HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 July Planning Commission Agenda Packetu
PRI
7:30 P.M.
7:30 P.M.
7:30 P.M.
7:45 P.M.
8:15 P.M.
8:30 P.M.
* 9:00 P.M.
9:30 P.M.
REGULAR PLANNING COtMMISSION MEETING
JULY 16, 1992
CALL TO ORDER
REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
HEARING
HOME OCCUPATION
HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE
VARIANCE
HEARING
Fflg R 2 G
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING
ZONING ORDINANCE
AMEN0KENT:
MINERAL EXTRACTION
DISCUSSION
TERM LIMIT POLICY
* Indicates a Public Hearing
REX CARLTON
JAMES 6 JOANNE TA04PSON
PAUL ZANDER
BILL HENNING
All times stated on the Planning Comniss.Lon Agenda, with the exception of Public
Hearings, are approximate and may start later than the scheduled time.
4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245
AN EQUAL OPPORI'UNrfY EMPLOYER
PRf�\
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 18, 1992
The June 18, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting was called to
order by Chairman Loftus at 7:30 P.M. Those present were
Commissioners Loftus, Wells, Roseth, Director of Planning Horst
Graser, Associate Planner Sam Lucast, and Secretary Rita Schewe.
Commissioners Arnold and Wuellner were absent.
ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS
WRITTEN.
Vote taken signified axes by Loftus, Wells, and Roseth. MOTION
CARRIED. NOTE: Commissioner Wells was not present at the
previous meeting but voted on the minutes to fill the quorum.
ITEM II - JOHN SCHIFFMAN - VARIANCE
Kathleen Schiffman, 15220 Howard Lake Road, stated they are
requesting a variance to construct a 15 X 22 addition to the
west side of an existing detached garage.
Sam Lucast, presented the information as per memo of June 18,
1992. The present home was built in 1962 but the subdivision was
not platted until 1982. The applicant is requesting a
continuation of the building line which would be considered a
legal nonconforming setback. However, because the shoreline
curves back toward the garage the distance of the O -H -W becomes
less and requires an increased variance thereby losing the
continuation of a legal nonconforming setback. The location
planned for construction is the most logical area as it is nearly
flat, treeless and more aesthetically pleasing. There have been
previous variances granted to other lots in the area. DNR was
more concerned with erosion into the lake than with the requested
setback. Staff recommends approval as requested.
Comments from the Commissioners were on: shape of lot, tree
location, and use of the proposed construction. Commissioner
Loftus wanted to put on record that Mr. Schiffman is a former
client but would vote on the variance due to the absence of two
Commissioners.
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Nfinne ota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245
A EQUAL OPPOKrUMTY EWLaYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 1992 PAGE 2
MOTION BY WELLS, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO APPROVE A ONE HUNDRED
THIRTY SEVEN (137) FOOT LAKESHORE VARIANCE FOR 15220 HOWARD LAKE
ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A 15'6" X 22' ADDITION. RATIONALE BEING THAT
THE REQUESTED SITE WOULD NOT REQUIRE REMOVAL OF TREES, IT WOULD
LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF EXCAVATION, IT MEETS THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF
THE ORDINANCE AND IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF
THE COMMUNITY.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wells, Roseth and Loftus. MOTION
CARRIED.
ITEM III - TERRY MUNSINGER - VARIANCE
Terry Munsinger, 15229 Fairbanks Trail, stated he is requesting
variances to construct a 22 X 24 foot attached garage, a deck
expansion for primary house access and stairs for back yard
access.
Sam Lucast presented the information as per memo of June 18,
1992. The variances requested are a 64 lot coverage, 12 foot
front yard, 5 foot north side, and a 3.5 foot south side yard.
The subject site is a 50 foot wide substandard lot. Currently
the applicant has no garage or access to the rear yard. The
north side yard variance for the garage would be a continuation
of a legal nonconforming setback of the principle structure. A
lot coverage ratio variance is necessary because the impervious
surface coverage exceeds 30 %. Fairbanks Trail is not centered in
the dedicated right -of -way but will probably not be realigned
because many structures encroach substantially into the setbacks.
Some trees will be lost due to the construction of the garage,
possibly tree replacement may be part of the motion. Staff
recommends approval of the variances as requested.
Comments from the Commissioners were on: tree replacement, lack
of a garage is a hardship, and removal of existing shed from
property line or move to the proper setback.
MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY WELLS, TO APPROVE THE SIX (6)% LOT
COVERAGE VARIANCE, TWELVE (12) FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE, FIVE (5)
FOOT NORTH SIDEYARD VARIANCE, AND THREE AND ONE HALF (3.5) FOOT
SOUTH SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR 15229 FAIRBANKS TRAIL TO CONSTRUCT A
22X24 FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE AND A DECK WITH STAIRS. RATIONAL
BEING THAT THE LOT IS A SUBSTANDARD 50 FOOT LOT, LACK OF A GARAGE
HAS BEEN CONSIDERED A HARDSHIP, PROPERTY WAS PLATTED IN 1920
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF A PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT, APPLICANT WILL
WORK WITH STAFF ON TREE REPLACEMENT, AND FAIRBANKS TRAIL IS NOT
CENTERED IN RIGHT -OF -WAY.
Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Wells, and Loftus. MOTION
CARRIED.
Consensus from the Commissioners on the shed was that the
applicant will work with Staff on removal or bringing into
compliance with City Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 1992 PAGE 3
PUBLIC HEARING - LEROY RADEMAC - PRELIMINARY PLAT
The Public Hearing was called to order at 8:30 P.m. by Chairman
Loftus. The public was in attendance.
Lyle Fuller, Super Valu Development Department of Hopkins,
representing LeRoy and Marilyn Rademacher of Jordan, MN,
presented the proposed County Market Grocery Store plan.
Subdivision approval is being requested at this time. Also
being requested is a 20 foot variance from the centerline of a
county road in order to construct the super market in the best
location.
Horst Graser presented the information as per memo of June 18,
1992. The subject site is 10.5 acres, is zoned B -3, has
utilities, and is part of the Urban Area. The proposed
plan is to construct a 37,358 square foot grocery store on the
subject site. outlot C & D would be developed at a later date.
It is anticipated that McDOnalds will eventually own Outlots A &
B. The driveway to McDonald's will have to be moved south in
Gutlot B. Realignment of County Road 23 (Panama Avenue) and Five
Hawks Avenue was discussed. At this time the state and county do
not have funds for this improvement but Staff would urge that
this be implemented as soon as possible. Signals will be needed
at this intersection.
Rademacher's First Addition is consistent with Prior Lake's long
range planning efforts for the subject site. Staff recommends
preliminary plat approval contingent upon the conditions as
outlined.
Larry Anderson, City Engineer, stated that the applicant has
agreed to the conditions and does not foresee a problem in
meeting them. Mr. Anderson explained the realignment of County
Road 23 and Five Hawks Avenue, the location of a signal, County
Road 23 partial vacation, and traffic congestion.
Discussion followed by the Commissioners on the signal, landscape
ordinance standards used, store location, illumination, signage,
speed limits, and visibility.
Recess called at 9:30 P.M. Meeting reconvened at 9:35 P.M.
Lyle Fuller and John Beardon presented further information
concerning the plat.
MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY WELLS, TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF RADEMACHER'S FIRST ADDITION FOR 4104 STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY
13 AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONTINGENT ON THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
THE COUNTY ROAD 23 RIGHT -OF -WAY MUST BE DEDICATED WITH
THIS SUBDIVISION AND THE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT WHICH WILL
BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE FINAL PLAT MUST ADDRESS THE
APPLICANTS PARTICIPATING SHARE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS..
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 1992 PAGE 4
2. THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWS THAT THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO
MCDONALD'S WILL BE RELOCATED IN OUTLOT B.
HOWEVER OUTLOT B MUST BE SHOWN IN A LOCATION ACCEPTABLE
TO THE CITY ENGINEER.
3. ACCESS TO 170TH STREET MUST BE ADDRESSED TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
4. A PROFILE AND CROSS SECTION MUST BE PROVIDED AND
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ENGINEER.
5. AN EROSION CONTROL PLAN MUST BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY
ENGINEER ALONG WITH DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS AND AN
ACCEPTABLE STORM WATER AND WATER QUALITY SYSTEMS.
6. CAPACITY EXISTS IN THE SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM
TO SERVE THE SUBDIVISION. UTILITY PLANS MUST REFLECT
BOTH SEWER AND WATER EXTENSIONS TO PROPERTY LINES.
7. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANS MUST BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY
ENGINEER.
8. IN THE ABSENCE OF A SIGNAL APPROPRIATE HIGHWAY SAFETY
MECHANISMS BE INVESTIGATED AND PURSUED, (EG. LIGHTING,
REDUCED SPEED, WARNING SIGNS), AND IMPLEMENTED IF SO
WARRANTED.
RATIONALE BEING PROPOSED PLAT AS SUBMITTED IS IN SUBSTANTIAL
COMPLIANCE WITH PRIOR LAKE'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND POLICIES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wells, Roseth, and Loftus. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION BY ROSETH SECOND BY WELLS, TO APPROVE A 20 FOOT FRONT YARD
VARIANCE FROM 170TH STREET FOR 4104 STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 13 TO
CONSTRUCT A 37,358 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND TO SUBMIT AN
ENHANCED LANDSCAPE /LIGHTING PLAN BY INCORPORATING THE PENDING
LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE STANDARDS AS A GUIDELINE FOR THE LANDSCAPE
PLAN. RATIONAL BEING THAT 170TH WILL BE REALIGNED AND THE
VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF
THE COMMUNITY.
Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Wells and Loftus. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY WELLS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Wells, and Loftus. MOTION
CARRIED. Public Hearing closed at 10:25 P.M.
ITEM V - LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION - STAFF
Greg Kopischke, Westwood Professional Services Inc. gave an
update on the second draft of the proposed landscape ordinance
for commercial, industrial, and multiple residential projects.
The landscape plan for the Super Valu Grocery was also discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 1992 PAGE 5
Consensus from the Commissioners were in favor of the second
draft of the proposed landscape ordinance and advised Staff to
schedule Public Hearing on the ordinance.
ITEM VI - MEETING RESCHEDULE /CANCEL - STAFF
Discussion followed by the Commissioners and Staff to cancel the
July 2, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting as there are no agenda
items and City Hall would be closed July 3, 1992 in observance of
the July 4th Holiday.
MOTION BY WELLS, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO ADJOURN MEETING.
Vote signified ayes by Wells, Roseth, and Loftus. MOTION
CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 11:36 P.M. Tapes of meeting on file at City
Hall.
Horst W. Graser Rita M. Schewe
Director of Planning Recording Secretary
PR/
"HOOIPC"
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
PLANNING REPORT
HOME OCCUPATION
REX CARLTON
5445 AMBLEWOOD DRIVE
SAM LUCAST, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
YES X NO
JULY 16, 1992
SITE ANALYSIS
HISTORYIBACKGROUND
T e Planning Department received an application for a Home
Occupation from Rex Carlton of 5445 Amblewood Drive Prior Lake.
Mr. Carlton is proposing to start a part -time mobile locksmith
business for supplemental income.
PREVIOUS PROPOSALS:
There h ave een no previous proposals of this nature submitted by
Mr. Carlton.
ADJACENT USES:
Locat ed Un the Sand Pointe Addition, the subject site is
surrounded by single family zoning.
Tne neighborhood is residentla n composition without business
or commercial uses nearby. A mobile business would not have a
flow of customers to the home to disrupt the neighborhood. The
basic premise of a home occupation is that the permit would not
be granted to an occupation which would disrupt the neighborhood.
Disruptive uses are prohibited and can have their permit revoked.
Incompatible uses are directed to the appropriately zoned area
for their use.
Stringent guidelines are placed on all applications per Section
6.8 Home Occupations, of the Zoning Ordinance. Employees must
be members of the family residing in the dwelling unit. One
unrelated employee is allowed. The Home Occupation (HO) must be
carried on wholly within the principal or accessory structure,
with no exterior storage or signage. The structure may not be
changed from its residential character. The HO shall not create
excessive traffic, objectionable noise, vibration, smoke, dust,
heat, glare, electrical disturbance, or odors. Lastly, articles
not produced on premises shall not be sold on premises, without a
specified permit.
4629 Dakota St. SE.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / Fax(612)447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPOKrUN1rY EMPLOYER
The Planning Commission has previously granted HO permits to a
sound contractor and a glass contractor. They met the previously
stated criteria and operate an "on call" type of business. A
phone call is mada to request service and the mobile business
goes to the customer. A small office may be established at the
residence to handle the paper work and receive phone calls.
Occasional deliveries are made to the house, but most of the
supplies are delivered to job sites or picked up by the mobile
operator.
PROBLEMS /OPPORTUNITIES
Pro ems can occur if the business deviates from the original
mission, or if expands to a level which requires commercial
space. Periodic reviews by staff are conditions of approval in
several existing HO's. Complaints can trigger an inspection or
cause the permit to be revoked if deemed unsuitable by the
Planning Commission. Disruptive HO's will not be allowed to
continue.
The opportunity exists for a start up business to begin with
little risk on the proprietors part. Mr. Carlton described the
business as part time for additional income and to limit losses
if the venture fails. If the business expands beyond the part
time nature to a level over what is reasonable in a residential
setting, the business must relocate to commercial space.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
S a recommen approval of the mobile locksmith /security
company HO as requested contingent upon continually meeting the
conditions set forth in Section 6.8 Home Occupations, of the
Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. The business will be mobile to
serve off site customers. A small office may be established in
the home for paper work and receiving P hone calls. All other
work will be conducted off premises. Occasional deliveries will
be allowed to the house. Staff will conduct inspections of the
operation on a complaint or as needed basis.
