-.----.. ----
- --'-.
. We highly recommend a driveway turnaround be installed with each driveway. This will eliminate
the safety issues created by vehicles backing onto the County road when leaving the residences.
. The existing accesses that will not be used as part of this development should be removed and graded
to match surroundings before issuance of a building permit.
General conditions:
. No berming, ponding, landscaping, or signage shall be permitted in the County right-of-way.
. An access permit shall be required for this development.
. Any increase in drainage entering the County right-of-way shall require a detailed stormwater
analysis to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval.
As always, we appreciate the opportunity to comment. Please call me at 496-8060 if you have any
questions or need further clarification.
~~
Brian K. Sorenson, P .E.
Transportation Engineer
Copy: Craig Jenson, County Transportation Planner
Jack Witt, County Highway Utility Inspector
Bud Osmundson, City Public Works Director
Tim Arvidson, Project Engineer, Bolton & Menk Inc.
Paul Czech, MnlDOT Planning
/I;~~;;:!'_g, o;_~;~ u.s.s....
~/ (j
~
CUB FOODS BURNSVILLE
IaIOOl
:J!
Warranty Deed
Individual to Joint Tenanu
Form No. 5-M
J\1ill\,!,_.I)J\.i~ {.U.. Idinllc.lpuli,
1\linnl.',ueJ. t:'nilurm Con\'t.~...th.in!! Bl.lnk:-. (Rt,,'j~l'd 19761
(!::bi ~ 3J n bentur t t .W ade tkis..............................C/.~da.y of.............L.~...!..c.,d0..E."'::?... 19 ..~~.....,
between.............. ~.~:;.r...?:.~~ ..~.~.....~~f.'?.~g~....~~9. .~~ ..~....~~.9.~g~.!.....~~~.~.~c?-....~.c?-...~.~.;.~....................................
of the Oounty of..........~.c;.?~:warif"A~...M6nnens...aiil{j7l.~h~S.~ff K~~~~~~~:.;... husDancf..ano...wii:jart.:.:.....
ot the first pa71;, and. ............................................... ..........................-.......................................... ...................................................................................
...........................................:................................................................................... .........,..................................:......................................, of the Oounty of
...........~.'?~~~............:...............................anCZ State of...............................~.~??::.~9..~........................, parties of the second pa17.,
7mJlitnt5setU, That. the sa,lil part.i..~.?... o{ the first teart. in. consicle1'ation of the sum of...~.~.~..:.~~L.....
.QP..~...~9.+.):..a...~....a..P..g. ..9.:t::.~~E... .g9g.9....~.9... y.~}"~'~ ..~....~.~.~~:!:. ..~!.~ ~:!:9.~::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~ DO LLA RS,
to......t.Pt=.m...............in hand paid by the sai.(Z parties of the. second pa.rt.. the 7'BCeipt whm'eof is hereby aclmowl-
~dged, ito......, he1'e.by 01'ant, Bargain, Sell, and Convey u,nto the said parties of the second pa.rt as joi.nt
trmnnts and not (IR tenants in. C011'um,tm, their assigns, the 8U1'vi7:0r of sa.id paTties, ancZ the heirs and
assigns of the SW't'i1:01', Fm'ever, all the t7.act..... 07' parceL... of land lying ancZ beinp in the County of
.............;!.9.9.:t:;:t:;..........................................a.nd State of .Afinnesota I deSC7'ibed Cl<;O foll.ows, 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 I
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;~
thence East a distance of 175.00 feet; thence North 32.00 feet; thence East a dis~anr
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 Btate 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..
..
- . v.'
. ..
PLANNING COMMISSION l\flNUTES
MONDAY, JULY 9, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman VoOOof called the July 9, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:32
p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Lemke, Stamson and V oOOof, Planning
Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V oOOof
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 VoOOofread 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 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.
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 ] .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. lfthe 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 andit 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
Ci ty 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
LIO I files\O l plancommlO I pcminutesIMN07090 I.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 of the property, said he does have an
access from the State to Highway 13. He would have to get a permit. He also has a
water and sewer easement from 1980 though the McCormick property. 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
LlO I files\OI plancomm\O I 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 170th 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 staffto 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 proj ect. 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 1 files\O I plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN07090 I.doc 4
Plllnning Commission Meeting
JvJy 9.2001
.....n
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 itselfwas not built. It is a platted right-of-way. Dedicated public street.
. Agreed with Criego and City Staff that it is a matter of convenience to split into 5
lots. They do not meet the standards.
. Willing to give the applicant more time to look at the issues.
V onhof:
. More information was received than was in the report. Suggested obtaining more
information before a decision is made.
. Agreed with Commissioners on the variance request. Perhaps 4 lots would be more
appropriate.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LE1v.lKE, TO DEFER THE MATTER TO THE
AUGUST 13,2001 MEETIN"G.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier clarified that staff should come back with information on access and realigmnent
of the intersection of Highway 13 and 170th.
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. Wensco would like to use this type of sign to
identify the various businesses located in the Fountain Hills development. The Zoning
LIO! files\OI plancomm\Ol pcminutes\MN070901.doc 5
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4B
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE
SETBACK LESS THAN 75 FEET FROM THE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK, A FRONT YARD
SETBACK LESS THAN 25 FEET, A SIDE YARD
SETBACK LESS THAN 10 FEET AND A STRUCTURE
NOT COMPATIBLE IN DESIGN AND MATERIALS TO
THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE, Case file #01-061 PC
MATT & SANDRA TOFANELLI
15731 WEST AVENUE SE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from Matt & Sandra
Tofanelli for the replacement of a detached accessory structure on an existing
platted lot of record located at 15731 West Avenue. There is an existing single
family dwelling located on the lot. The applicant has proposed to rebuild an.
existing garage and requests the following variances:
1. A 14-foot variance to permit an 11.1-foot structure setback to a front
- property line, rather than 25.1-feet as required by setback averaging
[Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (4)]
2. A 13-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 40-feet from the
Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum
setback of 53-feet as required by setback averaging [City Code
Subsection 1104.302(4)].
3. A 2.3-foot variance to permit a structure setback of B.5-feet from the side
property line, rather than minimum setback of 1 O.B-feet as required for
the sum of side yards on a nonconforming lot of at least 15-feet
[Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (B)].
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4. A variance to permit an accessory structure that is not compatible in
design and materials with the principal structure [Ordinance Section
1102.800 (8,d)].
DISCUSSION:
Lot 4, Point Beautiful, is a legal nonconforming platted lot of record. The
property is located within the R-1 District (Low Density Residential) and the
Shoreland District. The subject lot has dimensions of 45' by 137.09' by 45' by
145.67', for a total lot area of 6,362 square feet. A 33' private driveway/roadway
was dedicated in the plat for the joint use of the respective owners of lots in the
subdivision. This common driveway is between the subject property and the
shoreline of Prior Lake. According to Scott County records the applicants also
own the property with a principal structure due east of the subject lot
(Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey).
The applicant proposes to rebuild the existing garage because of structural
problems due to hydro pressures from poor drainage and frost heaving. The
structure is 22' deep by 20' wide and 9' high for a total area of 440 square feet.
The lowest floor elevation of 906.36' is 3.54' below the minimum required
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation of 909.9'. This requires that the detached
structure be built in accordance with FP-4 flood proofing standards, which
require that all materials below 909.9' be waterproofed such as, pressure treated
lumber or concrete, and the electrical/mechanical systems be installed at or
above the 909.9 foot elevation (Attachment 2 - Contractor Proposal).
The required 25.1' setback average from the front property line would also meet
the required 53' setback to the OHWM. However, this location would require that
the existing steep slope to be excavated in order to move the garage 14' deeper
into the hill. The front yard and OHWM setbacks were determined by averaging
the existing structures west and east of the subject lot. In addition, the/side
yards are also affected by the topography of the lot as the grade rises 3' to 9'
higher from the garage front to the back on both sides of the lot (Attachment 3 -
Pictures of Existing Garage).
The applicant is proposing to use decorative concrete blocks for the exterior
walls of the structure. As the existing garage is plain concrete block, this is an
aesthetic improvement of materials, and meets the flood proofing requirements
for structures below the Regulatory Flood Plain Elevation. However, this is not
compatible with the lap siding on the principal structure.
