HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/25/20022.
3.
4.
5.
A.
7.
A.
B.
8.
9.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda: None
Public Hearings:
Case File #02-08 Wensmann Realty is requesting a zone change for 7 acres of
land from the current C-5 (Business Park) District to a R-4 (High Density
Residential) District for the property located on the west side of Pike Lake Trail,
approximately lA mile south of County Road 42 and south of Fountain Hills
Drive.
Case File #01-079 Kenneth and Carol Boyles are requesting a rear yard setback
variance to construct a single family dwelling on the property known as 15358
Breezy Point Road.
Old Business:
New Business:
2001 Variance Summary
Discuss Planning Commission Bylaws
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.~., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the December 10, 2001, Plann'mg Commission meeting to
order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego and Stamson,
Plarm'mg Director Don Rye, Planning Coord'mator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue
McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Cormie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
CHego Present
Lemke Absent
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes t~om the November 26, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Consent:
A. Case #01-080 David and Rachel Norling - Variance Resolution 01-020PC
Criego asked to discuss the hardship requirements for a variance of this sort.
Criego:
This applicant is requesting five variances. Commissioner Criego stated he firmly
believed variance number 2 (the 1.5 foot variance to permit a structure side yard
setback of 8.5 feet) and variance number 5 (a 214 square foot variance to permit an
impervious surface area of 2,394 square feet - 32.9%) had not demonstrated the
proper hardship reqff~rement.
· The main topic at issue is a three car garage. Historically this committee indicated a
two car garage is a reasonable use. The applicant indicates there are multiple adults
and requires a three car garage, It is not uncommon to have an adult population with
three cars or more. If the Commissioners allow a three car garage to be built here,
we are basically saying - Ifa family has three ears or three adults or more in a
household a variance could be given to exceed the parameters of the side yard
setbacks as well as the impervious surface.
· Historically the Commission believed the impervious surface should be a very strong
requirement to maintain. The DNR requires 25% impervious surface. The City and
members of the Planning Commission have felt that is not enough, 30% is acceptable.
So the Commission has already exceeded what is recommended by the DNR.
L:~01 filea~01 plancomm\01 pcminutes~vlN 121001 .doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 2001
· Criego asked the Commissioners to reconsider this Resolution and disallow numbers
2 and 5 of the variance requests.
Atwood:
· Agreed the impervious surface is a big issue. This is not an enormous amount.
· Asked Criego to explain the side yard setbacks. Criego responded that any variance
had to meet the criteria for hardship. The hardship here is that they cannot build a
three-car garage and that in itself is not a hardship. There is a requirement for an
entrance into that garage area so there is no reason why it can't be a two car garage
plus an entrance. To have a three car plus, requires a variance and there is no hardship
other than there are multiple adults - not a hardship. With the extended garage as
well as the extension on the lake side, they exceed the impervious surface by 214 feet.
· Agreed at the last meeting that an extended family was a choice the applicant made.
The ordinance should not be reflective of applicant's choices, Did have a problem
with that issue at the last hearing.
· Agreed the impervious surface was too high.
Stamson:
· Was not at the last meeting, but in reviewing the Minutes, the Commission failed to
provide any Findings to support the hardship criteria.
· In my six years on the Commission, the Commissioners have never found that failing
to have a three~car garage warranted a hardship.
· Shocked this was the reconunendation directing staff to prepare a Resolution.
· Fully agreed with Commissioner Criego.
· Horsman and Criego stated the staff report did not recommend approval on those
requests.
· Questioned if directing staffto prepare a Resolution compels the Commission to pass
it. Rye responded it did not. If the Commission wants to reconsider it, a Motion
should be made by someone who voted in favor of it.
Atwood:
· Questioned if this could be continued until Lemke would be present.
· Criego questioned why. Atwood said out of diversity and that he certainly knows the
lot well since he lived there.
Criego:
· It is clear there are no hardships for variances 2 and 5. No one in this group could
prove there was a hardship. Unless someone can indicate the hardship, I have a hard
time approving this, Will consider if convinced.
Atwood:
· Agreed she had a hard time with the side yard setbacks. They do not meet the
hardships.
· After reading over Commissioner Vonhoffs comments, agreed the requests do not
meet the hardships.
Planning Commission Minute*
December 10, 2001
Rye pointed out the 120 day time l'me will run out by the next meeting and some action
will have to be made.
Atwood:
· Questioned the process. Rye responded the majority of the quorum would be
sufficient.
Criego:
· So the question is, is the Motion of accepting this Resolution that has been prepared
the next motion that takes place?
Atwood:
· Questioned the process if the Resolution was not approved. Back to the drawing
table? Rye responded failure to pass this Resolution does not automatically constitute
denial of the variances so it would have to be an affirmative motion to deny the
variances.
Criego:
· Questioned if it was possible to deny the Motion and then go forward with a new
Motion allowing certain variances to this particular application such as requests 1, 3
and 4. Rye said you could approve some of them. The Commission can approve
variances 1, 3 and 5.
· Then the new Resolution has to be written up and come before the Commission for
approval?
· Kansier said they could alter the Resolution before them.
· That is the best solution.
· Rye said it was up to the Commission.
Stamson:
· Can the Commission pass it at that time? Rye said the Commission would be passing
part of the Resolution.
MOTION BY CRiEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, ACCEPTING RESOLUTION 01-
020PC WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: DELETING VARIANCE REQUESTS
#2 AND #5 IN THE DOCUMENT. #2) A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 8.5 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES,
RATHER THAN MINIMUM SETBACK OF 10 FEET AS REQUIRED FOR THE SUM
OF SIDE YARDS ON A NONCONFORMING LOT OF AT LEAST 15 FEET. #5) A
214 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE AREA OF 2,394 SQUARE FEET, RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE COVERAGE AREA OF 2,180 SQUARE FEET AND ACCEPT THE
REM.MNING PART OF THE RESOLUTION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\OI fil~s~)l plancomm~O I pcminutcshMN 121001 .doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 2001
Stamson stated the Commission approved the Variance Resolution with numbers 1, 3 and
4. The appeal period is 5 days.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Heating Statement and opened the meeting.
5. Public Hearings:
Ao Cases #01-062 & #01-063 Merlyn Oison Development is requesting consideration
for a preliminary PUD Plan and a preliminary plat consisting of 5.003 acres to be
subdivided into 32 townhouse lots on the property located on the south side of
CSAH 21, one-half block north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue
and east of West Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Pla~ing Report dated December 10,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
This site consists of a total of 5.003 acres ofunplatted, vacant land. In July, 2001, the
Planning Commission approved an exception to the minimum 1 O-acm requirement for a
PUD in order to allow the developer to move forward with this application. This action
does not guarantee approval of the PUD plan, in whole or in part.
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on November 13,
2001. At that meeting, the Planning Commission discussed several concerns raised by
the staff. The Planning Commission also heard testimony from several residents of the
area opposed to this project. The Planning Commission continued this item in order to
allow the developer to address the issues raised at this meeting.
Staff raised 12 issues in their report. At the meeting on November 13, 2001, the Planning
Commission raised 6 concerns - density, traffic, storm water calculations, sidewalks,
County Road 21 improvements and a more creative design. The overall design of this
project has not changed.
Kansier also presented the Planned Unit Development Criteria and Findings along with
staff's 11 conditions of approval:
1. The developer must provide a design for a right-in/right-out access at the intersection
of Duluth Avenue and Racine Street.
2. The unit identified as Lot 1, Block 7, must be located at least 30' from the 100-year
flood elevation of the NURP pond, or it must be eliminated.
3. The 10' strip of land shown as a road easement for CSAH 21 must be dedicated as
right-of-way.
4. A sidewalk connection to the public sidewalks along CSAH 21 and Duluth Avenue
must be provided.
L:\01 files\01 plancomra\01 pcminuteshMN 121001 .doc
4
Planning Commission Minute*
December 10. 2001
5. Homeowner's Association documents and covenants, specifically addressing the
maintenance of the private street and other common space, must be provided with the
final plans.
