HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 28, 2000
.,.,'"
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2000
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 #00-010 Affordable Housing Solutions is requesting a Conditional Use Permit
for Stonegate, a 43 unit multiple family dwelling, for the property located in the
southeast corner of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue.
B. Case #00-007 Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church is requesting an amendment to
Section 1107.808 ofthe Zoning Ordinance relating to institutional signs.
C. Case #00-012 Eagle Creek Villas, LLC is requesting Rezoning for the property
located in Section 2, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County.
D. Case #00-013 Eagle Creek Villas, LLC is requesting a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for the property described as Lots 2, 3 & 4, Block 2, Holly Court.
E. Case #00-014 Marvin Mirsch, Sr., is appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision
to not allow a balcony to encroach into a bluff setback as is permitted for a balcony to
encroach into a rear yard setback.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Annual Capital Improvement Program review.
B. Discuss 40' building side yard setback ordinance.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 ,...{,:IOQFIJ.,J;IOIOOPI.CO.MM\OOJll;AoGENWi022809.[)QC .
cagle ueeK !-we. ;:'.C., t"nor LaKe, Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2000
1. Call to Order:
The January 24,2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Cramer at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
V onhof
Criego
Cramer
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the January 10, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-001 Keith Horkey of Keyland Homes is requesting a variance to
the required side yard setback adjacent to a residential district in the C-5
(Business Park) District for the construction of an addition to an existing
building on the property located at 17021 Fish Point Road SE.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 24,
2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received an application for a variance to allow the construction
of an addition to the existing Keyland Homes building on the properly located at 17021
Fish Point Road. They are requesting a 55' variance to permit a structure to be setback
20' from the side yard adjacent to a Residential District rather than the required 75 feet.
Staff felt the proposed request appeared to meet the hardship criteria in that the greater
setback is a result of the annexation and rezoning of the adjacent property, and the
location of the existing building limits the options for the placement of an addition. The
staff therefore recommended approval of this request.
Comments from the public:
Kevin Horkey, Keyland Homes, explained the company needs additional storage would
like to expand and this is the only way to do it.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN012400.DOC 1
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24, 2000
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. The City marketed and sold the property with this in mind.
. Staff pointed out the variance meets all the criteria.
. Supported the request.
..
,. ........'....,.
.,...............
................"
.,:::,::::~j:::~1~f:::....::::::::::::::~::~::::t::::..
V 0 nh of: . .'t~::l:::~~r ..::::t::~~:~::i~~:111t::::..
.
.
Criego:
. Hardships have been met.
. Agreed with staffs recommendation. ..:::::::.....
.\\~~~jj1j1~~~~~~1jjjjjjjjj~~tmt~:~::::::;:....
Cramer: ':\~::\.. ....::::::::~:~(r:::::!::::::::fr~::::.:::::..... .t::::):;:::"
. Questioned landscaping on the back of~E, bui.lgffig.j::rl.~ipr said they were building
a buffer yard and the propo.~et!l1eets all t1\!J;~~tY ordinm.19.ij:::i:equirements.
. Lighting requirements ..}Yi~Jjl;:I!!. -=:::::::::::\ ..:::::.,
~o::::m;;Z:c~ APPROYrnG RESOLUTION 00-
002PC GRANTING A 5:5:11QJ#1'::V~0J.f:tO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF
AN ADDITIq~,.,.I9 AN EXl~fj~G BUILDING IN THE C-5 DISTRICT TO BE
LOCAT~:!?:::~(1atijl\15~OM A::_~::!BFNTIAL DISTRICT RATHER THAN THE
REQ~D 75 FEET\t::f:::::t: ":::::1~1::~:~:}:;:::"
V~indicated ay) all. ~OTION CARRIED
5. OI~::IRsiness: .::~i:::::}:::
"::::~~;im~mt~::;:.. ..:::tt~~::::..
A. Case File .~t;~jO Hillcrest Homes Variance - Resolution
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated January 24,
2000 on file in the office of the Planning Department.
':':':':':':':':':'.
.................................
....... .......
...... .......
..... ......
..... .....
..... ....
On January 10,2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the
requested variances on this property. After reviewing the proposal with respect to the
hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a Resolution approving
the variance to the side yard setbacks but denying a variance to yard encroachment.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mnO 12400.doc
2
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24. 2000
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, APPROVING RESOLUTION 00-
001PC DENYING A 1.92 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EAVE
ENCROACHMENT TO BE 3.08 FEET FROM THE LOT LINE INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 5 FEET.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, APPROVING.l~&PLUTION 00-
003PC GRANTING A 4.08 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A;.?:t:gg:::FQlI.. SIDE
YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 9.16; AND\I~~~.16 F:O~lr::..
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK tSSTEAD..::trilrrHE
REQUIRED 14.16 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FO~.J1PILDING W ALLS::::6~i:~~&J}J
IN LENGTH. ..::::(:::~::ii:i~~!.;::::r::::" ';::::::j::::::::::::::.. .:::::i::::i~~rr:?'
V o~e taken indicated ayes by Stamson, V onhof an&Cf~~~::.. C.P,S8.:::$pstained from
votmg. MOTION CARRIED. ..:::::::::::~:::~t::t~:~::::.. '.'
:: ::o:::~=:~u and corr~pon~~
The deadline for items on th~::g!!aw.rY 14, 26ggtPlanning.(9Binmission meeting will be
tomorrow. As oftoday, t4me:'tmV~~~I;.en no re4q,tsts. The Commissioners will be
:~tified~:::::~
:~~
Conni(fli~!fon:::::::::::W:
ReCOrdin~
..t~~f:"
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nmO I 2400.doc
3
..
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MULTI-FAMILY
DWELLING IN THE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT
(CASE FILE #00-010)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS
SE CORNER OF TOWER STREET AND TORONTO
AVENUE
JENNITOV~PLANNER
-X-YES _NO-N/A
FEBRUARY 28, 2000
On January 23, 2000 a Conditional Use Permit application was received to allow a Multi-
family dwelling on the property located at the southeast comer of Tower Street an.d
Toronto Avenue. . The proposed building will have 43 units with underground parking.
No variances are needed. Staff has reviewed the application, and there are a number of
items to be addressed affecting the site plan and grading of the site. Rather than
presenting a plan with such changes recommended, the applicant has asked the item be
continued to March 13,2000 address these issues prior to Planning Commission review.
REVIEW PROCESS:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit should be reviewed in accordance with the criteria
found in Section 1102.700 and 1108 of the City Code. Section 1102.700 are the specific
CUP conditions for the proposed use and Section 1108 are the general CUP criteria. A
complete analysis will be provided on March 13,2000 with the revised plans.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.200 ofthe City Code sets forth the criteria for approval of a CUP.
(1) The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
f:\dept'P.lanning\OOfi1es\OOeu~OO-O 1 0\00-0 1 Ope.doe 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
"
(2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community as a whole.
(3) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Use District in which the Conditional Use is located.
(4) The use will not have undue. adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
services, or improvements which are either existing or proposed.
(5) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties in close proximity to the conditional use.
(6) The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site and
landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional
landscape architect, or civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota,
approved by the City Council and incorporated as part of the conditions
imposed on the use by the City Council.
(7) The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a professional
civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota which illustrate locations
of city water, city sewer, fire hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and
cable lines, natural gas mains, and other service facilities. The plans shall
be included as part of the conditions set forth in the CUP approved by th.e
City Council.
(8) The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the City
Council may find necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety
and neighborhood character. Such additional conditions may be imposed
in those situations where the other dimensional standards, performance
standards, conditions or requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to
achieve the objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these.
circumstances, the City Council may impose restrictions and conditions on
the CUP which are more stringent than those set forth in the Ordinance
and which are consistent with the general conditions above. The additional
conditions shall be set forth in the CUP approved by the City Council.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends a continuance of the CUP hearing to allow the applicant to submit
revised plans and to allow for adequate time for staff review.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Continue the public hearing to March 13, 2000.
f:\dept\planning\OOfiles\OOeup\OO-O 1 0\00-0 1 Ope.doe
2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends ~ltemative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second continuing the public hearing to March 13, 2000.
f: \dept\planning\OOfiles\OOeup\OO-O 1 0\00-0 lOpe.doe
3
Charles Radloff
V6129415240
IJiJ 2/16/00
~2:40 PM
\j 1/1 - .
,
Charles J. Radloff · Architect
February 16, 2000
Jenni Tovar
Planner
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Stonegate Apartments (Project #34-00)
Dear Jenni,
Per our phone conversation, please be advised that we are requesting an extension of
time to complete with the changes noted on the memorandum faxed to your office this
a.m.
It is our understanding that if we can submit revised drawings by Friday February 25th
we would than be scheduled for the March 13th planning commission meeting.
Sincerely,
Charles J. Radloff
Reg. Architect
9979 VALLEY VIEW ROAD-SUITE 256 -EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 - 612.941.1667
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO (Case
File #00-007)
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER
.lL YES NO
FEBRUARY 28, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant, Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church, is requesting an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for institutional signs greater than
six (6) feet in height and to allow for illuminated signs within residential zoning
districts. Institutional signs and illuminated signs are differentiated within the
ordinance. Illuminated signs are permitted only within Commercial and Industrial
Use Districts.
Institutional signs are defined as signs which identify the name and other
characteristics of a public or semi-public institution on the property where the
sign is located. A public or semi-public use could include schools, public
buildings, libraries, religious institutions, parks, etc. The Zoning Ordinance
regulates institutional signs as follows:
1107.808 "Institutional Signs: Freestanding or wall institutional signs are
permitted in any Use District provided that the total sign area does
not exceed 75 square feet. Freestanding signs may be no higher
than 6 feet above the center line grade of the adjacent street."
The applicant is requesting the ordinance be changed to read as follows:
1107.808" Institutional Signs: Freestanding or wall institutional signs are
permitted in any Use District provided that the total sign area does
not exceed 75 square feet. Freestanding signs may be no higher
than 6 feet above the center line grade of the adjacent street; the
exception being that along Highway 13, the sign may not exceed 8
feet above the grade at the base of the signs. Signs along the
route of Highway 13 may be lighted by a steady light source
16200 ....I:\QOfilaa\OOQrdamd\zoning\0D,Oonoo..oo7D~doc
cagre ~reeK lWe.~.t:.., F'nor Lake, IVnnnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
feet above the grade at the base of the signs. Signs along the
route of Highway 13 may be lighted by a steady light source
without causing glare for motorists, pedestrians, or neighboring
properly. 11
DISCUSSION:
Staff received verbal comments from MnDOT and the Scott County highway
department. Their concerns were regarding the specification of Hwy 13 and the
glare to motorists. City staff shares their concerns and suggests allowing
internally illuminated institutional signs on all collector and arterial streets as
designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Specifically, religious uses must be located on a collector or arterial street as
required in the Zoning Ordinance within the R-1 uses. This would be consistent
with the access requirement. Furthermore, institutional uses include schools and
most of the schools within the City are located within R-1 Zoning District with
access to a collector or arterial street.
With respect to height, staff feels an amendment increasing the allowable height
is not warranted. Rather a clarification of the language to specify a maximum
height of 6 feet from the adjacent grade or centerline of the adjacent road,
whichever is higher. In this case, if the sign location were on a hill, the grade
of the hill would be the determining grade. If the sign location were below the
grade of the adjacent road, the height of the sign would be determined by the
grade of the adjacent road, so as to be visible. '
The Planning Commission must make a recommendation with findings to
amend the ordinance with respect to the following criteria:
There is a public need for the amendment; or
The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies of the
City; or
The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or federal
requirements.