The proposed impervious surface area of 1,694 square feet is 26.6%, and less
than the maximum allowable area of 30% (Attachment 4 - Impervious surface
worksheet).
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-061\01-061 VR.doc
Page 2
The City Engineering Department has commented that should a different garage
location be required, the applicant must submit a revised survey to show the
proposed grades and an erosion control plan. The Building Department
commented that retaining walls over 4' in height require a permit and structural
engineering. In addition, structural engineering will be required on the
foundation walls.
The Department of Natural Resources has a "no comment" response on this
request.
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 lot's existing topography is a condition over which the applicant
has no control. In addition, excavating the hill and regrading the lot will
require retaining walls up to 14' in height or terraced walls in order to meet
ordinance requirements.
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 property is an existing nonconforming lot of record with existing
topography and structure elevations that are peculiar to the subject lot and
adjoining properties of the Point Beautiful Plat.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The requested variances for setbacks to the OHWM, front and side yards are
necessary for the accessory structure and preserve a substantial property
right of the owner. The materials, however, can be compatible with the
materials of the existing house in that lap siding can be used above the flood
protection elevation.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-061\01-061VR.doc
Page 3
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The granting of the requested variances will not impede these stated values
nor endanger the public safety provided the Flood Plain Regulations are met.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the requested variances will not unreasonably impact the
character of the neighborhood, or diminish property values or impair health,
safety and comfort of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Since this is an existing lot of record, the granting of the variances is not
contrary to the intent of the Ordinances or the Comprehensive plan as long
as Flood Plain Regulations are met.
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.
With respect to the setback variances, a hardship exists and the variances
are required to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty to rebuild
the existing structure. There is no hardship pertaining to the exterior
materialS' of the garage.
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 existing garage was constructed prior to the current provisions of the
Ordinance. The lot's proximity to the ordinary high water mark, and the
topography are existing conditions and not a result from the actions of the
owners of the property. The choice of exterior materials, however, is a choice
preferred by the applicant.
L:\01files\01 variances\01-061 \01-061 VR.doc
Page 4
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship.
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone are not grounds for the granting of variances,
but in this case would be in addition to the other 8 hardship criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff believes that all of the Variance criteria have been met with respect to
the requested setback Variances. A legal alternative building site does not
appear to exist on the lot because of a steep rising grade of approximately 14'
from the garage front elevation of 906' to the back wall elevation of 920'. That
would require large amounts of fill to be removed from the steep slope, and
engineered retaining walls to hold back the unbalanced backfill. In addition, staff
has determined this area is not a bluff by definition as the average slope is
approximately 22%.
Staff recommends the following conditions be included with approval of the
setback variances.
1) The garage must be flood proofed to FP-4 standards. The applicant shall
submit building plans depicting elevations and materials thCit meet the
conditions of the Flood Plain Regulations, and all other appiicable
Ordinances and agency regulations.
2) The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shaHberecorded
at Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along
with the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior t.o the issuance of a building permit.
The variance criteria have not been met with respect to the materials of the
garage. This is a design choice that can be changed. The staff therefore
recommends denial of this variance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. In this case, the
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-061\01-061 VR.doc
Page 5
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
denying the variance requests.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances. This
requires the following motion:
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-017PC approving a variance
of 14-feet to permit 11.1-foot front setback, a 13-foot variance to permit a
40-foot setback to the OHWM and a 2.3-foot variance to permit a structure
setback of 8.5-feet from the side property line. .
The staff recommends denial of the variance permit.
This requires the following motion:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-018PC denying a variance to permit
an accessory structure that is not compatible in design and materials with the
principal structure.
L:\01 files\01 variances\O 1-061 \01-061 VR.doc
Page 6
RESOLUTION 0l-017PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 14-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN 11.1
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, A 13-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 40 FEET FROM THE OHWM AND A 2.3-FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 8.S-FEET.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Eugene M. & Sandra Tofanelli have applied for a variance from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the reconstruction of a detached accessory structure on
an existing lot with a single family dwelling located in the R-I and SD (Shoreland )
District at 15731 W est Avenue SE, and legally described as follows:
Lot 4, Point Beautiful, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for Variances as contained in
Case File #OI-06IPC and held hearings thereon on September 24,2001.
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.
4. Because of the subject property's location in relation to the lakeshore and the existing
topographical conditions of the subject property and to the surrounding properties, it
is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will
not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger
of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health,
safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance
and Comprehensive Plan.
5. There is justifiable hardship caused by the existing topographical conditions and the
existing garage location, that reasonable use of the property does not exist without the
1:\0 lfiles\O 1 variances\O 1-061 \appres.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
granting of the variances to permit an accessory structure detached from the principal
structure.
6. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant,
and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
7. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
8. The contents of Planning Case File #01-06lPC 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 approves the
following variances for the proposed structure as shown in attached Exhibit A -
Certificate of Survey:
1. A 14- foot Variance to permit an 11.1 foot structure setback to a front property line
rather than 25.1- feet as required by setback averaging.
2. A 13-foot Variance to permit a structure setback of 40-feet from the Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 53-feet as required by
setback averaging.
3. A 2.3-foot Variance to permit a structure setback of 8.5 feet from the side property
line rather than the minimum required 10.8-feet as required by for the sum of side
yards on a nonconforming lot of at least 15- feet.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1) The garage must be flood proofed to FP-4 standards. The applicant shall submit
building plans depicting elevations and materials that meet the conditions of the
Flood Plain Regulations, and all other applicable Ordinances and agency
regulations.
2) The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the
acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\01-061 \appres.doc
2
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 24, 2001.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-061 \appres.doc
3
RESOLUTION Ol-018PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE NOT COMPATIBLE IN DESIGN AND MATERIALS WITH THE
PRINCIP AL STRUCTURE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Eugene M. & Sandra Tofanelli have applied for a variance from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the reconstruction of a detached accessory structure on a
lot with a single family dwelling located in the R-I and SD (Shoreland ) District at
15731 West Avenue SE, and legally described as follows:
Lot 4, Point Beautiful, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for Variances as contained in
Case File #Ol-06lPC and held hearings thereon on September 24,2001.
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 offire; 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 the conditions of the subject property and the surrounding properties, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed detached accessory structure can be designed with materials that are
compatible with the existing principal structure. This situation does not create a
hardship with respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right ofthe owner.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-061 \denyres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the existing topographical conditions and
the proposed garage location that reasonable use of the property does not exist
without the granting of the variances to permit an accessory structure detached from
the principal structure.
7. The granting of the Variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and
is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #01-061PC 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 the proposed detached accessory structure as shown in Attachment
1 - Certificate of Survey:
1. A Variance to permit an accessory structure that is not compatible in design or
materials with the principal structure.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 24,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
J :\0 1 files\O 1 variances\O 1-061 \denyres.doc
2
I-
ifi6
::E
I:
~
~
~
->
w
>
II! _----.,
'a---- ""
~ ""~
-
~ --r~,
w
~
~
-
LL
-
~
W
o
\
l
ElOslll
HOS. I {
I
\
,..
\
\
l
EXlSl\NG
HOOSE
~/ "\
/ /
/ /
/ ;2~,-:
--r-"
/ I
1$
I I
\ I
,\
" "
I "
I "
1 1
1 /
I y.
I \,
1\
I _~
l__--
-
/
/
/
\
\ /~// "
/ / I
, I
the- + 1/
TIFUL --------...,... / Vt/l,i
- - - ~ / -//
I
t
f /
1 /
1 FOUND' 3/4- PIN /
L.__ T NORJH /
1.7 FEE ..",:.z
~
\
\
\
\
1
I
I;
I:
I'
I
i I
\ (
\ \
\ I
\ 1
I I
I I
I I
\ / I
SH~ CORNeR I
,r-- 0.5 FfET N~~..J.
I Of ?~a>EIffT uor-
/ . I I
J J
....
\
I
\
'"
~
\
\
\
\
/
/
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
--.-
/
/
/
/
/
,
-
CoMcrAGHMENT 2 - CONTRACTOR PROPOSAL
~ilding
Servi s
Inc.