6. A lighting plan for the private streets must be provided.
7. An irrigation plan must be provided with the final plans.
8. A drainage and utility easement must be provided over all of Outlot B.
9. The plat must identify the drainage and utility easements over the wetlands and storm
water ponds.
10. The items outlined in the memorandum from the City Engineer, dated August 1,
2001, must be addressed prior to the final plat.
11. All necessary permits from other agencies must be obtained prior to any grading on
the site or prior to final plat approval.
Mr. Pat Corkle of SRF Consulting Group, the City's consultant, presented the Traffic
Report. The report indicated with the construction of the proposed project, all key
intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable oyerall LOS (Level of Service) A.
The worst approach would operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours in the year 2005 with existing geometrics and lxaffic control.
Atwood questioned the times of the rush hour. Corkle stated it was from 6:30 a.m. to
7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Criego questioned the impact of the right-in, fight-out on Duluth Avenue pushing the
traffic out on West Avenue. Corkle responded with the number of trips it would still
work adequately. There may be a little more delay, but it would still work. Corlde
confirmed the traffic numbers did not produce any volume of any significance.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Merlyn Olson, thanked all parties involved in this project for their quick
response. He was in favor of the fight-in/fight-out access on Duluth and Racine. If the
setback to the pond does not meet the required 30 foot setback they would be able to put
one of the other units in and comply. They are asking for a special consideration for less
than 20 feet between the buildings. In the process of narrowing the street and moving the
buildings away from County Road 21 to give a ten foot easement, they moved the two-
unit building, which is next to Duluth Avenue, which will help with sight lines. Olson
said they can comply with all 11 conditions.
Aaron Halling addressed the three concerns raised by the Watershed District. All issues
have now been met and will resubmit their application.
Lyaman McPherson, 16282 West Avenue, felt there had been no apparent change to the
project. There are further concerns raised especially the 10 foot easement to County
Road 21 and should technically be removed from the calculations. Even if the zoning
L:~OI files~O lplancorcan\O1 peminutesXMlq 121 O01 .doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10. 2001
allows 7.2 units per acre, nothing states the Commission is compelled to accept the
maximum muount per acre. Suddenly 32 units are squeezed in between single family
homes. The developer is requesting variances between the building to make them fit.
McPherson stated he would not spend $195,000 for a house that he couldn't walk on a
sidewalk to get out of. His calculations indicated the developer's proceeds from the units
right now would be $5.9 Million. If reduced to 24 units they would receive $4.32
Million. He did not feel the neighbors have to put up such a drastic change and suggested
a lower density.
Mike Gundlach, Prior Lake City Council, said the towrthomes were proper for the
property but did not feel the current project is a good use for the land. The first problem
is that it does not meet the City's requirement for a PUD. There are some acreage issues
and obviously they will have to get some variances to get a PUD. Not certain that is a
good use ora PUD. Does it meet the purpose ora PUD? Which means that the City and
the builder trade offfor some clustering of homes to get some open space. Can the
objective be met without a PUD? In this case there is a private road where a variance can
be approved in some cases. Not sure if the density can be met with or without a PUD.
Can the setbacks be met without a PUD? If the Commission decides a PUD is not
appropriate in this particular context, if in fact, the Commission does decide a PUD is
appropriate, what are the tradeoffs? We need to ask what the tradeoffs are. There is not a
lot of open space. What would this look like without a PUD? Has that been explored?
Why do we have the PUD process and where did it come from?
Bill Jacobson 4385 Racine Street, questioned the traffic study. The study does not state
what time of year. The heavy use of West Avenue is in the summer. West Avenue is
packed with fisherman and traffic to Captain Jack's. It is difficult getting out on County
Road 21. Despite what the study indicates there is no easy access. Another issue brought
up last meeting is the extra parking. Visitors will be forced out in the street. There is no
other place in Prior Lake that has a development like this proposal. This development
will be packed in like sardines. Variances would have to be granted to even make this
proposal work. Them are no hardships for this density. The developer says he will meet
the conditions, but we don't see them today. Asked that the matter be delayed until all
the issues are in place. Not against development but the number of units in this space is
creating a precedent for Prior Lake resulting in additional traffic problems and changing
the whole nature ora residential area.
Criego asked Bill Jacobson what his recommendation would be for the property.
Jacobson responded a group home for handicapped but knew that is not a priority. He
believed a development could take place without an added 250 cars coming out on two
streets. Not against the development of townhomes but the number of units and density
is too much. He would like to see more open space.
JoAnne Brandstedter, 4452 Colorado Street, does not personally know about the fishing
and parking problems on West Avenue, however she does face St. Michael's School and
there are considerations of the rash hour other than the weekends, school hours and
Wednesday nights. The rash hour is not necessarily with the traffic study hours. Her
L:\01 files\01plancomm\01pcminutes~MN121001 .doc
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 2001
other concern was for her property as well as her neighbors with the stand'mg water and
flooding. Landscape will take a long th'ne to mature. She was interested in fencing
around the project. Brandstedter felt there was a lot of fancy number crunching without
changing the project.
Pat Heaney, 4642 Pleasant Street, had questions on the traffic study. Where and when
did the study take place? The consultant states the access area on West Avenue and
County Road 21 is easy to see. As a jogger Heaney goes out of his way to avoid that
area. St. Michael's is expanding and does not know how they are going to handle the
traffic. Would like a discussion on the half acre of possible park. Maybe that area could
be used for some aesthetic purposes upon entering the downtown. Is it accurate if this
project could be developed other than a PUD, would 5 to 7 units be removed? In looking
to the future, I hear a lot of plans for Main Avenue and County Road 21, as prudent
developers the City needs to look at this area. County Road 21 is only going to get more
and more crowded.
Richard Keeney, 16102 Lakeside, was concerned with this development fitting into the
neighborhood. Questioned if the development could fit into the land use district. Keeney
went on to explain the Conditional Use ordinances. Felt a better use of the land would be
for duplexes.
Merlyn Olson, the developer, commented on the remarks and comments:
The development is below the required density and meets all the requirements.
· The required open space is 19,800 square feet - they are providing 83,639 square feet.
· Regarding the Council Member's comments: This property could not be developed
unless it was a PUD. Without a PUD, a public street would be a minimum of 32 feet
wide with a dedicated right-of-way of about 60 to 66 feet and a common setback of
30 feet. The setback from the County Road would be another 30 feet.
· Comments about clustering the buildings: Olson responded he spent years coming up
with a design for a PUD. It is the only design that works for the area.
· Parking space - the requirement is 2 spaces per unit. There are 64 spaces plus an
additional 11 along the street.
· They did request a variance to the PUD. Ten acres is the requirement, but they came
before the Planning Commission several months ago and were approved.
· The traffic study - the LOC (Level of Service) in the area is "A". "A" being the best,
"F" being the worst. It is a very good rating for serving this area.
· The storm water issue: There is a storm water collection basin in the area. Their
design for the street will control the runoff.
· Parkland: Staff felt the property would not be suitable for parking and the developer
will contribute money for parkland in other areas.
· The last gentleman spoke of the development as a Conditional Use Permit. They are
not planning on a Conditional Use and are within the guidelines, which allow for a
more dense use of the property.
· They will preserve as much of the natural topography as possible. The build'mgs are
designed to fit in the topography of the area.
L:~01 files~01 plancomm\01pcminutesXlvlN 121001 .doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 2001
Stamson:
· When the Planning Commission agreed to a PUD process, it was partially because the
Commission recognized it was a narrow lot and difficult to develop. Private streets
address that. Questioned why the developer needed a variance between the buildings.
· Merlyn Olson responded that in the process of moving the buildings - the area
became shorter. In accommodating that change they did use some space. They are
going to pull the height of the building down. He is trying to work with the City.
Dan Willgohs, 4432 Colorado Street, said at the last meeting the density was 5.03 acres.
Kansier explained the density calculations. His concern is the traffic with seasonal traffic
being higher. At times it is difficult to get on County Road 21 from West Avenue. The
parking and high density were also concerns.
