HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 9, 2000
/
,
,
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 9,2000
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 #00-074 Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing the
Senior Care Overlay District in the C-l, C-2 and C-4 Use Districts.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #00-070 Bob Dittman Variance Resolution.
B. Case #99-067 Mark Liesener Variance extension.
6. New Business:
A. Case #00-073 Consider a vacation of a utility easement located on the south lot
line of Lot 17, Block 1, Northwood Oaks Estates 2nd Addition.
B. Case #00-076 Comprehensive Plan discussion regarding relocation of20 acres of
commercial property.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:lOOFILESlOOPLCOMMlOOPCAGENlAGI00900,DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
- - - - ----.------ - -- - - -
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25,2000
1. Call to Order:
The September 25 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Vonhofat 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Stamson and Vonhof,
Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator
Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
V onhof
Criego
Atwood
Stamson
Present
Absent
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the September 11, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Chairman V onhof read the Public Hearing and Appeal statements and opened the first
hearing.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-071 Eagle Creek Villas is requesting a variance to lot area less
than the minimum of 7,500 square feet, a variance to lot width less than the
minimum 50 feet, and a variance to permit over the maximum allowable impervious
surface area of 30 percent for the property located at 14624 Oakland Beach.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Eagle Creek Villas, LLC,
for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on an existing lot of
record. The following variances are being requested:
1. A 3,522 square foot variance to permit a lot area of3,978 square feet rather than
the required minimum area of 7,500 square feet.
2. A 10.24 foot variance to permit a lot width of39.76 feet at the building setback
line rather than the required minimum lot width of 50 feet.
Lot 16, Oakland Beach, was platted in 1926. The property is located within the R-l (Low
Density Residential) and the Shore1and Overlay Districts. The lot is adjacent to dedicated
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMlN\MN092500.DOC 1
"
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25. 2000
.
"
waterfront access to the shoreline as granted to the collective property owners in Oakland
Beach. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels.
The Department of Natural Resources has no objection to the lot area or lot width
variances. The Planning Department received a faxed letter from a neighboring resident
on Oakland Beach Avenue expressing their opinion on the requested variances. This
letter states granting the requested variances would set a precedent and allowa.property
owner with two 60' wide lots to create three lots less than 50' wide. It is important to
note this variance applies to an existing platted lot and does not allow the creation of any
new lots.
The Planning staffbelieved by applying today's Ordinance requirements to an
undeveloped existing platted lot of record, a hardship is created according to the
preceding stated conditions in their report. The staff recommended the Planning
Commission adopted the resolution approving the two requested variances. Approval of
this request should be subject to the condition the lot is developed as shown on the survey
to ensure additional variances are not required.
Comments from the public:
Larry Gensmer, representing Eagle Creek Villas said he did nothave anything to add to
the report.
Paul Borman, 14626 Oakland Beach, asked ifhe could see the plan and did not have any
comments.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· The two variances are appropriate. There is no opportunity to expand the
boundaries.
· The building proposed meets all the setback requirements.
· Supported the request.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Stamson, the requests are appropriate.
· The impervious surface issue has been taken care of.
V onhof:
· Agreed with the Commissioners.
· Questioned staff on the driveway grade. Horsman responded.
· All the hardship criteria had been met.
I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn092500.doc
2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2000
. The impervious surface issue has been addressed.
Rye pointed out a condition in the Resolution that the lot must be developed as shown on
the exhibit. It would be necessary to move the house a few inches to accommodate the
survey. Therefore the condition would have to be modified to reflect the change.
V onhof re-opened the public hearing.
Molly Sexe Borman, 14626 Oakland Beach Avenue, questioned if the bpi1ding could be
moved closer to the other side of the lot. Kansier explained the setback 6rdin~ces have
been met but maybe the proposed home could be flip-flopped so the larger setback is on
the other side. A condition in the Resolution could state the house must be relocated
where no additional variances are required. Borman would, like to expand some day. The
home on the other side of their property is located right on the lot line. They would like
to keep their options open.
Atwood:
Questioned staff on what will happen to the Bormans when they want to add on with a
non-conforming lot. Rye said they would have to meet the ordinances. It appears the
Bormans have a 12 foot side yard setback. There should be some discussion on moving
the proposed house.
Stamson asked the applicant, Larry Gensmer if they would be impacted ifthe
Commissioners added a condition to move the house over 5 feet. Gensmer said he did
not feel there would be a problem.
Larry Miller, owns the adjoining property on the other side and would like to see it
moved 10 feet away from his side. Miller's lot is undeveloped at this time.
There were no other comments and the hearing was closed.
The Commissioners discussed the setbacks and building separation.
MOTION BYSTAMON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION
00-12PC GRANTING A 3,522 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT
AREA OF 3,978 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM
AREA OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET, AND A 10.24 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT
A LOT WIDTH OF 39.76 FEET AT THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE RATHER
THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 50 FEET WITH THE
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT A 10.4 FOOT SIDE YARD REMAIN ON
THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WITH A 5.4. FOOT SETBACK ON THE
SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm092500.doc
3
"".
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2000
B. Case File #00-070 Bob Dittman is requesting a variance to construct an
addition to a principal structure and an accessory structure less than the minimum
required 25 foot setback to a street right-of-way, also a variance to permit over the
maximum allowable impervious surface area of 30 percent.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Bob Dittm~ for the
proposed construction of a covered deck addition, porch additions,. a rebuiItgarage
addition to an existing single family dwelling, one new accessory structure to replace two
existing accessory structures, The following variances are being requested:
1. A 17.4 foot variance to permit a covered deck addition toa principal structure be
setback 7.6 feet from the front property line rather than the minimum required
setback of 25 feet.
2. A 15 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 10 feet from a
property line abutting a public street rather than the required 25 feet.
3. A 13.5 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 11.5 feet from
a property line abutting a private street rather than the required 25 feet.
4. A 91 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface area of2,467
square feet (36.7%) rather than the existing impervious surface coverage area of
2,376 square feet (35.3%).
Lot 11, Green Heights, was platted in 1928. The property is located within the R-l (Low
Density Residential) and the Shoreland Overlay districts. The lot is not riparian but has
dedicated lake access rights. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels.
The lot is approximately 50 feet wide and approximately 135 feet deep with a total lot
area of 6,721 square feet.
The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments objecting to increasing the
impervious surface coverage as proposed.
The Planning Staff has determined the variance requests do not meet the hardship criteria
as described in conditions 1 thru 9. The requested variances are contrary to City
Ordinance 1107.2303: Special Requirements. (2) Nonconforming Structures. a) Permitted
Construction. Construction, which does not extend, expand or intensify the
nonconformity. Stafftherefore recommended denial ofthis request.
Comments from the public:
Bob Dittman, 16200 St. Francis Lane, contractor and son of the home owner, said he
understood the City's concerns. Dittman said he did not care about the sheds but felt the
decks should be accessible and covered for safety reasons.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn092500.doc
4
~
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25. 2000
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. No comments at this time.
Stamson:
· Regarding the 17.4 foot front yard setback - Felt the first hardship criteria is met.
The deck is not increasing encroachment toward the street. Suppottedthe
setback.
· Does not support the shed setbacks.
· Agreed with the DNR, the impervious surface variance can be met.
· Questioned staff on removing some of the driveway to:rnaintain the existing
impervious surface. Kansier explained the ordinance states they could not -
Increase.
· Did not agree with the impervious surface re.quest.
V onhof:
· Agreed with the first variance request.
· Did not believe the shed setback and impervious surface criteria had been met.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE 17.4 FQOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A COVERED DECK STRUCTURE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION DENYING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
10 FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM A PROPERTY LINE
ABUTTING A STREET RATHER THAN THE REQIDRED 25 FEET. A 13.5
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE
SETBACK 11.5 FEET FROM A PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING A STREET, AND
A 91 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
AREA OF 2,467 SQUARE FEET (36.7%) RATHER THAN THE EXISTING
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA OF 2,376 SQUARE FEET (35.3%).
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
V onhof explained the appeal process.
5. Old Business:
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn092500.doc
5
..
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2000
6. New Business:
A. Case File #00-069 Shamrock Development is requesting vacation of a utility
easement located on the west lot line of Outlot B, The Wilds 4th Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report.
Outlot B, The Wilds 4th Addition, was originally platted in September, 1997. Asis
common in all new subdivisions, the plat dedicated a 10' wide drainage and utility
easement along the outer boundaries of the property. Shamrock Development, the
property owner, is requesting the vacation of the 10' wide easementlocatedalong the
west property boundary of the outlot. The purpose of this petition is to allow the platting
of this property into new lots.