Staff feels there is a public need for an amendment to allow illuminated
institutional signs. Illuminated signs would identify public and semi-public
gathering sites after sunset. Staff recommends a Zoning Ordinance amendment
to allow for internally illuminated institutional signs on arterial and collector
streets and to clarify the maximum height as measured from the adjacent grade
or centerline of adjacent road, whichever is greater. The specific language is
included in the attached draft ordinance.
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-OO7\OO-007pc.doc
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment with
modifications as recommended by staff and indicated in the attached ordinance
amendment.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Amendment
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-OO7\OO-007pc.doc
Page 3
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 00- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1107.808 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE
The City Council ofthe City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
Section 1107.808 ofthe Prior Lake City Code is amended as follows:
Institutional Sig:ns: Freestanding or wall institutional signs are permitted in any Use District
provided that the total sign area does not exceed 75 square feet. Internally
illuminated signs are permitted if the sign is located so it faces a collector
street or arterial road as identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Freestanding signs may be no higher than 6 feet above the adjacent grade
or center line grade of the adjacent street, whichever is higher.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of
, 2000.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
, 2000.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
\ \fs I \sys\dept\p lanning\OOfi les\OOordamd\zoning\OO-O07\draftord.doc
PAGEl
Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church
16840 Highway 13 South
Prior Lake, MN 55372
...._-..- --, P, G n \\{J r;;' ~~
; 'i i ,:"_~<?_I_'?:,__~~ L~
I~i JAN 3 I. '"
January 27, 2000
city of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Amendmentto Sign Ordinance 1107.808
Dear Prior Lake,
The objective of Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church congregation (Faith) is to replace our
old sign with a new sign that would blend into the surrounding area, but yet be noticeable
and readable without slowing traffic along Highway 13. The sign that we would like to
install would be 7 1/2 feet above grade, 72 square feet of sign area, and illuminated
internally to avoid glare. To do this, an amendment to the current Zoning Ordinance on
institutional signs would need to be granted to section: 1107.808. Which reads,
"Institutional Sians: Freestanding or wall institutional signs are permitted in any Use
District provided that the total sign area does not exceed 75 square feet. Freestanding
signs may be no higher than 6 feet above the center line grade of the adjacent street'.
Due to the right-of:.way set-backs and the elevation of the church property, the current
zoning would only allow for a sign that would be 2 to 3 feet tall and not very vist'ble at 45
mph. Also, being that Faith is in a residential zoning does not allow for any type of lighting.
Faith would like special consideration to be made to allow for a sign not to exceed 8 feet
tall and to be internally illuminated. Faith justifies this request because of our location along
highway 13, being directly across the street from McDonalds, County Market, Fairview
Clinic, and we would be one of four signs out of the thirty-seven signs along highway 13
that would follow these guidelines. Even though most of these signs are commercial signs,
in commercial zoning, we believe it would be a poor reflection on Faith to have anything
less then what is common through this route in Prior Lake. WhatFaith is allowed to put in
for sign will be a first impression for Prior Lake and Faith for anyone coming into town
from the south. To have a purposeful sign blending with the rest of Highway 13 Faith
would like this amended to ordinance 1107.808: "Institutional Sians: Freestanding or wall
institutional signs are permitted in any Use District provided that the total sign area does
not exceed 75 square feet. Freestanding signs may be no higher than 6 feet above the
center line grade of the adjacent street; the exception being that along Highway 13, the
sign may not exceed 8 feet above the grade at the base of the sign. Signs along the
route of Highway 13 may be lighted by a steady light souICe without causing glare for
motorists, pedestrians, or neighboring property. n Since we are not asking for anything
unique, or out of the ordinary from any other sign, Faith would also like to plead with the
city to waive the $350.00 fee. This change could benefit other institutions along Highway
city to waive the $350.00 fee. This change could benefit other institutions along Highway
13, plus we are a non-profit religious origination.
Faith has been in the same location and part of the community for over twenty-five years
now, and even some long term residents of Prior lake are not aware that there is even
church across from McDonalds and County Market. We do not want to necessarily stand-
out, but we do want to be noticed.
4~~
Corey McDonald
Faith Ev. Lutheran Church Treasurer! Sign Committee Chairman
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4C
CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY EAGLE
CREEK VILLAS, LLC, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 114, RANGE 22 (Case File
#00-012)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
FEBRUARY 28, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, has filed an application for a Zone Change for the property
located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and
Priorwood Street, directly north of Five Hawks School. The request is to rezone the
property from the PUD 82-12 Districtto the R-4 (High Density Residential) District.
BACKGROUND:
In 1981, the City Council approved the rezoning of the subject site, which included this
property and property to the south, to the R-3 (High Density Residential) District. Under
the ordinance in effect at that time, this would have permitted 210 units on 15.05 acres of
land. In 1982, the City Council approved a Schematic PUD plan, called the Priorview
PUD, which provided for 106 units, a street connection from Five Hawks Avenue to
Cates Street, and the preservation of site amenities. The first phase of the development,
consisting of 48 townhomes, was approved in 1983. The second phase, consisting of 20
units, was approved in 1991.
In 1997, the applicant filed an application to amend the existing Priorview PUD (pUD
82-12) to develop this site with an assisted living facility. As part of this PUD
amendment, the City Council also approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,
designating this property for R-HD (High Density Residential) uses. Although a
preliminary plan for this amendment was approved, the developer never proceeded to the
final plan stage.
At this time, the applicant is considering a new development plan for this property as a
senior housing campus, consisting of four buildings with 169 units. Rather than amend
the existing PUD, the applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property to the R-4 district.
1:\OOfiles\OOrezone\OO-012\00012pc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
..
The proposed development, depending on the design, will require at least a conditional
use permit under the R-4 regulations.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Existing Use: This site is presently vacant land. The school district has been using a
portion ofthe land as an outdoor learning center.
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: The property to the west of this site is zoned R-1 (Low
Density Residential) and is designated for R-LIMD (Low to Medium Density Residential)
uses. This property is developed with single family homes.
The property to the east is zoned R-2, and is designated as R-LIMD. This property is
developed with townhouses.
To the south of this site is Five Hawks School, zoned R-1 and designated for R-L/MD
uses. Also to the south is the existing portion of the Priorview PUD, zoned PUD 82-12,
and designated as R-HD.
To the north of this site are single family homes and townhouses, zoned R-3 and
designated for R-LIMD uses.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for R-HD (High Density
Residential) uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposed
development is consistent with the designation.
ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the following policies for
amendments to the Official Zoning Map:
. The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical
or administrative error, or
. The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of
the area, or
. The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will be appropriate on
the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
This proposal meets the first two criteria. There has been no construction activity on this
site since 1991. Continuing the PUD designation seems to be impractical at this stage.
Rezoning the property to the R-4 district is consistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and with the current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
I :\OOfiles\OOrezone\OO-O 12\000 12pc.doc
Page 2
designation. Development of the property will still require public review at the time a
specific development application is submitted.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Zone Change as requested.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1. The proposed R-4 district is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second to recommend approval of the Zone Change from the PUD 82-12
district to the R-4 (High Density Residential) district.
1 :\OOfiles\OOrezone\OO-O 12\000 12pc.doc
Page 3
Creekside Estates Re-zoning
J~
I l.::: 11
.~~
"'.321
J~
~
11
MAIN ST.
rt 11 . 1 31 21
ZI .. .. 211 27 211
10 1 12 13
15 1 17 18
518171811211212223
<( 10
JHJ
RIOiARD
11
Alll7N
15
.. 3 2 11 10
· f 1
. 3
--.-
.'785
3 2 1
14 13 12 1
10 . a 7
E 'AI: D'r
~ .
l~ 1 A., · ~.m Jp~~. ~ pO~~~~ 'f;J lAKIlsl::E
,;I ... .= c . :\ 3.. . I 10
. ~,(I) ~ i~ ~ 1 EST :rES
3 il~ 2NO AI~' cl' ~
2 0 AOO'N . . .C/~~ ,CONO.~
1 ~ '1t..HRITO \ -', ~ ~
~ I mrm C';tl~~N
:! _ F;W;U lim~ 4 .
, ~. - - r--
I 13. $1111~ ___ . .,
- I :i.~ ~~
" ~~ A · .J....r--I ~ , tlt<ES10
"'- 181 - _\: 2 2 1
~~ "' C B . l,..-r- ~. :f!\,ES
~
W. 1
:s .
PLEASANT AV.
, .... .
""'"
ST. MONL'S C
CATES ST. S.E.
1 ~~. anlOrA
~~
~ ~
2 \.\. '{ .,..oITfIT
3
3 . .
1 .
A~"....~RI
VILLAS A '-
.. ac ..
. ~o ;... I : l . = .... I :
_ IlL
~ PRIORWOOO
~Ef3 1m tL]8JITlrnrnrn~
~ ttI~ m EAGLE CREEK ~I
q,<P~~b~ 1 · · 10
~~! ~'P . I .. ~
. 12 ~
EAGLE
co" anlOr. " 15 14 13 12
10 .
.\~~\ 1
v2~
-4 Z!< 3:!'C
!E a::.
~ ~ en
...
.1t'~1 ~b?~. i-r"" ·
11 10
N~ 1..01
.."
<
I
.~
r Z
0
~ Q.
~
~
A g!
en
w
~
..
- ARST I
j J... ~
1 ~ 2
,,<A
q,~ ~~
~
ci}3
0.;
-
S\~Y'
13
11
12
-
!IJ
., 1 ~ 13
.. )jg !P ..
I ",. S lJi~
:t:~. 15
U ~ ~ ,
~. ~ 0" ~.
"}o ~11 ·
"5.
~
!:! t'IANOIUCII.
~
~ WJI6Wj
Ii.
SYN:D
-
2 ~
~\. 'J ui
~ Ul
Ii
o
w
o
- ~
w
w
a:
o
..
2~
-
~~~~ 4
~ \ ~ ,.....
~
o
I
400
800 Feet
~
N
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
(612) 447-2131
MEMO'RANDUM
DATE:
Prior Lake Planning Department
Bryce D. Huemoeller, Esq.
Eagle Creek Villas LLC - Land Use Application for Termination of
PUD, Rezoning and Other Matters
February 1, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Parcel A
That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter eN Ih of SW ~) of Section 2,
Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying North of a line commencing. at
the Southwest corner of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence North along the
West line thereof 2080.5 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
South 88051'30" East to the East line of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter and there
terminating. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the plats of SPRING BROOK PARK,
SPRING BROOK PARK 2ND ADDITION, PRIORVIEW FIRST ADDITION and
PRIORVIEW SECOND ADDITION.
Parcel B
Lots 2,3 and 4, Block 2, HOLLY COURT, Scott County, Minnesota.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Applicant and Freedom Development and Consulting LLC propose to construct a
senior housing campus, containing 4 buildings with 169 units, on a 12.7 acre parcel
consisting of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 2, HOLLY COURT, and an adjacent parcel that is
currently part of PUD 82-12. The campus would include an assisted living facility, senior
rental units and senior condominium owner/occupied housing. A copy of the preliminary
site plan for the project is attached to this Memorandum.
1
Prior Lake Planning Department
Page 2
February 1, 2000
Approximately 3 acres of the site is a wetland to be permanently reserved as a nature
area for use by the school district for educational purpos~s.