Q fl
pRIVE
e A M BL EWOO O coNSr
.P 961 as Tr. EL UNDER
9e2.e - 65 00 9525 — --
_ -�
Tq M99
N r� - G5 6 1 I �N
1 I ! 1 I TM MV5
r
EL 965L 959 9555 2 51 2 EL 86561
1 1 21
1 5 9 �� 9d10I
9 RG9P9GE L 23 a,� yI5
Ey 19Tm
-; _
"At .121,
s i 969 S 9516 9 ,
5pP
96341 1 O 119Y� p q r O
LL O
Oa
in
NN
999 6 939 6 z J
z' I
I II L- 1
1
9999 T I
>I
1
- -65.00-- r99 lror
r90 lro^ N86034541E FL 950
rl 95122
NOTES:
A.M. F,1. r)r-.1.28, Top nut of hydrant on North :ide. Amblew Orivn a Went lin
I
964,1
drr.otes
existing
grade olevstion
x
wse
denotes
proposed
finished grade elevation
�—
denotes
proposed
direction of surface drainage
Set garage slab @
elevation 5690
Set top
of foundation @ elevation 9643
I
HO
PID# - u�5'- diS- Ote'! -
CITY OF PR70A—
APPLICATION FOR HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT
Applicant: _Rex A. Carlton
Address: 54-i5 Ar,nlr_.,(�n A Dr,�e f4 j7 P • r sw 1' h__ , i 531
Hone Phone: _CLi_a) 445 - ago Mork Phone: C�ial't� - 7oS5 ila�. - 7a,ti
Property Owner: BSA A c'nr i,c� q )y
Address: _5445' Aa biv..,o,,,h nr,,Je ti . p. - ka c
Horne Phone. tsz:l 445 a9e4 Work Phone: Cie I a) �� ��jS ; iT 7 ti
Legal Description of Site: $ d Pon tL 4 a
Propety Identification umber (PID) : � s - a, c, . e� � _ p
Nature and Size of Hone Occupation: - c:.KSmw } 1� urvl hrmu /n is
crn3MISSION FYI:RARARI.�` (A) Completed application form. (B) Filing Fee.
(C) Names and addresses of abutting property owners. (D) Parcel ID (PID).
ONLY COMPLEPE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE REVISID BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this form is correct.
In addition, I have read Section 5.8 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which
specifies requirements for Hone Occupations. I agree to provide information and
follow the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance.
Submitted this j �a day of ju: i- I¢1,?, Applitants Signature
_ �o.i
Fee OWnew Signature
ISIS SPACE TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE PLANNING DIRECPOR
PLANNING COMMISSION __APPROJID DENIED JMRRIN: DATE
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL _,APPRWID DENIED W EARING DATE
Conditions:
Signature of the Planning Director Date
Present Zoning: _Pup
5445 Amblewood Drive N E
Prior Lake, NN 55372
June 23, 1992
Planning Department
City of Prior Lake
4629 Dakota Street S E
Prior Lake, MN 55372
To VqTiori It Ilay Concern
I would like to be considered for a Home Occupation Permit.
I would like to operate a locksrnith and home/auto security service
under the name Carlton Lock & Security Systems. The main reasons for
starting this business is for added income and financial security. This
business will be a mobile service. There will be no exterior displays or
signs. No articles will be produced on the premises, which means no
objectionable noise, vibration, smoke, dust, electrical disturbance, odors,
heat or glare shall be produced. Beinq a mobile service, there will be no
customer traffic within the neighborhood. The residence will be used
mainly for record keeping and tool /supply storage. This will be a part -
time business. The reason for starting at home is to keep my losses down
if this business fails.
Thank you for your consideration %tou may reach me at 445 -2909 if
any more information is needed.
Respectfully,
Ra'i' G. CAj.P'•
Rex A Carlton
0 1
r
"HO01PN"
NOTICE OF HEARING
FOR
HOME OCCUPATION
You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held by the
Planning Commission in the Prior Lake Council Chambers at 4629
Dakota Street S.E. on:
THURSDAY JULY 16, 1992 at 7:30 P.M.
PURPOSE OF HEARING: To consider a Home Occupation permit
for a mobil locksmith /security
system installation business by Rex
Carlton.
SUBJECT SITE LOCATION: Lot 2 Block 5 Sand Pointe 4th
Addition or better known as 5445
Amblewood Drive NE.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting the
Planning Commission to grant a Home
Occupation for the above mentioned
business. Home Occupations are not
allowed exterior storage or displays
and signs. They are also not
allowed more than one employee who
is not family residing in the
dwelling unit or to generate
excessive traffic in the
neighborhood. The Home Occupation
must be carried on within the
principal structure and not generate
objectionable noise, smoke,
vibration, dust, heat, glare, odors,
or electrical disturbances.
Articles not produced on the
premises shall not be sold on
premises without a specific permit.
Mr Carlton's business will serve
customers off site. No business
will be carried on at the home other
than phone work and occasional
deliveries.
If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should
attend this meeting. Oral and written comments will be accepted
by the Planianq Commission. For more information, contact the
Prior Lake Planning Department at 447 -4230.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
DATE MAILED: July 10, 1992
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245
AN EQUAL OPPORrUNrrY EMPLOYER
6 11 P P R I \\
J
11,71 W ro 1 7 V >/
"cU01PC"
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
PLANNING REPORT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
JAMES & JOANNE THOMPSON
14170 GRAYLING CIRCLE
HORST GRASER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
YES X NO
JULY 16, 1992
HISTORVBACKGROUND
T eTi Ping Department has received a conditional use permit
application from James and JoAnne Thompson of 16121 Pandora
Blvd., Prior Lake. The application was filed according to Fection
5 -6 -5 of the City Code that specifies the requirements for
conditional use permit review. The specific request is to
operate a "Boarding House" as defined by Section 5 -1 -7 of the
City Code in an R -1, Urban Residential Zoning District.
"Boarding Houses" are a conditional use within this zor.�.
PREVIOUS PROPOSALS:
T e app scan s ave operated a "State Licensed Residential
Facility" as defined by MS 462.357 Subd. 7, attached. The State
of Minnesota has mandated, within the statutes, that certain land
uses must be permitted, by cities, within single family zones.
Subd. 7, permits a state licensed residential facility serving
six or fewer persons. The subject site has been used to house
senior residents for a number of years. The City Council of Prior
Lake did not authorize the licensed care facility due to the
overriding authority provided in Minnesota Statutes. The
proposal is to increase the number of residents from five to
nine. Unfortunately, the City Code does not have "Licensed
Residential Facility" listed as a use within the R -1 Zone.
However, "Hoarding Houses" are listed as a conditional use in the
R -1 Zone. Therefore the application is to consider a
conditional use permit for a boarding house to be located at
14170 Grayling Circle. Staff is uncomfortable with the "Boarding
House" definition as it applies to the licensed care facility on
Grayling Circle. However, the Zoning Ordinance provides no other
alternative processing means for this application.
PHYSIOGRAPHY:
T e s 7ec site is part of a metes and bounds subdivision that
was annexed to the City of Prior Lake in 1974. The lot contains
approximately 24,000 square feet of area and is approximately 90'
wide at the front setback line. The site currently contains a
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245
Al EQUAL OPPOxrUNrrY B4PLOYER
single family home and attached garage. The proposal is to
convert the existing garage to two additional bedrooms and a
family room. The applicant has indicated a desire to build a
second garage, should the conditional use permit be approved.
There is a large setback area and front yard with an existing
driveway that can currently accommodate three to four cars in
depth. An attached garage could conceivably be built within the
front yard. However, there is no survey information on file for
the property therefore, staff is unable to determine whether a
garage could be built without setback variances from the front or
side yard. It should be noted that a garage is not mandatory
according to the Zoning Code as long as there is a basement, or
storage of three hundred thirty square feet.
ADJACENT USES:
e aT a jacent neighborhood is fully developed with single family
homes with the exception of a four -plex that is located northeast
of the subject site at 14151 Grayling Circle. The neighborhood
was platted and developed prior to being annexed into the
corporate limits of Prior Lake.
NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES /IMPACT /CONCERNS
The we ling where the conditional use is proposed is currently
well maintained. From the exterior, it appears to be a single
family home and there are no outward indications that the site is
a licensed care facility. There is no exterior signage and when
inspected, Only one car was parked in the driveway. The site is
zoned for single family residences, however the property abuts
The Harbor, townhome development and is across the street from a
four -plex.
Staff is concerned that there be adequate on -site parking and
that the physical structure continue to be maintained as if it
were a single family home. The Zoning Code requires two on -site
parking spaces for the dwelling unit. The use as proposed will
accommodate the required parking. It is essential that the use
not deter from the single family neighborhood environment for
which the site is zoned. To date, the operation has accomplished
that objective. The number of individuals that occupy the home is
a concern however, staff has no reason to believe that the
exterior appearance nor impact to the neighborhood will change
with the addition of four senior residents. The applicant should
be advised to obtain a certificate of survey in order to
determine whether the addition that is proposed to house the
additional residents, can be built compliant with setback and lot
coverage requirements of the Zoning District.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
A "Boarding House" s defined by the City Code as: A building,
not a hotel or motel, where for compensation and for prearranged
periods, meals and /or lodging are provided to not less than three
(3) nor more than ten (10) {persons. The Zoning Code allows
"Boarding Houses" as a conditional use however, staff is not
aware of any operating nor ever formally considered by the City
of Prior Lake.
The conditional use process requires hearings before the Planning
Commissioa and City Council as outlined in City Code Section
5 -6 -5 attached. Notice of the hearing before the Planning
Commission was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the
subject site. No comments were received by staff as of the date
of this report. Any comments received will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission at the hearing.
The Planning Commission and /or City Council may attach conditions
to approval of the application as deemed necessary to site,
orient, and landscape, to produce a total visual impression and
environment which is consistent with the neighborhood. MS
462.357 grant the city the authority to require a conditional use
permit in order to assure proper maintenance and operation of the
facility, provided that no conditions be imposed on the facility
which are more restrictive than those imposed on other uses of
residential property in the same zone. The conditional use shall
comply with the performance standards outlined in the City Code.
The applicable performance standards for the proposed use are
fire protection and noise. The applicant should be advised that
an occupancy of the dwelling equal to or greater than ten
individuals, will reclassify the building use and require the
entire unit to be upgraded to meet fire and building code
standards. The Zoning Code also limits the maximum number of
individuals that can occupy a "Boarding House" to ten.
DISCUSSION:
It is the opinion of staff that the request to operate a licensed
care facility to house up to nine residents at 14170 is a
reasonable use of the property that can be accommodated in the
Grayling Circle neighborhood. The neighborhood contains a
variety of .residential densities ranging from single family to
townhome and multi - family units. Staff is of the opinion that
the use should be delimited by the application. The applicant
proposes to house up to nine senior residents within the single
family home. The care facility is licensed through the Minnesota
Department of Health and provides assistance with daily living
and supervision of senior citizens. The exterior of the dwelling
and grounds should be maintained as if the dwelling were a single
family haste. In addition, the applicant should obtain a
certificate of survey to indicate that there is adequate room to
construct a garage without variances, prior to conversion of the
existing garage. Staff has no objection to the addition of two
bedrooms and living room, provided that the addition can be made
to the home without need of setback variances. It may be
necessary to consider alternative building design options for the
addition, other than remodeling the existing garage.
RECOMMENDATION:
If it is e ecision of the Planning Commission to recommend
approval of the conditional use permit to allow a "Boarding
House" at 14170 Grayling Circle, staff recommends the following
conditions:
1. The facility shall be licensed with the State of
Minnesota.
2. The number of residents should be limited to nine senior
citizens, as outlined by the application.
3. The maximum number of occupants, including staff
personnel shall be limited to ten.
4. The applicant should provide a certificate of survey to
show that the proposed addition of two bedrooms and
a living room can be built without the need of
setback variances from the Zoning Code.
5. All building code violations that are a result of the
increased occupancy of the dwelling, shall be
brought into conformance with the Code.
6. The exterior of the dwelling and grounds shall be
maintained and operated in a manner that is
consistent with the adjacent residential
properties.
7. The conditional use permit for the "Boarding House"
shall become null and void as of the date of sale
of the property or use, to an individual other than
the applicant. In the event that the conditional
use fails, then the facility must revert to a
single family use with no transferability of the
conditional use permit.
PI)N �� -x:
Phone: Ll v -7 - L, : 19
Phone: q'1 L -r�o
Phone:
Phone:
Consultant: Phone:
Address:
Proposed Conditional Use
Legal Description: Pr U
Existing Use of Property
Property Acreage:
Conditional Use Being
r r'�
Present Zoning: (' - _ Icbi 13 a (L.aLA:.aka-
Cf. r
Deed Restrictions: _A_ Nc _Yes If so, please attach.
Has the Applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional use
permit on the subject site or any part of it: '�C_ _Yes Request:
SUBMISSION REOUIRDIENTS :(A)Completed application form. (B)Caplete legal description and
parcel identification number (PID). (Wiling fee)' restrictions, if necessary.
(E)Fifteen copies of site plan drawn to scale showing existing /proposed structures.
(F)Additional information as requested by the Planning Director including but not limited
to: existing grades and buildings within 100 feet, drainage plan with finished grade and
relationship to existing water bodies, if any, proposed floor plan with use indicated plus
building elevations, landscape plan with schedule of plantings and screening, curb cuts,
driveways, parking areas, walks and curbing. *G)Certified from abstract firm the names and
address of property owners within 50 feet of the existing property lines of the subject
property. (H)Application and supportive to are due 20 days prior to any scheduled
hearing.
ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE REVIENED BY THE PLANNING COMISSION.
To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this form is correct. In
addition, I have read Section 7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance which specifies the
requirements for conditional uses. I agree to praiide information and follow the
procedures as outlined in the Ordinance.