On September 18, 2000, the City Council approved a final plat to be known as The Wilds
5th Addition. This plat includes Outlot B, as well as approximately 10 acres to the west.
The plat subdivides the property into 37 lots for single family dwellings. The existing
easement would run through the middle of several of these lots.
The Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this request. The intent of the
Comprehensive Plan is satisfied by the dedication of drainage and utility easements in
The Wilds 5th Addition. Furthermore, the City does not require the existing easement
with the dedication of the new plat.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Supported the request.
Stamson:
. There is more than adequate utility opportunities elsewhere. The public interest is
served as it allows a higher use and better development in this case.
. The request should be granted.
V onhof:
. Agreed.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION OF THE EASEMENT AS REQUESTED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on October 2, 2000.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcornm\OOpcmin\mn092500.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25. 2000
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye spoke on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment approved several weeks ago
regarding the Shepherd of the Lake property. Part of the amendment involved a change
from commercial zoning to high density residential. The City Council approved the
request and directed staff to bring the issue of the 20 commercial acres back to the
Planning Commission for discussion as to where the acreage could be re-gW.cle4.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Planning Secretary
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn092500.doc
7
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWING THE
SENIOR CARE OVERLAY DISTRICT IN THE C-l, C-2
AND C-4 USE DISTRICTS (Case File #00-074)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
lYES NO
OCTOBER 9, 2000
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
to allow the Senior Care Overlay (SC) District in the C-I (Neighborhood Business), C-2
(Community Business) and C-4 (General Business) districts.
On July 24,2000 and on August 14,2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing
to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance establishing a Senior Care Overlay
District. The Planning Commission recommended approval of an SC district that would
be allowed in the R-2, R-3, R-4, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Use Districts. The Council considered
this ordinance on September 5, 2000. The Council approved Ordinance #00-20,
approving the SC district, and applying it to the R-2, R-3, R-4 and C-3 districts only. On
September 18, 2000 the City Council initiated an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
that would allow the SC district to be utilized in the C-1, C-2 and C-4 districts.
DISCUSSION:
The Senior Care (SC) Overlay district is intended to encourage the development of senior
care facilities in a variety of settings. Rather than simply laying out a set of regulations,
the district sets up incentives that can be applied to a project to the extent certain
locational criteria are met. The more the project meets the criteria, the more incentives
may be applied. Allowing the district to be used in commercial as well as residential
districts will increase the variety of settings, and allow a developer to take advantage of
the proximity to commercial uses, such as health care facilities.
The original ordinance did not include the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) district,
because of its proximity to low density residential uses, specifically single family homes.
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-074\OO-074 pc report. 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 C-l district is generally characterized by smaller lot sizes. The uses allowed as part
of the SC district are not really suited to the R-l district.
A draft ordinance adding the SC district to the commercial districts is attached to this
report. The changes are identified in bold italics. The basic changes include the new
Zoning Districts, as well as language outlining the allowable density in the commercial
districts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states specific findings that must be met to
change the ordinance.
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes ofthis Ordinance, the
Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the City.
3. The adoption ofthe amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan to provide a range of housing options for the
population. This amendment will also allow the development of housing fulfilling a need
in the community.
The staff recommends approval of this amendment. As noted above, the staff also
recommends this amendment be modified to remove the reference to the C-l district.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendments as proposed, or with changes
specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendments.
3. Table or continue discussion ofthe item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment.
1:\00fiIes\00ordamd\zoning\00-074\00-074 pc report.doc
Page 2
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. OO-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1103 AND 1106 OF THE PRIOR
LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. The Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended by adding the following new section:
1106A-Senior Care (SC) Overlay District
11 06A.l 00 Purpose and intent. The intent in allowing Senior Care as an overlay district
is to encourage the development of senior care facilities and to facilitate the development
of such facilities. The Senior Care (SC) Overlay District is established for the purpose of
allowing senior care facilities in close proximity to support services and complementary
land uses. It is the intent of this District to provide for flexibility in the siting and
development of such facilities necessary to facilitate the development and construction of
senior care facilities such as assisted living and congregate care developments. It is also
intended to implement the housing goals and policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
1106A.200 Definitions.
. Assisted Living Facility. A residential facility providing a combination of housing,
meals, support services, limited medical care and assistance with activities of daily
living.
. Congregate Care Facility. A residential facility designed to accommodate
independent living which also provides a variety of support services such as meals,
laundry, housekeeping, transportation and social and recreational activities.
. Senior Care Facilities. A residential facility where at least 80% of the residents are 55
years of age or older. Services available to residents cover a broad range of activities
from social opportunities to medical care. The term includes assisted living and
congregate care. It does not include nursing homes licensed by the State of
Minnesota.
1106A.300 Permitted Uses. Land uses permitted in the SC Overlay District are senior
care facilities, assisted living facilities and congregate care facilities. The specific details
of these uses must be approved as part of the application for the overlay district.
1106A.400 Application. The SC Overlay District may only be applied in the following
use districts: R-2, R-3, R-4, C-2, aBEl-C-3, and C-4. In residential use districts, the
I: \OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-07 4\draft ord.doc
PAGE 1
allowable dwelling unit density for a senior care facility may not exceed the allowable
density in the underlying use district. In the Commercial Use Districts, except for the C-
3 Use District, the maximum dwelling unit density shall not exceed 30 dwelling units
per acre. In the C-3 Use District, the maximum dwelling unit density shall not exceed 50
units per acre. The development of a senior care facility is subject to all applicable
requirements of the underlying use district except as modified according to the provisions
of Section 11 06A.600.
1106A.500 Criteria for application of the Senior Care Overlay District.
l106A.501 Proximity to support facilities. The applicant for any senior care overlay
district proposed for development shall demonstrate that the proposed site is readily
accessible to health care facilities, retail shopping, religious institutions, public
transportation and other supporting facilities and activities. The City Council, in its sole
discretion, shall determine the adequacy and availability of such supporting facilities.
The degree to which the senior care facility is in close proximity to these services and
facilities will determine the degree to which incentives for development will be granted.
1106A.502 Incentives. As an inducement to encourage the development of senior care
facilities, the City Council may consider certain incentives. These incentives include
increases in building height, decreased setbacks, increases in floor area ratios and ground
floor area ratios, modification of landscaping requirements, fee waivers, relaxation of
controls on architectural materials, relaxation of fencing regulations, relaxation of parking
lot landscaping requirements and relaxation of proof of parking requirements. In the C-3
Use District, the City Council may also consider a relaxation of open space requirements
due to the proximity to Lakefront Park. In the initial application, the applicant shall
provide a schedule showing which incentives are being sought and supporting evidence
which shows the justification for the incentives, including an analysis of the degree to
which the criteria in Section 1l06A.501 have been met. The City Council, in its sole
discretion will determine which, if any incentives will be granted to a specific project.
1106A.600 Modifications. In addition to the incentives outlined in Section 1106A.502,
modifications to the requirements of the underlying use district may be approved. Any
modifications requested pursuant to this section shall be identified in the initial
application. Any modifications shall be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and shall be approved upon a finding that the modification does not
significantly adversely affect surrounding properties. Such modifications shall be
approved as part of the SC Overlay District and shall be included in the resolution
approving the SC Overlay District and in the development agreement required in section
1106A.700.
11 06A.700 Restrictive Covenant and Development Contract.
l106A.701 Restrictive Covenant. Upon approval of a SC Overlay District for a senior
care facility, the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant on the property that states
I: \OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-07 4 \draft ord.doc
PAGE 2
the type and extent of care to be provided and limiting occupancy of the facility to no
more than 20% of the residents under the age of 55 years.
11 06A. 702 Development Contract. The City and developer of a SC Overlay District
shall execute a Development Contract which shall incorporate the resolution approving
the SC Overlay District and all conditions set forth in the resolution. The Development
Contract shall require the developer to provide an irrevocable letter of credit provided by
a financial institution licensed in the State of Minnesota and acceptable to the City. The
letter of credit shall reference the Development Contract and be in an amount sufficient to
insure the provision or development of improvements called for by the Development
Contract.
1106A.800 Administration. An application for SC Overlay District shall be processed
and administered under the provisions of Section 1108.200 of this ordinance. This
application shall include identification of the overlay district boundaries and specific site
development details. The submittal requirements are included in Section 1108.205.