REQUESTED ACTIONS
1. Terminate or vacate PUD 82-12.
2. Affirm the underlying zoning of Parcel A as R-4 High Density Residential, or
rezone Parcel A to R-4.
3. Rezone Parcel B from R-2 to R-4 High Density Residential.
4. Amend Section 1108.808 to permit concurrent processing of comprehensive plan
amendments and requests for zoning changes and/or conditional use permits.
5. In the alternative to the amendment requested in Paragraph 4 above, grant a
variance from the strict application of Section 1108.808 to allow concurrent consideration of a
comprehensive plan amendment and request for rezoning as to Parcel B.
REASONS FOR CHANGE OF DESIGNATION.
Parcels A and B, as presently zoned, are inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan 2010. Although the Comprehensive Plan designates the land
within PUD 82-12 as Urban High Density (R-HD), the current density allowable under PUD
82-12 is approximately 40 units.
Parcel B, consisting of the three southerly lots in Block 2 of Holly Court, is physically
separated by a wetland from nearby R-2 property in the various plats comprising Lakeside
Estates and its additions.
Block 2 of Holly Court is adjacent to PUD 82-12 and should be developed in
conjunction with the land in PUD 82-12.
Since the land in PUD 82-12 has a comprehensive plan designation of R-HD and a
zoning classification of R-4, per land use and zoning maps at the City Planning Office, Block
2 of Holly Court should also be designated as R-HD in the Comprehensive Plan 2010 and its
zoning ultimately reclassified to R-4.
The R-HD designation will be consistent with the density for this area and overall City
goals for affordable and senior housing. Recent studies by the Prior Lake EDA and the Scott
2
Prior Lake Planning Department
Page 3
February 1, 2000
County HRA affirm the need for rental and senior housing in Prior Lake, and the proposed
project will help satisfy the documented housing shortage.
The proposed amendment to Section 1108.808 to permit concurrent processing of
comprehensive plan amendments and request for zoning changes and/or conditional use
permits will streamline and reduce the cost of development in Prior Lake. The current
ordinance doubles the time needed to change the comprehensive plan designation and rezone
property. Such delay causes an unnecessary burden on landowners.
The application contains an alternative request for a variance of Section 1108.808
applicable in the event that the City Council elects not to amend the ordinance to allow
concurrent processing of comprehensive plan amendments and zoning matters. The applicant
believes that a hardship exists in that the applicant desires to make a reasonable use of the lots
within Block 2 of Holly Court (that is, construct a high density senior housing project on the
lots in conformance with City goals and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan), the proposed
use is currently prohibited in the R-2 zone, the requested ordinance change unrelated to the
actions of the applicant, the property is unique in that it is topographically aligned and must be
developed in conjunction with the land in PUD 82-12 notwithstanding being part of the plat of
Holly Court, and the request is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake
Comprehensive Plan 2010 and the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, because Lots
2, 3 and 4, Block 2, Holly Court, are physically separated by a significant wetland from the
nearby R-2 area and therefore must be developed in conjunction with the land in PUD 82-12,
no reasonable use presently exists for Lots 2, 3 and 4. The request satisfies all requirements
contained in the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance for approval of a variance, as well as the
criteria for the issuance of a variance set forth in Minn.Stat. ~462.357, Subd. 6.'
3
~!S~
ON=>
~l!l~
tn in t;
i =~~
~ ....-ca
'" "';:!1lI
~ -118
en 1111)
- "...
Q ;} N :-JCI)
tlz '" ~...
g~ ~ 0 o,,~
Zz,..
I 8 " ~ 952.;
~IQ Z -Ikc-t
~ ~ -., i Iii 5:.
"~ j! " ..j~ liiliii
~~ iJ Z i:!sz ww N
": <:l - 9 s.,~ ~~z .~ i
01 Z i ceCla.. ClI:f5w ...
~:z: 9 9 f3~~ ~~~
"2 5 2 li!~15 UU::;! Z
::;!i . ,. ,...... ~~15 ...
..
;;; =~:g rnuu- 0
15...
...0
.
.1,
II,
II~
~!S I:
~N!
~8a::
....l:;~
:81:;
~ ~~"!
~ ~:~
...
.. 1I!2l!i
~ ~...
~ u~:
z~~
!l 952,,;
~ -Q:'N
In ~:.
!J >)--c
~ .t! alCD=
... ~t;~ ~~:
15 ~ ~.. ~~&
-' t: i ~ 8B..J
~ ~ ~ w~:!
:: ~ ~ ~~g
~~
f;jl:!ll:;
l!il!i~
~tnf5
.~~
~t:icn
~~i
.
.12l!i
~:
CI! ii:!!
;j 952,..:
Iii i:;
<:l ~ liilii~
9l!:li!!l i ~~~
""It -5~ A. ~:z
b i~tJ z !;~~
-' We" W 000
fii3: ~ uU-J
=:)~ ~~g
01:;: l!l Iii.,...
. -.._~
_..:~~~
~
0')
c-.J
~
II
:i:li
J- I
Z I
<( I
-.I
( Q.. .
0
W~
I-'fl
(f)~
@ Q) C
", (J) co
. Ci5 ::J a:
C-c
Q) C
.c
~~
a.
E
8
co
~
~
CO
I
~
--
u..
Q) ~ ~ ~I- ~ (;
~ .~ l:l! .lQ ~ .g ~
"C ~ 1i~ ~~!E =Sb5-
jg 5~B_- j~~16~!
~ ~di Uh~t 11 r~g
Nh~~ I nd~ Ii ~hd
11111 ~ IIIII j I ~ 1011
------------------
;..
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4D
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE EAGLE CREEK
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 2, 3, & 4, BLOCK
2, HOLLY COURT (Case File #00-013)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
-- -
FEBRUARY 28, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION~
Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, has filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for the property located on the sonth side of Cates Street, sonth of the platted end of
Holly Court. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
from the current R-IlMD (Low to Mediwn Residential) designation to the R4ID (High
Density Residential) designation on approximately 45,000 square feet ofland.
BACKGROUND;.
This property was originally platted as part of Holly Court in 1977. The five lots in
Block 2 have never been developed, primarily due to the wetland on Lots 1 and 5. In
1998, Lots 1 and 5 were acquired by the State of Minnesota as part of a tax forfeiture
proceeding.
In 1997, the applicant included this property in an application to amend the existing
Priorview PUD (pUD 82-12). Although a preliminary plan for this amendment was
approved, the developer never proceeded to the final plan stage. AB part of the
amendment, the developer also filed a petition to vacate the Holly Court right-of.way and
utility easements. This vacation was approved subject to approval of a final plat. Again,
since the developer did not proceed to the final plan stage, this vacation has never been
recorded.
This property is presently zoned R-3 (Mediwn Density Residential) and is designated as
R-IlMD (Low to Mediwn Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map.
At this time, the applicant is considering developing this property in conjunction with the
property to the south, which is designated as R-HD (High Density Residential) on the
1:\OOfiles\Oocompam\OO-013\OOO13pc.dOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S. E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~
.;
2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. (The applicant has also filed an application to
rezone the adjacent property from PUD 82-12 to R-4.) In order to ensure the designation
and zoning of this property is consistent with the adjacent property, the applicant is
requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment is approved, the
applicant will file an application for a rezoning on this site.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS~
Total Site Area: The total site consists of approximately 45,000 square feet.
Topography: The site generally drains to the wetland to the north. A portion of the site
Was actually graded under the approved preliminary plat in 1997.
Yegetation~ There are some existing trees located on this site, although a portion of the
site has been graded. Any development on the site is subject to the Tree Preservation
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A specific tree inventory will be required once a
specific development plan, such as a preliminary plat, is submitted.
Wetlands; The site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act.
A specific delineation will be required as part of the development application.
Access.,;. The most logical access to this site is from the property to the south. Although
the platted right-of-way provides access to these three existing lots, the existing wetland
across Lots 1 and 5 make this access unlikely.
Utilities: Sewer and water services must be extended from the existing services located
in Five Hawks Avenue and Priorview Street to the south of this site. These services must
be extended through the property to the south.
ANALYSIS;
This property is best developed in conjunction with the property to the south, since both
the access and utilities must be extended from the south. The property to the south is
designated as R-HD (High Density Residential). This request is consistent with that
designation.
The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives which are applicable to this request are as
follows:
GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT: Encourage the development of
suitable housing in a desirable environment.
OBJECTIVE No.1: Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality
housing.
1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-OI 3\000 13pc.doc
Page 2
OBJECTIVE No.2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality
residential environments.
OBJECTWE No.3: Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the
natural environment and the enjoyment of residents.
The proposed R-HD designation is consistent with the above stated goals and objectives
in that it offers a variety of housing and it provides open space and the preservation of the
natural elements of the site. Furthermore, the designation is consistent with the City's
Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as requested.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
the R-HD designation.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
3. Memorandum from the applicant dated February 1,2000.
1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-013\OOO 13pc.doc
Page 3
HUE MOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
(612) 447-2131
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Prior Lake Planning Department
Bryce D. Huemoeller, Esq.
Eagle Creek Villas LLC .' Land Use Application for Holly Court
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
February 1, 2000
DATE:
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 2, HOLL YCOURT, Scott County, Minnesota.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Applicant and Freedom Development and Consulting LLC propose to construct a
senior housing campus, containing 4 buildings with 169 units, on a 12.7 acre parcel
consisting of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 2, HOLLY COURT, and an adjacent parcel that is
currently part of PUD 82-12. The campus would include an assisted living facility, senior
rental units and senior condominium owner/occupied housing. A copy of the preliminary
site plan for the project is attached to this Memorandum.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT
Change the Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan 2010 designation of the lots in Holly
Court from Urban Low to Medium Densit,y (R-L/MD) to Urban High Density (R-HD).
REASONS FOR CHANGE OF DESIGNATION
The lots in Holly Court are currently designated in the Prior Lake Comprehensive
Plan 2010 as Urban Low to Medium Density with a zoning classification of R-2.
However, the lots are physically separated by a wetland from nearby R-2 property in the
various plats comprising Lakeside Estates and its additions.
1
Prior Lake Planning Department
Page 2
February 1, 2000
Block 2 of Holly Court is adjacent to PUD 82-12 and should be developed in
conjunction with the land in PUD 82-12.
Since the land in PUD 82-12 has a comprehensive plan designation of R-HD and a
zoning classification of R-4, per land use and zoning maps at the City Planning Office, Block
2 of Holly Court should also be designated as R-HD in the Comprehensive Plan 2010 and its
zoning ultimately reclassified to R-4.
The R-HD designation will be consistent with the density for this area and overall City
goals for affordable and senior housing. Recent studies by the Prior Lake EDA and the Scott
County HRA affirm the need for rental and senior housing in Prior Lake, and the proposed
project will help satisfy the documented housing shortage.
2
~~
g !i!;
; ~!!!
S :~
i;
..
~:z:
C/IU
-'~
~
0"-
,"0
;,c~!i
",..'"
:"'15
oOG.
1;;1;;1:;
~ ;?j~
~ :?~5
L II Ill:
~ nsnO
;j" ~;,;
~:!l ~~
OaS
~ ~ ~~~
i< ~ -~~
~ ~CIl mG.I
<!! ~ ~:i~ ~~~
~ - 9 ~Ii;~ ~~:c
9 9 i ~c: :~z. COot
5 a~...J W~W 9'" i
. i i1f! ~~~
;:) =~e ()U~
;;; =~:g ~~e
t.fl:t:
::!