Apply cants Signature Date
r
Feb Owners Signature J Date
THIS SECTION 7O BE FILLED OUT BY THE PLANNING DIRBL70R
PLANNING OOMMISSION _APPROVED _DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CTTY COUNCIL _- APPROVED _DENIED DATE OF HEARIN3
CONDITIONS:
Signature of the Planning Director Date
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PE)A)IT
The land herein referred to is situated in the Rate of Himesota, County of
SCOTT, is described as follOWS:
THAT PART OF..60VERHMM LOT 3, SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 115, RANGE 21,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER ,
OF SAID SECTION 30; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID SECTION 30 A DISTANCE OF 1368..5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
00 DEGREES 56 MINUTES EAST, ALONG TEM WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF A
i TRAVEL= ROAD IA THR PLAT OF � F11Qi0A 442.89' FEET _
THENCE SOUTH 6& DEGREES`26' _IF., DISTANCE OF 743.93 FEES TO
J THE ACTUAL POH�T OF' a aldNldPr 12? DEGREES 2T MINU ES 54
;SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE;OF 203:22 fiEEi rm AID= A TANGENTIAL
- CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OPT * SOUTH -2T DEGREES 19 MINUTES 57 SECONDS:
EAST A DISTANCE. OF 70.75 FEES AND X DELTA ANGLE OF 90 DEGREES 04 MINUTES
06 SECONDS, THENCE SOUTH 1T DEGREES 22 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 19.72
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 77 DEGREES 38 MINUTES HEST A DISTANCE OF 194.13 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 12 DEGREES 22 MINUTES WEST A DISTANCE OF 189.93 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT OVER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
TRACT:
THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 115, RANGE 21,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION
30; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 30 A DISTANCE OF
1368.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 56 MINUTES EAST, ALONG THE WEST
RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF A TRAVELED ROAD IN THE PLAT OF BOUDIN'S MANOR, 974.93
FEET TO THE ACTUAL POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ON A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE
RIGHT HAVING DELTA ANGLE OF 77 DEGREES 45 MINUTES A DISTANCE OF 117.83 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH U DEGREES 49 MINUTES 'WEST A DISTANCE OF 260.24 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 87 DEGREES, 53 MINUTES WEST A DISTANCE OF 34.53 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12
DEGREES 22 MlyUTF$ A_ 25a.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42 DEGREES
22 H'IRiTES WEST A IISTANCE OP 50.0 FEET TO A POINT TO BE KNOWN AS THE RADIUS
POINT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DESCRIPTION. THIS DESCRIPTION INCLUDES ALL THE
LAND mi A 50.0�TOOT, RADIUS OP. SAID RADIUS POINT; THENCE SOUTH 17 DEGREES
38 M�R1'1'ES
WE A DLTnkX^O OP 50.0 MEET FROM' THE LAST DESCRIBED RADIUS POINT;
+ TFEIICEE: SOUTR`}T DOM=d'22 MZEY1ffi.;EiLS4' A. EXESTANM OF 245.87 FEET; THENCE
87 D 531IE:NUTES WEST A DISTANCE OF 200.51 FEET; THENCE SdUTH 12
y DEGREES 22 A MSTANCE OF 20.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES
, ,.. Sa MQN ms ffiIST N k ftmkz; or =85.42 FESE.' 1 THENCE NORTH 76 DEGREES 49 :MINUTES
EAST 1• T?ISTAl1CS Ol� :4 FEES;'. NOIiTEi 00 DEGREES 56 MINUTES WEST A
`�- DI5
L _ ry M
Ar
y a L dy � 1
ol 9 /992-1
0 G b(sle :
�n � art �L/tt, 1 �- «.,�,�oa�a.. �.•a. ��an�n. u�-k 01
cl. a o-u,atirL�1��
v� 9s 5 L-e _e< cC iy � cua a.. a -!_a ri ea� . t1�
��c,• -(-, 7.r,�"') " c J C •n.tt �4_;., tG..'..0 cQ,Cr2 (;() .2 Qh-E G lL,t&e -,C
�f�1j Oad_ Cl `rt� p J
�L.d -tl C.�CZA C.Uf G1.1..0 �LL4 c/fL.gh Q
C �`, "ri C�.i- �� -/�., C,ta9..��2- Ck�m.�. (� Lu- lc.�G�c..• 0 ic1 o-uLcQ.. o -2QOZJ
u �c - �-*�-�- �¢..���E' Est n� -e-w4_ (u•a.�d- e.r�'S . �sLe-
,�iz.0 - �l L�rn..1iRQ.U'-CC� J'l'L.¢._p.aryvt.E.Jj C'4/rC- 0tJutl..t1.�2J
;%' C1 dl..c noL�" CAQ� rz vQOd#ut, 9`' LO �
cZ % 4-.ru.c16 caw 2rrt 64 (J nw /rx 0 -c - tAa:*ci
t6tanv ,sz.r�.coZS 0. e�rtJd u,a.z,
CG.. pLkww, -t Flo 4
Qz lc czs. �rti G2 cCch/ y o
rrto -,1 c� /Lw-Ldc.w./s c.ut i3O c2J
cEru [rC �u v - <sL lw o G� 7(o
�„1dt -t -c+.�a cGto- O7lm1 dd- a inxJ
cP
%.5 CL e en dL:t�c�.�i ctdiC �t�yr�c
e qt-tJ
r
ROAD
aPORATION
2
ua THE HARBI.4
�• 6TH —
N
42
� S
z THE '
i
2
• ` HARBOR
{�
IS 1
2
B S20 /� � 3
'HE z < '
l_Y
22
�O� 9
�,
PnJ 22 Y
I p
0
19• I)
� a ,
I •4 + i• 11
691•
12
N C
4
0
THE HARBOR
4TH_
a ao '
T -200' BdIE
PRIOR LAKE
C
ua THE HARBI.4
�• 6TH —
N
42
� S
z THE '
i
2
• ` HARBOR
{�
IS 1
2
B S20 /� � 3
'HE z < '
l_Y
22
�O� 9
�,
PnJ 22 Y
I p
0
19• I)
� a ,
I •4 + i• 11
691•
12
N C
4
0
THE HARBOR
4TH_
a ao '
e6IJ5 HOUSM, WEDEVEIAPMEW. PLSNMNG, ZONING rigs
should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations
from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions 6e.
through 9. "person" has the meaning given in section 243A.02. subdivision 11.
to
Subd. P. Permitted multifamily use. Except as otherwise provided in suLdivision
7 or in any town. municipal or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivi•
sion. a state licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 persons ore. licensed
day care facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall be considered a permitted
multifamily residential use of property for purposes of zoning. A township, municipal
or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or special use permit in order
to assure proper maintenance and operation of a facility, provided that no conditions
shall be imposed on the facility which are more restrictive than those imposed on other
conditional uses or special uses of residential property in The same zones, unless the
additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of
the residential facility. Nothing herein shall be construed to exclude or prohibit residen•
tial or day care facilities from single family zones if otherwise permitted by& local roe.
ins regulation.
History: 1965 c 670 s 7, 1969 a 239 s 1. 1973 c 123 an J s 7,. 1973 c 379 s d: 197]
c 53911; 1973c 559s 1.2: 1975 c 60 2.'1978c 786a 11,13: Ez1979 c 2 t 12.0
e 356 a 24 1982 c d9O s 2: 1982 c 307s 22; 1984 c 61716.8: 1985 c 62111985 c 191
s 211986 c ddd; 1987 c 333 s 22: 1989 c 82 s 2: 1990 a 391 art 8s 47,• 1990 c 568 an
2s 66.67
462,358 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFPECIUATION: SUBDIVISION REOUI A•
TIONS.
Subdivision I. (Repealed, 1980 c 366 s 331
Subd. la. Authority. To protect and promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic, and safe development of land, to preserve
agricultural lands. to promote the availability of housing affordable to persons and fam•
sewage, norm drainage. sehoole. parka• playgrounds, and other public services and
facilities. a municipality may by ordinance adopt subdivision regulations establishing
standards. requirements, and procedures for the review and approval or disapproval
of subdivisions. The regulations may contain varied provisions respecting, and be
made applicable only to, certain classes or kinds of subdivisions. The regulations shall
be uniform for each class or kind of subdivision.
A municipality may by resolution extend the application of its subdivision regular•
tions to unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in any direction
but not in a town which has adopted subdivision regulations; provided that where two
or more noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries legs than four milesapgn, eseh
is authorized to control the subdivision of land equal distance from its bounduiq .
within this area.
Subd. 2. (Repealed. 1980 a 566 a 351 A!
Subd. 2a. Terms of regulations. The standards and requirements in the regulation
may address without limitation: the size. location, grading. and improvement oflou,
structures, public areas, streets, roads, trails, walkways, curbs and gutters, water supply,
storm drainage, lighting, sewers, electricity, gas, and other utilities; the planning sod
design of sitar; access to solar energy; and the protection and conservation of had ,
plains, shore lands, soils. water, vegetation, energy, air quality. and geologic and'L
ecologic features. The regulations shall require that subdivisions be consistent with the -
municipality's Official map if one exists and iu zoning ordinance, and may require cor j
5 -1 -7
5 -1 --7
ANIMAL KENNEL:
An establishment or dwelling where three (3)
or more animate are bred for sale, boarded,
BLOCK:
trained or kept. (Ord. 63.6. 6.24.63)
ANTENNA:
A device, or that portion of any equipment or
device located on the exterior or outside of
any structure, used for radiating and/or
BOARD:
receiving radio waves only. (Ord. 87.08,
6 -1.67)
ASSOCIATION:
An organization consisting exclusively of all
unit owners which possess certain powers and
authority over common elements In planned
unit development, condominiums, townhomes
or other property. (Ord. 83.6. 6- 24.83)
AUTOMOBILE REPAIR,
General repair, all body work, painting, frame
MAJOR:
work, replacement of engines and transmis-
sions on Caro and bucks.
AUTOMOBILE REPAIR. Replacement of any part or repair of any pan
MINOR: which does not require the removal of the
engine head or pan, transmission or differen-
tial. Upholstering service, glass replacement,
lubrication, tune ups are permissible services.
All automobile repair, minor, shall be limited to not in
automobiles passenger
excess o1 a three -q uarter and ton rating. (Ord.
85.00. 6.24 -85)
BASEMENT:
A story having more than fifty percent (50 %)
of It clear height below finished grade.
BLOCK:
A tract of land bounded by street, or a
combination of streets, park*, cemeteries,
railroad right Of Way, shorelines, waterways or
corporate boundary lines of the City.
BOARD:
The Board of Adjustment established by this
Title.
BOARDING HOUSE:
A building, not a hotel Or motel, where for
compensation and for prearranged periods,
rlaals and /or lodging are provided to not less
than three (3) nor more than ten (10) persons.
491
544
5-3-3
Pf 'RMITTED USES CONDITIONAL USES
A -1 Agricultural (cont.)
11. Truck gardening 11. Redlo and T.V. stations
12. Manufactured housing
13. Animal food lots for more than
10 animals
(Ord. 83.6. 6.24.83; amd. Ord. 85.08. 6.24.85)
1. Agriculture
2. Single - family dwellings
3. Public and parochial schools
4. Public parks and playgrounds
5. Churches
8. Golf courses
7. Truck gardening
8. Nursery schools and day care
centers for more than 12
children
1. Cemeteries
2. Hospitals and clinics
3. Public utility buildings
4. Public buildings
S. Two - family dwellings
6. Townhouses
7. Planned unit development
B. Open land recreational uses
9. Nurseries and greenhouses
10. Private clubs and schools
11. Charitable inatitutiona
12. Animal kennels
13. Boarding houses
-14. Existing neighborhood commer-
cial recreation services
15. Public parking lots
R -2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL
t. Single- family dwelllnpe
2. Two - family dwellings
3. Public and parochial 900018
4. Public parks and playgrounds
5. Churches
1. Cemeteries
2. Nursing homes
3. Hospitals and clinics'
4. Public utility buildings
5. Public buildings
S. Private clubs and schools
7. Nursery schools and day care
antefrs for more than 12
children
8. Funeral homes
9. Townhouses
10. Multiple - family dwellings
11. Planned unit development
401
5-5 -4 5 -6 -5
5- -5 -4: SIGNS: Signs shall be permitted in any district which meets the
requirements of Chapter 7 of this Title.
5 -5-5: OFF-STRUT PARKING: Off street parking spaces shall be provided
in accordance with the speclficauons in this Section in any district
whenever any new use is established or existing use is enlarged.
Use Parking Spaces Required
Single family house, two-family house,
townhouse, multiple family dwelling
Housing for the elderly
Churches. auditoriums and mortuaries
Schools
Private club or lodge
Theater
Medical. dental and animal clinics
Hospital and rest homes
Hotel or motel
Professional offices and business
services
Motor fuel stations
Motor fuel station and retail store
combination
Retail stores
Furniture stores. appliance and
auto ides
2 per dwelling unit
1 per dwelling unit
I per 4 seats in principal assembly room
I per classroom, plus 1 additional for
every 30 students
I per 4 members
1 per 4 seats
5 per doctor, dentist, veterinarian, plus I
per additional employee
1 per 3 beds and I for each 3 employees
on the maximum working shift
I per rental unit. plus I per employee
I for every 250 square feet of floor space
4 for each service stall
4 for each principal structure. p us 3 for
each service stall
I for every 200 square feet of floor space
1 for every 400 square feet of floor space
3114
5-6-5: CONDITIONAL USES: Conditional uses as specified within
each zoning district may be allowed or denied by the City
Council after recommendations by the Board of Adjustment In accordance
with the criteria and provisions listed herein:
(A) Application: Applications for conditional uses will be filed with the
Zoning Officer and shall be accompanied by:
1. An application fee In an amount equal to that sal by the City
Council.
2. Fifteen (15) copies of a site plan and supporting data which
shows the site size and location; use of adjacent land; the
proposed size, bulk, use and location of buildings; the location and
proposed junction of yards, open space, parking area, driveways,
storage areas and accessory structures; the location of all utilities
and timing of proposed construction as the Zoning Officer may
require.
3. The Zoning Officer at his discretion may require a topographic
map to the site and reduced copies of all materials suitable for
mailing. (Ord. 63.6, 6.24.83)
4. The names and addresses of all property owners within five
hundred feet (5001 shall be provided by a certification of an
abstract company so that the Zoning Officer may provide
notification of the conditional use permit application (Ord. 90.07,
5.21 -90)
(B) Review: The Zoning Officer shall forward copies of the application
to the City Council, the Board of Adjustment and, If necessary, to
the consultant planner for review.
1. The Board of Adjustment shall forward Its recommendations
within forty five (45) days unless the petitioner agrees in writing to
a time extension. Failure to act within the allotted time shall be
deemed to be a favorable recommendation.
2. The City Council may attach such conditions to the approval of
any conditional use as may be necessary. The approved site plan
and all attached conditions shall be filed by the petitioner with the
Zoning Officer within thirty (30) days of final approval. Any
development contrary to the approved plan shall constitute a
violation of this Title.
491
5-6-5
5-6-6
(C) Criteria for Approval: A conditional use shall be approved. If It is
found to most the following Criteria:
1. The proposed use conforms to the district permitted and condi•
tlonal use provisions and all general regulations of this Title.
2. The proposed use shall not Involve any element or cause any
conditions that may be dangerous. Injurious or noxious to any
other property or persons, and shall comply with the performance
standards listed hersinbelow.
3. The proposed use shell be sited, oriented and landscaped to
produce a harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds to
adjacent buildings and properties.
4. The proposed use shall produce a total visual impression and
environment whir Is consistent with the environment of the
neighborhood.
5. The proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking
to minimize traffic congestion In the neighborhood.
6. The proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this Title and
shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Additional requirements with respect to conditional use In the
Conservation District Include the following:
a. Filling a wetland shall not exceed the flood storage ca-
pacity requirements for the wetland.
b. The proposed development shall not result In unusual
maintenance cost for road and parking areas or the breaking and
leaking of utility lines.
c. Development shell be permitted In such a manner that
the maximum number of tress shall be preserved. The remaining
tree$ shall contain at least fifty percent (50 %) of the canopy
coverage.
d. Development shell be accomplished only In such a
manner that on-site soil erosion shall be minimal both during
construction and when construction activity is completed.
491
6-6-a
6-6-6
C.7) *.Wetlands and other water bodies shall not be used as
primary sediment traps during development.