2. Section 1103.100 is amended to read as follows:
1103.100 OVERLAY DISTRICTS. The provisions of Sections 1103 through 1106A
govern the use of land within the Overlay Districts. The Overlay Districts are Use
Districts that encompass one ~r more underlying Use Districts and that impose_ additional
requirements above that required by the underlying Use District. The Overlay Districts
include:
1104
1105
1106
1106A
Shore land
Floodplain
Planned Unit Developments
Senior Care
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
I :\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-074\draft ord.doc
PAGE 3
City Council Meeting Minutes
September 5, 2000
MADER: Jim Petersen, any comment?
PETERSEN: No, but IJI make the motion.
/
. J'
MOTION BY' ETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-79 CERTIFYING
PROPOSED C . OF PRIOR LAKE TAX LEVY TO SCOTT COUNl)'" DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION.
VOTE: Ayes by M . er, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
, J
" 1f
. 1
Consider Approval of R "mmendations from the park,~aming Subcommittee.
MA~E~: Commented that th.e'~ity Manager had provide9f~ resolution at the meeting in an attempt to
maintain a level of confidentlality~\.. /
ERICSON: Briefly reviewed the' ;:;'~mmendation ,I the subcommittee to name the community
park/athletic complex on the former Bu~se propertwas Thomas Ryan Memorial Park, that athletic fields
within the park be named Fitzgerald Fields, and the street within the park be named Busse Boulevard.
Also that the street within Ponds Park be n'a ed/Ponds Parkway.
, / .
MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY PEjR \~ TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-80 NAMING
MADER: Commented that Thomas Ryan.f'as a res ent of Prior Lake who was killed by friendly' fire in
Vietnam. His family has not been notif~ed. The infor ~tion was brought to him by Pat McFadden who
was a classmate and lifelong friend o}:Thomas Ryan. '\\
/'
.' \
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, GundlachvPetersen and Ericson, th~motion carried.
I '
MADER: Noted that the secon<;Vaction is to consider a policy id the renaming of city streets, and the
naming and renaming of par~( facilities, streets within parks, and ublic places. The primary change in
the policy is that the earlieyt:>olicy asked that several public meetin . be conducted to accept or reject
submissions for the namipg of parks. It was recognized that public sc' tiny of potential names was not
necessarily constructiv~' in encouraging applications. Therefore, the p licy has been changed. The
policy was also expal)ded to the naming of streets. '
I
MOTION BY ERIcSON, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO ADOPT THE POLlC , FOR THE RENAMING
OF CITY STRIiETS AND THE NAMING AND RENAMING OF PARKS, ' "C. ILlTIES, STREETS
WITHIN PAR~S AND PUBLIC PLACES.,
VOTE: Ayes1Jy Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. ..~
~
Consider Approval of Ordinance 00-20 Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Create an Overlay
District for the Development of Senior Care Facilities.
BOYLES: Advised that Planning Director Rye would be giving the staff report, but advised that a 4/5ths
vote is required for the next two items which are zoning ordinance revisions.
13
City Council Meeting Minutes
September 5, 2000
RYE: Reviewed the proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance to accommodate the need for senior
care facilities via an overlay district in appropriate areas within the community. Noted that regardless of
the overlay, the density of any project cannot exceed the density of the district in which it is located.
Also discussed locational criteria for the overlay district and applicable incentives to consider in
connection with the staff report.
GUNDLACH: Asked if with regard to Downtown with a higher density whether a high-rise would be
necessary to accomplish a 50 unit density. Also asked if there would still be limit as to height due to fire
codes.
RYE: Advised that a mid-rise building could be used, it would just be on a smaller parcel of land than
might be required in the R-4 district. 50 units could probably be accomplished in a three level building
with underground parking. Advised that there are a different set of building codes for structures over
three stories in terms of fire resistant construction.
Gundlach: Commented that the concept had come together well thanks to the efforts of the Planning
department.
Petersen: Agreed with Councilmember Gundlach.
MADER: Asked if the Council would still have latitude in terms of the density and incentives considered.
Also asked if senior overlay district only gets implemented when there is a specific application. Also
asked if the proximity to support facilities means that the project must be demonstrated to be nearby to
all of those items listed, or some. Lastly, asked about providing fee waiver as an incentive and if that
creates a precedent for other developments.
RYE: Clarified that the Council would still have the latitude based upon the specific project with regard
to density and incentives considered, and that the senior overlay district did only apply under a specific
application. Further noted that proximity to some or all of the support facilities listed were required with
final determination by the Council as to what is appropriate. There is a potential precedent set with
regard to waiving fees, but it could be argued that because we are encouraging this type of
development that there is a qualitative difference.
PACE: Advised that there is also an equal protection question dealing with senior care facilities. There
is some justification for treating the class differently. However, the Council will still have to apply the
criteria and have a rationale basis for its decision.
ERICSON: Supported the overlay in the Downtown area and R-4 districts, but concerned about applying
the overlay in other commercial districts due to the City's lack of commercial land available. The issue
is not only tax base, but also having places for people to go and buy goods and services. Suggested
modifying the ordinance, and possibly addressing other areas in the future after there has been some
chance to see how the overlay district will work.
GUNDLACH: Suggested including R-4, R-3 and R-2 because the density issues have been dealt with
there.
There was some discussion about the voting process and
incorporating the amendments.
14
City Council Meeting Minutes
September 5, 2000
MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 00-20 AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE AN OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
SENIOR CARE F';CILlTIES.
MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO AMEND SECTION 1106AAOO TO APPLY
ONLY TO DISTRICTS R-2, R-3, R-4 and C-3.
A friendly amendment was offered to delete the second sentence on page 2 under section 11 06AAOO.
The motion and second accepted the amendment.
MADER: Commented that he has mixed feelings about the amendment because the change would in
effect prohibit the Crystal Care development on the property adjacent to the Park Nicollet facility. It
would be a very positive project. Would support the motion limiting the overlay, but would ask the
Council to consider and expect that a re-zoning application for the Crystal Care project would be
forthcoming.
GUNDLACH: Advised that the only commercial district that the overlay would only apply in would be
Downtown. Suggested the property would need to be re-zoned for the Crystal Care project on that site.
Further commented that it wasn't his intention to kill any particular project.
ERICSON: Commented that he is suggesting this action with no particular project in mind and believed
that is how any zoning ordinance change should be approached. It is necessary to have commercial
areas available for commercial measures.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
VOTE ON PRIMARY MOTION AS AMENDED: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the
motion carried.
Consider Approval of Ordin ce 00-21 Approving a Zone C nge to the R-1 District of the Prior
Lake Baptist Church for Prope Located at 5680 and 56 Credit River Road.
BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda item in onnection with e staff report.
CH TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 00-21 APPROVING
OF THE PRIOR LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH FOR
T RIVER ROAD.
MADER: Asked if a proposed cha e to the Compr ensive Plan would follow and if there was a
procedure for changing one bef the other.
RYE: Confirmed that a C prehensive Plan amendment re
preference or proced for making the zoning change or
particular order.
st would follow, but that there is no
mprehensive Plan change in any
VOTE: Ayes bader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carri .
15
City Council Meeting Minutes
September 18, 2000
OTHER BUSINESS I COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
MADER: Interested in whether the Council has any positions to present at the Metropolitan Council town
hall meetin on M~tropolitan Council procedures and encouraged Councilmembers to attend anyone
of the hearin .
MOTION BY ER SON, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO ASK THE MAYOR TO PREPARE SOME
COMMENTS FOR DEO PRESENTATION AT THE TOWN HALL MEETI S ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, ndlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion car: ed.
MADER: The second item s a property dispute with the owner f Priordale Mall, and asked for an
update on how that is being h died.
BOYLES: Reviewed the history of e issue, advised of rec t correspondence from Neil Boderman to
residents in the area. Advised that hen the City learne of the letter, he distributed a letter assuring
residents that their water and sewer rvice would no e interrupted. Advised that the City continues
to negotiate a resolution to the matter . h Mr. Bode an.
MADER: Advised that this item is in litigatio an will be discussed in executive session, but wanted to
take an opportunity to assure residents tha the City is negotiating a satisfactory resolution. Lastly,
asked for clarification on when the staff w d 've its report on the general contracting agreement with
WSB for engineering services.
BOYLES: Advised that the reports Id come at the ouncil's next regular meeting.
GUNDLACH: Asked for an upd e report on the Mediaco 'ssue.
ERICSON: Strongly agre that he is very disappointed with e customer service and lack of effort on
behalf of Mediacom. lieves that it is time for the City to take ronger steps.
MADER: Sugges a having the Mediacom representatives come to
BOYLES: A Ised that there were some procedures under the contract follow and he would follow up
on that ect. Explained that Mediacom had advised him that the Stars hannel could not be added to
basic ble service due to a lack of channels. Advised that he has not received a response to his most
recent correspondence.