Bill Jacobson, questioned Kansier regarding the 10 feet fight-of-way not being taken into
consideration for density. Kansier explained. It was Jacobson's understanding that
County Road 21 will be expanded by 10 feet. By this procedure it is allowing another 10
feet offCounty Road 21. He also felt the traffic study was not done during the real use of
the area.
Sue McDermott clarified the traffic numbers were taken in August of 2000 on Colorado
Street and West Avenue over a two day period.
Mike Gundlach, Prior Lake City Council, questioned if it is possible under City
Ordinance to get a variance for a private mad. Kansier said a PUD is the only way to
develop a private road in the City. Gundlach asked Kansier to explain the setbacks.
Pat Heaney clarified that parkland can mean a passive strip of land, it does not need to be
a playground. A strip of green space is also appealing to the eye as you come into Prior
Lake. The developer's opinion is that a PUD is the only way to use this land. There is a
healthy debate on that.
The public heating was closed at 8:00 p.m.
Kansier explained the modifications as part of the PUD. One of the purposes of a PUD is
to allow some flexibility and design. For that reason the ordinance does allow certain
modifications to conventional requirements such as setbacks. Under a PUD process it is
not a variance as the Commission is used to seeing. It does not have to meet the hardship
criteria under a PUD. It is up the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council
to determine if those modifications are appropriate for the site.
Kansier explained the private street verses a public street is not the width of the traveled
roadway. It is the right-of-way, the area normally used for snow deposit, mail boxes, etc.
On a public street of this size, normally the City would require 50 feet of right-of way.
The Ordinance allows anywhere from a 28 foot to a 32 foot wide traveled road surface.
On a private street, easements can make up the difference that would allow for small
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWiN 121001 .doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 2001
utilities and snowplowing. The affect of the private versus public is the setbacks.
Setbacks are measured fxom the right-of-way line on a public street. The private streets
are measured from the curb line. That is the major effect. Anther thing the private street
does is reduce the impervious surface.
As far as parkland, the ordinance requirement is 10%. The City cannot require more than
that. The Parks Department has looked at the site and from the City's perspective, a half
acre is just too small. The City is then required to develop it and then maintain. It is just
too small, not cost effective. A development of this size would contribute over $52,000
cash in lieu of land. The money is used to develop other area parks.
Stamson questioned what other modifications are requested besides the private road and
the setbacks. Kansier responded from this development that was it.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· This land needs to be developed and the use of townhomes is probably the
appropriate buffer between the single family homes and a very busy county road.
· Believed a PUD is right for this application. In the PUD process, it should be a two-
way process where the developer shows a positive to make the property work in with
the rest of the community or to provide some benefit to the citizens. The City's
responsibility is to provide modification, bending of the standard roles of the PUD
process to maybe allow tighter housing or smaller streets. The developer has taken
advantage of the PUD asking the smaller roads, setbacks and density.
· Questioned Merlyn Olson what the advantage of this PUD is to the citizens of Prior
Lake. It is just a mw oftownhomes. Olson said he is making the availability of
affordable homes. It is difficult to purchase a new home in the price range of
$165,000 to $195,000. It is a good way to develop the land between the road and
single family homes. It would not be feasible for any kind of single family.
· Criego - why did you elect to have so many homes in this project? Olson responded
he looked at the density available and used that as a guideYme.
· If the Commission does not feel the rights of the PUD were used properly, the
developer has to go back and do it traditionally which could create 5 to 7 less homes.
The intent of the PUD is not to maximize the land, the intent is to make it better for
the community as a whole. Olson said his response would have to be in the financial
area, basically homes are on one side ora private street and all of the services go
along the private street corridor where there is a considerable price to put that
infrastructure in. If he can't get the number of units proposed it will be difficult to
make it financially feasible.
· Overall a PUD is the right use of the property. But the density is too much for the
area. The property should not be maximized. There needs to be more benefit to the
City than lower price housing. $165,000 to $190,000 is not lower price housing.
There are other townhome developments in that price range that have a very nice
appearance.
· Based on what is before the Commission, would not approve this PUD.
L:\01 filesX01 planconmn\0 lpcnfinut~s~lN 1210~ 1 .doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 2001
Atwood:
Concurred the PUD makes the criteria. The density is out of line and agreed with
Mr. McPherson to reduce to 24 units.
· With less townhomes it could become unique which is part of the PUD give and take.
· Couldn't agree more with the residents with the seasonal traffic impact. The school
has a tremendous impact. The school does not start until 9:00 a.m. So the traffic
study between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. truly does not reflect the neighborhood traffic
patterns.
· Opposed to the right-in, right-out access. The sight lines on Duluth to County Road
21 are far from good.
· The Commission is not compelled to grant the full density. The density has been
maximized and green space has been minimized. Not in favor.
· The water infiltration concerns are going to be resubmitted and am interested to see if
they pass.
· Questioned Kansier about the access on Duluth Avenue, City Engineer Sue
McDermott said the Engineering Department originally suggested removal. The
Public Works Director felt the access was necessary for emergency vehicles.
· If the density was less the issue may be resolved.
· This plan should be re&awn to create a more unique plan than just a row of
townhomes; cut off the access to Duluth Avenue and add a cul-de-sac.
· The neighbors are not against the development but would be pleased with a lower
density.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Commissioners this property should be a PUD, however, this plan does
not meet the standards and justification for a PUD. It is very close. The density is
okay as far as the ordinance goes, but the PUD in this process was used to maximize
lots. Would like to see less density for this project. It is not the intent of a PUD.
· There needs to be a larger separation between buildings.
· Concern was eliminating access to Duluth. If a person lives in the development and
doesn't have access to Duluth and is going to the County Market/Holiday end of
town, they will have to drive through the Colorado Street neighborhood. The idea is
to move the traffic directly out to the collector street and keep it off the residential
streets. Otherwise, a couple hun&ed trips are added to Colorado. Duluth is a
collector street and designed for higher traffic. The impact of closing Duluth is a
massive negative for Colorado and Pleasant.
· Seasonal traffic is different issue. The traffic is steady throughout the year. This
development is not going to change the traffic.
· The fishing issue is not part of this development, the problem occurs in the same area.
· Overall this needs to be revisited and do a better job of justifying the PUD. The
criteria have not been met.
L:\0 l files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesUviN 121001 .doc
10
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 2001
Criego:
· No matter what this development is, the issue of traffic is going to come up. We have
to believe the traffic study as it will not change the seasonal traffic.
· If the developer comes back with less townhomes, the same traffic issues are going to
come up.
· The maln issue is that this project does not conform to the PUD criteria. Itdoesnot
give the community enough for what it is requesting.
Atwood:
· In reading over the traffic study - there is no way Duluth Avenue can handle that
traffic.
· One of the concerns of the neighbors is the times of the study do not reflect the tree
traffic oft_he neighborhood. Because of the school, there are more buses and parents
in the area.
· Regarding the street lighting narrative by the developer - The developer said he
would mount the lights on the build'rog but did not see it on the plans.
· Another question is the additional 11 parking spaces. Blocks 6 and 7 will not
conveniently be able to access those spaces.
· Kansier said the City requires decorative and adequate lighting.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
KNOWN AS EAGLEWOOD EAST.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS EAGLEWOOD EAST.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on January 7, 2001.
A break was called at 8:23 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:28 p.m.
B. Case #01-093 D. Mark Crouse of 15507 Calmut Avenue, is requesting a variance
to exceed the allowable impervious surface coverage area.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 10,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Ms. Allison Gontarek,
Huemoeller & Bates Attorneys At Law, representing Mr. D. Mark Crouse the owner of
the property at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The applicant is requesting a 1,260 square foot
variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 3,567 square feet (46.4%)
rather than the permitted maximum area of 2,307 square feet (30%).
L:~01 file$~ I plancorrma~0 lpeminulesWIN 121001 .d~c 11
PlannlngCommissionMinutes
DecemberlO, 2001
On October 8, 2001, the Planning Conunission granted a variance for an impervious
surface coverage area of 38% (Resolution 01-011PC). This variance allowed the
applicant to keep a portion of an existing driveway to access his 3-stall garage, while
removing the additional parking and rear yard patio areas to accomplish the 38%
coverage area. The applicant has since received an engineer's report on the need for the
lakeside patio area to provide soil stabilization around the structure foundation.