8892 Wentworth Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 PROJECT NAME: Garage repair
Phone (612) 885-9808 PROJECT LOCATION' 15731 WAS E
FAX (612) 885-9796 . est venue "
Prior Lake, MN
,
PROPOSAL TO: Eugene & Sandra Tofanelli
15731 West Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PROJECT NUMBER: 5-1008
PROPOSAL NUMBER: 1
We hereby propose to furnish in accordance with the specifications below, or on attadled pages, all materials and labor to
complete the following:
GENERAL CONDITIONS: The project consists of repair of a free standing double garage
structure with concrete block walls and a cast in place concrete flat roof. The building is built into a
hi!', and has sustained structural damage due to poor drainage at three sides of the building and
frost heave. The repair will consist of shoring the roof structure of the garage and replacing the four
masonrywalls of the structure. We also recommend frost foundations be installed to prevent
movement of the structure during winter months. Drainage tile will be placed at three sides of the
new structure to prevent the new walls from bowing inward. The following specifications apply:
PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
1. Demolish and remove existing garage floor slab.
. 2. Shore concrete roof structure to facilitate wall replacement.
3. Remove existing garage door and service door.
4. Demolish and remove existing four masonry walls.
5. Excavate soil to provide access for construction of new walls. Haul away.
6. Excavate four feet below existing floor grade at perimeter.
7. Install 20" X 8" concrete footings at perimeter.
8. Lay block for frost footing to elevation of floor. Reinforce frost walls with rebar. Leave bars long
to tie into floor.
9. Continue 12" block walls to base of roof slab. Core fills in new walls to be 48" on center with
#4 rod in each.
10. Re set roof slab on new foundation and remove shoring.
11. Cast new reinforced concrete garage slab.
12. Install four inch drainage tile at three sides to drain water from hill.
13. Damproof exterior below grade portion of new walls.
14. Back fill excavation with compacted sand fill to grade.
15. Repair retaining walls as needed.
16. Landscape repair by others.
17. Garage door and service door by others.
18. Clean the site to complete the work.
~
rrojfcf
fv S f-c.r f
'I: .(lrf L., ho' j)qy. ~ /1.
~.
Page 1 of 2
D
-
.,
...
-
-
CJ
n
r)
)
n ."i
n
<
-
~
-
"
;
)
:.
,
:.
)
,
. ~ '
~
~.
.,..
I:
,.
=-
n
="
-
...
,r-)
'-",-1
,CITYOF PRlOR LAKE.
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shore land District (SD).
ThetvIaximum Impervious S~rfac~ Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
.' Property.. A.. ddress L.:,~l..\ P6 ~N T~ E "'-~T i~ Ul
. .' ...1
Lot Area LD3~'2..;' . Sq. Feet X 30% = .............. \I:\o't
*******~****************************************************************
. .' - ."1 . . '_, "., .
HOUSE
LJ;:NGTHWIDTH
X '1..."'1...
'V; rf./
It x lLf
x
=
=
SQ. FEET
~B
<G~
=
ATIACHEDGARAGE
TOTALPRlNCIPLESTRUCTURE...................... q lY .
G-p.~-e = .' .
?'n~& . =- .
l..\~O
'1'"2-
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... S 12-
CgR~\
CDRlVEW A Y A VED AREAS
~.~ '-' '
'.(Driyeway~payedor not)
.(SidewalkIParking. Areas)
Iv X "2-2.; = '"2..'2.0
Y X 11- = l..{e
X --
TOT AL P A YED AREAS............................:............
"'Z..l.:ot?
P A TIOSfPORCHESID ECKS
X
=
(Open Decks W' min. opening between
boards..with a pervious surface below,
are not considered to be impervious)
X
=
X
=
TOT AL DECKS........................................................
OTHER
X
X
=
=
TOT AL OTlIER...................... ........ ...... ..................
TOTALI~IPERVIOUSSURFACE
~~VERO
Prepared BY,. ~ ~"\'-~
Company ~k\~. S"""ue.."",, (',.., PA..
\ \ \ '
I \l.:>'\~
I "2-\S
Date '1- \ D -0 /
Phone #~ 1.:\:, --ZS;,o
~
~
1:;
:I:
s:
m
z
-I
~
I
-
s:
-a
m
::D
<
-
o
c::
tJ)
(J)
c:
::D
~
o
m
~
5
c:
....
~
-
o
z
(J)
.
.l
~
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4C
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE LIMITING THE HOURS
OF OPERATION FOR CAR WASHES AND
REQUIRING RAIN SENSORS ON IRRIGATION
SYSTEMS
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider two amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance. The first amendment would limit the hours of operation for car
washes, which are included within the category of motor vehicle service and
repair. The second amendment would add a provision requiring rain sensors on
required irrigation systems. These amendments were initiated by the City
Council.
DISCUSSION:
Motor Vehicle Service and Repair: The description of the Motor Vehicle
Service and Repair use, listed in Section 1101.1000 of the Zoning Ordinance,
includes "repair, lubrication, washing, detailing, equipment installation, engine
overhauls and other similar uses involving automobiles, trucks, and recreational
vehicles." Although not specifically listed, car washes are consistent with this
definition.
Motor vehicle service and repair is permitted as an accessory use to a motor fuel
station, which also requires a Conditional Use Permit, in the C-1 (Neighborhood
Commercial) and C-3 (Specialty Business) districts, and as a conditional use in
the C-4 (General Business) district. This use is not permitted in the C-2
(Community Business) district.
The purpose of limiting the hours of operation for these uses is to limit the noise
and other potential impacts on nearby residential uses. In the C-1 district, the
hours of operation for this use are already limited to 6:00 am to 11 :30 pm. One
1:\01 files\O 1 ordamend\zoning\O 1-076\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
t
"
option for this amendment is to use the same limitations in the C-3 and C-4
districts. Another option would be to apply the same limitations that are in place
for combustion engines (Section 903.400 of the City Code). These hours are
6:00 am to 10:00 pm on Monday through Friday, 7:00 am to 10:00 pm on
Saturday, and 8:00 am to 10:00 pm on Sunday. A third option would provide
some flexibility for the operator of these uses. This option would limit the hours
unless the doors to the facility were to remain closed at all times.
The staff suggests combining the limitation on the hours of operation, with the
provisions for keeping the doors closed. The hours suggested are 6:00 am to
11 :30 pm, which is consistent with the existing limitation in the C-1 district. The
attached draft ordinance includes the language detailing this option.
Rain Sensors: Section 1107.1907 of the Zoning Ordinance allows a developer
the option of installing an irrigation system in required landscaped areas.
Although optional, most developers choose to install irrigation systems to protect
the investment in landscaping. In light of the recent water shortage and the
watering restrictions imposed this summer, it seems prudent to require rain
sensors on irrigation systems. Rain sensors will ensure that the system does not
operate unless necessary, thus preserving the City's water supply. This
amendment is identified in Section 3 of the attached draft ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
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 these amendments. The restrictions on the
hours of operation will serve to mitigate noise and other potential nuisances that
may result from the motor vehicle service and repair uses. The proposed
language also provides some flexibility by allowing the use to operate outside the
hours of operation if the doors remain closed. The rain sensor requirement will
help to preserve the City's water supply, one of the City's natural resources.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendments as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
1:\01 files\01 ordamend\zoning\01-076\pc report. doc
Page 2
.
~
,
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.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Amendment
1:\01 files\01 ordamend\zoning\01-076\pc report. doc
Page 3
~
,
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 01- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1102.1104 (1), 1102.1203 (3) AND
1107.1907 (4) OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. Section 1102.1104 (1) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
a.
Motor Vehicle Service, Repair shall be permitted accessory uses
under the following conditions:
Shall be permitted only if accessory to a motor fuel station;
The number of service bays shall not exceed 2;
1102.1104
(1)
b.
c. No public address system shall be permitted;
d. All repair, assembly, disassembly, and maintenance of vehicles shall
be inside a closed building except tire inflation, changing wipers or
adding oil.
e. Test driving shall be prohibited on any street in an "R" Use District.
f. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 am to 11 :30 pm, unless
the service doors to the facility remain closed at all times.
2. Section 1102.1203 (3) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
1102.1203
(3)
Motor Vehicle Service, Repair. Conditions:
a. No public address system shall be audible from any property located
in an "R" Use District.
b. All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance of vehicles shall
be inside a closed building except tire inflation, changing wipers or
adding oil.
c. Test driving shall be prohibited on any street in an "R" Use District.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan
as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access
can be provided without generating significant traffic on local
residential streets.
e. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet
from any lot in an "R" Use District.
g. A bufferyard, as determined by subsection 1107.2003, shall be
provided along any abutting an "R" Use District.