~
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT THROUGH THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR ORDINANCE 00-20
REGARDING SENIOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS TO INCLUDE ZONING DISTRICTS C-1, C-2 AND C-4.
ERICSON: Believed the action is inappropriate due to the lack of commercial land available for
development regardless of any specific project.
MADER: Shares Council member Ericson's concern regarding commercial land, but believes senior care
housing is a priority and that a couple reasonable facilities is not an unreasonable amount of acreage
taken from commercial development.
14
City Council Meeting Minutes
September 18, 2000
ERICSON: Further commented that it is short-sighted to put a senior care facility in an area, such as the
Park Nicollet area, where the City is working to increase businesses in the area.
GUNDLACH: Believes the best use for this particular property is for a senior care facility and due to its
proximity to the Park Nicollet clinic.
MADER: Believes this is an opportunity to provide a mechanism for the Council to look at locations for
senior housing rather than being specific to a particular project.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach and Petersen, Naye by Ericson, the motion carried.
.....
Executive Session toDis~uss Pending Litigation (Soderman and TJ Towing)
Mayor Made; ~dvised o.f.lhe ilems 10 be discussed ~n J-.l"'4e Session.
The Coun,cil adjourned to Executiv;yession.
"'- //
The regular meeting resumed. The Mayq~,'advised the issues that were
discussed'in closed session.
: ",>,,<//
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN'TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED STIPULA irON AS PRESENTED BY COUNSEL WITH
RESPECT TO THE BODERMAN LITIGATION. ' '-
, "'"
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, p.etersen and Ericson, the motlbo, carried.
.",~ .
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO AUTHORIZMHE CITY ATTORNEY TO
WITHDRAW THE CON[)EMNATION PETITION WITH RESPECT TO THE'N"TOWING PROPERTY.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader; Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
A motion to-adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting adjourned a 1 :55pm.
Frank Boyles, City Manager
15
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5A
CONSIDER RESOLUTION 00-013PC APPROVING A
VARIANCE REQUEST TO GRANT A 17.4 FOOT VARIANCE
TO PERMIT AN ADDITION TO BE SETBACK 7.6 FEET
FROM A FRONT PROPERTY LINE, AND CONSIDER
RESOLUTION 00-011PC DENYING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE
AND 13.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 10 FEET AND 11.5 FEET
FROM PROPERTY LINES ABUTTING PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE STREETS, AND A 91 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE
TO PERMIT INCREASED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA
OF 2,467 SQUARE FEET (36.7%), (Case File #00-070)
16530 DUNKIRK AVE SE
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES 1- NO
October 9, 2000
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider 4 variance requests
by Bob Dittman for the proposed construction of additions to an existing single
family dwelling, and one new accessory structure to replace two existing
accessory structures on the property located at 16530 Dunkirk Avenue (Exhibit
A Survey). After reviewing the applicants proposal with regards to the variance
hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a resolution
approving the front yard setback with respect to the house additions, and to
prepare a resolution denying the accessory structure setback and impervious
surface variances.
The following variance is approved in Resolution 00-013PC:
1. A 17.4 foot variance to permit a covered deck addition to a principal
structure be setback 7.6 feet from the front property line rather than the
minimum required setback of 25 feet [City Ordinance 1102.405:
Dimensional Standards; (3,5)].
The following variances are denied in Resolution 00-011 PC:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY EMPLOYER
1. A 15 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 10
feet from a property line abutting a public street rather than the required
25 feet [City Ordinance 1102.800: Residential Performance Standards;
(8)]:
2. A 13.5 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 11.5
feet from a property line abutting a private street rather than the required
25 feet [City Ordinance 1102.800: Residential Performance Standards;
(8)].
3. A 91 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface area of
2,467 square feet (36.7%) rather than the existing impervious surface
coverage area of 2,376 square feet (35.3%) [City Ordinance11 04.306:
Impervious Surface Coverage; (1 )].
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff recommends approval of Resolution 00-013PC approving the
front yard setback variance for the proposed principal structure additions as
surveyed in Exhibit A. Also, staff recommends approval of Resolution 00-
011 PC denying the proposed accessory structure setback variances and
increased impervious surface area variance as proposed in Exhibit A.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Approve Resolution 00-013PC and Resolution 00-011 PC, or approve any
variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
In this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a
resolution with findings approving the variance requests.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
This action requires two motions as follows:
1) A motion and second adopting Resolution 00-013PC approving a 17.4
foot setback variance to permit an addition to a principal structure be 7.6
feet from a front property line.
2) A motion and second adopting Resolution 00-011 PC denying a 15 foot
variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 10 feet from a
property line abutting a public street; a 13.5 foot variance to permit an
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-070\VRPT2-070.DOC
Page 2
accessory structure to be setback 11.5 feet from the property line abutting a
private street; a 91 square foot variance to permit increasing the existing
impervious surface coverage area from 35.3% (2,376 square feet) to 36.7%
(2,467 square feet).
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-070\VRPT2-070.DOC
Page 3
RESOLUTION 00-OI3PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 17.4 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 7.6
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE INSTEAD OF
THE REQUIRED 25 FEET.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Bob Dittman has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit
the construction of an addition to an existing single family dwelling with attached
garage located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay)
Districts at 16530 Dunkirk Avenue, and legally described as follows:
Lot 11, Green Heights, Scott County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat
thereof.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case File #00-070PC and held hearings thereon on September 25, 2000.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property,
including the location of the existing structure, it is possible to use the subject
property in such a way that the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of
an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase
congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public
safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other
respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The existing structure does not meet required setbacks. This situation creates a
hardship with respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the owner. The additions to the existing structure will not reduce the existing
setbacks any farther.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-070\appres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the location of the existing structures.
Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance to
permit an improvement to 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. 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.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #00-70PC 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 17.4 foot variance to permit a 7.6 foot front yard setback to a principal structure
instead of the required 25 feet.
The following condition's must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the proposed structure:
1. The building permit is subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable agency
regulations.
2. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. The resolution must be recorded and proof of recording
submitted to the Planning Department. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant
to Section 1108.400 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 of this resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 9, 2000.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-070\appres.doc
2
...."'-
SUITE. 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (6/2)447-2570
..
16530 DUNKIRK AVENUE
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
~
EXHI~IT A SURVEY ~
''f.,,'O
'!>O \
00 ~\<> <>"'"
~f(j 1 . ~e.
~O.~~.,
~O.
~c,
y.. ~ \ r:, y..
"(.~~\\;
"
::'
\
\/ +.
~\.
/' ~O'.
/
,'1,.1.
.,.
'Ql
\0
'01
01
;~
fit ,,'.
'f
/'
~.
01
~
~
..,
..
o
c::.
-z.
"f..
,.
~
"f..
\l"1.
'ioO
o.GI.
GDrr>~ ~\...
.....o.fl\1
..,"
'I'!)')".
1-
.~\;\
DESCRIPTION:
Lot II. GREEN HEIGHTS. Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of
all visible improvements and encroachments on to or off from said property ifany as
of this 14th day of July. 2000.
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 948.20 T.N.H. @ se quad. Dunkirk & Green Hts.
Trail.
951.6 Denotes existing grade elevation
x
Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
~ Denotes proposed dir~ction of finished surface drainage
o
20
REV. 9/1100 TO SHOW 10' SHED SETBACK.
lIr....Contractor to verify house dimensions prior to construction"'lIrllr REV. 812B/00 TO SHOW CHANGE TO SHEDS.
, he..by certify rhot this survey was preporod
by me or lJI1der my direct supervision ond that
I,."n " "'ulv Ji~fms.d land. Surveyor und_'-' 'ht
RESOLUTION 00-011PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 10 FEET FROM A PROPERTY
LINE ABUTTING A STREET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET. A
13.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE
SETBACK 11.5 FEET FROM A PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING A STREET, AND
A 91 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
AREA OF 2,467 SQUARE FEET (36.7%) RATHER THAN THE EXISTING
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA OF 2,376 SQUARE FEET (35.3%).
BE IT RESOLVED BYthe Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Bob Dittman has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit
the construction of a detached accessory structure on property located in the R-l (Low
Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland) District at the following
location, to wit;
16530 Dunkirk Avenue, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 11,
Green Heights, Scott County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat
thereof.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #00-070PC and held hearings thereon on September 25,2000.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-070\dnyrsOO-ll.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY EMPLOYER
5. The proposed accessory structure increases the existing encroachment into a front
yard setback. The applicant has control over the location and size of the accessory
structure, such that the hardship created has been created by the applicant.