The City Engineering Department reviewed this request, including the engineer's letter of
recommendation to allow the applicant to keep the existing patio (cap) for soil stability.
The Department noted the absence of calculations in the letter to support their
recommendation for the cap. However, without conducting an analysis of the subject
site, the Engineering Department does not support nor dispute the applicants engineer of
record. The Department does suggest there are alternative methods to stabilize the soils
and retaining wall thereby eliminating the patio cap and the impervious surface coverage
area.
The Department Of Natural Resoumes submitted comments for this report. In short, the
DNR is not convinced by the engineer's letter of recommendation, and suggested the City
Engineer provide an independent review. However, should it be determined the patio cap
is necessary for structural reasons, perhaps other non-essential hard surfaces can be
eliminated in their place.
The staffrecommended the Planning Commission deny the applicant's variance request
for 46.4% impervious surface area as the request does not meet all of the hardship criteria
due to existing conditions on the nonconforming lot of record, the approval for a building
permit to construct the existing structure with a 30% impervious surface coverage area,
and the recently approved 38% impervious variance. In addition, the City Engineering
Department suggested another option for shoring up the retaining wall and stabilizing the
soils that would not result in additional impervious surface.
Stamson questioned the assumption is going from 30% to 38% to finish the driveway.
Horsman said the 38% granted was to allow the applicant to have the driveway. What
came up after the fact was the letter to allow the patio. Stamson clarified that if the
Commission denies th/s request, the applicant can still have the 3-car driveway but has to
remove the patio.
Criego questioned if the City Engineer came up with any recommendations. Horsman
responded the City Water Resource Coordinator looked at it but did not submit a
response in writing but in discussions did recommend improving the existing retaining
wall or replace it to stabilize it to do the job it was intended to do and then by plantings,
sod or other vegetation allowing an impervious area should not dis-stabilize the soils in
that area.
L:\01 files\01 plancamrn\01 pcrninuteshMN 121001 ,doc 12
planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 2001
Comments from the public:
Allison Gontarek, representative for D. Mark Crouse, distributed a response generated by
the engineer based on the staffreport. One of the points in the staff report is that there
were no calculations done. According to their engineer it is a water problem in this
situation and not a calculation issue, it is more of keeping the structure safe from erosion.
Mr. Crouse did go ahead and create the impervious surface without a variance relying on
wrong information, however he did not create the hardship or the practical difficulties of
this lot. He was pennitted and did expand and raise the existing footprint to comply with
the elevations requirements. Gontarek spoke to Lani Leichty (Water Resource
Coord'mator for the City of Prior Lake), who did not have a specific alternative but to
possibly use drain tile and correcting the retaining wall. Both of the suggestions also
have problems. The applicant suggested using alternative management runoffmethods..
The amount of impervious surface that is going to increase on the patio is not much.
Gontarek is not disputing the variance should have been applied for but felt this was a
reasonable use. They could not get the patio information for the first variance request.
Mr. Crouse will correct the problems but does not want to jeopardize his home. He
would like to work with the Planning Commission and come to a reasonable decision.
Gontarek also said Lani Leichty felt the Watershed District requirements are beeom'mg
more of an issue.
The public hearing was closed at 8:43 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
* Not in favor of the request. The request is a gross number to be dealing with.
· Supported staff's recommendation to deny.
Criego:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Stamson:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation. The intent of the impervious surface
regulations is to prevent water runoff from the lake.
· This patio was built specifically to nm water to the lake. It is direct conflict with the
intent of the Ordinance.
· There also seems a resistance to remove the concrete and a retaining wall that was not
built appropriately, which is another lake water issue.
· Other agencies famihar with the property feel there are alternatives to protect the
building structure yet not defy the Ordinance or its intent.
· It is an economic issue is not a hardship.
· Supported rejecting this variance.
L:~01 files~01 plancomm~01 pcminuteshMN 121001 .dec 1 3
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 2001
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01-
025PC DENYING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO PERMIT A 46.4%
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman stated the applicant has 5 business days to appeal.
6. Old Business: None
7. New Business: None
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Criego requested a workshop for the Planning Commission. Rye said that was the intent
with the new commissioner on board.
Stamson stated the City was looking for applications for a new commissioner.
Applications are available from Administration before December 18, 2001.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN 121001 .doc 14
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY
WENSMANN REALTY, INC., FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PIK~ LAKE
TRAIL, DIRECTLY SOUTH OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
DRIVE (Case File #02-008)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
FEBRUARY 25, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Wensmann Realty, Inc., has filed an application for a zone change for the property
located on the west side of Pike Lake Trail, directly south of Fountain Hills Drive and
about 1/8 mile south of CSAH 42. The proposal is to rezone the property from the C-5
(Business Park) and the C-4 (General Business) district to the R-4 (High Density
Residential) District.
BACKGROUND:
This property is presently zoned C-5 (Business Park) and C-4 (General Business) and is
designated as R-I-ID (High Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map. The designation of this property was established in 1999 when the City
Council adopted the current 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site consists of approximately 7 acres.
Existing Use: This property is currently vacant land.
Tooograohy: The site has a varied topography. The site generally drains from the south
to the north and the northeast. The highest point on this site, elevation 904' MSL, is at
the south end of the site.
Vegetation: This property is vacant grassland. There are a number of significant trees
located along the south boundary and in the southeast comer of the site.
IA02files~02rezone~fountain hills~pc report.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EivlPLOY~R
Wetlands: There is a 2.99 acre wetland located on the northeast side of this property,
although most of the wetland is located outside of the area to be rezoned. The site is
subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act.
Access: Access to this property is presently fi-om Fountain Hills Court, a cul-de-sac
located on the south side of Fountain Hills Drive.
Utilities: Sewer and water services will be extended fi'om the existing services located in
Fountain Hills Court and in Pike Lake Trail to serve this site. The existing utilities were
sized for the development of this parcel when they were installed in 1999.
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: To the north of this property is a commercial office
and showroom building, zoned C-4 and designated for Commercial uses. Also to the
north is a wetland, zoned C-4 and designated for Commercial and High Density
Residential uses. To the west is vacant land zoned C-4 and designated for Commercial
uses. To the south is the Vierling property, presently zoned C-5, and designated for High
Density Residential uses.
MUSA Designation: This property is identified as land within the Primary MUSA
allocation. This property is consistent with the criteria for the extension of MUSA as
listed in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the following policies for
amendments to the Official Zoning Map:
The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical
or administrative error, or
The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of
the area, or
The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will be appropriate on
the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood
The proposed R-4 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map
designation. The R-4 district allows residential development with densities up to 30 units
per acre. In this case, the applicant is proposing to develop the site as a Planned Unit
Development consisting of 64 townhouse units. The specific PUD plan and a preliminary
plat are scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 11,
2002. The only question before the Planning Commission at this time is the rezoning of
the property.
l:\02files\02rezone\fountain hills\pc report.doc
Page 2
Minnesota Statutes Section 473.865, Sub& 2, also provides in pertinent part "[aJ local
governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal device which is in conflict
with its comprehensive plan or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system
plans." Minnesota Statutes Section 473.865, Sub& 3, provides in pertinent part "[iJfan
official control conflicts with a comprehensive plan as the result of an amendment to the
plan, the official control shall be amended by the unit within nine months following the
amendment to the plan so as not to conflict with the amended comprehensive plan. " The
rezoning of this property to the R-4 district is consistent with this statute.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Zone Change as requested.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1. The proposed R-4 district is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation, and with Minnesota statutes.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The following motion is appropriate for this action:
1. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Zone Change fi:om the C-5
(Business Park) district to the R-4 (High Density Residential) district.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
3. Zoning Map
l:\02files~2rezone~fountain hill,\pc report.doc Page 3
Location Map
50 0 50 100
Feet
PLANNING REPORT
16200
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5B
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TOTHE REAR
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, Case File ~O1-079
15358 BREEZY POINT ROAD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
FEBRUARY 25, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Kenneth & Carol Boyles,
applicantJowner, for the construction of a single family dwelling with an attached garage,
on the property located at 15358 Breezy Point Road, and legally described as Lot 1,
Block 1, Red Oaks Second Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
The following variance is requested:
A 14.5' vadance to the rear yard setback to permit the structure to be setback
10.5' from the rear lot line rather than the minimum required setback of 25 feet
[Ordinance Sec. 1102,405 (3)],
DISCUSSION:
Lot 1, Block 1, Red Oaks 2~ Addition was platted in 1998. The property is located
within the R1SD districts (Low Density Residential, Shoreland). The subject property is
a legal conforming lot of record that meets the minimum dimensional standards for
riparian lots in the Shoreland District. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent
parcels. According to the survey submitted by the applicant the subject lot is 17,300
square feet in area above the 904' Ordinary High Water Mark (Attachment 1 -
Certificate of Survey).