00",
t:iti~
~ ~~t;
:J ;-=d
~ I,ll!
"~'"
;jl; 0
. . ...
~ ,,~:
z"-
!j 9-~~
:;J _IX'"
lil m:~
~ ~ ~ ~~~
9 Ii; ~ ~~~ ..
....b i ZO ~ ~~...z
_ -' ~~.. Is
clt! 000 ..J
~:~ ~u;J
:: :3 ~ ~~g
;,c;,c
.."I
...
1:/"
",'" !i
00",
Inln:
....
1m....
,,"1'"
g~a
I"
IC/I~
~...
~C/1
;j ~~~
~ 9i6..:
Ii; 5:C"
mIL II
o 0>>
l!!~!j ~ lDlD~
~g~ ~ ~~~
itlt;) z ~:~
t:~i ~ ~~:!;
~~i2 0 uU...I
'" '" ~
:~: ~ t1~~
8
~
II
~~i
~!I~ I
ill." II I
.. I:g!!l .. ~ .. II
9 ~9h i '" !i
~~~ 9 . 9 !
In I I
lillll Ii Ii
z
...
..
o
I
II
- ~
'" ..
.cO;;
a-'i
~ Ii
.
II,
III
II..
Ii
Z
<!
--'
0-
o
w.1
t-~
-II
(f)"
J/~-A
m
0')
c-.J
I
L
~
.d:~
----.
Holly Court Comp Plan Amendment
, ~ ~I~'~.t. ,"'." .
A.... .y\,,\~ "'-r--.~.,:! j
,,~~\,~~,~ ~- '~ ~~ ~
25 'V"~ 3 P': I -----
.. ~~ ,.11 2 , 14 ,. ,. , ~ -
21 22 23 ~ · . ; :I.C. 3 2 1 21~D
~ ~_J 2 1 14... ~ 2 11 10 8 a 7 5 4 3 2 1
AIJI"N 1 WI :~ b
MAIN ST.
~" .,( 23..La.,,. 12 13 1 I,.
rt ,. . 1
,. , 17 18
AND ,.
~ "3211'. . , . 3 I,
. . , . . 3 2 ,
MAIN ST.
L
~ ~ 17 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2S 2S Z7 28
1-1- I
22 21 .,
,T
141312110887
5 4 3 2 1
E N. 0'1
PLEASANT AV.
fiCt"~:o 1 .... . I~' ~ ~"" ~. ~~fl')... lAJ<j ISll~
~~ ~.i' I~ ~I~, A, 5.J:t'1 ~~ 10
.~~2 2No A I~ ~~
D i~ ~~~~C'J'C/~~ ~.1016
~ l'11"'lno" . .
JrU'" ,,~~
V:ft~ f.'fm"t1 E..'1)~~1
..... mu II~m~J 4 5
-, r----
· _. 1
-.j~
. ~ rl tke.slO
_ ~~22.
. ~\~I!\I~S
" 22 21
ST. MCI'AB.'S CIUlCH
CATES ST. S.E.
oj
tn '
ui
~
a:
1 ~
am.ar A
5
-I
=>
o
,. .
~.Site::l-ocati()n
I
, EAGLE ~~REEK
I~S A t~a~ - -. 105 II
~\ I ~ - ~7
SL"':::' ~.. . ,,1.. ~
~moeo 11 r. T.1rn~~ ST.
~. :' ~ l..:LJ L.:J..:JL:.L:J r:-Dr:nr=-=:J ITITITm 1
~ ' EAGLE CREE~I...:tJ~-~ ~
I ~~~~~~ ~ ~ 7 · · r ,. VII: ~. ~ ~J iii '-
~4J a' ~~ 10 11 .2 .3 -Ia61fJll. 7
"l' ~O"Y 0- :5 ...
_ w'~
. I ANNA TR. SE.
· 12 l
_ ~;'te.Y 11
13
· :S' 2
~4
~~- ()~
~
4-3
"
11 10 8
. 7 .
.2
I<i
oS
T
-
!'J
14 )J87 t ...3
I~. ,.(/fj~
" .s -............. :J:.e1 ,.
_c.~
o
400
800 Feet
~
N
~ 0) c
._ ~ co
C/)...J-
c a..
0)"0
..c c
~j
c.
E
8
co
~
~
CO
I
~
u::
Q) f g ~I-:- gj
::3 . ij ~ .~ I; ~
"E p U_ ~ ~! ! i
~ ~ j ~ i .2>.2> 1 ~ S I I ~
al '8h~ i n~~!l l:g u ~f
lJ~d] n~H i IUd
~ 1.11 J IIIII i I ~ 1011
~
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4E
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO NOT ALLOW A
BALCONY TO ENCROACH INTO A BLUFF SETBACK,
Case File #00-014
15432 RED OAKS ROAD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES _ NO
FEBRUARY 28, 2000
The Planning Department received an Appeal Notice from Marvin W. Mirsch Sr. .
regarding the Planning Departments decision to not allow a balcony to encroach
into a bluff setback at 15432 Red Oaks Road (Attachment 1, Notice of Appeal
dated January 29, 2000). On December 13, 1999, the Planning Commission
approved a Variance for the applicant to construct a single family dwelling with
attached garage on the subject property (Attachment 2, Resolution 99-24PC).
The applicant then requested the addition of a balcony and stairs in a letter the
City Received on January 24,2000 (Attachment 3, letter dated January 21,
2000). The Planning Department responded with a decision to deny the request
(Attachment 4, City letter dated January 27, 2000).
DISCUSSION:
In the applicant's Appeal Notice to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (Planning
Commission) the applicant referenced a number of city codes in defense of his
interpretation in regards to his request to add the balcony. The applicant
considers the City Code Subsection for Rear Yard Setbacks to be the same
requirement when applied to riparian lots as the Code for Bluff Setbacks when
considering encroachments that are permitted by the Code for Yard
Encroachments. Granted, the code for rear yard setbacks does not consider a
balcony to be an encroachment. However, there is no reference in the code for
bluff setbacks allowing any type of encroachments without approval of a
variance.
L:\OOFILES\OOAPPEAL\OO-014\APLRPT.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
City Code subsection 1101.300 Rules of Construction: 1101.308 Conflicts,
provides for interpretation of the City Ordinance when general provisions conflict
with special provisions, and reads in part, the two shall be construed if possible
so that effect shall be given to both. If the conflict between the two provisions is
irreconcilable, the special provisions shall prevail and shall be construed as an
exception to the general provision unless the general provision was enacted
subsequent to the special provision and it shall be the manifest intention of the
City Council that such general provisions shall prevail.
Code Subsection 1101.503(8): Yard Encroachments, reads in part, The
following shall not be encroachments on rear yard requirements: Balconies. This
code subsection falls under Section 1101: General Provisions, and is a general
provision ordinance. Code Subsection 1104.304: Bluff Setbacks, is a special
provision ordinance under Section 1104: Shoreland Regulations, and therefore
the more restrictive ordinance shall be applied.
City Code Subsection 1102.405 Dimensional Standards, requires a minimum
rear yard setback of 25 feet, and is measured from the rear property line as
defined in Code Subsection 1101.400 Definitions. City Code Subsection
1104.304 Bluff Setbacks: The required setback from the Top of Bluff is
determined as follows: as measured from the Top of Bluff, the upper end of a
segment at least 25 feet in length having an average slope less than 18%.
Riparian lots are special properties with unique features that require special
regulations to protect valuable resources such as natural vegetation, topography,
water quality and water levels. As a special provision ordinance for bluff
properties only, with no stated exception for encroachments, a variance approval
is required for setback encroachments.
In regards to City Code Subsection 1104.303 Bluff Impact Zones: Structures
and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, shall not be placed in
bluff impact zones. The definition for a Bluff Impact Zone is a bluff and land
located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff. The exceptions listed of stairways
and landings refers to free standing accessory facilities placed on the ground for
access up and down the bluff and not attachments to the principal structure.
As proposed, the balcony dimension of 4 X 11 feet will encroach 4 feet into the
25 ft. bluff setback area. The balcony was not proposed in the applicants
Variance request as adopted by Resolution #99-24PC. In addition, the applicant
claims a chimney chase location in violation of the required side setback was
shown on the survey, submitted as Exhibit A, for the above referenced
Resolution. The chimney chase was not specifically shown on the survey
exhibit, but was depicted on the builders brochure handout. If the chimney
chase, as well as the balcony, are within the building foot print as depicted on
L:\OOFILES\OOAPPEAL\OO-014\APLRPT .DOC
Page 2
d buildin9 en"elol'e as
afe ~it\"lin \lle al'l'fO"e \ 999
"titled €.,,\"Iibit P-, t\"le~, ' on oecefflbef \'3, '
t\"le suf'/e, 1'1 nnin9 COfflffllSSlon
adol'ted b~ \lle a l nees lof t\"lis fel"'tt :
ts afe included fe efe d ted
,\"Ie lollo~in9 attac\"lfflen 241'C' '3) P-I'I'IiCllnts lette~ a
, \/anance Resolution 99- \a~; 6) Ci~ COde sections,
\) Notice 01 P-l'l'eal, 2) ated \/21/00', 5) ealcOn~ I'
\12\100', 4) Ci~ lettef d
~tI\tI\"'lo\Ojl, 1\010\: ' not site sl'eciflc and
.1;" . d..nnistfatof IS " ~fflaf'i'
'sion 01 \lle 1.onln9 '" ".1 . in all situations. In su".
p-~::~~~t~~ei~~~iC\"l t\"le :~:~::~::~:~ setb?,,;\<sf~"~~;:~~ section
~\"Ie listed encfoac\"lfflents I'e not I'effflitted in \lle Sl'ecI? ~ot cOnsistent ~it\"l \lle
I'fO"iSiOns code se~iO~~~~on, t\"le I'fOl'Ose? ~alcO~~: stall t\"lefelOfe .
lof blUIl setbac\<s, d ~~ t\"le I'lannin? COfflffll~'~~t\"le decision 01 t\"le 1.onln9
"anance al'l'fO"e 1'1 nnin9 CofflffllSSlon ul' 0
fecOfflfflendS t\"le a
~dro\n\s\{a\o{ .
jl,I.,"'Rlo\~' ' 'tef fetation 01 t\"le 1.onin9
~ eal to t\"le 1.onin9 P-dfflinistfa~~~Sa~ int~fI'felation 01 t\"le .
\ P-l'l'fO"e \lle P-I'I' d b t\"le al'l'liCant, Of al'l'f fOl'fiate undef \lle
, code as fe<\ueste ~, cofflffliSsion deefflS a~1' ion s\"lould difect stall
1.onin9 code t\"IB 1~1~~:':se, t\"le I'Iannin9 ~~9~~: P-l'l'eal fe<\uest.
c\fCufflstanees, ." n ~it\"l fIndings al'l'fO'"
a ReSO\U\\O\'
to I'fel'afe ' lof sl'eciflc l'uWOse.
d' ssion 01 t\"le I\effl l
,able Of cOntinUe ISCU ,ission fInds a lac\< 0
2, t\"le I'Iannln9 cofflffl t.onin9 Code,
'3, Oen~ t\"le P-l'l'eal {6<\~~~~~':~;~lican\S intefl'fetation 01 t\"le
defflonSlrated sUl'l'o
-r......' Re.~
~ . . u '" nds Ntefflati"e lI'3, in9 an P-l'l'eal 01 t\"le
,\"Ie I'Iannin9 s\llll t~;~:9 Resolution 00-?41'~ ~:~~ to encfOac\"l into a bW
t;\otion and ~e~n ~ a,s decision to not I'e{ffl\\ a a
1.onin9 P-dffllnlstf3 Of
se\bac~.
p\.R?1.00C
,,)IlOfICES'O"i>l'pEPol- "",",,"'"
.~.