6. While there is an existing structure on the lot, there is no justifiable hardship caused
as reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variance. There is
a legal alternative location for construction of the accessory structure without
vanances.
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure
to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case #00-070PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variance for an accessory structure (as shown in attached revised Exhibit A);
1. A 15 foot Variance to permit 10 foot setback for an accessory structure rather than the
required 25 feet setback from a property line abutting a public street.
2. A 13.5 foot variance to permit an 11.5 foot setback for an accessory structure rather
than the required 25 feet setback from a property line abutting a private street.
3. A 91 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface area of 2,467 square
feet (36.7%) rather than the existing impervious surface area of 2,376 square feet
(35.3%).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 9, 2000.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-070\dnyrsOO-II.doc
2
U'-"_ _.. I.... ...
r6530 DUNKIRK AVENUE
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (6/2) 447-2570
~
/ "3~" G~~~~
/,'~
,,.,6 .
0....
Oo'!l q\O' ~.
~fQ 1 . ~e6
~O. ~~'
~O.
~~~\\..
~~c:"
y..~\G
I'
::'
\
\/
~ ,,~'
/ iO',
/
/
9'19.19
~
Oi
ID
'0\
0\
l ..
fit ....
./
/'
~
0\
~
~
..
I)st
,,0
..Gt
G..l< t\.'
S\...~~\
~\.
..~').ge
~ .
DESCRIPTION:
.':1':'
Lot II, GREEN HEIGHTS, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of
all visible improvements and encroachments on to or off from said property ifany as
of this 14th day of July, 2000.
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 948.20 T.N.H. @ se quad. Dunkirk & Green Hts.
Trail.
951.6 Denotes existing grade elevation
x
Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
--.. Denotes proposed dip~ction of finished surface drainage
o
20
40
REV..9/7/00 TO SHOW 10' SHED SET8ACK,
"'''''''Contractor to verify house dimensions prior to construction"""'" REV, 8/28/00 TO SHOW CHANGE TO SHEDS,
I h~..by certIfy that this !Wrvey was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5B
CONSIDER A 1 YEAR TIME EXTENSION TO THE
APPROVED VARIANCE RESOLUTION 99-021 PC,
Case File #99-067
LOT 13, BLOCK 2, TITUS 2ND ADDITION
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES ~ NO
OCTOBER 9, 2000
The Planning Department received a written request for a one year extension of
an approved variance from Mark Liesener. The Planning Commission approved
a variance to the minimum lot area that expired on September 27, 2000. The
time extension request was submitted on September 26,2000, after notification
by this office of the impending expiration. Variance Resolution 99-021 PC,
originally adopted on September 27, 1999 (Exhibit B Resolution), approved a
variance to the minimum lot area for a single family dwelling as follows:
1. A 52,496 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 34,628 square feet
rather than the minimum lot area of 2 acres (87,124 square feet) required
to be buildable in an R-S District (Rural Subdivision Residential) [City
Code ].
DISCUSSION:
Lot 13, Block 2, Titus 2nd Addition, was platted in 1974. The property is located
within the R-S District (Rural Suburban Residential) and the SO District
(Shoreland Overlay). The original owner and applicant, Mark Liesener, decided
not to build on the subject lot and has recently sold the property to Daniel
Pinkevich. The new owner intends to build a single family dwelling in the Spring
of 2001. Without the variance extension the lot would become unbuildable again
and the new owner would be required to apply for the same variance that was
approved on September 27,1999.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The applicant Mark Liesener has met some of the required conditions by
recording the Variance Resolution with Scott County and signing the Assent of
Applicant Form (Exhibit C Assent Form), but did not make substantial use of
the premi~es by submitting a building permit application and commencing
construction within one year of adoption as required by City Ordinance
1108.415.
The Planning Commission may grant an extension of time not to exceed one
year for any variance. Requests for a time extension are required to be filed with
the Zoning Administrator before the termination date of the Variance, but shall
not be filed more than 30 days before the termination date (City Ordinance
1108.419). The applicant has met this requirement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the extension of time requested. The lot in
question is a nonconforming lot of record. A variance is required before any
construction will be allowed on the property. Therefore the Staff recommends
the Planning Commission approve the extension of time request for one year
from the original termination date, or until September 27,2001. This will allow
the new property owner time to apply for a building permit and commence
construction in the Spring of 2001.
The Planning Commission also approved a variance to the setback from the
OHW of a tributary stream. Resolution #99-26PC was adopted on December 13,
1999. If a building permit is not approved prior to December 13, 2001, this
variance will also expire. However, a request for an extension cannot be filed
more than 30 days prior to the termination date.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the one year extension of time as requested by the applicant, or
approve a time period less than one year as the Planning Commission deems
appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the extension of time because the Planning Commission finds the
applicant did not meet all of the conditions imposed in the variance resolution
as required under the zoning code. In this case, the Planning Commission
should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings denying the extension
of time requests.
L:\99FILES\99V AR\99-067\V ARRPT3.DOC
Page 2
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second adopting Resolution 00-014PC approving the Extension Of
Time for a period not to exceed one year from the date of September 27,2000,
for a 52,496 square foot variance to permit a 34,628 square foot lot area instead
of the required minimum lot area of 2 acres (87,124 square feet) to be a
buildable lot in the R-S District.
L:\99FILES\99V AR\99-067\V ARRPT3.DOC
Page 3
RESOLUTION 00-014PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SEPTEMBER 27,
2001, FOR A 52,496 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 34,628
SQUARE FOOT LOT AREA INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM AREA
OF 2 ACRES (87,124 SQUARE FEET) TO BE A BUILDABLE LOT IN THE R-S
AND SHORE LAND DISTRICTS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mark L. Liesener has applied for a time extension to a variance from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot that
does not meet the minimum lot area in the R-S (Rural Subdivision Residential) and
SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts at the following location, to wit;
4525 Jackson Trail, Prior Lake, legally described as Lot 13, Block 2, Titus Second
Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment reviewed the request for an Extension of Time for the
Variance as contained in Case File #99-067 on October 9,2000.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed request upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance time
extension will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The pre-existing lot of record does not meet the current Ordinance for minimum lot
size in the R-S District. This situation creates an unbuildable lot and a hardship with
1:\99fi1es\99var\99-067\rsOO-14pc.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
owner.
6. There isjustifiable hardship due to the fact that this lot is a lot of record platted prior
to the minimum lot area requirements established by the current ordinance.
Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the granting of the Variance's
time extension to permit a buildable lot for a single family dwelling.
7. The granting of the Variance's time extension will not serve merely as a convenience
to the applicant/owner, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. Without the requested Extension Of Time for the Variance the vacant lot IS
unbuildable.
9. The granting of the Extension Of Time for the Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant/owner.
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 #99-067PC 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 time extension:
1. An extension of time to September 27, 2001, for a 52,496 square foot Variance to
permit a lot area of 34,628 square feet rather than the required minimum lot area of 2
acres (87,124 square feet) to be buildable lot in the R-S (Rural Subdivision
Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. Prior to construction, the applicant must obtain all necessary permits, including
permits for the private well and septic system.
2. The applicant/owner shall be required to comply with all other city ordinances and
agency or governmental regulations that apply.
3. This Resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days of approval. Pursuant to Section 1108.415 of the City
Code, the variance time extension will be null and void if the necessary permits are
not obtained for the proposed structure within one year from September 27,2001.
1:\99files\99var\99-067\rsOO-14pc.doc
2
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 9, 2000.
ATTEST:
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\99fiIes\99var\99-067\rsOO-14pc.doc
3
;Z;~~d1Jtp ~.
~ ~
~ fr .?>tP r-' $ ~ p: "(Cf- o?( f' C-
~~f#'t'f-tP67fC- t{7J~~~~
~ (h/ ;kf17 (~fIr ~ ~(/~.
~(:t ~ 4d5frj;:;
~ '(,~!~'<75"'7?'7'~
~/UJ~~~~'
. ~~
~~/~
._._. - --_0-
D ~ @ [g 0 \~/ ~ I',
e2"
..~..-;. ., ..~~?f~~
-$~0(2{'(~ ~
EXHIBIT A REQUEST
EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION
Proj ect #
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)55.
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
The undersigned, duly qualified and Deputy City Clerk of the City of Prior Lake, hereby
certifies the attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the original.
RESOLUTION # 99-021PC
CASE FILE # 99-067PC
on file in the office of the City Planner, City of Prior Lake.
Dated this Od. I ~ /!If 7
(City Seal)
16200 1i~~~.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 553i72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
RESOLUTION 99-021PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 52,496 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A 34,628 SQUARE FOOT LOT AREA INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED
MINIMUM AREA OF 2 ACRES (87,124 SQUARE FEET) REQUIRED TO BE
BUILDABLE IN AN R-S DISTRICT.