1:\01 files\Ol ordamend\zoning\O 1-076\draftord.doc
PAGE 1
.
h. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 am to 11 :30 pm, unless
the service doors to the facility remain closed at all times.
1. A car wash shall have parking space to permit the stacking of at least
30 cars or the maximum number of vehicles which can be washed
during a 30 minute period, whichever is greater; plus an additional
10 off-street parking spaces for employees and storage of employee
owned and washed cars.
J. Drainage and surfacing plans for a car wash shall be approved by the
City Engineer. The plans shall describe the wash water disposal and
sludge removal facilities to be employed to accomplish dust, salt and
other chemical and mud abatement on the premises and prevent the
accumulation of surface water, wash water or sludge on the site or in
the vicinity of the premises.
k. A car wash shall have all parking and paved areas meet the drainage,
design and landscaping provisions of subsection 1107.200.
L No ingress or egress points for a car wash shall be closer than 150
feet from the point of intersection of the required front and side yard
lines adjoining intersecting streets. The exit door from the car wash
shall be at least 45 feet from the public right-of-way. Drainage shall
be away from the public street at the egress points to prevent spillage
onto the street. The grades of the interior floor shall be sloped away
from the exit door, and said floor shall be sloped to an accepted
interior drainage system. No water which is used in the operation of
the car wash shall be allowed on any public right-of-way.
m. Automatic car washes accessory to a motor fuel station or motor
vehicle service and repair facility shall provide stacking space for at
least four cars. Cars located in these stacking spaces should not.
block ingress and egress driveways on the site or driveways
providing access to gasoline pumps, service bays or required off-
street parking, except that vehicles in stacking spaces may block
access to parking stalls which are signed for employee parking only.
All other provisions in subsections 1102. 1203(3a) through
11 02. 1203(3j) above shall apply to automatic car washes, except that
no additional off-street parking spaces shall be required for an
automatic car wash and ingress or egress to an automatic car wash
may be permitted within 150 feet of the point of intersection of the
required front and side yard lines subject to the limitations of
subsection 1102.1203(3j).
3. Section 1107.1907 (4) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
1107.1907 Grounds and Lawns:
(4) In all areas to be lawn and landscaped, the developer may provide a built-in
irrigation system. In this case, an irrigation plan shall be required at the time of the
1 :\0 1 files\O 1 ordamend\zoning\O 1-07 6\draftord.doc
PAGE 2
.
,
,
building permit. This plan shall indicate the overlapping pattern, head type, control
type and location, source of water and connection method. The system plan shall be
prepared by a qualified designer with experience designing systems for similar uses,
project type, and size. The irrigation system must also be equipped with a rain
sensor. If an irrigation system is not installed, the developer must meet the provisions
of Section 1107.1909.
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
, 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 :\0 1 files\O 1 ordamend\zoning\O 1-07 6\draftord.doc
PAGE 3
~
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5A
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING
VARIANCES TO MAXIMUM BUILDING WALL LENGTH
TO HEIGHT RATIO; STRUCTURE SETBACK TO
PROPERTY LINE; AND, A DRIVEWAY SETBACK TO
PROPERTY LINE, Case File #01-066PC
5418 COTTONWOOD LANE SE, UNITS A & B
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
The Planning Department received a Variance application from EFH, CO.
(contractor); American Glass & Mirror Company; and, Metro Cabinets Company
(owner), for the construction of a addition to an existing commercial building on
the property located at 5418 Cottonwood Lane SE, Units A & B (Attachment 1 -
Certificate of Survey).
A public hearing was convened on September 10, 2001. After review of the
applicant's request with respect to variance hardship criteria, the Planning
Commission directed staff to draft Resolution 01-015PC approving the following
Variances with conditions:
1) A variance to permit an addition to an existing structure with a building wall
length to height ratio of 6.6:1 rather than the maximum ratio of 4:1 [Ordinance
Section 1107.2202: (8,b)].
2) A 7.51-foot variance to permit a 42.49-foot structure setback from a property
line adjoining an arterial road rather than the minimum required 50-foot
setback (Ordinance Section 1102.1406: Required Setbacks).
3) A 3-foot variance to permit a driveway to be setback 3-feet from a side
property line rather than the minimum required 6-feet (Ordinance Section
1102.1406: Required Setbacks).
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The following conditions must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit and/or certificate of occupancy for the proposed addition:
1. The applicant must submit a landscape and screening plan that adheres to all
of the requirements under the Zoning Ordinance (see attached Landscape
Plan).
2. The Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at
Scott County and proof of recording shall be submitted along with the
acknowledged Assent Form to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a
building permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
On September 14,2001, the applicant submitted a revised landscaping plan,
which is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. A copy of the
landscaping plan is attached for the Planning Commission review.
The attached Resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction
for approval of the requested variances for a building wall length to height ratio of
6.6 to 1; a structure setback to a property line adjoining an arterial road of 42.49-
feet; and a driveway setback of 3-feet to a property line. The staff therefore
recommends adoption of Resolution 01-0 15PC.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution # 01-0 15PC approving the three variances
with two conditions that the Planning Commission deemed appropriate under
the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-015PC approving the building wall
length to height ratio; structure setback from a property line abutting an arterial
road; and driveway setback to a property line, with conditions.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 variances\01-066\VarRpt2.doc
Page 2
RESOLUTION 01-015PC
A RESOLUTION APPOVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE WITH A
BUILDING WALL LENGTH TO HEIGHT RATIO OF 6.6 TO 1, RATHER THAN THE
MAXIMUM RATIO OF 4 TO 1; AND, A 7.51-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 42.49-
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM A PROPERTY LINE ADJOINING AN
ARTERIAL ROAD RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 50-FEET; AND, A 3
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 3 FEET FROM A SIDE
PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQillRED MINIMUM 6 FEET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment bfthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. EFH, Co., Metro Cabinets and American Glass & Mirror Company have applied for
variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an addition to a
commercial building on property located in the C-5 (Business Park Use) District at the
following location, to wit;
5418A and 5418B Cottonwood Lane SE, legally described as Plat 25313, CIC 1026
Cottonwood, Units 1 and 2, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#0 1-066PC and held hearings thereon on September 10, 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 not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire,
and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. A legal building addition location that meets the required setback for the proposed structure
does not exist on the subject lot. The proposed plan design and subject lot shape is such that
the hardship has not been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property does not
exist without the building addition as proposed.
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the required yard setbacks and building length to
height ratio, as reasonable use of the property does not exist without the granting of the
vanance.
1:\01 fiIes\O 1 variances\O 1-066\aprvres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
"
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve
merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable
hardship.
8. The contents of Planning Case 01-066PC 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 approves the following
variances for the proposed building addition to a commercial building as shown in Attachment 1;
1. A variance to permit a structure with a building wall length to height ratio 6.6 to 1, rather
than the maximum ratio of 4 to 1.
2. A 7.51-foot variance to permit a 42.49-foot structure setback from a property adjoining an
arterial road, rather than the minimum required 50-feet.
3. A 3-foot variance to permit a driveway to be setback 3-feet from a side yard property line,
rather than the required minimum of 6 feet.
The following conditions must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
proposed building addition:
1. The applicant must submit a landscape and screemng plan that adheres to all of the
requirements under the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott County
within 60 days of. the date of approval. Proof of recording shall be submitted to the
Planning Department, along with the acknowledged Assent Form prior to issuance of a
building permit.
3. Pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the Zoning Ordinance, the variance will be null and void if
the necessary permits for the proposed addition are not obtained within one year after the
adoption ofthis Resolution, or by September 24, 2002.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 24,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
I: \01 fiIes\O 1 variances\O 1-066\aprvres.doc
2
.....
COu
~~y
ATTACHMENT 1 - SUR
'WOOD
~
....
IYO-1D
1\'0
.
.....
..... ..... t\I~
. .......
, - ,
-~ :_-:~ou.
., '
I,
I ,
, ....-/:)
" 0/1\1
0", .0
'"
$'~
jJ~.
~~
~ry
K:
....
~
~
,,~
.~
otSf
~
~
I
I
.
,
I
. !.CQ;~, I
: ~7 It c>'" \ .
. I:l 9;>""""8 .