I. The quality of water runoff and water Infiltration to the
water table or aquifer shall remain unC;t,Nrbed by the development
of the site.
g. The types and density of land use proposed for the site
shall be suited to the site. Bedrock conditions shall not present a
threat to the maintenance of ground water quality and shall not fall
to adequately correct problems due to soil limitations Including
bearing strength, shrink/swell potential and slope stability.
(D) Performance Standards: All conditional uses shall comply with the
requirements of this Section. In Order to determine whether a
proposed use will conform to the requirements of this Title, the
City Council may obtain a qualified consultant to testify. Said
consultant service fees shall be borne by the applicant.
1. Fire Protection: Fire prevention and fighting and equipment
acceptable to the Board of Fire Underwriters shall be readily
available when any activity Invoiving the handling or storage of
flammable or explosive material Is carried on.
2. Electrical Disturbance: No activity Shall cause electrical
disturbance adversely affecting redlo or other equipment In the
vicinity.
3. Noise: Noise which Is determined to be objectionable because
of volume, frequency or beat shell be muffled or otherwise con-
trolled, except lire sirens and related apparatus used solely for
public purpose shall be exempt from this requlrement.
a, Vibrations: Vibrations detectable without Instluments on
neighboring property In any district shall be prohibited.
6. Odors: No malodorous gas or matter shall be permitted which Is
discernible on any adjoining lot or property.
6. Air Pollution: No pollution of air by fly ash, dust, Smoke, vapors
or other substance shall be permitted which IS harmful to health,
animals, vegetation or other property.
7. Gars: ! Ighting devices which produce objectionable direct or
reflect glare on adjoining properties or thoroughfares shall not be
permitted.
4191
6-6-5
5 -6-6
0) 8. Erosion: No erosion by wind or water Shall be permitted which
will carry objectionable substances onto neighboring properties.
9. Water Pollution: Water pollution shalt be subject to the stan-
dards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
5-6-6: VARIANCES: The Board Of AdJuslment shall have the
power to very from the requirements of this Title, and to
attach such conditions to the variance as It deems necessary to assure
compliance with the purpose of this Title.
(A) Requirements: The following exhibits shall be required unless
waived by the Zoning Officer: (Ord. 83.6. 6. 24.83)
t. The names and addresses of all property owners within one
hundred feet (100') shall be provided by a certification of an
abstract company so that the Zoning Officer may provide
notification of the variance application. (Ord. 90.07, 5.21.90)
2. A boundary survey or an area survey including the property In
question and three hundred feet (300') beyond showing: topogra-
phy, utilities, lot boundaries, buildings, easements and boll test
data if pertinent.
3. A site development plan showing buildings, parking, loading,
access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service.
(B) Procedure: Procedure for obtaining a variance from the regulations
of this Title are as follows:
1. The property owner or agent shall file with the Zoning Officer an
application form together with required exhibits plus a filing fee In
an amount established annually by the City Council.
2. The Zoning Officer shall transmit the application directly to the
Board of Adjustment for consideration at Its next regularly
scheduled meeting. (Ord. 83.6, 6.24.63)
3. The Board of Adjustment Shall, within thirty (30) days of
submittal of all required exhibits, approve, deny or conditionally
approve a variance application. (Ord. 89.11, 1 -2.90)
491
i
-1 �- Till
I I I
j - -�-
I
Oki i
I
I I
0
P R tG\
NOTICE OF HEARING
FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held by the
Planning Commission in the Prior Lake Council Chambers at 4629
Dakota Street S.E. on:
THURSDAY. JULY 16. 1992 at 7:45 P.M.
PURPOSE OF HEARING: To consider an application for
conditional use permit for James J. and
JoAnne M. Thompson of 18121 Pandora
Blvd., Prior Lake, MN.
SUBJECT SITE LOCATION: 14170 Grayling Circle, Prior Lake.
REQUESTED ACTION:
The applicants propose to expand a
licensed residential care facility from
the current five residents to nine
residents. The current care facility is
licensed by the State of Minnesota and
can house up to six residents according
to Minnesota Statutes 462.357 Subd. 7,
attached. The applicant would like to
provide housing opportunities for three
additional residents, for a total of nine
residents occupying the home located at
14170 Grayling Circle, Prior Lake. It is
the proposal of the applicant to convert
the existing garage to a family room and
two bedrooms. City of Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance requires that the applicant
obtain a conditional use permit to allow
a "Boarding House" in an R -1, Single
Family Residential Zone. The Zoning
Ordinance restricts the number of
individuals that may occupy a "Boarding
House" to a maximum of ten. The
applicant requests that a conditional .:se
permit be granted to allow nine residents
to occupy the home.
If you desire to be
heard in reference to this matter, you should
attend this meeting.
Oral and written comments will be accepted
by the Planning Commission. For more information, contact the
Prior Lake Planning
Department at 447 -4230.
Prior Lake Planning
Commission
DATE MAILED: July 9,
1992
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / fax (612) 447 -4245
AN EQUAL OWORrU EMPLOYER
PRfU
I v
% a / r
% \F�
NIVA21PCn
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
PLANNING REPORT
ZANDER VARIANCE
PAUL AND CATHY ZANDER
16009 NORTHWOOD ROAD
SAN LUCAST, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
YES X NO
JMY 15, 1992
SITE ANALYSIS
HISTORY /BACKGROUND
`t a Planning Department received an application for variance from
Paul and Cathy Zander for a 6% lot coverage, 4' north side yard,
and a 35 lakeshore variance. The subject site contains 23,875
squ feet of area. The house does not have a basement due to
flood elevation, and the family needs more living space.
is
proposals, but there was a
978. The requested lakeshore
y granted variance. It is an
ding approximately 4 from the
arther from the lake because
survey for re
PHYSIOGRAPHY:
Th e su ac site is wooded,
Several of the trees will
slopes gently from the n
Adjacent lots to the no
boundaries and it is a probl
and erosion control will ne
of the addition.
with many significant, mature trees.
be lost during construction. The lot
no
to the south into the lake.
rth do not keep drainage within their
em for the subject Bite. Drainage
ed to be addressed during construction
The surveyp shows a tie wall at the shoreline. It more resembles
a separation of the sand beach area from the sodded lawn than a
retaining wall. For purposes of the variance the tie wall
elevation was estimated at 904' and the setback measured from
that point. In actuality the 904' contour is below the tie wall
and the setback distance from the Ordinary- High -Water mark is
greater than shown on the survey.
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / Fax {612) 4474245
AN EQUAL OPPOWUNRY EMPUQY
ADJACENT USES:
The subject site is surrounded by single family dwellings on the
northerly, southerly, and westerly sides. On the easterly side
of the {property is Prior Lake. Access to the site is via a
shared driveway to the north on Lot 126.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The house sits at an angle on the lot, neither parallel to the
lake nor lot lines. It has trees planted which both screen the
house from lake views and allow some viewing of the lake. The
detached garage is accessed from a driveway which also serves the
adjacent lot to the north. Drainage from the northern lots runs
in front of the existing house and carries soil along with it.
It creates problems when the amounts of water are excessive.
NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES(IMPACT /CONCERNS
T eT a most prominent issue in this variance is the lot coverage
aspect. The lot is large, 23,875 square feet, and the proposed
impervious surface coverage is approximately 8500 square feet.
It more than doubles the existing coverage. Thirty percent
coverage is allowed in the Shoreland District without a variance
and thirty -six percent is proposed. Pat Lynch of the DNR
suggested reducing the coverage in some manner. He will comment
formally in writing, but comments have not yet been received as
of the date of the report.
Setbacks from a lake and side property lines are frequently
issues in a variance of this nature. The addition is moving away
from the lake and the side setbacks are equal to the existing
house. Landscaping and layout allow privacy for each of the
adjacent properties. The existing and proposed platforms
(essentially a detached deck less than 30" above grade) are not
subject to setback requirements from the lake or lot lines, but
are calculated as part of the coverage ratio.
The biggest concerns are of the impervious surface coverage,
tree removal, and drainage. On a small substandard lot,
coverage variances are almost a given, and do not have such a
potential impact. However, when the coverage is the size of an
entire lot (8500 square feet) the potential impact is greater.
The applicant should consider alternatives to limit the coverage.
One possible alternative would be to orient the garage toward the
north instead of the west. It would eliminate the need for new
paving between the existing garage and the proposed addition.
This would also move the garage farther from the lot line and
increase the chances for survival of the 30" oak tree on the
property line. Depending on the house plans it may also be moved
far enough away from the oak tree by the house to preserve it.
The Planning Commission should consider proposals to limit
coverage in other ways, too.
At the site inspection the applicant suggested the possibility of
moving the two spruce trees within the garage building pad.
Perhaps those trees could be moved to a place which would
screen the addition from the lake view yet still allow lake
viewing. If the trees cannot be moved the Planning Commission
may require some plantings to replace the removed trees. Staff
would recommend placement of trees or shrubs to screen the
addition because the lot is wooded with mature trees and does not
offer a great variety of locations for new plantings.
Although drainage is more a concern of the actual construction
process, it should not be ignored in the planning stages. The
adjacent lots shed water to the subject site and provisions
should be made prior to ground breaking for drainage, and, by
logical extension, erosion control. With tree removal, a largge
area of impervious surface, and a large area of excavation in
close proximity to the lake, drainage swales and erosion control
must be able to handle runoff from a significant rain. Erosion
control should remain in place until the area is sodded and the
vegetation is established.
PROBLEMS /OPPORTUNITIES
The prob em of development has several facets. The applicant
needs more living and storage space, the house has no basement.
The addition is substantial and has a significant impervious
surface coverage ratio. Drainage currently creates problems for
the applicant. All of these problems can be solved or mitigated
if the proper approach is taken during planning process.
The opportunity exists to expand the living and storage space of
the applicant while addressing the existing problem of drainage.
Staff feels the location of the garage or paving may be adjusted
to better serve the needs of the applicant. Regardless, the
possibility of reducing the coverage and preserving trees should
be examined.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff red en s approval of the requested 35' lakeshore and 4
north side yard variance. They are reasonable requests of less
than a previously granted variance and also the continuation of a
legal nonconforming setback. Both are moving farther away from
the lake. Staff feels the 6% lot coverage ratio variance is
excessive and the coverage should be reduced by limiting new
impervious surface and /or removing some existing pavement.
The hardship in this instance is the lack of a basement for
storage and the position of the house on the lot. Also the shape
of the lot. The home was built in 1954 under the jurisdiction of
Spring Lake Township and was not placed parallel to the lot
lines. The home placement, which is skewed on the lot,
contributes to the hardship and rationale to grant the variance
as requested. The applicant should also be advised that all new
construction must be built compliant with Flood Plain Regulations
and the lowest floor elevation of all proposed additions -
including crawl spaces - must be at or above the 909' contour
elevation.
Existing Use
of Property:.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
r�
Zoning: P` ^, , ix�L
Legal Description
of Variance Site:
35'4.k.sJ«.r 4'N 5, /t bfc /o n ^_ °: Lir,f n �I f_ h 4` :_ t }r,i .�' ,',i if:i
Variance Reque 9 1
� .OJr
Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a v rianee or conditional r' -
use permit on the subject site or arty part of it? _YesNo
What was requested:
whens Disposition: _
the type of improvements propo j ed: (`, i ;- ' r( + +" r
C" (G i ' ' C i 1 a i (: r , f4 Q�l Ci 7� eJ!' •.L ' X :�..� (i � _ _. i _ r r � IiJ , "'.(1.. '.V.{i'= �,f
S)BHISSION REOUIRNME U
(A)Completed application form. (B)Filing fee. (C)Property Survey. (D)Certified from
abstract firm, names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the subject property. (E)Camplete legal description 6
Property Identification Number (PID). (F)Deed restrictions or private covenants, if
applicable. (G)A parcel map at 1 20' -50' showing: The site development plans
buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility
service.
ONLY OMMETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COM)ISSION.
To the best of my knowledge the information presEnted on this form is correct. in
addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which specifies
requirements for var!ance procedures. I agree to provide information and follow the
procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. 'l /
Applicants Signature•
Submitted this I day of + 193,a H ��
Fee Owners Signature
THIS SPACE IS 7O BE FILLED OUT BY THE PLMWPG DIRECTOR
PLANNING OOM4ISSION _ APPROVED _ DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL _ APPRWED _ DENIED DATE OF HEARING
OONDITIONSs
Signature of the Planning Director Date
mm..
/
_S �
r . rw
��•
;�"
i�
a
j
/.+t.._.
t ".
PRIOR
.;:.«
_
/',•�
L AKE
N
r � �
IV PRIO�
J U I \ T
"VA21PN"
NOTICE OF HEARING
FOR
VARIANCE
You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held by the
Planning Commission in the Prior Lake Council Chambers at 4629
Dakota Street S.E. on:
THURSDAY JULY 16, 1992 at 8_15 P.M.
PURPOSE OF HEARING: To consider a variance request
received from Paul and Cathy Zander
of 16009 Northwood Road, Prior Lake.
SUBJECT SITE LOCATION: Lot 124 Northwood or more commonly
known as 16009 Northwood Road.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a 6% lot
coverage variance. The maximum
allowable coverage without a
variance is 308, their proposal
includes 368 impervious surface
coverage. Side yard setbacks are
10 their proposal is to build 6'
from the side property line which
requires a 4 foot northerly side
yard variance, the continuation of a
legal nonconforming setback. The
applicant is also requesting a 35'
lakeshore variance from the required
75' setback measured from the 904'
Ordinary- High -Water mark of Prior
Lake.
If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should
attend this meeting. Oral and written comments will be accepted
by the Planning Commission. For more information, contact the
Prior Lake Planning Department at 447 -4230.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
DATE MAILED:
JULY 10, 1992
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / Fax (612) 4474245
AN EQUAL OPPORrUNrrY FNWLOY
PRIO
F, ski
"VA20PC"
PLANNING REPORT
SUBJECT: DENSITY VARIANCE
APPLICANT: WILLIAM HENNING
SITE ADDRESS: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRESENTER: HORST GRASER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO
DATE: 511LY 16, 1992
uacu aua pyaa- ua�.uaaa yuayNaca.
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245
AN EQUAL OWORrUNRV EMPIOVER
Addition is hereby vacated with respect to the following
described property Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Block
One, Titus 2nd Addition and Lost 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 12, and Outlot A, block Two, Titus 2nd Addition, Scott
County, Minnesota." See attached Resolution 87 -48 for reference
to the Council action.
The matter was ultimately reviewed by the Court of Appeals,
which upheld the position of the City: "Henning was denied
building permits because his lots did not have access to public
roads and did not comply with the 1975 zoning amendment to the
zoning ordinance. Thus, it was reasonable for Prior lake to deny
the building permits requested by Henning." The Decision of the
Court in the matter was stated: "Upon review of the city
council's records and decision, we hold that Prior Lake had a
reasonable basis for requiring a new application under Minn.