BE IT RESOL YED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mark L. Liesener has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot not meeting the minimum
lot area in the R-S (Rural Subdivision Residential Use) District at the following
location, to wit;
4525 Jackson Trail, legally described as Lot 13, Block 2, Titus Second Addition
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for the variance as contained
in Case File #99-067 and held hearings thereon on September 13, 1999, and on
September 27, 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 surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The pre-existing lot of record does 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.
1:\99fi1es\99var\99-067\rs992 I pc. doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E:--1PLOYER
6. There is justifiable hardship due to the fact that this lot is a lot of record platted prior
to the minimum lot area requirements established by the current ordinance.
Reasonable use of the 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 vacant 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 #99-067PC 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:
1. A 52,496 square foot Variance to permit a lot area of 34,628 square feet rather than
the required minimum lot area of2 acres (87,124 square feet) to be buildable in an R-
S (Rural Subdivision Residential Use) District.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. Prior to construction, the applicant must obtain all necessary permits, including
permits for the private well and septic system.
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 of this resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 27, 1999.
~
Anthony Stamson, Chair
ElllabUshed In lll62
LOT SURVEYSCOMP ANY i INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
INVOICE.' NO. 53642
F.B.NO. 838-07 ,08
SCALE: 1" = 30',.
REGISTERED U}. DER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
7801 73rd Annue orlh . 812-1I80-3093
, "Fax No. 1I80-31122
)UDneapoll.. )llnne.ol" lIlI<l28
o Oenole. Iron Monumenl
MICHAEL 11AYES
o Oenot.. Wood Hub Sel
lor excavation only
xOOO.O Oenole. Exl.tln'il Elevation
@ Denote. Propo.ed Elevation
____ Oenatee Sur lace DraInage
NOTE: Propo.ed grades are eub Ject
10 re.u1lo of .011 le.h.
Propo.ed buildIng Information
, .' No flood 'elevation available from mu.t be checked with approved
': City engineering or watershed dept. building plan ond development or
. 'c:;j' wading pI,", belore excavation
. . ' . ' and conslructlon.
Property is located in Zone X per f:? II ,q PdT I BI k
COllB1lunity Panel No. 270432 0002 C- ropo.e op 0 oc
, Da 1;ed Nov.eroer 19, 1997. f> 11.4 Propoeed Oor<>ge Floor
. , lXJ:!> .1.-_Propoeed Lowesl Floor
~uru ty nhl.,otrrtifirntt
NOTE:Proposed elevations shown
. ,: recoDl11ended by buil der .
II
Property located in Section
23, Township 115, Range 22,
Scott County, Minnesota
JAvlL00N
,Ill 1'\ ( f't'011'\\L.L. ,,'v~
''J'~ #. '
......l!d.==-
1ifA\ L
'\fAIL.) ~ ~
'f'
Type of Bulldln'il
fVu.. i3A'z,€HE~r
WA,U/...oIJ r-
.;(..... '. ."
~ -\ 1<]'2-.40 - -
. 0
",.
~~Pfl~
/",~.
-.J :
i,!
/
I
/
/
I
_._._ __~ .L /'m~
~ ([ I I
~ II I~
~ : 1 I") I ,
; I-------~: + y + \~
\- 1.A1 .; /Int~ I ' " t!:--..l"~
~~tfj',/ " (@ ,.r- _____I ~0fJ f' I
/' O-\~.o-il----I- .---X\3IeJ.. \,C;:b-O / f /
.~" , k 4VZ}1i ~ ,,' ,
qy '0.,.. qJP' ij\~r ~ / I "'
I ./ ~ \' ~ I -v--
l ~ eport%t:~ ~ \
~ ~Ot.t\vt.. \ /
I ~~ 1~~ ~Nr
,~o.- ~J~q.J_ -~ ~\d :15-:0 qp" II
jqfi' qf~ <fIG) ~
~ ' /
I ". ,jI~ . ':4
101 ~ ,f'/
~t!l101r~/ <s
to,
Il:7
01'':'
.", j 01"
~~W_
.,~
~
I
I
\
so1-b'
I
,
~
~
I
\~-~
\} ErJl!,LO<"el?v--~_
\V/AtfouT PA'fIO)
l"--~
\
\
\
\
\
~;;;;;/1Y I OMII-I//4c.
"
,/
EXHIBIT A
,/
/'
./
Lot 13, Block 2, TITUS 2NO ADDITION
'"
,/
l/'
. 1./
~MO!Q A OiL
. "./
The only casements shown orG from plats of recurd or inlorrnotlon
provided by client. .... ....
We hereby certify Ihot lhis is a true ond corred representallon of
Q survey o( the boundaries o( the above described land Qlld the
~~~li~r"d~f 01 buildings and visible uncrooclvnents, it uny. (rom or on
Chcrle. F'. Andorson. !Jlnn. Reg. No,2175J or
Oregory R. Prooch, Mlnn Reg No. 2~992
Surveyod by us \his~duy "f Julv
19~
'10
I
I
,
I
Ii
I
r
F'
'f
I
I
,
-- .........."_.. --._~.-:..-... ..
EXHIBIT C ASSENT
ASSENT OF APPLICANT
File # 99-067PC
As Approved by Resolution # 99-021PC
The undersigned hereby assents to the following:
1. I have read the conclusions and conditions of said Resolution, and I am familiar with
their contents and with the content of the exhibits.
2. I fully accept all of the terms and conditions of said Resolution.
3. I understand Section 1108.400 of the Prior Lake Ordinance Code provides as follows:
1108.413 Revocation and Cancellation of a Variance. A Variance may be
revoked and canceled if the Zoning Administrator determines that the
holder of an existing Variance has violated any of the conditions or
requirements imposed as a condition to approval of the Variance, or has
violated any other applicable laws, ordinances, or enforceable regulation.
11 08.414 After One Year. No Construction Required. All Variances shall be
revoked and canceled if 1 year has elapsed from the date of the adoption
of the resolution granting the Variance and the holder of the Variance
has failed to make substantial use of the premises according to the
provisions contained in the Variance.
1108.415 After One Year. New Construction Required. All Variances shall be
revoked and canceled after 1 year has elapsed from the date of the
adoption of the resolution granting the Variance if a new structure or
alteration or substantial repair of an existing building is required by the
Variance and the holder has failed to complete the work, unless a valid
building permit authorizing such work has been issued and work is
progressing in an orderly way.
1108.416 Upon Occurrence of Certain Events. If the holder of a Variance fails
to make actual use of vacant land, or land and structures which were
existing when the Variance was issued and no new structure, alteration
or substantial repair to existing buildings was required; or if a new
structure was required by the Variance and no building permit has been
obtained, the Variance shall be deemed revoked and canceled upon the
occurrence of any of the following events:
(1) A change in the Use District for such lands is made by amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council.
L:\TEMPLA TEW ARIANCE\ASSENT.DOC l'
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
(2) Eminent domain proceedings have been initiated to take all or any
part of the premises described in the Variance.
(3) The use described in the Variance becomes an illegal activity under
the laws of the United States of America or the State of Minnesota.
(4) Title to all or part of land described in such Variance is forfeited to
the State of Minnesota for nonpayment of taxes.
(5) The person to whom the Variance was issued fIles a written statement
in which that person states that the Variance has been abandoned.
The statement shall describe the land involved or state the resolution
number under which the Variance was granted.
(6) The premises for which the Variance was issued are used by the
person to whom the Variance was issued in a manner inconsistent
with the provisions of such Variance.
4. I understand the granting by the City of this Resolution is in reliance on the
representations that I will fully comply with all of the terms and conditions of said
Resolution. I understand and agree upon notice of non-compliance with any term or
condition, I shall immediately cease conducting activities pursuant to the notice or
will take all actions necessary to accomplish full compliance with said notice and
conditions of the Resolution.
(~/ (( / t'1
DATE I I
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
, r
~..-.~
IGNATURE OF OWNER
4525 JACKSON TRAIL, PRIOR LAKE, MN
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
L:\TEMPLA TE\V ARlANCE\ASSENT.DOC
2
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE
25' WIDE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATED ON LOT 17, BLOCK 1, NORTHWOOD
OAKS ESTATES 2ND ADDITION
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_YES X NO-N/A
OCTOBER 9, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
Northwood Oaks Estates 2nd Addition was originally platted in July, 2000. A 25'
wide drainage and utility easement was platted along the south property line of
Lot 17, Block 1, to accommodate the placement and maintenance of a sewer
line. While the final plat identified a 25' wide easement at this location, the
construction plans indicated a 20' wide easement.