: <l/r~1.e ,S,J \ \
('S:'?6/"n ~<,Jo> 0..00 \;
'~'" ~. ~ t" V1. A I.
'/t\lc "'6' 6' ~ ""1. .. 'O~
Or V7' ~/-1t
l..o.,.. <6#1 Af{;\c '.........
! (" ~-1to
/ (;~(/'>-
<"'-1.A /~s~
, V ~ <t-vr-
~
::XISTING HARD ~~~~~ :;~E~TS: I ~~~;,E~. HARD "SO~E"R .,~R;~S:I
..... 6r-t__t 4_
TY RO~D NO.
C 0 U N (CREDIT RIVER ROAD)
2 t
-
"""""""-
.........
_.'
.... -
..,c::ac. c:u.. MI'IH
......
--
--
--
I
-0
j!Z--
~J
Q ..
~ ~
_. --
--
..
~..
..
C0110NWOOD
l ~ N E
c.'C,t j''''~. i'~..
...C, ...
LANDSCAPE PLAN
~
NORTH
5 I T E
FLAN
WOO"9f9!lR1p -llJ!rM.MNt.
9V951'069 X9.::1 9~99'069l99
eu.ss 1J~088~ "'8d ~~S
J.O<: 9WlS '}\8M)fJ8d p.lO.::I 9'VJ.~
.i::-T~.E -I --irlf! ~~ ~~
SlaJUUp UU!J
a:
0
a:
a: <(
- I-
oo::.:! Wo
fjjl-U ~ Zm
<(W
Zl C I ....IZ
_led Z
ml~ C-
~I i 0:1
Olj oui
I L ~..~
01" I~ z ~
~I !O..J
IZ jl-
I~~I-a:
:.:!IO ~ 00
I 0-
- a:
a: Q...
W
~
<(
.~O(]
~nN UO\10Jll!6e~
10 ;tlo" ~ II!
"'Je1S1&a~ -<,rip 0 wo JOJJ
IClqI PlIO ~ ~4P.(w J;pun
10 tlU Aq ~~'C .0lI I~J 10 'UO!Io;,
-!PdI '\qd 11111 1CIIIl .(IlIJll:) .(cp~ I
~
~~ f I
~t; - I - I
leI .!JJ~ liJi
'b I I I I I I I I
I
'at ~ ~ to- ~ to- to- to- to-
I I ~~~~ ~~~~
N- SU~~i ~22~
~ I!! ~
It 0 " III
to- ~ 8 ~ ~
I ~ · ~ !
I I I I
I ..: ..: ..: ..:
.. II. &0. II. ..
I it s g i
~ 2 ~ ~
1ft ~ i "
~
J l
i!:ii I
!~;i.. ~
I
1M
I
i
I
bJ
I
~
I-
~
0<
l-
e
we
1-...
- ...
CO;
,
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5B
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
VARIANCE FOR AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE AREA OF 36%, FOR D. MARK CROUSE,
Case File #01-017PC
15507 CALMUT AVENUE NE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from property owner
Mr. D. Mark Crouse for an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422 square
feet or 57.5% of the total lot area on the property located at 15507 Calmut
Avenue NE (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey).
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on this item on June 25,
2001, on July 23, 2001, and on September 10, 2001. After review of the
applicant's request with respect to variance hardship criteria, the Planning
Commission directed staff to draft Resolution 01-011 PC approving the following
Variance with conditions:
1. A 461 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of
2,768 square feet or 36% of the lot area above the 904 foot elevation
(OHWM), rather than the maximum allowable 2,307 square feet or 30%.
The following conditions must be adhered to as part of the Variance Resolution:
1. The applicant shall submit to the City of Prior Lake a revised certificate of
survey identifying the impervious surface to remain on the lot and the
impervious surface to be removed to verify all conditions of this Variance
Resolution are met.
2. Resolution 01-011 PC as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be
recorded at Scott County within 60 days of the date of approval and proof of
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
,
recording shall be submitted to the Planning Department along with the
acknowledged Assent Form.
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached Resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction
for approval of the Variance to impervious surface coverage area. The staff
therefore recommends adoption of Resolution 01-011 PC.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the attached Variance Resolution 01-011 PC approving the Variance
with conditions that the Planning Commission deemed appropriate under the
circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-011 PC approving a maximum 36%
impervious surface coverage of the lot area above the 904 foot elevation
(OHWM), with conditions.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt6,doc
Page 2
RESOLUTION Ol-OllPC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 36%, RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE AREA OF 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 a paved driveway area to a single family residence with attached garage 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 line 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, and on July 23,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment continued the hearing to August 27, 2001, to allow the applicant
time to present additional information.
4. The Board of Adjustment further continued the hearing to September 10,2001, at the request
of the applicant.
5. On September 10,2001, the Board of Adjustment continued the review of the application for
variances and allowed the applicant and other interested parties the opportunity to present
their views.
1:\01 files\OI variances\O 1-017\aprvrs.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. 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.
7. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the variance
will not 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.
8. The impervious surface area required for a driveway is such that the hardship created has not
been created by the applicant. However, there is no justifiable hardship for the additional
impervious surface area.
9. There is a justifiable hardship caused by the requirements ofthe ordinance, as reasonable use
of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance for a hard surface
driveway from the street to the garage, which would not be permitted without a variance.
There is no justifiable hardship for the additional impervious surface area requested.
10. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofa substantial
property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the
applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
11. 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 approves the following
variance for an impervious surface area no greater than 36%, as shown in a Revised Attachment
1 Certificate of Survey:
1. A variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 36% of the lot area above the
904 foot elevation, rather than the allowed maximum area of 30%.
The following conditions must be adhered to as part of the approved variance Resolution:
1. The applicant submit to the City of Prior Lake a revised certificate of survey identifying the
impervious surface to remain and the impervious surface to be removed to verify all
conditions of this Variance Resolution shall be met.
2. Resolution 01-0l1PC as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of the date of approval and proof of recording shall be submitted to
the Planning Department along with the acknowledged Assent Form.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 24, 2001.
] :\0 1 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 1 7\aprvrs.doc
2
City Farmer: Rain Barrels
Page 1 of8
Published by City Farmer, Canada's Office of Urban Agriculture
~,
Rain Barrels
Michael Levenston
Executive Director City Farmer
(C) Copyright: City Farmer
Food gardens need water and what better way to give plants a drink than with
soft, warm, oxygen-filled rainwater straight from the rain barrel. Even just a wee
bit saved in a barrel after a storm, then transferred to a watering can, will slake
the thirst of a balcony of plants. And you, the recycler, will feel especially good
knowing that you are diverting water that would otherwise flow out into the
storm sewers.
City Farmer has been chosen by Vancouver's City Hall to display and help
promote a rain barrel distribution program.
City Makes Rain Barrels Available to Save Water
City of Vancouver Rain Barrel
The City of Vancouver is providing
subsidized rain barrels for up to 1,000
residents under a pilot program to
conserve water.
The Green Barrel pilot program will offer
Vancouver residents (City of Vancouver
only) a 7s-gallon plastic rain barrel for
$S8.06 including taxes. This is half the
regular cost.
CitYQLYC!D.QQ1!YeLntb:tDC!rrel now
available to people outside Vancouver (not subsidized). (February 2001).
Residents can use the specially-designed barrels to collect rain water from
downspouts for lawn and garden irrigation.
http://www.cityfarmer .orgl rainbarrel72.html
09/08/2001
City Farmer:Rain Barrels
Page 2 of 8
Lawn and garden watering make up almost 40 per cent of total household water
use during the summer. It's expected that each barrel will save about 1,300
gallons of water during the peak summer months when demand for water is high
and precipitation is low.
The barrels are easy to install. They come with outlets for both watering cans and
hoses, and are designed with child-proof openings.
V anQQuY~IJ~,(;dn12(},Ir~l
Vancouver residents can call the City's Water Conservation Hotline at 873-7350
for information on obtaining a barrel. Residents can also visit City Farmer, at the
City of Vancouver's Compost Demonstration Garden, at 2150 Maple Street to see
the rain barrels in use.
Further information:
Jeff Smyth
jeff smythcwcity.vancouver.bc.ca
Waterworks Design
(604) 871-6144
Rainbarrel Links on the Internet:
Thanks to Lisa Taylor of Seattle Tilth Association for many of these
links.