Stat. 462.358, subd. 3c, and for declining to issue the building
permits." See attached document #C4 -88 -1704 for further
reference to this matter.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The su ect site is located in the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of
Section 23. The quarter /quarter section contains part of the
plats of Titus 1st and 2nd Additions. Each plat was subdivided
at a time when the Zoning ordinance allowed small lot platting in
the agricultural areas. However, the zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan were amended to the current 4 units per
quarter /quarter section density formula. Each lot of record is
subject to a building permit. Due to the grandfather status of
Lots 11 - 12, Block 1 and Lots 1, 13 - 14, Block 2, Titus 2nd
Addition and all of the lots in Titus 1st Addition, the density
in the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 23 will be 11 units. The
applicant requests that the density be increased from 11 to 12
units, in this quarter /quarter section, which would allow the
construction of one home upon the subject site.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
There ave een two previous applications to increase density
within the Rural Service Area, both of which have been denied.
The Planning Commission determined in 1987, that DuWade Maria of
15220 Howard Lake Road, failed to demonstrate that hardship
existed to grant a variance to increase density and that the
request was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A similar
finding was made for a separate property owned by Mr. Harris in
1980. The two previous applications demonstrate a clear
precedence for denial of applications that seek to increase
residential density within the rural service area.
The City Council advocated in their 1992 Retreat I the idea to
further limit development of the rural area and instructed staff
to include the provision to allow only 1 unit per
quarter /quarter section, within the next Comprehensive Plan
Draft. Staff has incorporated the language into the proposed 2010
Comprehensive Plan, however, there has been no formal review of
the Plan by the Planning Commission nor city Council as of the
date of this application. The recent Council discussions,
explicit policies and requirements of the current Ccmprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance, past precedent and Planning Commission
findings related to the DuWade Haris proposals to increase
density in the Rural Service Area, coupled with the the findings
of Resolution 87 -48 and the Appeals Court are the basis for the
staff recommendation to deny the application to increase the
density of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 23.
RECOMMENDATION:
T e recommen ation from staff is to deny the variance application
on the basis that the request is inconsistent with the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Literal enforcement of the
Ordinance would not result in undue hardship. The property can
continue to be used for the agricultural purposes that have
occurred on the property in the past. The hardship in this case
is not caused by the Ordinance nor the City of Prior Lake but is
a direct result of actions proposed by the applicant.
The variance would not observe the spirit and intent of the
Ordinance and is in fact, in direct conflict with the objectives
of theZOnina Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Approval . of this
area development objectives seex to .protect exiscang aycauua --
investments until such a time as public utilities may be extended
and there is a need for additional urban development. The City
currently has hundreds of acres of R -1 Zoned Land within the MUSA
boundary which are available for urban development. The subject
site is located outside of the Year 2000 Urban Service Area and
as such, the residential density should be restricted until such
a time as municipal utilities are extended to the site, in a
planned manner, consistent with objectives of the City of Prior
Lake and Metropolitan Council.
PIRA
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Home Phone -
Work Phone:
Address: Work Phone-
Type of Ownership: Fee _ Contract Purchase Agreement
Consultant /Contractor: Phone:
Existing Use
of Property: �it /t i / e'!4 " =% Present Zoning nGE iIJ��C Q.7
Proposed Use
of Property: C'e'y ll
Legal Description 1 {
of Variance Site:
Variance Requested
Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional
use permit on the subject site qt any part of it? Yes _No
What was requested: 5' 6 C/ - „ s e•- it
When: Disposition:
Describe the type of improvements proposed:
SUBMISSION REDUIR04ENfS
(A)Completed application form. (Wiling fee. (C)Property Survey. (D)Certified from
abstract firm, names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the subject property. (E)Complete legal description &
Property Identification Number (PID). (F)Deed restrictions or private covenants, if
applicable. (G)A parcel map at lm- 20' -50' showing: The site development plan,
buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility
service.
ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION-
To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this form is correct. In
addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which specifies
requirements for variance procedures. I agree to provide information and follow the
procedures as outlined in the Ordinance.
Applicants Signature
Submitted this 2 l da of _1922�
Fee Owners Signature
THIS SPACE IS TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
PLANNING NM9ISSION _ APPROVED _ DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL, _ APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of the Planning Director
Date
.. I
- A
2
L 0
'j
<\
CR
Lots , county, fouvies:
—
8 9 & 10, Block I. Titus 2nd Addition, S county, Minnesota, and
Lore 1: 9:.10, It A, 12, Block 2. of said Fleet end that part of Lot 6, Sick I
of said plat and that part of Lot It Block 2, o f amid plat lying Westerly of
C the following described line:
Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 6, Block 11 thence Southerly
to a point on the Southerly line of said Lot 7. Block 2t - distant 54.01 feet
Westerly of the Southeasterly corner of amid Lot 7# and there terminating;
ALSO all that part of Foothill Trail, vacated, as contained theeeln.
WnoT
\
i
-^ N 112 SEC 23 T. 115 R. 22
/eiss faft -
H
� ACRES
-
1�
-- - - - ---
-- ----
-------- - - - - --
'
y
��
s
-
a
F
N 112 SEC. 23 T. H5 R. 22
ti +t
5-4-1
(M) Densities are based upon the minimum lot size Indicated In the
table following subsection (P) of this Section. Densities for
attached housing units Including townhouses, condominiums, and
apartments are based upon the relationship between the buildable
land and the allowable gross density. The need for streets has
been accounted for in the gross density per acre.
(N) i In the Agricultural Conservation Districts located In the rural
service area as_ emedin thPrior a ompTeftensive Plan,
lour w elOngs per ea0 q seci>an mall be
permitted provided: - -— - - -- --
1, Other farm or nonfarm dwellings present would not exceed an
overall density of four (4) units per quarter section.
2. The dwelling units shall be located entirely within one quarter/
quarter section on a separately owned parcel which shall be at
least one acre In size.
3. The parcels may have access from a private road or easement
provided that private roads or easements serving separate parcels
are separated from adjacent driveways an the same side of public
road by a minimum of three hundred thirty feet (330'). No
driveways serving separate parcels shall be permitted within three
hundred feet (300) of Intersections of County roads with minor
arterials and County roads and local roads.
4. All dwellings shall be separated at least three hundred thirty
feet (330') from the nearest farm building or from another dwelling.
S. Applications for building permits shall be accompanied by a
registered land survey of the parcel, Including the location of
proposed dwelling, access to the parcel from public roads and all
structures within three hundred thirty fast (330') of the proposed
site.
(0) All new housing units must anticipate the future need for
expansion, storage and/or garage. Toward that end, single-family
and two-family houses shall be constructed so that future garages
may be built without variances. Single-family and twin homes shall
be constructed with any of the following options:
1, Single level of living space, plus basement.
2. Two (2) levels of living space.
M
RESOLUTION 87- 48
RESOLUTION PARTIALLY VACATING THE PLAT OF
TITUS 2ND ADDITION, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
MOTION BY FITZGERALD SECONDED BY
SCOTT
WHEREAS, the final plat for Titus 2nd Addition, Scott County,
Minnesota was approved by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake
on March 4, 1974 and said plat was filed with Scott County Recorder's
Office On April 19, 1974, and
WHEREAS, the minutes of the City Council dated April 25, 1977 and as
further evidenced by Resolution No. 77 -12 approved the vacation of a
portion of Foothill Trail, the principal road through the plat and
main access road, East of the East lot lines of Lots 11 and 13, and
the ofnthesvacationMof Titus72nd1Additioniandefurtherndicate
directed that the City Manager send copies to proper personnel in
Scott County notifying them of the vacation of Titus 2nd Addition,
and
WHEREAS, a letter dated May 19, 1977 signed by the City Manager of
the City of Prior Lake was recorded in the Scott County Recorder's
office on June 1, 1977 at 3:00 p.m. as Document No. 155929 indicating
that a portion of Foothill Trail according to the plat of Titus 2nd
Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, lying Easterly of the Northerly
extension of the Easterly line of Lot 13, Block Two of said plat of
Titus 2nd Addition has been legally vacated, and
WHEREAS, the following lots of Titus 2nd Addition were subsequently
sold by William Henning and building permits were issued as those
h a d access Titus 2nd Addition, Scott
r Lots 11 and Minnesota,l,
13 and 14, Block
and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Prior Lake assed Ordinance
No. 75 -12 on August 25, 1975 in which Section 4.2 of she City of
Prior within L the City of ordina as
and
without�access sanitary sewerdandiwater,a l within an area
d
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462.358, Subd. 3(c), a
codification of the common law of the State of Minnesota, permits the
governing body of a municipality to require a subdivider to submit a
new application for subdivision approval following two years after
final plat approval unless substantial physical activity and
investment has occurred in reasonable reliance upon the previous
final approval and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial
damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application,
and
WHEREAS, the subdivider has not made substantial physical activity
and investment in the plat of Titus 2nd Addition, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Prior Lake wishes to clarify
and reaffirm the previous actions of the City Council and to set
forth the current status of a portion of said plat, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA, that a portion of the plat of Titus 2nd Addition is hereby
vacated with respect to the following described property Lots 1, 2,
3, a, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Block One, Titus 2nd Addition, Scott
County, Minnesota, and Lots 2, 3, 6, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and
Outlot A, Block Two, Titus 2nd Addition, Scott County, Minnesota; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
recorded with the Scott County Recorder's office.
Passed and adopted by the Council this 8th day of September
1987.
Y iLo
Andren I
Fitzgerald x
Larson x
Scott
White ]I
Manager
of Prior Lake
NOTICE. MEDIA AND COGNSFL ARF ?HomBm FROM 1l.1e
Td:S OpIN C CT%r1 :!., FUTALIC PRIOR TO
12:01 R 1!. O:: Ti'. "c 1 r DATE
STATE 08L h M4)W
Scott County
William F. Henning,
Appellant,
V.
Village of Prior Lake,
Respondent
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C4 -88 -1704
Foley, Judge
Larry B. Guthrie
Nancy B. Hupp
Maun, Green, Hayes, Simon,
Johanneson and Brehl
3500 West 80th Street, 1520
Minneapolis, MN 55431
Kay Nord Hunt
V. Owen Nelson
Lommen, Nelson, Cole 6
Stageberg, P.A.
1100 Twin City Federal Tower
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Filed: February 21, 1989
Office of Appellate Courts
S Y L L A B U S
In a municipal zoning case, the trial court properly granted
summary judgment to respondent where the parties stipulated that
there were no material issues of fact and where respondent was
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Affirmed.
Heard, considered and decided by Foley, Presiding Judge,
Forsberg, Judge and Stone, Judges*
FOLEY, Judge
O P I N I O N
This appeal is from a summary judgment granted to respondent
" Acting as judge of the court of appeals by appointment
pursuant to Minn. Const. art. 6, 5 2.
Village of Prior Lake where the parties stipulated that there
were no material issues of fact, and where the trial court
concluded that Prior Lake had a sufficient legal and factual
basis both to require the submission of a new application for
Titus 2nd Addition pursuant to Minn. Stat. 5 462.358, subd. 3c
(1986), and to refuse to replat the land. we affirm.
FACTS
A plat for Titus 2nd Addition was approved for filing by the
Prior Lake City Council on March 4, 1974. This plat was filed
by Eagle Creek Properties, and recorded at the Scott County
Recorder's office on April 19, 1974. Appellant William F.
Henning was president of Titus, Inc., the corporate partner of
Eagle Creek properties. The approval of this plat included the
dedication of Foothill Trail, which runs through the middle of
the plat. In 1977, o portion of Foothill Trail was paved by
Eagle Creek Properties at an approximate cost of $15,000.
Of the 26 platted lots, 10 are owned by Henning and his
wife. In 1977, Henning requested that development of Titus 2nd
Addition be held in abeyance until the real estate market
improved. The city council and the mayor, Walter Stock, decided
that to accede to Henning's request, they would allow a vacation
of the unimproved portion of Foothill Trail and at a later date
allow rededication of Foothill Trail. Stock stated by affidavit
he understood Henning would request rededication within a
reasonable time which, according to Stock would be a maximum of
three to five years after the requested vacation. Stock and the
city council approved the vacation of a portion of Foothill
-2-
Trail. Henning did not discuss what effect the vacation would
have on the plat of Titus 2nd Addition and any future plans he
might have for subdivision.
In 1980, a representative of Henning requested the Scott
County Assessor's office tax Titus 2nd Addition on an
agricultural basis instead of a residential basis. Henning's
representative informed the deputy county assessor that Henning
had no intention of doing anything with the property. The
deputy county assessor inspected the land and was satisfied that
the property was being used for agricultural purposes. since
1980 the Scott County Assessor's office has taxed the land based
on an agricultural classification.
In 1986, Henning requested rededication of the portion of
Foothill Trail that had been previously vacated and the issuance
of a building permit for each lot marked in the original
subdivision plan so that he could develop Titus 2nd Addition.
Prior Lake denied Henning's request for rededication of Foothill
Trail pursuant to Minn. Stat. 5 462.356, subd. 3c. Prior Lake
likewise denied the building permits because the lots did not
have access to public roads and the permits did not comply with
a 1975 amendment to the zoning ordinances prohibiting platting
and subdividing of property in areas without city sanitary sewer
service. The Titus 2nd Addition property is not serviced by
sewer lines.
The trial court entertained cross - motions for summary
judgment. The parties stipulated there were no material issues
of fact, only interpretation of law was at issue. The trial
-3-
court granted summary judgment in favor of Prior Lake,
concluding that the municipality proceedings were fair and the
record clear and complete. This appeal followed.
ISSUE
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment?
ANALYSIS
When reviewing an order granting summary judgment, this
court must determine whether there are any genuine issues of
material fact and whether the trial court erred in its
application of the law. L 6 H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency
Inc., 403 N.W.2d 223, 227 (Minn. 1987) (citing . Betlach v.
Wayzata Condominium 281 N.W.2d 328, 330 (Minn. 1979)). Where
questions of law are raised, this court is free to conduct an
independent review of the law. Service oil, Inc. v. Triplett
419 N.W.2d 502, 503 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988), pet. for rev. denied
(Minn. April 20, 1988). Here, the parties stipulated tgat there
are no issues of fact in dispute and only the interpretation of
law is involved.