The property includes a 30' wide drainage and utility easement that traverses along the
shoreline of Prior Lake and cuts across the subject lot. This easement is for a sanitary
sewer line that includes a lift station located between the lot and Breezy Point Road.
The City Engineering Department requires this easement to be vehicle accessible at all
times for potential needed repairs or replacement of the sewer line.
In addition, a drainage easement runs along the eastern 25' of this lot that includes a
channel where the lakebed is divided from the wetland/retention pond. This division of
lake and wetland was determined by the DNR after reviewing submitted materials by the
original developer that demonstrated through aerial photography that the pond was not
L:\01fites\01variances\01-079\pc report. DOC Page 1
Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN I~QU^L OPPORTUNITY EIVlPLOYER
connected to Prior Lake in the past, with the division line being the 904' OHWM
(Attachment 2 - DNR Letter Dated 11/25/97). There is also a 5' drainage easement that
follows along the south and west property boundaries.
The wetland retention pond is southeast of the subject lot and has a 100 year High
Water Level (HWL) of 908.9' MSL. The subdivision ordinance requires a minimum
structure setback of 30' from the HWL of a wetland or retention pond. The applicant is
proposing to meet this requirement by installing retaining walls in the front and side
yards with portions of the wall encroaching the existing drainage easements. The
retaining walls can not exceed 4' height of unbalanced backfill or they are considered
structures and must meet the minimum setback for the required yard, 10' side and 25'
front yard.
Originally, Red Oaks Second Addition was designed with the retaining walls constructed
on the adjacent Lot 2. However, the owner/developer sold the subject Lot 3 to the
current applicant/owners prior to installing the required walls. The applicant is proposing
the revised retaining wall plan to meet the minimum setback and reduce the amount of
fill placed in the wetland area, and to contain construction and grading on the subject lot
(Attachment 3 - Red Oaks Plat).
When applying the required setbacks, 30' to the wetland HWL, 50.6' to the lakeside
OHWM as permitted by setback averaging, and taking into consideration all of the
existing easements, this lot contains a legal building envelope triangular in shape, and at
the widest point approximately 90', and tapering down to about 28' wide at its narrowest
point with an area approximately 3,835 square feet (Attachment 4 - Legal Building
Envelope). At the time the property was platted, there was a great deal of discussion
about the lot area and the buildable areas on each lot. The lots were specifically
designed with buildable area that would not require variances to the Zoning Ordinance,
The proposed impervious surface area, including driveway, house, patio and sidewalk,
totals 4,374 square feet, and is equal to 25.3% of the total lot area of 17,300 square feet
above the OHWM (Attachment 5 - Impervious Surface Calculations).
The proposed structure has a lowest floor elevation of 909.9' for the crawl space, 910.7'
for the garage floor, and 911.7' for the top of foundation. These elevations meet the
minimum flood plain ordinance requirements.
The proposed dwelling is a two-story floor plan with attached garage and approximate
dimensions of 70' tong by 60' wide. The total footprint of the proposed house is 2,930
square feet on the ground floor area. The applicant submitted a floor plan and front
elevation of the proposed structure. The applicant is proposing to locate the structure
44.3' from the front property line, 50,5' from the OHWM, 10.5' from the rear lot line, and
30' from the south side lot line.
The applicant submitted a narrative describing his hardship reasons for the requested
variance. (Attachment 6 - Applicant Narrative).
The City Engineering Department's primary concern is the retaining wall proposed in the
front yard. The wall will prohibit vehicle access to the existing sanitary sewer easement
L:\01files\01vadances\01-079\pc report. DOC
Page 2
without crossing private property. The Engineering Department recommends denial of
the variance as requested.
The DNR has submitted comments on this request, and also recommends denial of the
variance (Attachment 7 - DNR Letter Dated 2/19/02).
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of
this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional
or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot
in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which
said lot is located.
There are no exceptional or extraordinary conditions on this lot that result in an
undue hardship. The subject lot was platted to meet the minimum dimensional
standards for the district. The applicant has the option of using a different house
design or of redesigning the proposed house to meet the required setbacks.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
The conditions applying to this lot ara no different than the conditions applying to
other lots in the R-lSD district, or to the lots in the immediate area. The lot is a
conforming lot of record and was designed to provide a building envelope meeting
required setbacks.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
Granting this variance is not necessary for the preservation of a substantial property
right of the owner. The lot contains a building envelope 28' wide at the narrowest
point and 90' at its widest point, and averages 55' deep for a total area of
approximately 3,245 square feet. A structure with a different design can be located
on this without the need for variances.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
In staff's opinion, the granting of the variance would not impair light and air, increase
congestion in the streets or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character
and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair
L:\01flles\01vadances\01-079~pc report, DOC Page 3
established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way
impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the requested variance does not appear to unreasonably impact the
character of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish the surrounding property
values, or impair health safety, and comfort of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
This is a conforming lot of record with a building envelope that can accommodate a
house with a different design, without the need for a variance. Granting the
variances appears to be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to maintain
community stability, promote orderly development and to regulate the bulk of
buildings in relation to the land surrounding them.
The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
Staff believes there is no demonstrable hardship in this case. The house can be
redesigned and relocated on the lot to eliminate the need for any variances.
The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance
to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property.
The owner can design and submit a building plan that conforms in all respects with
the ordinance requirements, and does not require any variances.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
The applicant has not stated a need for the variance based on increased costs or
economic hardship.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above findings, the staff finds that this request does not meet the nine
hardship criteria. Staff has determined that Lot 1, Block 1, Red Oaks Second Addition,
was platted to meet the minimum dimensional standards and setbacks for the R1SD
districts, and is a legal conforming lot of record. In addition, there is a legal building
envetope that meets the minimum setbacks to the rear lot line, for a future dwelling of
less size. The staff therefore recommends denial of the requested variances.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this case, the
L:\01files\01variances\01-079\pc report. DOC
Page 4
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
approving the variance requests.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated
hardship under the Zoning Ordinance criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends Alternative #3. This action required the following motion:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-01 PC denying the requested variance to the
rear yard setback requirement.
L:\01flles\01vadances\01-079~pc report. DOC Page 5
\
\
\
\
\ ~L,
UT/L/Ty
,EN~.-IMARK )<903,4
~08,3
X910.8
X908.7
<~×~
'~N7,5'
90,
908.6,
./
;900.8
RE
ENT BY: DNR METRO; 11-25-97 12:28; 8127727573 => 6124474245; #1/1
ATTACHMENT 2
November 25, 1997
- DNR LETTER DATEDll/25/97
Minaesota Dcpartmcnt of Natura] Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 W~er ~ad, St. Paul, ~ ~5106-5793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 F~: (612) 772-7977
M.t lar~ Ir. ansi~r
City al'Prior
16200 Eagle Crm=k Avcmm, S.l~.
Prior La~, Minnesota 55372-171~1
RE: RED OAK SHORES SECOND ADDITION' ?RBLSAINARY AND EIqAL PI,AT
DcarM.s.