RSliIlJ3.(},IIelJlJ_fQnl1atiorLand~01!I.Q~_1;l_fQrJh~_pacific N olthwe_1;lt
The Water & Land Division of the King County Department of Natural Resources
Rainwater Harvesting information
City of Seattle Water Conservation information
Texas~(},inHm:ve$tiIlg
Ggrden ~(},_teI~~Y~I
"The Garden Watersaver is an automatic rain water collection system that has
advantages over other rain water collecting systems."
Spruce Creek Rainsaver
R(},inJ?grI~el~Lmgde_byAIbom:
CQUe~j:JiginlygteIfQr_GgId~Jling,_AqllgIil1m~-,_gndJ:~~1$
Green Culture's Water Savers
http://www.cityfarmer .org/rainbarrel72.html
09/08/2001
City Farmer:Rain Barrels
Page 3 of 8
DE!n--BQ!:bQ'~J~,f-!inbQIr~l~
Approved Rainbarrel Suppliers
GI~gtAm.~Ii~?nRQinJ3?IL~1~
R?ilJB.QII~l~
Rain Pail
R~Ql.G_QQ_d~...K?inBaITill (Type in "Rain")
PQJj:lgndj~,f-!jnb_?IT~l
Rainwater to Drinking Water
"The biggest issue in collecting rainwater is keeping it free of muck such as
leaves, bird droppings and dead animals, and avoiding contamination with
pollutants like heavy metals and dust." From the S!!.st1J,in~.bl~_HQ!!~_~ "In 1996,
a Sydney family set out to renovate their 100 year old terrace house in the inner-
city suburb of Chippendale. With a bit of vision, some common sense, and a lot
of tenacity, they built what most of us would think impossible... a house in the
middle of Australia's biggest city that produces its own power and water, and
reuses its sewage on site."
CMHc.~;;J:i~_<!lthyJiQJJ~~ in _LQIonto
Melbourne Water Autonomous House
IJ1~Q<;millQS.._C~nt~LfQLApPXQPIL<:!te I~~hnlli9.gy
QQ.~liLD._~$jgrrEc.QlQgi~ill..D_~_$jgn_CQn$JJltinKW_?t~;r,_W_<!;;.t~''Y<:!t~_I.J~..s.Qlflr Syst~m~
Edj_bkL?I!d;;'Q.?J2ing,._Gr_~)'3'YQ.t~r._:89_Qk~
City of Etobicoke
Utility Engineering
399 The West Mall
Etobicoke, Ontario, M9C 2Y2
Phone: (416) 394-8379
City of Toronto
http://www.cityfarmer .orgl rainbarrel72.html
09/08/2001
City Farmer:Rain Barrels
Page 4 of 8
Public Works
100 Queen St. West, 14th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, MSH 2N 2
Phone: (416) 392-7660
Fax: (416) 392-7874
Downspout Disconnection Program (Phone: (416) 392-1807
The Rain Saver
from Water Conservation Technology
P.O. Box 121, Sydenham, Ontario KoH 2To Canada
The International Rainwater Catchment Systems Association
(IRCSA)
The IRCSA is a new association aiming to link those with an interest
in the direct collection of rainwater and its storage for domestic and
agricultural supply. The seeds for the establishment of the
Association were first sown when the first International Rainwater
Cistern Systems Conference was convened in Hawaii in June 1982 by
Prof. Fok. Subsequent International Conferences have followed on a
two-yearly basis and were held in the US Virgin Islands (1984),
Thailand (1987), Philippines (1989), Taiwan (1991), Kenya (1993) and
China (199S).
"Whilst rainwater catchment systems have long been utilised in some
parts of the Caribbean, Middle East and Australia, in other places its
potential has only recently been realised. During the last decade,
Thailand and Kenya, for example, have led their respective continents
http://www.cityfarmer.org/rainbarreI72.html
09/08/2001
City Farmer:Rain Barrels
Page 5 of 8
in demonstrating the enormous potential of this technology. In
Thailand more than 10 million two thousand litre ferrocement roof
catchment tanks have been constructed since 1985 for domestic water
supply, while in Kenya the construction oflarge (10 to 100m3)
ferrocement tanks has gained popularity in many regions with
thousands being built at schools, clinics and private homes.
"Utilisation of rainwater catchment systems has also been spreading
in other parts of Asia (e.g. Nepal, Bangladesh, India and the
Philippines) as well as in Mrica (e.g. Botswana, Mali and Tanzania).
In industrialised countries too interest in rainwater collection is
growing as demonstrated by recent developments in Australia,
Hawaii and Singapore. Japan has traditionally used rainwater
catchment systems and is currently making adjustments to meet the
requirements of urban environments."
IRCSA Membership Account:
c/o International Water Resources Association
1101 West Peabody Drive
Urbana IL 61801-4723 USA
More Information:
Mr. John E. Gould
Secretary-General (IRCSA)
University of Botswana
P /Bag 0022
Gaborone, Botswana
Further Reading:
Raindrop (Newsletter of the IRCSA)
Tokyo International Rainwater Utilization Conference
Rainwater & You "100 Ways to Use
Rainwater" by Group Raindrops
Organizing Committee for the Tokyo
International Rainwater Utilization
Conference
Sumida City Office Building
1-23-20 Azumabashi, Sumida City Tokyo
130, Japan
1995, 176 pages
..'r--~/( ,
->-( :1~1
,---i \; "
../ I \.. ,
, J - ~,.. ,~
"It is estimated that 60% of the world
population will concentrate into urban areas
by the middle of the 21st century. ... Population in Asia, Mrica and Latin America
will continue to concentrate into large cities and, as a result, those cities will
http://www.cityfarmer .org/rainbarre172.html
09/08/2001
City Farmer: Rain Barrels
Page 6 of 8
confront the problem "Urban Droughts and Urban Floods". ... A new rainwater
culture is required in which cities can live more harmoniously with rain." (from
the forward by Makoto Murase, Conference Secretary-General)
Also available from the above office:
Excerpts of Questions & Answers
Tokyo International Rainwater Utilization Conference
March 1995, 41 pages
The rain falling on the roof of the Sumida City Office, an 18-storey
building completed in 1990, is collected in an underground 1000 m3
tank. The drainage from the bathrooms and restaurants in the
building as well as the rainwater, is sterilized and used for flushing
toilets. .
According to data from 1993, the amount of water used for flushing
toilets for that year was about 13,600m3. 7000m3 of that was
rainwater, and recycled drainage accounted for 4000m3. This means
that within the City Office alone, 11,000m3 of water were saved
during that one year. This amount is equivalent to the amount of
water needed to fill approximately 55,000 family bathtubs (200
liters).
Water-Saving Devices
Compiled by Lone Hansen, Andrew Giles
BSRIA (The Building Services Research and Information Assoc. Bracknell,
Berkshire, UK
One of six reports in a series on Environmentally Friendly Systems and Products
Published in October 1997, 49 pages
This series of reports was funded by the Department of Trade and Industry and a
group of industrial sponsors.
Market report now available from BSRIA, priced E.250.
Contact Rachel Slater or Peter Cooke Tel: +44 1344426511, Fax: +44 1344487575
peterCo@ b~ria.~Q!.!ll~
The Water Saving Devices report reviews the market for these products
world-wide, assesses their market potential in the UK and examines what can be
done to increase the uptake of this technology. Those water saving devices
analysed in the report include:
. Rain water recycling products/systems
. Grey water recycling products/systems
. Waterless urinals
"There are two categories of waste water: grey and black water. Grey water is all
http://www.cityfarmer .org/ rainbarrel72.html
09/08/2001
City Farmer: Rain Barrels
Page 7 of 8
waste water from baths, showers and hand basins, domestic appliances and
fittings. Black water is fouled water from toilets and bidets. The grey water that
can be recycled is approximately 26% of the average consumption in a domestic
dwelling (or 47% if the washing machine is included). The water used for toilet
flushing is approximately 33% and outside use is approximately 3% of the
average consumption. Grey water for toilet flushing can be supplemented by
mains or rain water. The pay back time for grey water systems using waste water
for toilet flushing is between 7 and 15 years depending on capital costs (E500-
El,OOO) and based on an average price of E1.28 per M3. The pay back time is
reduced to 4-8 years in the South West where the price per M3 is E2.30. The
payback time for grey water systems is shorter than rainwater systems but the
manufacturers/installers need to consider the end users perception and attitude,
health and safety aspects and legislation and planning permission. "
EnyjIQ~tnl(
"Envirosink is an environmentally helpful additional, or secondary sink that
utilises all standard plumbing fittings. Envirosink allows you to conserve the
'light' gray water from your kitchen. Envirosink is the only system that allows
some catchment of water at the kitchen sink -- to help fill your rain barrel in the
dry season."