Swanson v. City of Bloomington 421 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 1988),
thoroughly discussed the standard for our review of decisions
made by municipal officials:
In White Bear Dockin and Stora a Inc. v. C1t of
White -Bear Lake, N.W. d , 17
Minn. , > vs
cons dered the role of the judiciary in countermanding
zoning decisions reached by municipal officials and
concluded that "[tlhe court's authority to interfere in
the management of municipal affairs is, and should be,
limited and sparingly invoked." We reiterated the rule
we had set out in H_onn v. City of Coon Rap)ds governing
standard of review in zoning matters: " "The standard of
review is the same for all zoning ,matters, ,namely,
whether the zoning authority's action was reasonable
• • Is there a 'reasonable basis' for the decision?
-4-
or is the decision 'unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious'? or is the decision 'reasonably
debatable'?" 324 N.W.2d at 176, quoting Honn 313
N.W.2d at 417.
We said that, except in those rare cases in which
the city's decision has no rational basis, "it is the
duty of the judiciary to exercise restraint and accord
appropriate deference to civil authorities in the
performance of their duties." • • •
We determined in Northwestern Coll e a v. Cit of
Arden Hills that the scope of review to be used or
zoning matters would be the same as that used for state
administrative agency decisions. 281 N.W.2d 865, 868
(Minn. 1979). We indicated that the review would be of
the record made before the local zoning body. That is,
the review by the district could would be made on the
municipal record and the supreme court would make its
review on the same record. We said, quoting , Reserve '
Mining Co. v. Herbst 256 N.W.2d 808, 824, 'r (Minn.
1977), - I t is our function to make an independent
examination of an administrative agency's record and
decision and arrive at our own conclusions as to the
propriety of that determination without according any
special deference to the same review conducted by the
trial court." Id.
Id. 421 N.W.2d at 311.
In our analysis, it is helpful to review the location of the
plat now under consideration. The city planner described the
location of the plat at a June 15, 1987 city council meeting as
follows:
[Titus 2nd Addition] is a plat that dates back to the
early days of Prior Lake and Eagle Creek Township
area. Focus of the issue is the vacation of Foothill
Trail which occurred in 1977 at the request of Mr.
Henning and subsequently was granted by the city
council at that time. • • • Staff reviewed the
application and the findings back in 1986 and concluded
that the plat had in fact been altered and a replat
would have to comply with the conditions and laws
applicable today to subdivision regulations. Since
1977, the city has done much more extensive planning
and in fact as a result of the 1976
Planning Act, the City of Prior Lake divided the city
into urban and rural service districts. This
-5-
particular plat which is in the extreme northern edge
of the community is part of the rural service
that area which is not subject area and
to receive utilizes
until the year 2000. • • * If this plat were to be
allowed to develop, build out the density, would be
much higher than that. On that basis and that interim
planning within the last 10 years, the staff denied the
plat.
Minn. Stat. S 462.358, subd. 3c provides that for two years
following final subdivision approval, no amendment to a
comprehensive plan shall apply to dedication or platting
permitted by the approved application. Thereafter, the
municipality may require the submission of a new application
unless substantial physical activity and investment has occurred
in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the
subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a
consequence of a requirement to submit a new application.
The plat for Titus 2nd Addition was approved in 1974, and
the vacation of Foothill Trail was approved in 1977. Henning
sought rededication of the vacated portion of Foothill in
1986. Henning's request was untimely, and Prior Lake may
require Henning to submit a new application under Minn. Stat. S
462.350.
However, the statute provides an exception to the
requirement of the submission of the new application. If a
party can show that substantial physical activity and investment
has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application
and that substantial financial damage will be suffered as a
consequence of a requirement to submit a new application, no new
application shall be required.
-6-
The city council passed a resolution finding 'the subdivider
has not made substantial physical activity and investment in the
plat of Titus 2nd Addition.' Our review of the record reveals
ample support for this finding. Henning argues he has incurred
substantial physical activity and investment and will suffer
substantial financial damage as a result of having to submit a
new application. He offers in support of his contention the
$15,000 cost of paving a portion of Foothill Trail and the fact
that unplatted his land is worth approximately $35,OOC but
platted it is worth approximately $187,000. He argues these
facts satisfy the requirements of the statute.
We disagree. Henning has done nothing to constitute
substantial physical activity and investment. The cost of the
pavement of Foothill Trail was incurred by Eagle Properties, not
Henning. Further, the portion of Titus 2nd Addition where the
unimproved Foothill Trail exists is undeveloped land. Henning
indicated there has been little activity on the land and in 1980
requested that it be taxed at an agricultural rate. With
respect to Henning's potential profit loss, the minutes of the
city council's meetings indicate that he bought the land at a
low rate in hopes of developing it.
Finally, the statute provides an additional exception to the
requirement of the submission of a new application within two
years:
In connection with a subdivision involving planned and
staged development, a municipality may by resolution or
agreement grant the rights referred to herein for such
periods of time longer than two years which it
determines to be reasonable and appropriate.
-7-
Minn. Stat. 5 462.358, subd. 3c.
Henning argues that Prior Lake agreed that he could seek
rededication of the vacated portion of Foothill Trail at any
time. In suppport, he offers an affidavit from Stock, stating
it was his understanding Henning would request rededication of
Foothill Trail within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed
three to five years. Accordingly, Henning's claim fails as his
request came almost 10 years later. Thus, it was reasonable for
Prior Lake and within its authority to refuse to rededicate
Foothill Trail on the basis of Minn. Stat. 5 462.358, subd. 3c.
Henning argues that because Prior Lake issued building
permits to other landowners on lots within Titus 2nd Addition,
it has acted arbitrarily by failing to issue building permits to
him.
While it is true that building permits were issued to other
landownere in the Titus 2nd Addition, Prior Lake asserts those
lots had access to public roads and complied with the 1975
zoning amendment. Henning has failed to show that the other
landowners did not comply with the 1975 zoning amendment and
that the city acted arbitrarily.
Henning was denied building permits because his lots did not
have access to public roads and did not comply with the 1975
amr ",ndment to the zoning ordinance. Thus, it was reasonable for
Prior Lake to deny the building permits requested by Henning.
Finally, Henning raises an equal protection argument not
raised at the trial court level. Constitutional issues may not
be raised for the first time on appeal. St. Paul Citizens for
-8-
Human Rights v. City
Council 289 N.w.2d 402,
407
(Minn.
1979).
D E C I S I O N
Upon review of
the city council's records and
decision, we
hold that Prior Lake had a reasonable basis
for
requiring a new
application under
Minn. Stat. 5 462.358,
subd. 3c,
and for
declining to issue
the building permits.
Affirmed.
- 9 -
0 FR /��\
"VA20PN"
NOTICE OF HEARING
FOR
VARIANCE
You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held by the
Planning Commission in the Prior Lake Council Chambers at 4629
Dakota Street S.E. on:
THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1992 at 8:45 P.M.
PURPOSE OF HEARING: To consider a variance application for
William Henning.
SUBJECT SITE LOCATION: Lots 6 - 10, Block 1, Titus 2nd Addition
& Lots 7 - 12, Block 2, Titus 2nd
Addition.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests a variance from
Section 5- 4 -1(N) of Prior Lake City Code
in order to construct a new single family
home on the subject site, indicated upon
the attached map. The Code allows a
maximum density of 4 dwelling units per
quarter /quarter Section. The applicant
is requesting a variance from that
provision to increase the maximum density
requirement so that he can obtain a
building permit for the subject site.
If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should
attend this meeting. Oral and written comments will be accepted
by the Planning Commission. For more information, contact the
Prior Lake Planning Department at 447 -4230.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
DATE MAILED: July 9, 1992
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245
AN EQUAL OPMUUN UY EMPLOYER
6F P R IO
. �71r'
i
°ZOOIPCH
PLANNING REPORT
SUBJECT: MINERAL EXTRACTION (MINING) ZONING ORDINANCE
AND CITY CODE AMENDMENT
PRESENTER: SAM LUCAST, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
PUBLIC HEARING: X YES NO
DATE: JAY 16, 1992
SITE ANALYSIS
at was Ordinance 91 =08 which instituted a one
on sand and gravel mining operations in Prior La:
f time to research the subject and provide inform
ion. The procedure is to hold a. Public Hearing a
mmission level and to make a recommendation 'bassi
ation contained in this report and also from ;pi
City Council acts on the "recommendation from
mmission. This hearing is a result of the procesi
OPOSALS:
t informal report and presentation to
ich precipitated their action in this matter.
ion , "there have been no previous proposals.
PHYSIOGRAPHY:
The sur ace and subsurface soils in Prior Lake are
art of Cit anThersoilsewerenideposited ioby in
random fashion, areable_ - to be mined to. o!
another, over most of northern Scott County
means it is possible to locate a mine in Prio,
limiting factors are access roads and enough suitab .
which translates into economic factors.
t
for
any
4629 Dakota St. SE., Prior lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph (612) 4474230 / Fax(612)4474245
AN EQUAL OPPORIONTTY DVLOY
ADJACENT USES:
Current y - Terre are no active mines within City limits so there
are no adjacent uses. However, in other cities adjacent uses are
setback or separated from the operation by tall berms and
plantings to hide the mining and muffle what can be very noisy
operations. Most often the mines were in existence prior to
surrounding development, so they have large tracts of land and
urbanization is not encroaching. Regardless, - y - be
unpleasant neighbors no matter how conscientious the operator is.
Adjacent uses can be subject to noise, dust, traffic, and other
unpleasant effects associated with mining. Neither the residents
nor the operators want conflict between uses, and operators in
other cities work very hard to address neighborhood concerns.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There are no mines with a permit currently operating in Prior
Lake. However, there is evidence of previous mineral extraction
in neighboring communities and also in areas of Prior Lake which
indicate the necessity of a planned operation. The areas east and
west of Highway 13 just north of County Road 42, and the area
adjacent to Markley Lake, are examples of sites which have not
been reclaimed. The evidence is scarred landscape with
hillsides which are partially cut, containing unstable slopes
with high possibilities of erosion, large holes in the ground
which may retain water and refuse, creating unsightly conditions.
These scenes must be avoided. Contrast those images with Lac
LaVon in Burnsville, a reclaimed operation which is a residential
development with a lake and park facilities as a focal point.
Reclamation plans backed up with performance bonds, proper
permits and restrictions help eliminate the possibility of
unsightly abandoned operations. Conditional Use Permits can
define operating hours, noise levels, but other pertinent details
not defined in the Zoning Ordinance are difficult to regulate
without specific benchmark criteria.
NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES /IMPACT /CONCERNS
The Conditional Use Permit process does not adequately protect
the City, the operator, or general public. No standards are in
place to reclamation elpplante who
isessential t issues. A
range planning of a
mining operation. In other words, what will happen to the site
when the product is removed? Who is responsible for doing what?
What happens in the event of bankruptcy or a catastrophe? What
if the City changes the surrounding land use classification?
Mining is very technical in some aspects of the operation. The
level of expertise needed to effectively assess such an
infrequently encountered, yet potentially high impact item is not
currently found on Staff at City Hall. The deposits, results of
glacial activity, are randomly distributed and their location may
be estimated from sample soil borings. The amount and location
of the deposits may be extrapolated from the results of borings
to give an estimate of the acreage necessary for a site.
However, it is only an estimate and there is no way to know the
size or location of the deposit until mining begins. Therein
lies the problem.
PROBLEMS OP. /.. PORTUNITIES
T e problem associated with mining operations is they are long
term uses and undesirable in urban residential areas. They
generally require large tracts of land which are in demand for
less controversial uses. Also the vacant areas of Prior Lake
contain wetlands and scenic bluffs which must be preserved per
DNR regulations and the Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan. There
have not been any applications for mining operations for at least
the last year regardless of the moratorium. There does not
seem to be a need for mining in Prior Lake. Surrounding
operations can supply the needs of the area without new
facilities in Prior Lake.
The opportunity exists to delete a controversial use which is
really not necessary in Prior Lake. The open space available is
limited by access from adequate roads and land owners
uninterested in selling land. Standards for evaluating and
regulating the use do not exist or are inadequate. Trying to
regulate something unknown without proper guidelines does not
make good planning sense.
:ommends approval of attached ordinance 92 -09. The
fation of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to
Council for review and final decision. Staff recommends
of Mineral Extraction as a Conditional Use in the Prior
Ytaking and Zoning Ordinance. The activity is not
place in Prior Lake, effective, fair, efficient
as are not in place qualified evaluators are not on
f, mining and residential development are not compatible
ng uses and Prior Lake is predominantly residential in
5813: INTERIM ORDINANCE MORATORIUM
(A) Purpose: Prior Lake City Cade Sections 5-9 -2. 5x-3. A -1
Agricultural and CA Conservation; 5-4-5. Conditional Uses; and
5 -6-8 Variances, establish procedures lot an applicant te obtain a
conditional use peril far mineral extraction in A4 Agrimdl al and
C.1 Conservation Districts. Tire City Council. after discussion.
believes that such a use in A Agricultural and C Conservation
Districts may have substantial long Corm detrimental am an iM
environment, may impact negatiyely on the character of do
surrounding resldemial and farming community. may greatly reduce
land use options for development visible the District and wmtin We
community. My have substantial effect on roads. traffic and slom
water management and. therefore. We health. safely and millions
at Me claim" of Prier ,aka The City Council deems it necessary
to prohibit we ryangng of any conditional use permit for mineral
extractions in A 1 Agricultural and C / Conservation Districts wall
the City of Prior Lake has had sufficient lime for studying Rho
matter to determine whether or not Tile S. Chapter 6. of ON Prior
Lake City Code needs to be amended. This interim ordinance is
therefor adopted. effective upon its date of publk:alim. in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes section 462.955. subdivision
4. lot a prefer of ors year from its allechve date. The City Council
may. by resolution. extend its effect for such additional periods as
it deems necessary for a "tied not exceeding a total addilional
period of eighteen (18) months.
(8) AN Extraction Conditional Use Petits Prohibited: No colNidonal
use permit for mineral extraction in At Agricultural and C i
Conservation Districts shalt be grantee by the Zoning
Administrator. Planning Commission or the City Council of lie City
of Prior Lake for a period of one year from the date this Section is
effeeliva or for an additional period of eighteen (Ili) months. it
extended by resolution by the City Council. ar the date Upon "ich
the City has cunduded its planning process to determine "apsr
or not the City Zoning Code should nd amended to address issues
presented wIM regard of conditional use pert appUcalom for
mineral extraction in A 1 Agricultural and C -1 Conservation
Districts and taken action on Me findings. whichaver is earlier.
(C) EnforbemenL In the even: any individual. partnership. corporation
or other legal today shall commence mineral extraction in A 1
Agricultural and/or C l Conservation Districts other the effective
data of this Section without a valid previously is u conditional
C) use permit. 0 or they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction meruer. be punished by a firs not to exceed seven
hundred dollars (5700.00) ar by imprisanmeM for a ter nor a
exceed ninety (90) days. or both. far each offends. Each day e
violation is permitted to exist shall constitute d 9eparm, Ottawa.