.,....
JU;;SOLllTIOlV OO-O</PC
4. JU;;SOLllTIOlV m;lVyz
4DlIfnvJS1'l41'O~'S lJEClSI~;: ~PE4L OF l'IIE ZOlVIlVG
ElVC~04.ClI l1V:r0 4.lJL~P~~1' 4.lJ4LCOlV};- 1'0
-tr~_ ~~
,. ~J) hI' the Board fA. .
o djlJstrnell/ of the City Of Prior L .
. Ilk", %lIllesota.
FIlvIJIlVGS ,
1. Marvil1 W: lvE
. . Irsch Sr. has filed
to llot Pelll]jt a balcoll to an Appea] iinllJ the ZOllill . .
the ~ollslructioll Of a ;in 1 encroach 4 feet into the reqrnrJ 2~~strator's decisioll
De~lty lI.esidelltial) Di:." f'llllily d"'elIu,g Oll Property 1 foot. blUf[ Setback for
IOcatIOll, to "'it;. s nct and the SD (Shoreland Oc~ted llJ the 11.-1 110",
D DIStrict at the fc 11 .
o OWIl1g
15432 R.ed Oaks R.
CO""ty, AfJV Oad, legally described as Lots 20
and 21, lI.ed Oaks, Scott
2. The Board Of 4.<!iustrnent h . .
#00..014PC and held h . as reVIe"'ed the request fOr
eanllgS thereoll Oll Februan. 28 an 4pPea] as COlltained in c
3. The B -J ,2000. ase
. oard of A.cljusbnel1t h .
and decisioll tegarrJill th as co~ldered the ZOllillg 4.dnz' .
rear YarcJ setback O1ld ~ e genera] ProWsioll COde for a b 1 lIllstrator's inteq,retatioll
blUff Setbacks O1ld the e;~ecliic ProWsioll COde llot ~~~ encroachroent illto a
COllJprehellsive PI01l. of the ProPosed ~ Oll the ;;- enCroachroents illto
l1111g Ordl11ance and
4. The. Shoreland District O1ld bl [,
SP":'al ProWsio~ "'hich U T Setback ProWsiolls Of .
ordu,01lce. are Ilppbed oVer and abOVe the the ZOllll]g ~ce are
gell"raJ ProVIsiolls Of th
S t" e
ec '.Oll 1] 0 1.308 of the ZOllill .
COlJ[],Ct With SPecial ProWsio~ ~~01lce SPecifically states "'hen
· e ordu,01lce, the SPecial . . gen"raJ ProWsiolls
be apPelJ01lt bas llot de 0 ProVISIOllS ShalJ prevail.
teq,retatioll of the ordin01l '" lJstra.te:I reasollable Or factual
Ce ProVISIOllS. sUpPort to jUstify his
~ COl1tel1ts of Planni C
'UbI" llg ase #00 014PC
lC recOrd O1ld the record of decis' :e hereby enteted into O1ld ~ d
' lOll ,or th,s case '~a e a Part of
apPeaIIOO-OI4\delllhoe d .
r A S E J" S. Oc
Ve. . ., Prior Lak AI.
e"'l11nesota 55372'1714 / P
ANEQUAL"""""""",, ~. (612) 447-4230 / F: 1
"""LO"" "" (612) 447'4245
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following Appeal from the Zoning Administrator's decision to not allow a balcony
encroachment into a bluff setback (as shown in Attachment 6);
1. A 4 foot balcony encroachment to permit a 21 foot bluff setback instead of the
required 25 bluff yard setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on February 28, 2000.
Mark Cramer, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\OOfiles\OOappeal\OO-014\denyres.doc 2
- -- - -- - - - -- -- -- ..- -- -- --
ATTACHMENT 1
Mf31.
~
29 January 2000
Zoning Board of Adjustment (Planning Commission)
via: Steven Horsman
Zoning Administrator
The City ofPnor Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S. E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Subject: 1109.301 Appeal from the Decision of the Zoning Administrator
Reference: Letter received January 28, Steven Horsman, denying the interpretation that a balcony
is not an encroachment of a rear yard setback.
Dear Reader:
This letter is to appeal the interpretation of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance by the Zoning
Administrator that: "The City does not interpret Rear Yard Setbacks [Code Sec. 1102.405(3)]
the same as the requirement for Bluff Setbacks [Code Sec. 1104.304]. This means a balcony
may encroach into a rear yard setback but not a bluff setback. "
I believe the City interpretation ignores the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance defined rear yar~
setback for a riparian lot. The City interpretation confuses an allowed setback encroachment with
prohibitions in the Bluff Impact Zone. The riparian lot rear yard setback is estabIis,hed by the
OHW Setback and the Bluff Setback. if applicable, and should be treated equal to the standard lot
requirements. The City's interpretation is discriminatory to riparian lots.
-The balcony is allowed by the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance (PLZO), Para. 1101.503 (8)
"The following shall not be encroachments on rear yard requirements: Balconies, detached
outdoor picnic shelters~ and recreational equipment~ if constructed as provided in this
ordinance. "
-The Rear Yard for a riparian lot is defined by the Shoreland Regulations, Section 1104.
PLZO 1101.400 Definitions. "Yard~ Rear An area which extends along thefull width of the
rear lot line between the side lot lines and toward the front lot line a distance as specified in
the required yard regulations for the district in which the lot is located. ...." The normal Rear
Yard requirement minimum for the "R-l II use district is 25 feet, PLZO, Para 1102.405. Now,
Shoreland Regulations, PLZO, Para. 1104.302 ( 4), (table) Structure setback from OHW (feet)
as 75. And, PLZO Para 1104.304, Bluff setbacks, states that the required setback is 25 feet.
The rear yard of a riparian lot is the OHWL setback and the Bluff Setback (if applicable).
-The balcony projects into a rear yard set back; not a prohibited "Bluff Impact Zone"
PLZO Para. 1101.400 Definitions states: "Bluff Impact Zone. A bluff and land located within
20 feet from the top of a bluff." The key is the stated 20-foot measurement. Now PLZO
Para. 1104.303 liB I uff Impact Zones: Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and
landings, shall not be placed in bluff impact zones." Para 1104.304 Bluff setbacks, states that the
required setback is 25 feet. The planned balcony is not in the 75-foot setback from the OHWL
nor in the 20-foot Blufflmpact Zone. The balcony will be a 4-feet projection from the rear house
wall toward the lake. The balcony edge will be 21 feet from the agreed to "Top of Bluff' line.
The balcony will be 4 feet by 11 feet at the sliding glass door in the main floor "Breakfast area" of
the main floor. The balcony \vill be of cedar supported by beams extending over the house
foundation. A railing is provided. See attached First Floor and Left Side views.
The inclusion of a balcony on the rear of the house I am to build at 15432 Red Oaks Rd., SE,
(Lots 20 & 21, Red Oaks) Prior Lake is to provide an at-level landing for a stair to go from the
main floor to the ground.
This issue arose when I asked the Zoning Administer about the projection into the side yard for a
chimney, I also said that I was including a balcony per the above references. After the discussion
the chimney was set further into the house to meet side yard requirements. I do believe the
interpretation not allowing the balcony is denying me a right allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
A point in the referenced letter is that the balcony was not detailed in the survey provided for the
Resolution #99-024 PC. The chimney chase location, an acknowledged violation, was shown on
that survey. With a literal interpretation ofthe ordinance, the balcony is a non-factor in the
granted variance. The balcony was not added into the design until mid' January. Please note, other
items considered non-encroachments PLZO 1101.503 (1)&(8), i.e. eaves, air-conditioning.unit,
balconies are not shown on the survey.
Please call me at (651)699-8986 should additional impediments to an agreement on the balcony
issue be identified.
Sincerely,
~~s:;
Marvin W. Mirsch Sr.
2260 Sargent Ave., Saint Paul, MN 55105-1158
ATTACHMENT2
'-z,
RESOLUTION 99-024PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 5.4 FOOT VARIAi.~CE TO PERl\UT A 19.6
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK
BE IT RESOL YED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Marvin W. Mirsch Sr. has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order
to permit the construction ofa single family dwelling located in the R-1 (Low Density
Residential) District and SD (Shoreland) District at the following location, to wit;
15432 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 20 and Lot 21, Red Oaks, Scott
COUUlty,Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #99-080PC and held hearings thereon on November 22, 1999.
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 surroUUlding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surroUUlding property, 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 a.'ld 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 pre-existing lots of record do not meet the current Ordinance for minimum lot
size in the R-S District. This situation creates an unbuildable lot and a hardship with
respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
owner.
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the lot shape, bluff setback, and ordinary high
water level setback required today and legal building envelope. Reasonable use of the
1:\99fi1es\99var\99-080\appres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNI1Y EMPLOYER
. /
.. "..,./
.' ./
'....... ". "...
":"':'::::':"':Y'.'
. '". . ,"
. ' - . - , - . ~ . ..
. '..... - ...' -". "'. . .. ~,' .'
..;Y....:.:.......'. <x',,::;,.;"
:~}.>;;~.)
.l-....;,.
property does not exist without the granting of the variance to permit a buildable lot
for a single family dwelling.
7. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant,
and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. Without the requested Variance the va~ant lot is unbuildable.
9. The granting of the variance 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.
10. The contents of Planning Case #99-080PC 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 the proposed structure as shown in Exhibit A:
1. A 5.4 foot Variance to permit a 19.6 foot front yard setback rather than the required
25 foot front yard setback.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. All other City Codes and applicable agency regulations shall be met.
2. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. Pursuant to Section 1108.415 of the City Code, the
variance will be null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the
proposed structure within one year after adoption ofthis resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on December 13, 1999.
l\~
Anth:y St ~on, Chair
1:\99files\99var\99-080\appres.doc
2
.r
.' . .1;,~.
.~;. .' ~;:';>l
V
'fORtUNE E;~''"---_'':'::.~~.:-=.. '~;-. ~I
~ :~-~.- -.--.--.- -'1~'~~:
_-'11._
-7
".--.--. ..-
./ ~~Jj~t--- . -..' t :~= --l.---,
-:". ~!S:
.'
~
t-
~
f,.
}..
./.~-:"-c--_
~----.
-...;::::::.:;.---'- ------=---...
:::::--:: _ - - - -./ <"t ,I '" SHORELINE
j ~.~ ~ ~~;-
SHORELINE . ~~ '-'i.'.k. :. 6. '
5 '3'4"'0' W 98.'5 ~~". .
._._~'~~._._.- - ~-
~ .-.....-.,'-,. - ~~
~" ..... __ --.-.,s,'
~ v ('
"'~
~ 7..
\~
'.,
'.
+
"-
I
...
....
...
-;
...
.,
m
_X
:I:
-
--.--=-. OJ
-
--- -;
:t:-
en
c:
:tJ
<
m
-<
..
-
--~. -.
.':-'.;J~
~~-'
'.