Bermuda
"Here in Bermuda all residential properties catch rainwater on the
roof. This is constructed of lapped limestone slate on a timber frame.
The water collected drains down into a water tank which is located
beneath the house. The general rule of thumb is that the tank must be
large enough to hold, in gallons, an amount calculated by multiplying
the roof area of the house by eight and a quarter. This water
collection system has been in use for many, many
years." (Department of Planning, Bermuda)
Department of Planning
Government Administration Building
30 Parliament Street, Hamilton HMI2, Bermuda
Phone: (809) 295-5151
Fax: (809) 295-4100
Rainwater Collection Systems
Videotape and Booklet, revised 1995
Morris Media Associates, Inc.
4306 Wildridge Circle
Austin, Texas 78759 USA
http://www.cityfarmer .orgjrainbarreI72.html
09/08/2001
City Farmer:Rain Barrels
Page 8 of 8
"Rainwater Collection Systems is the story of three families from the
Texas Hill Country who collect rainwater for all their household
needs, including drinking. And they would say 'especially' drinking!
'When emergency room physician Dr. Mike McElveen and his wife
Kathy decided to collect enough rainwater for all their needs, their
system became the model for others in their area to follow. A 50 page
booklet accompanies each half-hour video.'
Emergency Water, Soft Water, Chemical Free Water from Plastmo
Non mechanical Igi!I}Ygte'Ldjy~rt~rused to collect water for chlorine sensitive
plants.
New Feature! Se_ar~b~ur_Sit~ NEW
~ Return to Contents' Page ~
Revised May 28, 2001
Published by City Farmer
Canada's Office of Urban Agriculture
QJt--yX a rmjg)~nt~:r:::Ql:J(~J!9-~-"j,lJ:)~..,-.Q_q
http://www.cityfarmer .org/rainbarreI72.html
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 1 of 9
Yj~itJhg_'ErieDd~QLBi't!l$ettCrGek'WeJ:l.$jte
----
Rain Gardens
----
- - - - This Raingarden Pamphlet in Adobe Acrobat PDF Format (1.2m) - - __
Gardening with Water Quality in Mind
When you make a garden a "rain garden" you can improve local water
quality while creating a beautiful natural area that will attract birds and
butterflies. Rain gardens allow rain and snowmelt to seep naturally into
the ground. This helps recharge our groundwater supply, and prevents
a water quality problem called polluted runoff. Rain gardens are an
important way to make our cities more attractive places to live while
building urban ecological health.
What makes a garden a rain garden? All it takes is a few simple steps in
the following three areas: .
Landscaping:
Rain gardens are designed with a dip at the center to collect rain and
snow melt. Any degree of indentation is useful, from slight dips made
with your garden trowel to large swales created by professional
landscapers. Neatly trimmed shrubs, a crisp edge of lawn, stone
retaining walls and other devices can be used to keep garden edges neat
and visually appealing.
Location:
http://www.mninter.net/~stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 2 of 9
Strategic placement next to hard surfaces such as alleys, sidewalks,
driveways and under gutters makes your rain garden effective.
Following you will find descriptions for how rain gardens can work in
the front, side and back sections of your property.
Plant choices:
Hardy native species that thrive in our ecosystem without chemical
fertilizers and pesticides are the best choices. Manyrain gardens
feature shrubs as well as wild flowers and grasses. As a rule, the less
"turf' on lawns, the better it is from a water quality stand point -- turf-
style lawns create a harder surface which does not absorb water as
readily as garden areas. Also, turf-style lawns often require chemical
treatments and extra water to look uniform. Yards that feature native
plants, grasses and shrubs are much easier to maintain.
What is polluted runoff?
Polluted runoff is a big problem in urban areas where much
of the ground is covered with hard surfaces such as roofs,
streets, parking lots and sidewalks. Before development, rain
and snow melt seeped slowly into the earth. Now water flows
quickly across hard surfaces, picking up pollutants -- from
organic particles, pesticides, fertilizers, gas, oil and other
types of residue -- before dumping into storm drains. Once in
the storm sewer system the water flows into local lakes and
streams. In most cases it is not treated or cleaned in any way.
Here in the Twin Cities almost all storm water eventually
ends up in the Mississippi River -- our precious, world-class
resource that is also the source of much of our drinking
water.
Front yard gardens:
Gardens along the front of homes and businesses are particularly useful
from a water quality and aesthetic standpoint. Their proximity to the
street makes front yard gardens an effective place to collect water that
has run off of your roof, yard, driveway and sidewalk before it hits the
stormwater system. Because they are highly visible to people passing by
http://www.mninter.net/~stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 3 of 9
on the street or sidewalk, front yard raingardens also add to the beauty
of the neighborhood.
If the rainwater collection area is larger and the raingarden smaller,
http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 4 of 9
then in some cases overflow or excess standing water may become
a problem. Small culverts and/or swales may be useful in these
cases to move excess water from one raingarden to another that has
extra capacity. There may even be a community raingarden that
receives water from a number of adjacent properties.
Front yard gardens can be created:
. At the end of the roof gutter to capture run off from the roof.
. Along front walkway to keep runoff from traveling down the
sidewalk and into the storm sewer.
. Along the city sidewalk to act as a buffer between your lawn and
the street.
. On the city-owned boulevard to stop runoff from entering the
street.
Property owners with front yards that slope to the sidewalk may choose
to incorporate stone walls. With the addition of wall features, collection
points can become deeper and more useful from a water filtration stand
point. If the wall is decorative and combined with neatly edged turf, the
area will be beautiful throughout the year.
Side yard gardens:
Gardens along the side of your home or business can catch runoff from
your roof, create a "living fence" between properties and channel runoff
to front or back yard gardens. Some homeowners create wide side yard
gardens that become wider still in the back yard. This style of garden
can minimize the amount of "turf' in your back yard that needs to be
mowed. Creating wild areas along the side of your house ensures that
you can look out your window and see beautiful plants, birds and
butterflies. Don't plant tall shrubs right next to your windows if you are
concerned about people hiding there. Also, make sure dips for
capturing runoff channel water away from your house to avoid
basement flooding problems.
Back yard gardens:
Back yard gardens can keep water from running down the alley and
into storm sewers. Like side yard gardens, back yard gardens can also
help minimize the amount of high-maintenance turf-style lawn on your
property. Most people place their largest gardens in the back yard. If
http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 5 of 9
you already have a large back yard garden, you can easily add a water
filtration component by creating dips that will hold and filter water.
. In any location, a rain garden's basic feature is a dip or swale.
Shrubs are often planted at the center and surrounded by wild
flowers.
Q: - How do I turn a section of my yard into a rain garden?
A: - Simply remove sod, dig a shallow depression and plant with native
plants.
Q: - Don't rain gardens attract a lot of mosquitoes?
A: - Not really. Mosquitoes thrive and breed in standing water. Most
mosquitoes breed in places like junk-piles where there are old tires or
tin cans. There is rarely standing water in a well-designed rain garden.
Q: - Can I create a rain garden that doesn't look too wild or
messy?
A: - The way to make a rain garden, or any garden, appear 'well kept' is
to keep the edges tidy. Tall plants and grasses tend to "flop-over" so if
you want a neat silhouette, you will want to stick with short species. To
keep native plants from growing too large, remember not to water
them!
Q: - What happens to water-tolerant plants when we have a dry
spell?
A: - Native plants can withstand a range of weather conditions. Native
plants that do well in poorly drained soil will be fine during dry
weather.
Q: - How large must a rain garden be to be worthwhile?
http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm
09/0812001
Rain Gardens
Page 6 of 9
A: - Any water that seeps into the ground instead of running into a
storm sewer helps water quality. A rain garden of any size has a positive
impact.
Neighborhood raingardens can provide recreation opportunities, re-
create wetlands and add aesthetic value to our urban communities.