I ha.al rrviewcd the mat~.als you submin~d to Ibis office r~lalive ~ the subjc=t zaning manta-, and offer/.~ falinwins comma-~l~
It appears tbe ~,hrce ~,,a[.,osed lots thet~fo~ me~t th~ mq~ ~ md ~h mq~, mp~o~ ~ ~v~a~
~q~ c~ ~ ~k ~d I~e ~b~ (~ ~c ~on ~ ~ ~s~g home ~ ~opo~ ~ 2) ;~ be m~. Ha DNR
~ ~ ~ui~ ~ ~ p~ m d~t~ ~ ~c &a~gs whi~ ~p~i~ ~ ~ chcc~ you p~dcd ~ ~,
I n~e thai th~ maxati~ inc!-~o.~_ in ~ subng~l indlcat~ that no living apar.~ will be allowed below elcvatiaa 910 for thc. sc Iot~.
In a~xa'danc~ with your floodplain ordlnaa~e, low floors ot ~tmctorca, including crawl space, mas{ tn: at or above th~ regulatory
fl=xi ~ clcv~c~ (P, FPE). For Prim' Lake. the R.PPE is ~lev~ma 909.8' ( thc 100-year flac, d ¢levatic~ of 908.9' plus ane
I also noa: h% gading aa inul:~.~.,'t Let 3 appears to ~,a~md beyond the i:mp=iy linc. Plcazc ch~:~' to verily il' this
whc~.a- ~ iz allowable.
With [l~ ~ ~ thc wedand atxl c.J'amn~ at~ not par~ o£ Prior Lake f~r shareland zaalag and D'NR p~'mltting purposea.
and with the lake setback re~,3c,'~l to 50' since our i~illal revlenv ~g' this proj~t, it appears the projeot mr.'cl~ Iht shoreland
requh'~m~u,. The DNR. has no fhrthcr ~,,rnment aa thc pmj~:t.
Thank you for providing tim DNR th~ opportunity ta c.t. muncnt on thc projcuL Il'you have any quc~. lions, plca.~ call me at 772-
7910.
· .~--h II
Ama I-,IydroloS~
~.~s H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235
HARD COVER TABULATION:
PROPOSED HARDCOVER
Hous~
Patio
Driveway
Sidewalk
2,930 Sq. Ft. 260 Sq. Ft
933 Sq. Ft.
251 Sq. Ft.
TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 4,374 Sq. Ft.
AREA OF LOT TO OHW 17,300 Sq. Ft.
% HARDCOVER 25.3 %
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
TOP OF FOUNDATION = 911.7
CRAWL SPACE FLOOR = 909.9
GARAGE FLOOR = 910.7
BENCHMARK* = 903.72
* RIM OF MANHOLE AS SHOWN
LAKE SETBACK DETERMINED BY AVERAGING
HOUSE WEST TO LAKE 34.9'
HOUSE EAST (PORCH) TO LAKE 30.7'
AVERAGE = 32.8' (50' MINIMUM)
MIN. SETBACK SCHEDULE TO PROPOSED STRUCTURE
LAKESIDE
POND/WETLAND
SIDE YARD
REAR YARD
FRONT YARD
= 50.6' FROM 904
-- 30. FROM 908.9
-- 30'
= 10.5'
= 44.3'
LEGEND
DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR
DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR
VARIANCE APPLICATION:
Property of: Kenn and Carol Boyles
January 25, 2002
The property is on Prior Lake in the city of Prior Lake. This lot is exceptionally unique and is surrounded
by water on three sides and by city street on two sides. The lot also adjoins a wetlands area. The lot has
unusual topography. The lot geometry is highly irregular and is comprised of 10 separate intersecting lot
line segments. The lot (Block 1 Lot 1: Red Oaks, Second addition) was resurveyed in December 2001.
Lot I is the last open lot in the subdivision and neighborhood.
Requested variance:
Decrease the rear lot line set back from 25 to 10 feet (see survey plot). This is the lot line
that is the side lot line of the adjacent Lot 2 but is defined as the rear lot line of subject Lot
1. The variance is per zoning code Except for this deviation, the proposed house
meets (or can meet) all known current building/zoning codes.
Note: This request and plan essentially allows the exchange of the normal rear and side lot line setbacks
on Lot 1. The rear lot line setback goes down to 10 fl (from 25 f0 and the side (south) lot line setback
goes up to 25 1~ (from 10 ft). This will better utilize the existing, highly unusual, site topography and the
subdivision surroundings. The reduced Lot 1 rear lot line setback is in an area that is adjacent to the
neighbor's (Lot 2) garage (side of the garage). From Lot 2's point of view at his side lot line; the 10 fl
setback on Lot 1 to the structure is typical of any new construction in Prior Lake.
Reasons for the variance:
Lot 1 is practically unbuildable with the current setback designations (per plat) given the
parameters of a home that are consistent with the appearance, size, orientation, and nature
(water front property) of all the other homes in the subdivision. The following are the
difficulty/hardship/practicality reasons:
The current/code setback rules forces the property owner to build the home in the
flood plain. An extraordinary amount of fill is required.
Allowing the stated rear lot line set hack variance results in the proposed home to be built
completely above the 908.9 elevation with only minor landscaping/fill. Essentially, all fill
is within Lot 1. The building pad occupies the available high ground.
The current/code setback rules force the property owner to site the home in a
potentially buildable area adjacent to the wetlands. This requires significant fill (5fl
deep) into (approx 1/3 of the lot width) the adjoining neighbors (Lot 2)
wetlands/meadow area. This will significantly detract from the adjoining neighbors
view of the wetlands on his property and the natural buffering of wetlands by the
current meadow. This may also reduce the property value of the adjoining property
since it will require several large/unsightly retaining walls/structures to be built in
the existing meadow, on the neighbor's property.
Allowing the stated rear lot line set-back variance and resulting building pad geometry
change; virtually eliminates the need for the gross topography change to Lot 2 and
essentially no change (fill, etc) to the adjoining Lot 1.
The current/code setback roles force the property owner to site the home adjacent
to the Lot l's southern (side) lot line. This is per the normal Lot 1 10 ft side lot line
setback (per plat). However, putting the structure in this location will obstruct the
view of the adjoining home owner (Lot 2) in such a way that the homeowner will not
be able to see his front yard. The subdivision architectural committee will not likely
approve this proposal.
Allowing the stated rear lot line set back variance allows the proposed home on Lot 1 to
be sited so it does not obstruct the view of Lot 2's property owner of his front property.
View: is defined as what can be easily seen when standing at the front entry door.
The following is a list of additional/practical reasons for the reauest for thi.~ variance.
Maximize use of the Lot l's existing high, fiat ground while maintaining all the key.
setback requirements.
Siting the house in the area of the lot where there is significant topography change will required
more steps to enter the house (or within the house). Physically challenged family members would
not be able to easily enter/navigate the house. Carol's father is confined to a wheel chair. The
proposed home is being designed as a handicap "friendly" environment.
Maintain an appearance of the new home that is consistent in with the other new
homes in the subdivision and neighborhood.
Using the normal 10 fl setback on the side (south) lot line and 25 R setback on the rear lot line,
results in a building pad and subsequent structure that is very long and narrow. It is also not
oriented to the lake. This orientation would be signffieantly inconsistent with every other house in
the subdivision or neighborhood. The resulting structure would have the appearance (very
long/narrow) of a "doublewide trailer" with a garage in the middle.
Maintain a continuity of orientation with aH the other houses in the subdivision.
Utilizing the reduced rear lot line setback (the variance) now allows all the homes in the
subdivision to be oriented to the lake and also to the adjoining shared wetlands and meadowy. The
front yard areas of all homes over look the meadow; the back yard areas overlook the lake. The
sides of all the houses are adjacent to each other.
The 10 i~ side lot set back as viewed from tbe neighbors lot line definition is consistent with
normal expected side lot line clearance. This is normally the case in all typical plats except for
comer lots. Lot 1 has not been defined as a corner lot.
Unanimous subdivision support.
The proposed building plan and variance request has been reviewed with aH subdivision
residents. This includes the property owner of Lot 2 (the owner most effe~gted by this proposal.
All owner have provided written support for this project.
House design availability and what is the best solution for this lot.