..~
. -L--c- --,./------ ii~ .---- ~ ~+l ----,,,
,o.J' .:l<l.-~/~---.......,'-._ ~ _~--"920 --. --to ..-.. .... .,"
.---...-- $~ --. ~ ---.-- 'I ~'~'
~. ""'.t~.
1'11000 PATIO .----:--,--- '--m. ..____ ..._./.
'" /~-' - --.............. L ,,---- I --....._.--.
- -.-. 'J- 975 . - -. __:--E ' ~ -----I- .\
//___ -, ~ ~II --'-"'JIl_--'" .......". .._'__ .-.-'
_930---"--'/", ~ 0
--- ~~
~ \,. l.l~.-....__ .,"'_ A
~ ". ......... /"P
~ /~ ~ "". .':-----/ ~~~ ~~, 0.,
-...l en . ~ .A ~~. ...r1J~' =7: -
, <1",,/ 1)0 ~., .. 1id!l.~
~ :~ <7 ~'""" I 1> ~\lli=
. l.J', F-' _ . .-.,. t.) _::::::
\,.... I . _ __"::.';;"=.-..."=-
~'-~,:::::::: ...----
\ L9 ~
,--r,_J ~ ~ .ooJ C.;,
'" . c,) 0 oJ'!. i-r..'1 ~
. ,"-,',- ~."
9a . -;.~ a J t'
~~
--
--
",----
./
//
...-.
...-:--"
----
./
III _ -,)~---.---r--
-0'1
j
1=
,:,-.. ,U1-
'..J~
. "'-
,
'"
'0
'"
z
, .
"',~..
-/~: .
: ("! 7.9
1'Cq,
I_~~
'!" (' -0
:0 ~~
I
_---.J-
----
~ Cl
-.j
N
.:i.!;
.~..
:. l~~~
,;or,: ~~, t
'(-<}
1':.
..
"
'Z.
"
"b
(~
'"
o
'"
I
I ~
1\
I ;
'!,
I \,
i:
. I ~
PROrOSED HOME
I
...,
~I
(
r-
0.3 .
,.'ORr,..
.-
r
\,
'-.,'
'"
'"
'"
'"
...,
""
...
..
:0
~,
..
.,.
..
~
r.>~ _ '_ '0.5 +/_
r:
'\
<Q
't>
24.48
T~;t h'-~~J
t~ZJ ~s~ ~
~ ":."cfJ ~
.... ...
~.OJ ..
I
T
-13.5
-10.0
SETSAI;K
)"
f .
f
. I .t"
.....p,
Qoo
," ~o ...
vo ./ . . ,
'" . "J
~~ I ,. r
I *-0
~r I 7>...
I ~,
,
'J.
-;~)
,,~
't')~,
~.
~~
-q,'" j'
~ \. .' ,,;t'p;'
~jl
N 21'40'21" E 49.49
01 ^ n
01/24/00 MON 12.: 16 FAX 612699+8986
MARVIN W MIRSCH Sr
~001
ATTACHMENT 3
21 January 2000
~
Sleven Horsman
Zoning Administrator
The City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S. E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Dear Steven,
This letter is to detail the reasoning behind my inclusion of a balcony on the rear of the house I :un
to build at 15432 Red Oaks Rd, SE, (Lots 20 &21, Red Oaks) Prior Lake. The balcony is to
provide an 3t-levellanding for a stair to go from the main floor to the ground. My reasoning is:
-The balcony is allowed by tbe Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance (PLZO), Para. 1101.503 (8)
"The following s.haH not be encroachments on rear yard requirements: Balconies, detached
outdoor picnic shelters. and recreational equipment, if constructed as provided in this ordinance. If
-The balcony projeds into a rear yard set back; not a prohibited "Bluff Impact Zone"
The balcony will be 4 feet projection from the rear house wall toward the lake. The balcony edge
\ovill be 21 feet from the agreed to "Top ofBlufP'line. PLZO Para. ] 101.400 Definitions states:
"Bluff Impact ZOlle. A bluff and land located "itbin 20 feet from the top of a bluff." The key is
the stated 20-foot measurement. Now PLZO Para. 1104.303 "BluffImpact Zones: Structures
and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings. shall not be placed in bluff impact zones. II
Para 1104.304 Bluff setbacks, states that the required setback is 25 feet. Also. the balcony is not
in the 7S feet setback from the OHWL. The rear yard of a riparian lot is the OHWL setback and
the Bluff Setback (if applicable).
-The balcony is in a rear yard setback not an impact zone and is allowed by PLZO 1101.503 (7).
The balcony will be 4 feet by 11 feet at the sliding glass door in the main floor "Breakfast area" of
the main floor. The balcony 'Will be of cedar supported by beams ex"tending over the house
foundation. A railing is provided. See attached FirstFloor and Left Side views.
This issue was raised when I asked about the projection into the side yard for a chimney and stated
I was including a balcony per the above references. After our discussions, I understand the issue
was discussed in a Prior Lake Zoning meeting; resulting in a position that a balcony will not be
allowed. I am asking that the issue again be reviewed recognizing the above reasoning. If the
decision again is against the balcony, I do want to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission.
I am trying to resolve any future conflicts and am trying to ensure that the "Assent" agreement is
not later exercised and the building process interrupted Thank. you for the information on the
required Engineering reportS.
Please call me at (651)699-8986 should additional impediments to an agreement on the balcony
issue be identified. ~ . f~
Sincerely, ~ ~ ~~
Marvin W. Mihch" Sr. ~ /--
2260 Sargent Ave., Saint Paul, MN 55105-1158
. .....:....... .~...... ." . ...,.........~t.~~."'l...\:-\":';\;~.~~,......'I'......~7:..,..::......'\..........~'J'W'l.........*~.....,\......,...,.....--..-..-".....................~"...... .. n. .... ............. . ,.,..
ATTACHMENT 4
January 27, 2000
Marvin W. Mirsch, Sr.
2260 Sargent Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105-1158
Dear Mr. Mirsch:
On January 24, 2000, the City of Prior Lake received your written request to add a
balcony to the back patio door on the main level of your proposed single family structure
at 15432 Red Oaks Road. In your letter you referenced Code Sec. 1101.503: Yard
Encroachments: (8) In part, The following shall not be encroachments on rear yard
requirements: Balconies. The City does not interpret Rear Yard Setbacks [Code Sec.
1102.405(3)] the same as the requirements for Bluff Setbacks [Code Sec. 1104.304].
This means a balcony may encroach. into a rear yard setback but not the bluff setback
as in your situation.
In regards to stairways and landings in a Bluff Impact Zone [Code Sec. 1104.303]. The
City interprets stairways and landings to be free standing structures and not connected
to or part of a principal structure, as described in Code Sec. 1104.308 (5) Stairways,
Lifts and Landings.
In addition, Resolution #99-024 PC, approving a Variance to front yard setback
specifically references Exhibit A, a survey showing the location and dimensions of the
structure proposed for this lot. This survey does not identify the balcony you are now
requesting.
If you disagree with the City's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance you may appeal
this decision to the Planning Commission within 5 days of receipt of this written notice.
should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call my direct phone
number at 447-9854 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I
will assist you. Enclosed is a copy of our City Code pertaining to the appeals process.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
~
Steven Horsman
Zoning Administrator
16200 ~~~~ Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
. 'M'" ~~ ...-,-.,__-----~-... . ~ M"'M ........_M....M___.._.~___.__..-.._____
~
~
o
:x:
s:
m
z
-I
U1
~
'"
~
llf
::
~
,
~'"
'>
//
/
8
!
5
ta
;p
lit
",
C/O
.
:II' . JflVJ
zoo III
OL07H~a19:XVg "J.8Nn;l ;~~m.rlmH G10iE~'j n:i 8f):vO flHl. f1f:-Oi.-;rif
.IS H:>SHIH M NIAHVPl 9868+689 619 YVd L 1="61 NOH oO/Uilo
,",'
"' ",
"l
'"
~
~,
...
..
I"
.....,
...
:l
..
!l\
"
&
II.;i
"
'T1 "
:D ...
r;.r', Cf
-4 ~ =;f'
."
r
0 '"
0 ~
:rJ .....1.,
"'l) ':-
r
:::D ,.
z 'f
~ ,
I~ ~~
i......
<~
"'I.'~
,~
oj.
I~ .
lQ ,
~.
'"" .
"
...
~
a.
'I "
1~
oi
... "'
'"
~ ~. . 3;,V,
too~ '
./
.1' ,.1;.../
,/ /,A"&,,"/
/ 7T
W--,
I
~ :
i~ I
1
__"....J
./
//
//
/
3C""
/ P'C"
/ /.." ,/,
,/ /
ZIJ'fr'
171r
VI"
......,
" '"
r-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
-~'---
"
a
~
!
t:I
~
r{'
~
~
-;;;;za,.,
" ,
I; "
t~
2 PI
~ li
t
'"
i'-
I
,
r
I
,
J
I
I
I
,
I
L.. _ ../ _ .~..
7f
~
!I
~
-
co
'Ii
i, r\
f /
...
.~
,
, 1 I~ ,~
"~ ~l ,,~ 1II
/ s.... ~, I ~~! ; ;~ ~
, ...... / ~~ ,Q, " ~
lI!Illnlr n~ T~ [tC~ 1:\
/ ~ i ~ !Ii \i~ -- ~ "~ .. ~
\ '= ~ I. ii"fr ,~ 0: II V ·
H _ ~~ ___},
~ J t; _ II - g; W ,I~..
~ ~~Q 11 [. ~~ ~ ~ ~
~ '~ <~ ~<- ~, 51
'-' ~ ~p
III I--,~ . ....!!'~ ~ .,'
~~-~~. :i ~..
u~ ~ ......- ~
l;~..... .... ,/ / ~~ "'-",31 ~I!i ,.......
- ~ ,Ei:r e; III
; "/ ai =g~ $1
~ - ~~ . " ~-
\ '1i - /~~ . II
/" "
t:
..
,;.
~
~ ~
"
......~, l)
..... "
..
~
"
"-
~--
" t;j
- "=
,"';
,
...
...
.
,
CIIIICT
w
::RlM:T' ..
..... ''\. ,I
" ~"
~2-""
/'
z'i,/
/7
).
CItJ.;J..-
V:n:o 1n3.1/ iI'O"
/' :z"'_ '
#..
L.lt.3" /,.11" I"
/1 / / ::WI...-
77[,.-
,
l"'ll'"
t'ILC1VS~Ll19;Xl{l 'r~lJn:J ;:nBH.2.11"qa a101:I:ff;i n.i ~:(i:7n nHl iliH!7.-~Nf
.IS H:>SHIfl M IiUAliVPl 9969+669 ~l9 XVd J.. t :.n NOR. oo/uno
ATTACHMENT 6
Zoning Code
Accessoty Use or Structure. A use or a structure subordinate to the principal
use or structure on the same land and customarily incidental thereto.
r~K.HfI) }(tf~ m.ucruu:
. ,
I D~ ~NClPA1.;&QI4.CfNG
i Qi
i i
L_ ~- -- ----J
( I
L.~. .___._.---1
Alley. A public right-of-way, with a width not exceeding 24 feet nor less than 12
feet which affords a secondary means of access to property abutting the alley.
Alteration. Any change, addition, or modification in construction or occupancy of
an existing structure or modification to the surface of the ground.