The City Manager, Assistant City Manager. City Planner. Assistant
City Planner. Building Inspector and City Engine,: shall have Me
power to issue stations for violation of Nis Section in Use of anew,
of xsntimred detention. to addition. any violation of this Title may
be enjoined by pie City Council botto h proper legal channels.
(OM. 91 08. 8 1991 f
292 292
"ZO9201"
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 92 -09
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND PRIOR LAKE ZONING
ORDINANCE NO. 83 -6.
The Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
Prior Lake City Code Section 5 -3 -3: is hereby amended to delete
"Mineral Extractions" as a Conditional Use within the C -1,
Conservation District and the A -1, Agricultural Zoning District
within Prior Lake.
Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance No. 83 -6, Section 3.2, is hereby
amended to delete "Mineral Extraction" as a Conditional use
within the C -1, Conservation District and the A -1, Agricultural
Zoning District within Prior Lake.
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 , 1992.
ATTESTS
City Manager Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the day of
, 1992.
Drafted By:
Deborah Ann Garross
Assietant City Planner
CityY of Prior Lake
4629 Dakota Street
Prior Lake, MN 55372
/F PRI�
IN h
"ZOO1PNrr
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
You are hereby notified that the PLANNING COMMISSION will hold a
Public Hearing in the Prior Lake City Council Chambers at 4629
Dakota Street S.E., on THURSDAY JULY 16. 1992 at 9_00 p.m.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider deletion of Mineral
Extraction (Mining) as a Conditional Use in Section 3.2 A -1
Agricultural areas and C -1 Conservation areas within the City of
Prior Lake. Mineral Extraction would no longer be allowed in
Prior Lake if the Ordinance is approved.
I! you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should
attend this hearing. The PLANNING COMMISSION will accept. oral
and or written comments. I! you have questions regarding this
matter, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230.
Sam Lucast
Associate City Planner
To be published in the Prior Lake American on JULY 6. 1992 and
JULY 13. 1992
4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 1 Ph. (612)4474230 f Fax(612)4474245
AN EQM OPPOR(UNRV OV OM
PRl o \
AGENDA NUMBER:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
S
SAM LUCAST, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
MINERAL EXTRACTION
JUNE 1, 1992
BACKGROUND: Staff prepared an informational report in
March 1992. The report was submitted to the
City Council requesting informal feedback. No
consensus direction was provided to staff
based on the informal feedback. The purpose
of this agenda report is 'to ain direction
from the City Council. Staff will review
highlights of the report.
ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the following
alternatives:
1) Take no action, allow moratorium to
expire.
2) Take no action, allow moratorium to
expire and give staff direction to
develop evaluation criteria for future
applications.
3) Amend the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan to prohibit mining.
4) Request more information.
ACTION REQUIRED: Direct staff in an appropriate direction.
4629 Dakota St. S.E. Pmt lake. Minnesota 55372 i Ph. 16121 4474230 Fax 5612) 447-4245
AN F.f7l'AL OFW.WtVNITI oBPL t ?R
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 91 -08
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PLACING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION IN A -1
AGRICULTURAL AND C -1 CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICTS.
The Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
Prior Lake City Code, Title 5, Chapter 6, is hereby amended by
adding a new Section 5 -6 -13 to read as follows:
5 -8 -13: INTERIM ORDNANCE MORATORIUM:
(A) Purpose: Prior Lake City Code Sections 5 -3 -2; 5 -3 -3,
A -1 Agricultural and C -1 Conservation; 5 -6 -5,
Conditional Uses; and 5 -6 -6, Variances, establish
procedures for an applicant to obtain a conditional use
permit for mineral extraction in A -1 Agricultural and
C -1 Conservation Districts. The City Council, after
discussion, believes that such a use in A -1
Agricultural and C -1 Conservation Districts may have
substantial long term detrimental effects on the
environment, may impact negatively on the character of
the surrounding residential and farming community, may
greatly reduce land use options for development within
the District and within the community, may have
substantial effect on roads, traffic and storm water
management and therefore the health, safety and welfare
of the citizens of Prior Lake. The City Council deems
it necessary to prohibit the granting of any
conditional use permit for mineral extractions in A -1
Agricultural and C -1 Conservation Districts until the
City of Prior Lake has had a sufficient time for
studying this matter to determine whether or not
Title 5, Chapter 6, of the Prior Lake City Code needs
to be amended. This interim ordinance is therefore
adopted, effective upon its date of publication, in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355,
Subd. 4, for a period of one year from its effective
date. The City Council map, by resolution, extend its
effect for such additional periods as it deems
necessary, for a period not exceeding a total
additional period of eighteen (18) months.
(S) All Extraction Conditional Use Permits Prohibited: No
conditional use permit for mineral extraction in A -1
Agricultural and C -1 Conservation Districts shall be
granted by the Zoning Administrator, Planning
Commission or the City Council of the City of Prior
Lake for a period of one year from the date this
ordinance is effective or for an additional period of
eighteen (18) months, if extended by resolution by the
City Council, or the date upon which the City has
concluded its planning process to determine whether or
not the City Zoning Code should be amended to address
issues presented with regard to conditional use permit
applications for mineral extraction in A -1 Agricultural
and C -1 Conservation Districts and taken action on the
findings, whichever is earlier.
(C) Enforcement: In the event any individual, partnership,
corporation or other legal entity shall commence
mineral extraction in A -1 Agricultural and /or C -1
Conservation Districts after the effective date of this
ordinance without a valid previously issued conditional
use permit, it or they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not
to exceed seven hundred dollars ($700.00) or by
imprisonment for a term not to exceed ninety (901 days,
or both, for each offense. Each day a violation is
permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense.
The City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Planner,
Assistant City Planner, Building Inspector and City
Engineer shall have the power to issue citations for
violation of this section in lieu of arrest or
continued detention. In addition, any violation of this
title may be enjoined by the City Council through
proper legal channels.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage
and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 19 th
day of ��puet 1991. —
ATTEST:
Cit M anager I mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the &d_ day of
SeafexbeR , 1991.
Drafted By:
Lommen, Nelson, Cole i Stageberg, P.A.
1800 IDS Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
PR O\
� � f
7
J T.
+/ y� �
"GRVMEM"
HERITAGE
1891
MEMO
COMMUMTY WJ3VA
1991 2091
DATE: MARCH 16, 1992
TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
FROM: SAM LUCAST ASSOCIATE PLANNER
RE: MINERAL EXTRACTION - SAND AND GRAVEL OPERATIONS
In August 1991 the Prior Lake City Council requested information
pertaining to mineral extraction. The attached "Gravel" Memo
contains information on sand and gravel mining.
The action taken in Ordinance 91 -08 allows a one (1) year
moratorium on mineral extraction with an eighteen month extension
option. The moratorium will expire August 19, 1992. The Memo
provides information to assist in making a decision on this
issue.
Possible alternatives include:
1) Allow the moratorium to expire. Currently mineral
extraction is only allowed by Conditional Use (C /U) in
A -1 and C -1 zones. The likelihood of any successful
mineral extraction operation in Prior Lake is very
small.
2) Suggest Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan changes to
address a possible mineral extraction application.
a) Define detailed standards to address C/U mining.
The Prior Lake Zoning ordinance conditions may
not provide stringent criteria to regulate a
mining operation.
b) Not allow mining as a C/U
c) Allow only in designated zones with detailed
standards applicable to mining.
3) Request more information
Staff is seeking direction from you upon review of the
memorandum. Please reply to me or Dave Unmacht in oral or
written form by Friday, April 3, 1992.
4629 Dakota St. S.E. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax(612)447-4245
U ,5 , HERITAGE COMMUNrY v7j-g7 4 1891 1991
"GRAVEL"
MEMO
DATE: 1 -13 -92
TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
FROM: SAM LUCAST ASSOCIATE PLANNER
RE: MINERAL EXTRACTION SAND AND GRAVEL OPERATIONS
The purpose of this memo is to inform interested parties of basic
facts on the operation of sand and gravel mining.
INTRODUCTION
The surface and subsurface materials in and around the City of
Prior Lake, Minnesota are the direct result of glacial deposits.
The typical extractable resources are peat, sand, and gravel. In
this area primarily sand and gravel are extracted. Small
isolated pockets of soil which typically contain peat exist, but
are not mined. The demand for peat does not appear great and the
locations do not lend themselves to large scale extraction due to
proximity of development or other natural resources. Therefore
sand and gravel operations are the main focus of research.
Sand and gravel operations are an essential part of development
for the metropolitan area. High grade, clean sand is necessary
for the manufacture of concrete blocks. Sand and varying sizes
of aggregate (rocks) are ingredients in concrete which is used
for road and other construction projects. Aggregate is a
component in bituminous paving as well as the base for both
concrete and bituminous roadways.
In Protectina Aaareaate Resources in the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Is — an adequate supply of these materials, but their use and
supply should be monitored. The deposits occur naturally. They
were deposited by glaciers and their exact amounts vary from area
to area. An aggregate operator stated there is no aggregate
south of Farmington, Minnesota and we are rapidly approaching
Farmington 'a northern boundary. Please see Figure 1. He also
stated Prior Lake Aggregate has some of the finest rock in the
area. Therefore wise management of these resources is
encouraged.
LOCATION
The United States Soil COnse rva�Service published Soils of
Prior Lake in 1980. It is a map and narrative about the sur a
soi s�ior Lake. Surface ce soils are those which are found to
a depth of 5 (five) feet. Soils and other material deeper than
five feet are described in a 1982 University of Minnesota
publication Geologic Atlas of Scott County. Minnesota According
4629 Dalwta SL SE, Prior lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fu(612)447-4245
Figure ).GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR SAND AND GRAVEL DEPOSITS
IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
Terrace Sand and Gravel (mixture Of northwest and northeast source &rose)
Q Doe Moines Lobe sad Grantsburg Subiobe Sono and Grovel (northwest &ouroo
area, mixed with variable *mount& from northeast source ere &)
M Superior Lobo Sand and Grovel (northeast source area)
44 Generalized urban Land, tag (including approved public open apace)
Sources: Minnesota OoQloglbal Survey, Aggregate Resource$ Invonlory of the
S evon- County Metropolitan Area Metropolitan Council
1 u e iu re xy
Miles
to these sources, the area surrounding Prior Lake has both
SURFACE and SUBSURFACE deposits of sand and gravel suitable for
extraction. This means ANY AREA IN PRIOR WE CAN CONCEIVABLY
SUPPORT A GRAVEL PIT. The surface soils are indicated on a map
in the Planning Department which cannot be reduced and still
show any detail. It is to be used as an overlay with the base
map. Figure 2 shows general locations of SURFACE soil suitable
for sand and gravel mining. The surface soil containing gravel
suitable for mining is located in Section 1 east of the
Brooksville Hills area and south toward Markley Lake. The soil
continues east outside of the city limits. Sections 2 and 3 have
suitable soils in the Five Hawks, 170th Street and Highway 13
intersection areas. Also west of the intersection between 170th
Street and Highway 13 in the vacant area is gravel mining soil.
Only the area in section 1 appears large enough to be developed
without encroaching on residential areas. Conversations with
operators indicate space between different land uses is
essential. The smaller areas do not appear to have enough space
to adequately buffer adjacent non - mining uses.
SOIL TYPES
The SUBSURFACE material, as indicated in the Geologic Atlas, is
below five feet in depth. This material occurs as the result of
glacial deposits. A xeroxed section of the map of the type of
deposits present in Scott County indicates types dh and di are
the most common and COVER VIRTUALLY ALL OF PRIOR LAKE. Please see
Figure 3. The dh type material contains the aggregate necessary
to make concrete. It also contains shale, clay, and perhaps
chart which are not desirable for inclusion in concrete and must
be separated. The di type material is a mixture of sand, clay,
silt, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. It is also suitable for
concrete.
Both materials have mining potential, but are distributed in
almost a random manner depending on the material and the glacial
action. Glaciers by their nature move slowly and gouge out, in
some cases, huge areas of rocks, soil, or anything else in their
path. When the glaciers stalled, began melting and retreating,
they deposited the material in different ways. Actual lakes and
rivers formed from the glacial meltwater. Small light material
was carried downstream in the river and deposited when the force
could no longer carry it. In areas where lakes formed, the
material settled to the bottom. Some of the larger materials did
not move at all and were deposited where the glacier stopped.
That explains why the deposits are irregular and materials vary.
It appears the necessary materials exist all around Prior Lake to
on are a lso
actual u For
further information on a gravel mining operation, see below.
SAND AND GRAVEL MINING
The appropriate permit s an censes must a obtained before any
is con G ene rall y, y, C Us
angefromhoursofoperatione�to
RGURE 2. GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION OF SURFACE SOIL
f
SUITABLE FOR SAND AND GRAVEL MMNIIG
r
� 1 -
1
• r -i � �� I �Il 1 r � �; � .
7
FIGURE 3. SCOTT COUNTY SUBSURFACE SOIL DEPOSITS
[EV
E C1
The di and dh material
are suitable for gravel
mining. These subsurface
materials cover nearly
all of the prior Lake
area. Subsurface
materials begin at a depth
of approximately five
feet belov the surface.
r \ _
environmental issues, noise, dust, vibration, traffic, erosion,
tracking material off the site, water useage, reclamation plans,
and bonds posted for road damage.
ISSUES
Environmental issues are usually handled through the County
Department of Environmental Health or the LGU (Local Governmental
UnIt). Either an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is processed by the
department. The size and depth of the pit, and proximity to
the water table are common issues which concern the health
department.
A reclamation plan is an important part of the C/U permit. A
bond is posted to assure the site is reclaimed according to the
Submitted plan. The basic idea in reclamation is to have a
useable ,piece of land when the mining is finished. Reclaimed
sites range from "`man made lakes to farm fields to sites for
i.
(areaate Material Tax
298.75) is collected
the ihonor system. The
f material removed from
is based on tonnage or
yard or seven cents per
impose the tax if in
less than 20,000 tons or
shall be imposed on
county road ana
a
importance of being 'a good nei
Most operations process the a(
processes are sizing, washing,
.ar :'aavw a awaa+ ray +•••• +••v
�keville with 75 acres, to a huge
ravel in Apple Valley with a
a miles. The advantage of having
ivai'lable. A large operation may
:he ;center of the property, using
a from adjacent land owners.
rator I spoke with stressed the
)or.
agate in some manner. Common
rushing, and settling. Sizing is
merely running the product through screens of different sizes to
separate the material for appropriate uses. Washing is removing
undesirable soil and similar material from sand and gravel.