Over 11 months of research on house plans (including professional designers) have not resulted in
reasonable house design that meets the cur~nt build'rog parameters and the standards of the
neighborhood without this variance. Two separate and independent studies of the best overall
home solution for this lot have been completed. Both designer teams arrived with essentially the
same house design/footprint. Both required the 15 fi rear lot line setback variance and both
increased the south side yard setback (beyond the required 10 i~) to save destruction of the
adjoining/meadow area.
Kexm and Carol Boyles
2
Comparison Summary Table of Variance Criteria
(C~ teria per official City of Prior Lake Variance Procedures of 5/1/99)
# Criteria Requested variance Meets Not meet
complies by
I Do unusual lot topography Water 3 sides, wetlands, Yes
and lot conditions exist, irregular lot geometry and
topography
2 The conditions that apply to The lot is highly unique as
this lot are peculiar to and not compared to typical Prior Lake Yes
typical of conditions in the building lots being permitted
city of Prior lake. today
3 Granting a variance is This is water front property and Yes
necessary for preservation of needs to take maximum
enjoyment of property owner advantage of the views of and
orientation to the lake and
existin~ the natural topography.
4 Granting variance does not Proposed plan with variance Yes
impair light,air to adjacent reduces impairment of
properties neighbors' line of sight to his
front property ifa structuace
were built per plat.
5 Granting a variance will not Granting the variance will Yes
impact the character if the improve the character of the
neighborhood neighborhood by allowing the
build ora house typical of the
immediate surrounding homes in
orientation, general shape, and
size
6 Granting the variance is not Variances are used to Yes
contray to the intent of the specifically target problem
code situations and allow closure in a
reasonable way. The intent of
this variance application to fix a
. very serious difficulty.
7 Granting variance solves a Building this house with all the Yes
difficult problem and is not varied constraints and
just a convenience requirements has resulted in a
extraordinary difficult problem.
These include building on a
flood plain then significantly
changing the topography of a
neighbors property, obstructive
views, diminished lake
views,etc.
8 Hardship is due to the nature The prope~y owners have taken
of the code and its affect on no actions on the property other Yes
the property and not the than designing a house that takes
property owner advantage of this unique
waterfront lot while attempting
to meet the intent of the Code.
9 Cost is not the only factor Cost has not been a factor in this Yes
request.
Overall Does this variance address all Approving the variance results
Summary 9 factors favorably in a much better housing Yes
solution considering all factors.
(homeowner needs,
neighborhood, environment, and
community). There are no
obvious negative impacts of
granting this variance.
pmm~
~m~
~:~
O0
..~
esm~
RETENTION
POND
\
\
\
\
\
/ ~/ × \
\
\
\
\
'SENT BY: DNR METRO; 2-19- 2
ATTACHMENT 7
3:08PM; 6517727573 => 6124.474245; #1/1
- DNR LETTER DATED 2/19/02
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
DNR Warms, 1200 Warner l~md, St. Paul, MN 55106
Tdephotm: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772.7977
F~brum'y 19, 2002
Mr. Steve Horsman
City of Prior Lakc
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Pdor Lake. Minnesota 55372
RE: Variance 01-079, Kenn ~md Carol Boylc~, 15358 Breezy Po~t Road SE, Lower Prior
Dear Mr. Horsm,.~:
I have reviewed the materials you sent relative to lira propoend rear ym'd ,~tbnc. k varlm~c~ rm.lue.~tnd to fagilitalc
emmtructim~ of a single-family r~idenee on Lot l, Block l, Red Oaks S~r~otal Addition. In ,,.~i60n to t.he ma.~ials
yuu provide~l, I have also reviewed a ~ ~ two drawi~l~ th~ applicant providcd me dirocfly. Although
quitc familiar with thc subj~:t property, I stopped by last week and viomat thc site, as it has beon a while si~x:e
last in the vicinity.
R'~l Oaks Second Addition was pl~_!!_~_ relatively _ree_-~,lly. It was platted such that building envelopes existed on
each lot meeting required setbar, ks without vnHnnr~. ~c should b~ no reason thc lots in ~i$ subdivision cannot
bc developed without variance. I ret. all when the platting process was underway end thc DlqR recommended two
lots in this subdivision (varsu~ L~ thre~ uJtimntv, ly approviai)+ it was ~**!~1 that thr~e lots could be cr~nlcd which.
would not requir~ any. variances. Thc DNR rm~mmcnds a structure design
Is a retaining wall necessary to build on tl~ subject lot? ld~lly, minim,d vegetation ~d mpo~hic altera~on to
~ ~ is p~. If ~iblc, a b~l~g I~ ~ ~sign should be ~id~ which
~sul~ ~ no ~ining walls, ~ v~ of ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ng and filling.
A hardship must be demo~txnt~t before issuance of n variance. Pl~as~ let me know tim oule~'m~c o£thls matter, md
call me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Pau'ick J. Lynch ltl
DNR Area Hydrologist
Kt:nn 'Boylos, 3003 Catdinnl Creek Rd, Eden Prairie, MN 55346
RESOLUTION 02-01 PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO REQUIRED 25' REAR YARD
SETBACK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
Kenneth & Carol Boyles, have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a single family home to be constructed on property zoned R1SD (Low Density
Residential Shoreland District), located at 15358 Breezy Point Road, and legally
described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Red Oaks Second Addition, Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-079 and held hearings thereon on February 25, 2002.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Granting the variance as proposed could be construed to be in conflict with the
intention of the Zoning Ordinance, which establishes the minimum rear yard setbacks
for health, safety and aesthetic purposes.
Reasonable use of the property exists in that there is a legal building envelope on the
lot, which would allow the construction of a house of a different size and design
without the need for variances.
There is no justifiable hardship in this case as reasonable use of the property exists
without the granting of the variance. The lot was platted in 1998 and designed with a
building envelope meeting all setback requirements.
7. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ora
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
1:\01 files\01 variances\01-079\pcres 02-01 pc.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
There is a legal building envelope on the lot, which would allow the constmction of a
house of a different size and design without the need for variances.
8. The contents of Planning Case File #01-079 are hereby entered into and made a part
of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
'Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following requested variance:
1. A 14.5' variance to permit the structure to be setback 10.5' f~om the rear lot line
rather than the minhuum required setback of 25 feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on February 25, 2002.
ATTEST:
Thomas E. Vonhof, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O1 var/ances\O 1-079\peres 02-Olpe.do¢ 2
PLANNINGREPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
7A
2001 VARIANCE SUMMARY REPORT
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
YES X NO-N/A
FEBRUARY 25, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the Planning Commission with information regarding variance
activity for the year 2001. This report is intended to give the Commission information that will be useful
in evaluating furore variance requests.
DISCUSSION:
The following table is a summary of variance activity for 2001, and a comparison of activity for the
previous 4 years.
Number of Applications
Number of Requests
Requests Approved
Requests Denied
Requests Incomplete
Requests in Process
Requests Withdrawn
Requests Appealed
Appeals Overturned
Number Lots in SD
Number of Riparian Lots
15
27
18
10
3
1
9
i 9
16
24
17
12
1
0
1
2
0
9
19
59
44
11
4
0
0
0
0
19
14
26
43
22
13
1
0
17
31
11
10
2
5
7 3
3 7
0 2
17 11
14 9
Note: If an applicant requested a variance and the Planning Commission approved a reduction of the original request, then it
is represented as one approved request and one denied request in the tables.
Table 2 compares the specific types of variance requests in 2001 to the requests for the four preceding
years. It should be noted that a new Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1999, eliminating the need for
some variances and creating the need for others.