Antenna. Any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or transmitting
electromagnetic waves, including but not limited to directional antennas, such as
panels, microwave dishes, and satellite dishes, and omni-directional antennas,
such as whip antennas.
r-:
'-./
Basement. That portion of the building having more than 1/2 of the ground f1oor-
to-ceiling height below the average grade of the adjoining ground.
Berm. A land alteration where fill is added to the surface of the ground in order to
create an earthen mound or hill generally used in conjunction with walls, fences, or
plant materials to screen or insulate one parcel of land from another or from a
street.
. n~~
. i1> J
'!/r"-J::. -S?,g .~~
[~Er'~r--'/'" LAN~ <<~ "'-.... i c::l:='~Q L~
Block Front. The distance between intersections along one side of a street.
Bluff. A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the
following characteristics:
City of Prior Loke
May 1, 1999
llOllpS
. Zoning Code
~ Part or all of the feature is located in a Shoreland area;
~ The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of
the water body;
~ The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or
more above the ordinary high water level averages 30% or more; and
~ The slope must drain toward the water body.
Toe of the Bluff. The lower point of a 50 foot segment with an average slope
exceeding 18%.
Top of the Bluff. The highest point of the slope, as measured from the toe of the
bluff, where the grade becomes less than 30%.
Bluff Impact Zone. A bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff.
BLUFF AND BLUFF IMPACT ZONE
20 f_
Bluff Impact Zone
Bluff (Slope- 30% or Greater)
....
CD
-
..
I!
CJ
..
CII
-=
,1ft
C"I
-
.t::
~
"ii
.3:
Boardinghouse. A building other than a motel or hotel where for compensation or
by prearrangement for definite periods, meals or lodging are provided for 3 or more
persons, but not to exceed 8 persons.
Boathouse. A structure used solely for the storage of boats or boating equipment.
Boulevard. That portion of a street right-of-way between the curb line and
property line.
Bufferyard. An area of land established to protect and screen one type of land
use from another land use that is incompatible. Normally, the area is landscaped
and kept in open space use. Screening techniques include the addition of vertical
elements such as fences, walls, hedges, berms, or other features to mitigate the
effects of incompatible land uses.
May 1, 1999
City of Prior lAke
llOllp9
,'- ~-"
)
.:-'-'/
j
........~/
Zoning Code
Yard. A required open space on a lot, which is unoccupied and unobstructed by a
structure from its lowest ground level to the sky except as expressly permitted in
this Ordinance. The yard shall extend along a lot line and at right angles to the lot
line to a depth or width specified in the yard regulations for the district in which the
lot is located.
Yard, Front. An area which extends along the full width of the front lot line
~ --:-T- _L..~':.:.o~:~~
~ I 'frIif. ~D I
: ~ ~-_-k._-------r---~ce:
{! .. &u1L.04aLe. AJWo\ I I L.or
"'\ INGi I ~ 'I~a;:: U/.lf.
A I ~IDE"'"
'it e;...J 'r'AItI:7 "'
..~ I I
~ I I I
-< I I I
__J_ ""!":__________J_ __...;
F Je.p/./T 'I'M!: 0 I
lDCI'!)1 OCl'[.>J!lOJT .
h_ __.k:~~::..,':)- .. _J
. '-F'ROwr u:rr L.INr!
STI\I:E.T" 1UGI<'l" 0," ............
r--- .._u_____________
between side lot lines and toward the rear lot line a distance as specified in the
required yard regulations for the district in which such lot is located.
Yard, Rear. An area which extends along the full width of the rear lot line between
the side lot lines and toward the font lot line a distance as specified in the required
yard regulations for the district in which the lot is located. Where the lot is a comer
lot, the rear yard shall be the area between the interior side lot line and the side
yard abutting a street extending toward the front yard a distance as specified in the
required yard regulations for the district in which the lot is located.
Yard Sale. A sale of assorted secondhand objects, conducted by the property
owner or occupant on their premises for a short period of time. Yard sales,
sometimes called garage sale, are not the primary use of the property or the
primary occupation of the property owner or occupant.
Yard, Side. An area extending along a side lot line between front and rear yards
having a width as specified in the required yard regulations for the district in which
the lot is located.
Yard, Side Abutting a Street. A yard adjacent to a street which extends along a
side lot line between the front yard and rear property line. The required width of
the side yard abutting a street is specified in the dimensional standards of the
district in which the yard is located.
Zoning Administrator. The individual(s) authorized to administer the regulations
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Zoning District. See Use District.
May 1,1999
City of Prior Lake
llOllp31
Zoning Ordinance
j. All home occupations shall be subject to an annual inspection to insure
compliance with the above conditions.
k. All applicable permits from other governmental agencies have been
obtained.
(2) Group Day CarelNursery School in a religious institution, community center, or
academic educational institution .complying with all of the following conditions:
a. At least 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil is provided.
b. The outside play areas are fenced and screened with a buffer yard.
c. Drop off and loading points are established which do not interfere with
traffic and pedestrian movements.
1102.405 Dimensional Standards.
(1) No structure shall exceed 3 stories or 35 feet in height, whichever is less, except
as provided in subsection 1101.508.
(2) The ground floor area ratio within the R-1 Use District shall not exceed 0.3.
(3) The following minimum requirements and those additional requirements,exception
and modifications contained in provisions (4) through (9) below and in. the
Subdivision Ordinance shall govern the use and development of lots in the "R-1"
Use District.
C".",
,
Lot Area (Sq. ft.)
12,000
Lot Width (ft.)
86
Front Yard (ft.)
25
Side Yard (ft.)
10
'"Rear Yara(ft.}m
25
(4) The depth of the front yard of a lot shall be at least 25 feet. If the average depth
of at least 2 existing front yards, for buildings within 150 feet along the same
block front of the lot in question are less or greater than 35 feet, the required
front yard shall be the average depth of such existing front yards. However, the
depth of a front yard shall not be less than 20 feet or be required to exceed 50
feet.
(5) Through lots and corner lots shall have a required front yard on each street..
(6) The width of the side yard abutting a building wall shall be increased 2 inches for
each 1 foot the length of the wall of the building exceeds 40 feet. For the
purpose of this subsection, a wall includes any building wall within 10 degrees of
being parallel to and abutting the side lot line of a lot.
(7) Side yard widths may be reduced if the side wall of a building is not parallel by
more than 10 degrees with the side lot line, to permit the average depth of the
side yard to conform to the minimum side yard depth in the District, but no side
yard shall be less than 5 feet deep. No side yard shall be reduced to prevent
Qty of Prior Loke
May 22, 1999
l102/p14
Zoning Ordinance
(3) General Development:
Riparian Lots Non-Riparian Lots
~ lQt Width at AID Lot Width (Front)
Single 15,000 90 75 12,000 86
Duplex 26,000 135 75 17,000 135
Triplex 38,000 195 75 25,000 190
Quad 49,000 255 75 32,000 245
Tributary:
Riparian OHW
Lot Widths Lot Width
Single 86 75
Duplex 115 75
Triplex 150 75
Quad 190 75
*There are no minimum lot size requirements for rivers and streams.
(4) Setback Requirements:
( "
Natural Recreational General Tributary
Development Development Development Development
Lakes Lakes Lakes Lakes
Structure
height setback 150 75 75 75
from OHW
(feet)
Unplatted
Cemetery (feet) 50 50 50 50
.
Structure
height 35 35 35 35
limitation (feet)
1104.303
Bluff Impact Zones: Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways
and landings, shall not be placed in bluff impact zones.
City of Prior Lake
May 1, 1999
,
l104/p6
Zoning Ordinance
1104.304
Bluff Setbacks: The required setback from the Top of Bluff is determined as
follows: as measured from the Top of Bluff, the upper end of a segment at
least 25 feet in length having an average slope less than 18%.
BLUFF SETBACK
--l
1104.305 Engineering Reports Required: On properties determined to have a bluff,
the applicant for a building permit and the property owner shall provide the
following:
(1) The applicant for a building permit on that property shall provide a report
prepared and signed by a professional engineer registered by the State of
Minnesota on the impact any excavation, fill or placement of structures will
have on the site and whether the excavation, fill or placement of structures
will cause any slope to become unstable or will impose loads that may affect
the safety of structures or slopes. The report shall also include the engineer's
recommendations so the site development will not interfere with adequate
drainage for the site or adjacent properties, will not obstruct, damage or
adversely affect existing sewer or drainage facilities, will not adversely affect
the quality of stormwater runoff, will not adversely affect downstream
properties, wetlands or bodies of water and will not result in erosion or
sedimentation.
(2) The owner of the property shall provide certification from a professional
engineer registered by the State of Minnesota that the final grading of the site
was completed in compliance with an approved grading plan and that the
recommendations contained in the engineer's report have been adhered to.
(3) The Building Official, the Planning Director and the City Engineer may waive
the engineer's report requirement for replacement decks, new decks or
City of Prior Lake
l104/p7
May 1, 1999
.
,
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
CONSIDER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_ YES _X_NO-N/A
FEBRUARY 28, 2000
INTRODUCTION: Minnesota Statutes provides that all proposed capital improvements
be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
The 2001-2005 CIP has not been completed as of this date. Attached is a summary of the
current (2001-2004) CIP.
DISCUSSION: The summary describes the CIP process and the funding sources
available to the City and expected to be used in paying for the individual projects. As in
past years, the primary constraint is the availability of money. In previous years, the City
share of County road projects took the lions share of City capital improvement funds.
The proposed CIF still has a heavy emphasis on roads and streets, but the focus during
the next 5 years is on Highway 13 intersection improvements and local street
reconstruction. During the first two years of this program, thesestr~et projects are
estimated to cost $5,110,000 out of a total capital budget of $6,609,000.
The Planning Commission's function is to review the proposed projects, determine
whether they make sense from the perspective of the Comprehensive Plan and make
specific recommendations about specific projects in the CIF or about projects not in the
current CIP which the Commission feels would better achieve Comprehensi\:,e Plan goals.
The Commission does not need to feel constrained to restrict its consideration only to
those projects contained in the propose CIF.
Any recommendation for changes to the CIP should indicate which particular goal or
policy in the Comprehensive Plan is being advanced by the recommended project. The
thing to keep in mind is that all projects are competing for a limited amount of money and
the CIP is limited to those projects with the highest priority. Please give this your careful
consideration.
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to recommend changes to the draft CIP as the
Commission determines.
1:\admin\cip\22800cip.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
2000 CIP PROJECTS
Project Description
Project Amount
Fire Department
1. Bunker Turnout Gear
6,000.00
Park Department
(Development)
2. Neighborhood Park Resilient Surfaces
3. Oakland Beach/Willows Basketball Courts
4. Park Appurtenant Equipment
5. Memorial Park Picnic Shelter
6. Sand Point Beach Parking Lot Lighting
7. Neighborhood Park Playgrounds
(Trails)
8. Glynwater
Financing
6,000.00
City Cost
Tax Impact
Dollar Percentage
o.b.
8,000.00 8,000.00 c.p.
10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
16,000.00 16,000.00 c.p.
18,000.00 18,000.00 c.p.
103,000.00 103,000.00 c.p.
22,000.00 22,000.00 c.p.