".
Karl and Denise Tremmel are in the process of purchasing this lot. The house
they plan on the lot was based on the 20' wide easement shown on the
construction plans. The 25' wide easement was discovered when the
purchasers had a survey drawn to locate the house on the lot. The applicants
are requesting the vacation of 5' of the 25' wide easement. The purpose of this
petition is to allow the construction of a new dwelling on this lot.
As required by State Statute 462.356 Subd.2, the Planning Commission is
required to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposal or
acquisition of public lands as it relates to compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate
easement or right-of-way by resolution. The statute also states "no such
vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the public interest to do so".
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of
the existing easement comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public
need or anticipated future need for the dedicated property?
1:\OOfiles\OOvac\OO-073\OO-073 pc report. doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Comprehensive Plan Review
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss utility easements, other
than as a function of ensuring access to public utilities. The vacation of this
easement is not inconsistent with any specific goal or objective of the
Comprehensive Plan. The City Engineer has noted a 20'. wide easement is
sufficient for the location and the maintenance of the existing sewer line.
Public Need
There is an existing sanitary sewer line located within this easement. As noted
above, the City Engineer has noted a 20' wide easement is sufficient for the
location and the maintenance of the existing sewer line. The approval of this
vacation would allow the construction of a new dwelling on this property.
RECOMMENDATION
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is satisfied by retaining 20' of the existing
easement. Furthermore, a 20' wide easement is sufficient to protect and
maintain the existing sanitary sewer line. The Planning staff therefore
recommends approval of this request.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the proposed vacation of the
easement as presented or with changes recommended by the
Commission.
2. Continue the discussion to a date and time certain to allow the staff to
provide additional information specifically requested by the Planning
Commission.
3. Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny
part or all of the applications based upon inconsistency of the proposal
with specific regulations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and/or
specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the vacation of the
easement as requested.
1:\OOfiles\OOvac\OO-073\OO-073 pc report.doc
2
NDR.T\-\\NO~t> OA~" ESiA-n!~ OJNl) J}-ODI11'N
"~ATION 'Retl..lA.ESi
(CA~ Flue It;. ()()- fJ 1?J)
~
~
~
0'" .-
'} ',/'
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
(
\
,
\
.\ -z.
, ~
,-~
''(l.'''.
,. 0
,~~,
\ '"
,
,
,
D.
II
0-,0\
<...;
'0
Coo
CoC:i
o
I\:)
-
.....
co
"
\
\
5 88'00 '00" E
35.00
N 88'0'00" W
----...-.. -- -.... ..--
"
../
589. 16
\ ..... ~
" ~
..... 0
..... "->
- . -
" / Co 00-,
o(()
..... g~
J
"
.....
tt. ,,"
? N ;' ,,"
------'
-
<::)
"\
/"-
~
Ot
t::>
II
010\
<...-
C:nc
Cl:lO
0-
o
/
c.,
11:0 (.,
8' 0':
_6.\5/c... _
/
/
/
/
- \
/
---~~
.,
Karl lremmel
S52-440-3469
~001/001
p.2
~_09/ 19/00 08: 16 FAX
Sep 18 00 0~:22p
~
. ~.
...J
~ 00 - O-:::r~
PJ])t
CI'n' OF PRIOR LAKE
APPLICATION F)R STREEr, JtU.EI AND OTlLITY VACATION
Applicant: K'~L. + D2tJ\SE~-EY'I\yY\E"L
Address: '33~C\ ~I'\ 'SI--_:::ow. ~e.\oQ.. l...A-IL2" .,..,\-\) .S-S3., '2.
Bane Phone: ~S l-L.''4D--:)'-\Io~ ' ~rk Phone: ~S'L-&.(L.tO-~'-Ho'"
Property CM1er: K'I.J~ LAesr.\J J~tax:>~ ew:.s LL-E
Address: \120 ettSr"ti>"".:/ t~m= \0\ .~L(lOV"'''.vc...rroI.), V\'1AJ"SS"\ZQ
Bane Phone: ti::lrk Phone: '2"'7f-fOC1~C)(-\al)) 'i1bl-/nz.CCElLIJL~)
Le9al Description of Site tc be Vacated:
~ d1. 13LO~ \ ~ ~
~~ \"T'( 'S A Z5 {; I
C- \-,.\c '1'0 \JM ~ ~ ~~~ , ~\'I G.
Reason for ReqUest: (May Attach) C:;;:C-G A~\-\c~
SUBMlSSIal KmuIREMENl'S: (A: Ccsnpleted Application fonn. (B) Canplete I.e<;al
description & Property llleIltification lbnber (pm). (e) Canplete legal
description of vacation si;;e. (D) Petition or letter including the signat'Jres
and ad&-esses of all proJ:er:y ~rs who am land adjacent to the proposed
vacation site. (El SurvI!Y or map of the pro"fX'sed vacation site. (Fl FUi:"lg
Fee.
CNLY OJMB:..ETE APPLlCATICNS . iBALL BE R.E.V1B'lED BY ~ CITY o:xm::IL.
"" the best of D!{ ~ the infocnation presented on trois f:rm is corr=.
~ . :::>-._ . J7 _ 9 - \~ -.:.000
Applicants Si"?j'tu: Date
-Kh~' fI~ -~'\- 2..uvO
Pee C\mers Signature Date
~~~+ I /V()f{;~lAJovd ofAAl..J . WL
mIS SB:'l'ICN '::> BE FILLED CJJr BY THE PUNNnX:; DIREOUR
CITY C;OUN::!L . _~ilED _te:NIED
CONDITIONS :
_BEARJ:!',G DATE
Sisnatu: e of the Plar.ninq r i rector
Date
.I
To: The City of Prior Lake
From: Karl & Denise Tremmel
Request for Vacation of Easement
We would like the City of Prior Lake to Vacate part of the easement on the South side of
Lot 17, Block 1, Northwood Oaks Estates Second Edition. The City currently has a 25-
foot easement on the south side of our lot and we request that this be changed to a 20-foot
easement, with the City vacating the Northern 5-feet of this easement.
This is a City Sewer easement and is greater than necessary for the sewer at this site.
Where our house would be located on the lot, the sewer is approximately 20 feet deep
(according to the records We have been shown at the City of Prior Lake Engineering
Department). The requirement for this type of easement is usually a 1: 1 slope on either
side of the sewer. This means that at the location of our proposed house, the easement
should be 20 feet. When the sewer was installed, there was a much steeper grade than
the 1: 1 that the city is now requiring and they only needed to dig about 10 feet into my lot
because the soil in that area is heavy clay, not a sandy soil base. This type of soil stays in
place very well when excavated.
Our house plans have the garage on that side of the lot, so there will not be a foundation
there.
We have been planning to build this house for months. We were not advised of this
easement until the survey was completed to apply for our building permit. We request
that the City issue a Vacation of the Easement and reduce the required easement to 20
feet.
We have contacted the owner of the adjacent lot (Kurt Larson, Lot 16, Block 1,
Northwood Oaks Estates Second Edition) in accordance with section D of the Submission
Requirements. Kurt is in agreement that a I5-foot easement would be acceptable and has
signed a document to that fact (see Attached).
Respectfully Submitted by: Karl and Denise Tremmel
3399 Balsam Street SW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone (952)440-3468
i S....o ~ ~
!5 :: .... '" i,
'='1
; W~~...
~ ~~~!
~ 10 0..
j("') i__
... ;x iGl
o 5 ;: ~ 51
~ i - Q!
- I % .....
... ~ ~
i
~ i :
III 8 Wi
3 0 >
I ~ i
i c.n ~
p I'TI a
~ j
M ~
U) ~
~
~ i
o ~
Z i
c ~
~
... \'~
'to . d ltllOl
~ '"
n
..
~ ~
v: ..
...
8 ~
:a %
'~
i- II
g
::1
o
z
F'RCM PIONEER ENGlNEERlf-c 681 9488
~ J ~., ~ ! I
II I It ii:i rail
I ~ :i !,I ,Ii I
i I :M i~! III i
. l; ,~~I J
I I ii I~I ill
i I il "i il i
I I ~ ~!i III
I I .. . ,a; II
E' 1.11 ! C
~ ~ ;: ~I ~ I
c I IjI, 31
a "'Is I.
i ~v I;
'.1 ~ I~ a
f e; i
- i
I:
it I ij-i
T ~ h!a
lilln
9UWJi
ellah:
li~.
IJ!i
;~,
I-
I
i1iiiQ
~!~~I'
~ !' lR ...