Operators use water from wells, their own lakes, or water from
the water table if they excavate deep enough. Dirty water is
channeled to sediment ponds where suspended particles settle out.
The water is then cleaned by filters or additional ponds, and
recycled. Northwestern Aggregate has pumps with 1800 - 2000
gallon per minute capacities to pump the recycled water from
their ten acre lake. Pat Lynch, DNR Hydrologist, stated in a
phone conversation, generally there is not a water quality
problem as far as the used water Ls concerned. It does not
contain harmful contaminants because of the washing process.
Problems could occur if a natural watercourse was used as a
sediment pond. The sedimentation and siltation could lead to
turbid water.
Crushing rock is another common process. The crusher is fed
larger rock by conveyors or a drive over feeding system. The
drive over is fed by a Euclid, a large capacity belly dump truck.
This can be a noisy operation and is best located in the center
of the pit at a low elevation, or enclosed in a building. Photos
of an actual gravel pit and equipment are available on request.
Sediment ponds receive the fine particles which settle out of the
wash water. Usually once or twice per year the ponds are mucked
out. The sediment is removed and spread out to dry. It can be
used as fill for reclamation, when dry.
PRODUCT USES
Mining operations produce a variety of end products. Sand and
gravel operations can produce high quality sand for concrete and
blocks. Lower quality sand is used for applying to roads in the
winter, while lowest quality is fill material. Rock, whether
crushed or "natural", is used in septic system trenches, drain
tile systems, on flat roofs, as base for paving, in concrete,
and for decoration or landscaping.
Limestone operations produce rock with the same uses as above.
However, there are additional uses unique to limestone. The
particles removed from sediment ponds are resold as ag -lime and
used for fertilizer. Asphalt plants make a variety of products
from limestone including shingles and tar paper. Limestone can
also be cut and used as a building material.
HOURS
Mining operations are basically seasonal in nature. Many
operations operate with a skeleton crew from November or December
until March. During the slack time maintenance and major repairs
occur. A few operations remain open to service contractual
obligations with redi -mix or asphalt plants. Huge stockpiles of
product are available for year -round use as needed. These
include washed sand and aggregate for redi -mix plants, and road
sand for application on icy roads.
During peak season many pits begin work at 6:00 or 7:00 AM and
continue to work until 10:00 PM or midnight. Some run 24 hours a
day. Other operations close at 5:00 or 6:00 PM. All functions
after normal business hours are quiet activities that do not
disturb neighbors. Crushing, truck hauling, and other
activities deemed disruptive can be regulated through the
conditions of the C/U permit.
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH MINING AND THEIR SOLUTIONS
For every problem there is a solution, mining problems are no
different. These problems affect the operator as well as the
affected individuals. Common problems include dust, noise,
traffic, material tracking, erosion, drainage, sedimentation, and
water usage /recycling.
All operators I spoke with went to great lengths
these problems do not occur with their businesses.
is a never ending task. The usual . method of contr
the piles of product. Eureka "S&G uses magnesium
water to control dust_ Kaonasium chlorida vamnvaa
q.........j. ....- au
season just to water the piles for dust control. Many operations
berm the perimeter of their site. This feature has a threefold
effect. Aesthetically, it hides the operation. Practically, it
helps :control wind and therefore erosion and dust. Neighborly,
it muffles noise.
Noise does not appear that difficult to control and ,operators
make the choice on the lengths to which they go to control it.
Mufflers on the heavy equipment used in removing the product can
minimize engine noise. If crushers are used they can be 'located
in the lower elevations of the site or enclosed by :berms. Hours
play an important part in noise tolerance. During "normal"
business hours people are much more tolerant of noise. As stated
earlier, noisy tasks are done during the day.
Traffic, and thenegative aspects associated with t, is an
issue of being considerate. Virtually all of the product removed
from 'a site leaves by truck. Loaded trucks accelerate slowly
and lose speed on most hills. Many operations have independent
haulers come to the site or contract with specialized fleets to
haul their product. This limits the control mine operators have
over actions of the drivers and quality of the vehicles. By
definition a turbocharger is a muffler. Therefore turbocharged
diesel trucks can, and do, legally run straight, unmuffled,
exhaust pipes. Many diesels are turbocharged. However, most
trucks have mufflers and are reasonably quiet, but louder than
passenger vehicles. Consideration for neighbors consists of
limited hauling hours. Consideration for other drivers is normal
road courtesy and safe driving. The ingress and egress can
affect both neighbors and drivers. A driveway with good sight
lines improves acceleration and deceleration. Placement away
from property edges decreases the noise when the trucks begin to
accelerate.
Tracking material off of the site is relatively easy to control.
A popular approach is to have a gravel driveway to clean the
tires initially and a paved drive closer to the road. Gravel
pits have fever problems than sand operations just by their
nature. Neither operation has the tracking problem associated
with a new construction site - mud covered streets. That is not
to say no material is ever tracked off site, but much less than
what immediately comes to mind. Conditions in the C/U permit can
address this issue. If it is a chronic problem on site measures
should be taken to more effectively limit the amount of material
tracked off site.
Erosion is more of a problem for the operator than the residents.
The reclamation process addresses ground cover to limit erosion.
When a site is being reclaimed, slopes are stabilized with plant
matter to limit wind and water erosion. Depending on the status
of reclamation, weeds may be allowed to grow or a seed mixture
and trees used for final reclamation. Also a planted and
landscaped berm surrounding the site helps control erosion.
Drainage and control of water from natural sources and processing
affect the operator not the public. When mining a large open
space rain water will end up in the bottom of the pit. It is
unavoidable. Controlling this water over a one mile area is a
significant task. Some operators channel it to a deep unused
portion of the pit while others channel it toward a lake which is
the end product of their reclamation. In any case it should be
contained on site and not diverted to a storm sewer. Apple
Valley inadvertently diverted their storm water drainage into one
of Fisher Sand and Gravel's pits. As a result Apple Valley took
control of that portion of the pit and must resolve the drainage
problem.
Theoretically, any problem related to sand and gravel mining can
be resolved. In the real world situations are different. All
problems still have solutions, but money and personalities come
into play. It takes a constant effort to run a good operation
and address the concerns of neighbors. The C/U permit allows
potential problems to be controlled before they become large.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
To effectively plan for ong range an use one must be aware of
all aspects of a proposed use. This section contains the "other"
categories, considerations which did not fit in anywhere else.
Sand and gravel operations employ from a few to sixty people. It
is seasonal work, very busy from spring to fall, and slow in the
winter. Jobs range from truck drivers and heavy equipment
operators to mechanics and office personnel. Depending upon what
additional facilities are present on the site determines what
other jobs are available. Some mines have a concrete block,
asphalt, or redi -mix operation on site.
Spin off employment or increased business is speculative and may
be nonexistent for Prior lake. However, it may also trigger new
business. Most, if not all, heavy equipment maintenance is done
on site and parts would probably not be purchased here. Truck
maintenance and service would depend on whether or not the trucks
are dart of a fleet, owned by the mine, or owned by private
individuals. Prior Lake has no heavy truck repairing at this
time, but may attract some in the future. If the mine owned
trucks the chances would be greater for local business. Fleets
and private individuals usually have different shops do different
repairs depending on their specialty or capability. Probably the
most realistic sales are fuel, convenience items, and food.
The two most realistic considerations for future benefit are the
lower costs for construction projects and the possibility of a
reclamation site for housing and recreation in the Lac LaVon
style. Lac LaVon, in Burnsville, is a man made lake built from
a gravel pit. A public park and single family housing surround
the lake.
Proposed construction in the area could justify the use of one
time pits or significant ones for long range use. Transportation
charges can be a large portion of the actual construction costs.
Having a sand or gravel pit in Prior Lake could save the City
significant amounts of money. with the road improvements and the
new subdivisions which are pending or approved, a gravel pit
could be a great benefit to Prior Lake through lower cost
products. The finite supply of aggregate in the area will affect
construction costs.
The decision of allowing or pro i i ng mining is a difficult one
to make. Perhaps when considering the problem on a higher level,
a wider impact can be considered. Prior Lake potentially has an
important commodity of regional benefit. A moral question exists
as to whether the City is obligated to share its resource with
the surrounding area. If so, at what point do the needs of the
citizens outweigh the needs of developers and the costs
associated vith transporting the resource a longer distance. All
controversial aspects of living next to a pit can be mitigated to
a certain extent. However, is there a large enough benefit to
the City and its residents to allow mining? If mining is to be
allowed then a plan of action should be formulated soon to allow
acquisition of the large tracts land necessary to operate a
successful mine and limit the encroachment of residential areas
on the operation. Section 1 has nearly 160 acres under single
ownership.
The mention of gravel pits evoke negative thoughts in most
people. There seems to be enough open space in Prior Lake to
allow mining. The problem is, it is difficult to know the exact
location or amount of the deposit. Sampling soils in an area can
give a better idea, but it is impossible to know the exact
details. virtually all the land in and around the area is
minable according to previously mentioned sources. Access via
roads without weight restrictions is critical. It would be
preferable to establish a pit before housing encroaches.
Economic advantages are significant if Prior Lake growth is
desired. However there are other operations in all surrounding
communities. More detailed information is easily obtainable.
All of the people I spoke with would happily provide more
requested information.
GOOD
NEIGHBOR
POLICY...
PLANT HOUSEKEEPING
HAS MANY PAYBACKS
OurduaftioGary McNevinof Pxo
Equ nonw Co- Minneapolis. MN for
makip this awry powibk.
® IMBV - . Not In My BackyaN - .
is ■ lam familiw m mmy twn-
an cans and quarry operators. especially
if"bemnrte involved in seeking
additional permits " "Partim M plant
I
: yratims , V.I. 2. No. e.
General Public Has Nega-
tive Outlook Towards Ma-
terial Producer Opera-
tions
To neighboring an ideas. gmsel
pigs and sock quarries conjure up visions
of dot, heavy asks and eyesores which
will rally considerable community
,s jounce to just about anything a pig
operator may want to do.
While be hip corporate operalims
have au to counter this with
public religious pmgnms. we want to
recognize Bill Pear. . second genera-
tion President of Prior Lake Aggregates.
located in Savage. Minncsma. who Its
discovered a practical solaim for
independent operators.
f �
Entrance To Prior Lakes Aggregates Operation
Operation Is Being Sur-
rounded By Community
Growth
Bill's Dad. William Sr- look over
this rand and gravel location in 1972.
when it was &sated wall 001 in tae
country. Today. Savage. Minnesma is e
sprawling bedpan communky w the
Twin Cties. with new homes locating all
around Priors' pit.
This change in cireumattaaes has
caused Bill to actively imuall a "Good
Neighbor philosophy for his company.
This policy will hopefully be awarded
ohm pilot Lake Aggregates seeks to
open additional acreage in the heal few
years.
Good Housekeeping
Practices Work
Bill slated. - While rhea ate things
you can't change Ithe trucks Mill come
and gn). the ihirtgs yon cm improve yon
sbMW Prix Lakes Aggmgaes plant
-and equipment are an esample of how
..good housekeeping pacrices can serve
to make a -cry favorable impmssion m
:the community.
Appearance Is Appealing
The Pearson f milt' pride in owtatr-
Nip in reflected by the well loomed
entrance a the pit. with stone fencing
and attractive signage. This first impres-
sion is etdased by the brightly colmed
by cpamplc 1 wtiuctu y he wdl jump on
the All Terrain flanla to make inspec-.. <
Inms Bocnuse of the plants general
cleanliness, ti's easy to spot anything
that is oot orplace
A Bed" bode, Is kept busy every
day cleaning undo w. .ns and convey
ors. All walkways a1d maintenance
area% are cleaned regularly to keep the
area accessible. safe. and very produc-
Ilve.
Maintenance Procedures
Include Cleanliness
The same discipline is eaemised
when it comes in repair, and maime.
nose. "No job is complete until the
tools are put away and any scrap parts
am property disposed of."
ITn aPw 4 �.
Bill Pearson On Inspection Tour
sal
m
im
em
ncents for
n others.
ors. For
trash on
Ip will
I good
I. and the
gregate 6
and and
prugmm:
im
is
Ms.
um
IN
cots school. [e]
PRi
o .p
TO: Economic Development Committee
Lake Advisory Committee
P rks Advisorryy Committee
arming Commission
FRO vid J. Vnmacht, City Manager
DAT June 23, 1992
RE: Term Limit Policy
On Monday, June 15, the Ci
Limit Policy as present
1992. Extensive discussio
limits, the public p
implementation ideas and f.
existing committee /commis
submitted to me in writing
their consideration. St
Council considered the draft Term
to you in a memorandum dated June 3,
occurred on the concept of term
icy rationale behind term limits,
impact a new policy will have on
on members. Information which was
as presented to the City Council for
f was directed to notify you of the
City Council *s action from June 15 and to present their request
for further input on the policy.
Please consider this a
Policy at your next
policy. The purpose o
whether the commit
findings in a written
City Council. It is thi
the policy again after
members have been prepare
public. If you have any
,at to discuss the Term Limit
nclosed is a copy of the draft
ision should be to determine
in has any comments, or
icil. Please summarise your
which can be presented to the
the City Council to discuss
Ss of the committee /commission
:r with any input from the
please contact me.
cc: Mayor and Councilmembers
Horst Craser, Director of Planning
Bill Mangan, Parks and Recreation Director
Ray Schmudlach, Assistant City Manager
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245
AN EQUAL
TERM LIMIT POLICY �`
r FOR
APPOINTED COMMISSIONERS
AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
The City of Prior Lake has volunteer opportunities available for
members of the community interested in serving on various
committees and commissions. As of the adoption of this Policy,
the City of Prior Lake has the following appointed 'Sodies:
Planning Commission, Economic Development Committee, Parks
Advisory Committee and Lake Advisory Committee. Each respective
body operates under Council direction and Council approved bylaws
and procedures. The only statutorily authorized entity is the
Planning Commission. The other committees have been created by
the Council to further public policy goals of the community. For
detailed information including the charge of each respective
body, please refer to the Bylaws Manual.
It is the policy of the Prior Lake City Council to impose a two
term limitation for all appointed positions within the committees
and commission. Time spent by individuals who complete the
service of a term vacated by a resigning member does not count
toward the two term limitation.
The rationale behind the term limit policy is to encourage as
much participation as possible from a wide variety of community
members. The policy does not represent a judgment on a position
or performance of existing members. It important to develop and
obtain new perspectives on matters of business in the community
of Prior Lake. It is also critical to open and responsive
government to provide all members of the community equal
opportunity to participate in decisions affecting them on a
local level.
Members completing a term on a committee or commission may be
eligible for service and participation on another volunteer body
provided that they apply for the position like all other
interested individuals. This term limit policy shall be
effective for terms beginning July 1, 1992.