Public Works
(BuifdingS/Plant)
9. Lift Station Renovation
10. Water Tower Painting
60,000.00
250,000.00
(Improvements)
11. Trunk Watermain (Fountain Hills development)
12. Linden Circle Bituminous Paving
13. Main Avenue Street Lights
14. Fish Point Road/Fairlawn Shores Trail Overlay
30,000.00
75,000.00
100,000.00
300,000.00
15. Oak Ridge/Pixie Point Reconstruction
1,195,000.00
16. TH 13 Intersection Imp. (Commerce/Boudins)
1,750,000.00
Water Resources
(Imorovement$,)
17. Drainage Improvements 15,000.00
18. Storm Sewer Outlet Dredging (Green Hgts Trl) 15,000.00
19. Water Quality Pond (Center Road) 15,000.00
20. Storm Water Pond Dredging (Boudins) 30.000.00
Totals ... 4,028,000.00
Financing Source Summary Project Amount
$ Project Tax Levy 897,000.00
o.b. Operating Budget 6,000.00
u.f. Sewer & Water Utility Fund 125,000.00
s.w. Storm Water Utility Fund 75,000.00
c.p. Capital Park Fund 187,000.00
c.s. Collector Street Fund 400,000.00
t.r. Trunk Reserve Fund 215,000.00
m.s. Municipal State Aid 600,000.00
s.a. Special Assessments 673,000.00
i,g. Intergovernmental 850.000.00
Totals ... 4,028,000.00
8
60,000.00
125,000.00
125,000.00
30,000.00
75,000.00
100,000.00
180,000.00
120,000.00
717,000.00
478,000.00
850,000.00
600,000.00
300,000.00
t.r.
t.r.
u.f.
t.r.
s.a.
c.S.
4.39 0.52%
s.a
17 .48 2.09%
s.a.
i.g.
m.s.
c.s.
15,000.00 S.w.
15,000.00 S.w.
15,000.00 S.w.
30.000.00 s.w.
4,028,000.00
Tax Impact
Dollar Percentage
$21.87 2.61%
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
2001 CIP PROJECTS
Project Description
Project Amount
Fire Department
1. Bunker Turnout Gear
7,000.00
Park Department
(Developmen(l
2. Neighborhood Park Resilient Surfaces
3. Park Appurtenant Equipment
4. Memorial Park Fencing
5. Neighborhood Park Playgrounds
(Trail$)
6. Fish Point, Island View & Sand Point
-,.
Financing
City Cost
Tax Impact
Q.Qll.ar. Percentage
7,000.00
o.b.
8,000.00 8,000.00 c.p.
10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
60.000.00 60,000.00 c.p.
35,000.00 35,000.00 c.p.
60,000.00 60,000.00 t.r.
250,000.00 125,000.00 t.r.
125,000.00 u.f.
171,000.00 171,000.00 t.r.
200,000.00 200,000.00 t.r.
765,000.00 196,000.00 4.70 0.55%
306,000.00 s.a
263,000.00 m.s.
925,000.00 555,000.00 13.32 1.55%
370,000.00 s.a
Public Works
(Buildings/Plan()
7. Lift Station Renovation
8. Water Tower Painting
(Jmprovement~)
9. Trunk Watermain (Deerfield development)
10. Trunk Watermain (CSAH 21 from Carriage Pkwy to 42)
11. 150th Street Reconstruction
12. Pixie Point - Green Oaks Street Reconstruction
Water Resources
(ImProvements)
13. Storm Water Pond Dredging (Hampton Pond)
14. Lake Bank Stabilization (Pike Lake Trail)
20,000.00
60,000.00
Totals ... 2,581,000.00
Financing Source Summary Project Amount
$ Project Tax Levy 751,000.00
o.b. Operating Budget 7,000.00
u.f. Sewer & Water Utility Fund 125,000.00
g.f. Grant Funding 20,000.00
s.w. Storm Water Utility Fund 60,000.00
c.p. Capital Park Fund 123,000.00
t.r. Trunk Reserve Fund 556,000.00
m.s. Municipal State Aid Fund 263,000.00
s.a. Special Assessments 676.000.00
Totals ... 2,581,000.00
9
20,000.00
20,000.00
40.000.00
s.w.
g.f.
S.w.
2,581,000.00
Tax Impact
.QQllar Percentage
$18.02 2.10%
10
,.
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY ,
2003 CIP PROJECTS
City Cost
Project Description Project Amount Financing Tax Impact
Dollar Percentage
Fire Department
1. Bunker Turnout Gear 8,000.00 8,000.00 o.b.
(Buildings & PlantJ
2. Satellite Fire Station 750,000.00 750,000.00 g.o.
Park Department
(Develooment)
3. Neighborhood Park Resilient Surfaces 8,000.00 8,000.00 c.p.
4. Park Appurtenant Equipment 10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
5. Neighborhood Park Playgrounds 60,000.00 60,000.00 c.p.
(Trails)
6. Jeffers Pond Development 40,000.00 40,000.00 c.p.
Public Works
(Buildings/Plant)
7. Uft Station Renovation 60,000.00 60,000.00 t.r.
(Imorovements)
8. Shady Bch Trl/Fish Point Rd W Reconstruction 1,185,000.00 711,000.00 16.40 1.85%
474,000.00 s.a
Water Resources
(Imorovement$.)
9. Storm Drainage Improvements 40,000.00 40,000.00 s.w.
10. Storm Water Pond Dredging 40.000.00 40.000.00 s.w.
Totals ... 2,201,000.00 2,201,000.00
Financing Source Summary Project Amount Tax Impact
Dollar Percentage
$ Project Tax Levy 711,000.00 $16.40 1.85%
o.b. Operating Budget 8,000.00
s.w. Storm Water Utility Fund 80,000.00
c.p. Capital Park Fund 118,000.00
t.r. Trunk Reserve Fund 60,000.00
s.a. Special Assessments 474,000.00
g.o. G.O. Referendum Bonds 750.000.00
Totals ... 2,201,000.00
11
"..
,
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
2004 CIP PROJECTS
City Cost
Project Description Project Amount Financing Tax Impact
Dollar Percentage
Fire Department
1. Bunker Turnout Gear 8,000.00 8,000.00 o.b.
Park Department
(DeveloomenO
2. Neighborhood Park Resilient Surfaces 8,000.00 8,000.00 c.p.
3. Park Appurtenant Equipment 10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
Public Works
(Buildings & Plant)
4. Lift Station Renovation 60,000.00 60,000.00 t.r.
5. Municipal Well 350,000.00 350,000.00 t.r.
6. Water Filtration Plant 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 w.r.
(Improvements)
7. Trunk Watermain (Fish Point Rd Ext. to CSAH 21) 50,000.00 50,000.00 t.r.
8. Trunk Watermain (CSAH 42 from CSAH 83 to W. Limit) 127,000.00 127,000.00 t.r.
9. Gateway Shores Street Reconstruction 1,180,000.00 708,000.00 16.00 1.77%
472,000.00 s.a
10. TH 13 Intersection Imp. (CSAH 23/Five Hawks) 1,150,000.00 495,000.00 Lg.
400,000.00 m.s.
255,000.00 c.s.
Water Resources
(Improvement~)
11. Storm Drainage Improvements 40,000.00 40,000.00 s.w.
12. Storm Water Pond Dredging 40.000.00 40.000.00 s.w.
Totals n. 9,023,000.00 9,023,000.00
Financing Source Summary Project Amount Tax Impact
Dollar Percentaae
$ Project Tax Levy 708,000.00 $16.00 1.77%
o.b. Operating Budget 8,000.00
s.w. Storm Water Utility Fund 80,000.00
c.p. Capital Park Fund 18,000.00
c.s. Collector Street Fund 255,000.00
t.r. Trunk Reserve Fund 587,000.00
m.s. Municipal State Aid 400,000.00
s.a. Special Assessments 472,000.00
i.g. Intergovernmental 495,000.00
w.r. Water Revenue Bonds 6.000.000.00
Totals n. 9,023,000.00
12
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6B
DISCUSSION ON ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING
EXCEEDING 40' IN LENGTH
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO-N/A
--
FEBRUARY 28, 2000
SETBACK
WALLS
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
The new Zoning Ordinance contains a provision requiring an additional side yard setback
in Residential Districts when the building wall exceeds 40' in length. This provisions
reads as follows:
The width of the side yard abutting a building wall shall be increased 2 inches for each 1
foot the length of the wall of the building exceeds 40 feet. For the purpose of thts
subsection, a wall includes any building wall within 10 degrees of being parallel to and
abutting the side lot line of a lot.
The building wall, or building face, is defined as:
That portion of the exterior wall of a structure which shall lie in a vertical plane. One
face shall be terminated by an exterior angle of at least 210 degrees framed by two
exterior walls each being at least 18 feet in length or a curved portion of such exterior
wall which shall have a central angle of 30 degrees or more.
The attached drawing illustrates the definition of a building face, and the application of
the additional setback requirement.
The purpose of the additional setback requirement is to reduce the effect of the bulk of a
long wall on the adjacent property. This is especially important on nonconforming lots,
where the side yard setback may be reduced to 5 feet.
The Planning Commission has reviewed a number of variance requests to this provision
since May 1, 1999. The Commission requested staff schedule this item for discussion
purposes.
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\sidewal1\sidepc.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ANALYSIS:
There are several options available to the Planning Commission. Some of these options
are listed below:
. Do nothing. The Planning Commission would continue to review variance requests
on a case by case basis.
. Remove the requirement for an additional setback completely. This alternative is
the simplest to administer. The required setback is a set number and is not based on
the length of the building wall.
. Redefine a building wall. For example, the break in the break in the wall could be
reduced to 10' rather than 18 feet.
The second and third options require formal amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
These options will require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and approval
by the City Council.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Provide staff with specific direction.
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\sidewall\sidepc.doc
Page 2
_.. ____~. .~ - .._ '- __ - ..__,.. _._ - __ .__' __ _.. _u_ ..
I
, " ~
---~w_.i-'.:--":--~ -r---jnf'--r --~.---!.---- - __n_-:__
...... ..--.- -. ~---~-'--:'--'~---""----+-'-"; ----~.._._-,~
_ ..!_.+.__ .. d_._.j.._._ :...----....
,
--:..-------~ -_.---
L\a-
- ----- *-- --_.------ --~--..-- .._~-
-.------.-..- .--- .... . .- ~--- ----- -- - ---- .-------
--.--..-..-.-.---..---. .-.--.-'" -;--_.---_._--~ ---.----.----
. ___.._.__ _._.__.____~n_.._ ......__.__
__.__ __.._'U._. _.__._ _ ._.._.. --.- .-----~--_. .~--"~ . - --~- -- ._" -"-'- --
.. ~J4d.t/J1,tm41. .5L~_a.pi)i,~~--
on. brA~ S i tiL ljfATds h_ -
. ~----_...~._-_.__._.. _..- - - .~ -~ -
11'
-__..,""':...;.-=_.;.,;.:....~-._fO_-...~_;;;,.....'~ ::','. :-.:... ~.,,"'.~;_' ....-.. ';:';' .~.: ~.:'~" --:. ....~.. '.. ; ':"_-c~"
'--,"-- -- ~------- - - .. ..-- -. -~- -.<" -
'.. ___..._.__...._u__. __.____.___.._ --___.. .-.--
~()'h,_ ..
J 3'
1"-'
~I
! - -- i--r-r- - f
AddjHinal .s~~,,-i.L. ....
fLquir:uru.nl- ~pl;6 _ .J.o -
J.jJ..' .Airh. w6JI 6)'\ IV'
Ar1diJi~St.~~t, tU~
;lOr O--pply -fo ~l>' ..,. do'--'
SidLWA.{J ~ 6'l
IS' ~. -0