Q I ~ i
6~e~
~ ~ ~ :
~ilHi
I
\
\
/
/
fA ~
. \ \.
. :--..\
u..bf;.
\.
/\..
-,
~.
0)
III ~
:0- ~
II
~I ~
,. I -\,.
. .' ,/ ;\\ \
l! \.....----------.}
- , ~ ~.
C1, 1
\)
~ .,.'C.
- :fJ"'.
:l \C~*
~ ... 5 . ..
o .." ,.,...
~S]
r1l ':l
..,
o
~
~
-.
~
"<
0-
:1
i
h
. I
I!
. i
1I ~
s'
l~
0<>
i~
i!-<
z:
....~
:-;0
10
~cn
~ .
"i!E jf't i
i!.I!f ~J;!
':::1- --~,
lS- !I. i
,~_ I :I~. !
-StO i~1 r
I !Ii ",i!
~ ilJ;
J .u;
, 0 '
_ I '
! i
-"
OJ r:- i
\~:
~;
\
.
a' ~
\.J '" -....
~
\
\l
~ ,~
-)
I have reviewed the 'attached proposed request (Northwood Oaks Estates 2nd
Addition Easement Vacation) for the following:
Water City Code Grading
X Sewer Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features legal Issues
Assessment Electric Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion Control Other
Recommendation: ~ Approval
Denial
Conditional Approval
,I"
... . -'
. .
- .--",-
,
Signed:
~Mcf)~
~
Date:
q / {)." /0-0
t I .
Please return any comments by Thursday, September 28,2000, to
Jane Kansier, ORC Coordinator
City of Prior lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9812
Fax: (612) 447-4245
~I@:~~:~ ~
1:\OOfiles\OOvac\Oo-073\referral.doc
Page 2
"/.'
RISeR
\ cn\
\ i
I (")~
;0
\~ ~'..-
N\
0)\
\
I \
I \
i \
\ \
._.__ ~ 02 02 \
'O'>>'?'
'-.J
-I
[\.'
_J
i i
i I
, I
-I
::D
---l.
o
--->
fTl
U)
,\ i
I !
I i
_________j L______ ____.._1~~!4
I
"--1 !. --.-,--
I '
, I
\ I
i \
, I
I \
i \
I i
. II
I I !
\:~~~~_~v~J
19Y99--- -
~
,
/
f'0
---l.
o
en
/
OJ
=:J
/
I
~~--,
~,~.
o
Q
o
f'0
-P>.
N
_ f'0'
",;.' ;
- ,
f
~. . I
" i
..........:.....
........... .:........
...........:.......
. .
.....~. ....
.. . .. . .. ..;. .. .. .. . .., .. . ~ .
'.".........:..'....\'..".... ,....."..."...;..
, . , \..,..,.....,..
!i~L,[.\. ," '. .[ ". ....
.: ,~:. .. ,. "i'T"T"
: . -> \,'
: c-l \
.................:........., 'i
..0:' .
.~.'MR..7...,.1...,...,..........
___ f' ,0. · :
(J1 . ::
:~"iu,Lui,:
t-.) ~ : '?: : : \ : ;
'" ~~ ' ~ . . \ '
.,~,.,:\"...
~ ~ ORO L.:,...~...,.,MH .'" ..!
................... P: w
... '. .\).~7/.\..,.,.'.26......"...,.."'..,.,...
.............",.. .
, ./...:.........:(.....;......:.j...'..............
, Ii:: . ;' M!
'X:
/" :. t;;:
.4...... .....~...~...':.;:~::,..'C.;::...,......,".:~.. ......., -0 Z'
_ . ......... ' 1.........~...~i,......,.......,..
: ~ "!ij:
. v. 1>'
. "~ .~j
,'.~Hi,.,+11
oJ) , .' .
U1' ;: .
,..........:.i... ....i.:,..! MH5 . ~ O!\KCR~ST ~lRCLE
\ : . . )"36r"'U
...........:..
", .:
....,...........:.
(0:
.j:oo.:
Q1:
'.... .. 'i-::i~
'-I:
...:
':..,.......... tf)
: 0
: ::0
. .... ... . .~.. ... .. .. .
, .
. ... ...~ . .. . . .. ... . ... , . . . ~ .
. .
.........~ .. .. ~. .. . . ... .. .. . ~. . .
. .
.......,.:.........
.. . . . , . . . ~ . . . . . .. . .
a.......:.!........ ...... ..i............
...J.....: ... ...
'i:::i!~Q~-
I"'IC~~:X:
I"'I',CO 1'1
VI!;!:(-,.I"'O~
~a-Vl~~
""c"tl
.' 1'1"'O~O
SlEI"'I::OI'1
, ' . VI ::0 1'1 ;;0
~;;tSC::j
. = ;;0 !!hD~
0"'1'10-<-<
~VloZ-,.l
1'1~1'1~~i:
~. -,.IZZ -,.I
..... ' r"!Eoo
:" Z:;g -,.I
.01"'1-,.1 :x:
...... ~ 1'1':X: c:-
Z i:: :O~ZUl
P g ~~~;2
.... z;;o ,..
o o~ z
~ ~:r::~
UI
(0:
.j:oo.:
p:
~
,.. ............j:oo.
o
0;:.
\.
\ ... .
,m",\jm:,:L, ... .,,',"",. .
.. ...,..,........ .......,..b1
N !;:;.
.... 'v
:()) <
1>
, -l
:CD M
,.,..."".~ W.."~. .,.i.."..,........,.\ .'....".'1'....",..".:..::.,..':,',::,.,,',........,,:,',.,...".,"",..,.:....",.."...
'N@ ,; ::
"..,',.,.,.~. i""'...,',."..u,",....,",..',."..\..,....,":.'.""...,..,.,...:.""..".,.,... ..,."'.,..u.....".!.,..""".,.,.
: .;\;:; ,: . ,i. .
.. ...,....' ..\" ". '\
_ \\., nn~L L
t'
PLANNING REPORT
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6B
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION REGARDING
RELOCATION OF 20 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY
N/A
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_ YES _X_NO-N/A
OCTOBER 9, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND: Recently, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan
amendment for Shepherd of the Lake church at McKenna Road and County Road 42.
This amendment changed the designation of 20 acres of property from Business Office
Park to High Density residential. Following this action, the Council directed staff to bring
back an amendment to the Planning Commission that would establish an additional 20
acres of commercially- designated land elsewhere in the City.
DISCUSSION: Following a review of the available properties in the City, staff
believes there are three alternative locations where lands currently designated for
residential use could be considered for a change to a commercial designation. These areas
are shown on the attached map. The first area is located at the northeast comer of County
Road 42 and County Road 21. Existing land use is three single family homes on large
lots. The second area is located on the northeast comer of County Road 42 and Pike Lake
trail. Existing land use is agricultural with an existing single family home. The third area
is located on the northeast comer of County Road 42 and County Road 18. Existing land
use is three single-family homes on large lots.
Each of the three areas is approximately 20 acres in area.
Of the three sites, staff believes that the second area on Pike Lake Trail has the lowest
potential for commercial use while the area at the intersection of County Roads 42 and 21
has the highest. The basis for this conclusion is the eventual extension of County Road 21
northward to Highway 169 and the projected traffic levels through this intersection.
lOO9006b
16200 E'agle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The Commission should review each of the sites and determine which is appropriate for
commercial designation. It will then be necessary to schedule a public hearing on the
preferred alternative. Following the hearing, the Commission will send its
recommendation to the Council for consideration.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Select a preferred area for commercial designation and direct staff to schedule a
public hearing.
2. Continue the case for specific reasons.
RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 1
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second directing staff to schedule a public hearing
on the preferred alternative.
lOO9006b
PC
~ m f6
"m :J a:
C"'C
Q) C
~~
c.
E
8
~
~
L-
a
-t::
a..
'0
~
(5
'"
z~~
~ 8~ III
m ~:e -E"r;:: ~ 6
::::> r;:: ~ i~ .- :; ~ ~
"0 ~ .~"- J3 ~!E :e 8-
c::: s~ D~~ 1'6~ illS ~~
ctJ 6 "- III li Cl Cl Qj 8 D:S I Ct
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"~"~ m ~ ~ li ~ D O/S I ~
10 l~.9F ~ ~~ ~~~ ~j I'~~ ~
.~~H~ 'fi nH~]~ lid ;
~ j 001 J 101111111011
8
~
en
z
0-10
~~3
8Q-I
-It:~
-IB~
~<{W
~o::~
wo~
~LL8
8
~
z~ ~
~
~
~
t~
~~