Neighborhood Projects:
The overall landscape pattern of our cities includes easements and
small public properties. These areas are ideal for gardens that improve
the ecological functioning and the aesthetic value of our communities.
In the Twin Cities, our proximity to the Mississippi River and its
network of tributary creeks and streams provides many opportunities
for protecting this great waterway through restoration of former
natural areas.
Across the country, urban communities are realizing the economic,
social and environmental benefits of creating stormwater filtration
projects and restoring native vegetation. Twin City based efforts
include work in the neighborhoods surrounding St. Paul's Lower
Phalen Creek and Minneapolis' Bassett Creek -- Mississippi River
tributaries that have been degraded and partially buried as storm
sewers.
Residents, businesses, employees and government agencies are
working together to recreate natural areas and improve water quality in
Lower Phalen Creek and Bassett Creek. Efforts, which are spearheaded
by St. Paul's Friends of Swede Hollow and Minneapolis' Friends of
Bassett Creek, include promoting rain gardens as well as:
. Recreating wetlands and other natural areas.
. Improving and enhancing existing parks and natural
areas through removal of invasive trees, planting of
native species and increasing public access.
. Creating and extending public bicycle and pedestrian
trails to provide new recreation opportunities and
connections to the Mississippi River.
Rain gardens in action!
http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 7 of 9
There are a number of sites where rain gardens are being installed to
add beauty to our cities while capturing and filtering stormwater.
Friends of Swede Hollow and the City of St. Paul are installing a rain
garden demonstration site on Seventh Street near the Swede Hollow
Cafe.
The St. Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium is building a rain
garden at their new site on Selby and Dale. Through this project, an
existing parking lot's impervious surfaces are being reduced by about 17
percent.
To see a residential rain garden, take a look at the yard on 118 Virginia
Street (one half block north of Summit Avenue, near Western in St.
Paul). The rain garden is visible from the sidewalk.
Native Plants for Rain Gardens
Below is a list of native plant and shrub options for wet soils in the
center of rain gardens:
Native Plants for Wet Soils --- Sunny-
Areas:
· Sweet -Elag - - -:: - - - - (Acorus ~alamus)
. Giant Hyssop* - - - - - - (Agastache foeniculum)
· Canada Anemone - - - - (Anemone canadensis)
· Marsh Milkweed* - - -:: (Asclepias incarnata)
· New England Aster* - - (Aster novae-angliae)
· Marsh Marigold - -= - - (Caltha palustis)
· Tussock Sedge - - - - (Carex stricta)
. Turtlehead* - - -= - -= - (Chelone glabra)
· JoePye Weed* - - - - - (Eupatoriummaculatum)
. Boneset - - - - - - - - (Eupatorium perfoliatum)
· Queen Qf the Prairie* -= (Filipendula rubral -=
· Sneezeweed - - - - - - (Helenium autumnale)
· J31ueflag Jris - - - - - - (Iris versicolor)
· Soft Rush - - - - - - - (Juncus effusus)
· Q:reatBlue Lobelia - - (Lobelia siphilitica)
· Switchgrass*::= - - - -= (panicum yirgatuml
· Prairie Phlox -= -= - -= - -= (Ehlox 12ilosa)
http://www.mninter.net/~stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
-Mountain Mint - - - - - (Pycnanthemum virginianum)
· River Bulrush - - - - - (Scirpus tluviatilis)
· Softstem Bulrush - - - (Scirpus validus)
. Riddell's Goldenrod - - (Solidago riddellii)
· Tall Meadow Rue* - - - (Thalictrum dasycarpum)
· Culvers Root* - - - - - (Yeronicastrum virginicum)
· Golden Alexander - - - (Zizia aurea)
Native Plants for Wet Soils --- Shad}!
Areas:
· Caterpiller Sedge - - - (Carex crinita)
· Cardinal Elower*: - - - (Lobelia ~ardinalis)
· Ostrich Fern* - - - - - (Matteucci a struthiopteris)
· Virginia Bluebells - - - (Mertensia verginica)
· Sensitive Fern: - - - - illnoclea ~ensibilis)
*Likely to grow taller than three feet.
Shrubs --- Sunny or Shady Areas:
- Black Chokeberry - - - (Aronia melanocarpa)
. Red Osier Dogwood - - (Cornus serecia)
· Low Bush Honeysuckle - (Diervilla lonicera)
· Annabelle Hydrangea - - (Hydrangea arborescense 'Annabelle')
. pussy Willow - - - - - (Salix caprea}
- Blue Arctic Willow - - - (Salix purpurea 'Nanna')
Shrubs --- Sunny Areas Only--:-"
-Meadow Sweet - - - - (Spiraea alba)
· Steeplebush - - : - - - (Spiraea tomentosa)
· High Bush Cranberry - (Viburnum trilobum)
For purchasing native plants and seeds:
· Prairie Restorations Inc: 888-389-4342
- Landscape Alternatives: 651-488-3142
- PrgirLe_MQQnJ~"_l!I$~ry (mail order only): 507-452-1362
http://www.mninter.net/~stack/rain/index.htm
Page 8 of 9
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 9 of 9
For information on gardening with native plants, runoff pollution prevention
and workshop opportunities, call the St Paul Neighborhood Energy
Consortium: 651--644-7678
For information on native plant demonstration sites, classes, youth gardening
projects or starting a community garden, call the Sustainable Resources Center
Urban Lands Program: 612--872-3288
R~a~:lPJlbli~h~~ln~}'Y$p-ap~rgrtjd~.__Qngl1~ighbQIh_QQdIaiJ:J_g~1rd~n~
r~trQfiUingprQj~ctalQng_a_dty~tI~J~1.
Some Rain Garden Links:
::--=-EnyirQm':ngnlg,L:Pr91~Gti~mAg~nGy_(E:PA) ur:b!:m_I1JnQfL!:l,pd_min_gg,rd~]1~-,-
::.=_:R1JnQff tre_C!tI!lent_g,_mLmin_g!:l,rd~nl?gt_JQJ::5iC!n_.CQye,-C9_nlleGTIG1Jt.CEP A).!
:=_RC!in.gg,r.d~ns__C!t:P9J1TQ~~s,_Mmillnd-,-
=.::.R;:l,in.g!:l,rdemL9ct thg__Yirgillit:l.DgRaJJmentQf.IQI~stry
Native plant information was supplied by E[~QBQ.Z.lLl1J_QillkL ~ILEDgln~~J1IJg.
Rain garden text written primarily by Amy Middleton and Sarah Clark.
Funding for this rain garden pamphlet was provided by the M~I\lJigbJ.f.QJ1.!1_d1l1j9J!, Mj!)D~~m~_..Q~Pi!nIll~m_.ciJ::,jlln!!::_~LResoJd[~_~ and
Mi!J!1~Q1:;>Qffj,&.QLEnyj!s'>.nm~glal1b),)j~!1l!!f~. Illustrations reprinted courtesy 1!ni~[lli:).::gfJylj!lne5mi!..R~partlJ1~m__QLkmg!;9P~
Architecture.
(Maintained byDave Stack, Ed McRoberts ;Content@ Friends of Bassett Creek; (Created by Gabe Ormsby); Update 01feb13)
Please email us at s.t?GJs@mDjn\~Ln~t if you notice any links or phone contacts on this website that have died.
http://www.mninter.net/~stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
Demostration Site, Driveway Dry Well
Page 1 of 1
D. Driveway Dry Well
Click here to view ~t\~t11<lLSj~ (Size 80kb)
This drywellsystem serves the dual
purpose of retaining and cleansing
rainwater, giving it time to percolate
into the ground rather than carrying
motor oil and other pollutants into the
storm drain system and out to our
beaches and bays. Rainwater flowing
down the driveway runs through a grate
(see D) into a box containing sand and
crushed rock that captures pollutants.
R~tltrnJ9 DeIl}Qm~trgtiQILSit~
I,..,,~.btll <h"~f)lt"rttU~
~llf.~-;t~
I
it' H~.lf,_ln
......11"'. '(>!II'
, .....IWJIII. l4iult,.,.1lOll , I
.t"'HM. ~tf; "1l1'-l'~t""f1 IN\W''~,, '@ .4hH' 11lto-,HHHlI,'t ~r
http://www.treepeople.org/trees/d.htm 09/08/2001