1:\01 files\O t summary\O I varsum.do¢ Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN mUAL OPFORTUNITY mVLOYER
Structure Setback to OHWM 5 2 4 5 3
Front Yard Setback 4 4 6 3
Side Yard Setback 2 6 5 3 2
County Road Setback 4
Impervious Surface Coverage 4 3 6 3 4
Rear Yard Setback 2 3 1 1 5
Accessory Buildings 1 2 2
Lot Size 1 2 11 2 1
Building Height 2 2
Lot Width 1 4 5 4
Driveway Setback 1 I 2 2
Sign I
Wall Length/Building Height Ratio 2 1
Parking Stalls 1 I
Bluff Setback 1 I 8 2 2
Bluff Impact Zone 1 2
Cul-de-sac Length 1 1
Grade of Slope 1
Lot Coverage 3
50% Improvements to Nonconforming 1
Roof-top Screening 1
Irrigation 1
Riparian Lot Width 1
50' Side Wall 2 3
Eave Encroachment (5') 2 2 2
15' Combined Side Yards 3 1 1
Driveway Width 2
15' Building Separation 1 2
Road Access Below the RFPE (907') 1 2 2
Incomplete/Pending/Withdrawn 2 2 1
The new Zoning Ordinance, effective on May 1, 1999, incorporated several previous ordinance
amendments, such as reduced side yards for nonconforming lots and the reconstruction of exisfrog decks.
These changes roay account for the elimination of several variance requests. The new ordinance resulted
in variance requests for building walls greater than 40 feet, cave/gutter encroachments, 15 foot minimum
building separation, accessory structures, and driveway width at the property line. The Planning
Commission addressed soroe of these requirements with ordinance amendments in the last year.
In 2001, the City adopted 3 amendments to the zoning ordinance that may affect variance requ'~rements.
These amendments are as follows:
1:\01 files\01 summary\O lvarsum.doc Page 2
1. Ordinance No. 01-06 amending Section 1104.309 to permit one detached 240 square foot accessory
structure per island lot on general development lakes subject to the issuance of a building permit.
2. Ordinance No. 01-07 amending Section 1107.816 raising the monument sign height fi-om 10' to 20' in
commercial and industrial subdivisions with frontage along TH 13, CSAH 42, or CSAH 21.
The two ordinance amendments adopted in 2001 were intended to address some specific issues. While
the amendments may help to reduce the total number of variance applications, it is unlikely these
amendments will have a broad effect.
The staff has continued to work with applicants to reduce the number of variance requests by reviewing
submitted documents and eliminating requests through plan redesign when possible. It is interesting to
note all of the variances reqUested in 2001 were for lots located within the Shoreland District, with the
exception of one lot in the C-5 Business Park District.
ALTERNATIVES:
Accept the report and direct that it be transmitted to the City Council for
information.
Accept the report, direct that the report be transmitted to the City Council for
information, and direct further study of possible ordinance revisions in response to
the report.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion accepting the report, and directing further action revising the report if appropriate.
I:\01 fil~\O 1 summary\O 1 vmm.doc Page 3
01--017 Mark Crouse · Denied - 4 foot setback to the OHWM - Appealed 6/25/01
· Approved - 38% impervious surface 10/8/01
01-029 Gary Thomas · Approved - 45 foot bluff encroachment from top of bluff 5/29/01
· Approved - 2.5 foot OHWM setback
01-040 Patdck McCormick Trust · Denied - less than the minimum lot size ama 9/24/01
01-061 Matt & Sandra Tofenelli 10/8/01
01-065
01-066
01-068
01-075
01-079
01-080
01-081
01-082
01-093
01-099
01-100
Mark Crouse
American Glass & Mirror
- Metro Cabinets
· Approved - 13 foot setback to OHWM
· Approved.- 14 foot front yard setback
· Approved - 2.3 foot sum of side yards
· Approved - use of incompatible design/materials
· Denied - appealed to City Council4 foot setback to the OHWM
· Approved - 42.5 foot building setback
· Approved - length to height ratio of 6.6 to 1
· Approved - 3 foot driveway/parking area setback
Lawrence Baird · Denied - 1.9 foot encroachment 9/10/01
· Denied - 32.5% impervious surface
· Approved - 3.9 foot sum of side yards
John Teilborg · Approved - 13.5 foot front yard setback 9/10/01
· Approved - .5 foot vehicle access below 907.9 feet
· Denied - 4.5 foot structure setback to OHWM
Ken & Carol Boyles
David & RacheI Noriing
Alfred & Thelma Cutaia
Jim Koesterthg Homes
Huemoeller/Crouse
Huemoeller/Crouse
David & Rachel Noding
· Pending case - 14.5 foot var to permit 10.5 foot rear setback
· Approved - 21.3 foot front setback;
· Approved - 4 foot ·ave setback to side lot line;
· Approved - 66 foot building wall setback 5 feet to side lot line
· Denied - 13.5 foot sum of side yards
· Denied- 32.9% impervious surface area
· Approved - 65 foot setback to OHWM
· Denied - 10 foot rear yard setback
· Approved - 21.7 foot front yard setback
· Denied - 46.4% impervious surface area
Denied - appeal to City Council 46.4% impervious surface area
Approved - appeal to City Council 13.5 foot sum of yards, 32.9%
impervious, surface
9/24/01
12/10/01
10~8~01
10/22/01
12/10/01
8/20/01
1/22/02
1/11/02
1:\01 files\O 1 summar3AO 1 varsum.doc Page 4
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
7B
PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS
DON RYE, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
YES X NO-N/A
FEBRUARY 25, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Commission Bylaws require annual review by the Planning Commission.
The Commission may then recommend revisions to theCity Council for approval.
Attached is a copy of the current Bylaws. In reviewing these, please note Section 2-3-1
COMMISSION CREATED, COMPOSITION (first item on page 1). Part of the section
includes references to an apprenticeship, which has never been enforced. The Planning
Commission may want to consider a recommendation to remove this language or modify
any other section you feel should be revised.
L:\02FILES\02corres\eonnie~Cbylaw.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, M~nnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
^N eQU~ OP~Oa~Nrr¥
PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS
,~,DOPTED MAY i6. 1994
Amended January 3, 1995
Amended June 19, 1995
Amended January 2, 1996
Amended January 6, 1997
Amended February 16, 1999
SECTION I . CITY CODE CHAPTER 3
2-3-1
COMMISSION CREATED, COMPOSITION: A Planning Advisory Commission is
hereby created for the City, its purpose to be of an advisory nature to the City Council
and staff.
Said Planning Advisory Commission shall be composed of five (5) members,
appointed by the City Council. Only residents of the City shall be considered for
appointment. Said members may serve as apprentice members from November 1 to
January 31 as part of their initial term. Dudng this pedod, the apprentice members
shall attend Planning Commission meetings for the purpose of familiarization with the
planning process. Apprentice members may participate in the deliberations of the
Commission at the discretion of the Chair, but they shall not have voting privileges. In
the case of an appointment to replace a Commissioner before the end of a term, the
apprenticeship pedod may be waived by the City Council. The members regular term
shall begin on November 1, and shall run for three (3) years and terminate on October
31 unless the member is reappointed.
2-3-2
REMOVAL OF MEMBER: Any member of the Planning Advisory Commission may be
removed from office for just cause and unwritten charges by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of
the entire Council, but such member shall be entitled to a public heating before such a
vote is taken. In addition, any member may be removed for nonattendance at planning
Commission meetings without action by the City Council according to rules adopted by
the Planning Commission.
2-3-3:
MEETINGS, RULES: The Planning Advisory Commission will meet on the second and
fourth Monday of each month at 6:30 p.m. in the Prior Lake City Council Chambers, or
at such other time as may be deemed necessary, providing adequate notice is
furnished of the public meeting.
When a regularly scheduled meeting falls on a holiday, the meeting shall be held on
the Tuesday following the holiday.
2-3-3A:
NOTIFICATION: All regular meetings of the Commission shall be noticed by:
(1) Posting at City Hall for at least two (2) days prior to the meeting;
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447~4245
2-3-3B:
2-3-4:
(2) A copy of the notice, agenda and accompanying materials shall be received by the
Commission, City Council, staff and other designated by the City Council, no later
than Fdday prior to the meeting and in no case later than two (2) days prior to a
special meeting.
SPECIAL MEETINGS: Special Meetings of the Commission may be called by the
Chair, or two (2) members of the Commission for the purpose of transacting any
business designated in the call. Staff may recommend calling a special meeting, but
must receive approval from either the chair or two members of the Committee. The call
for a special meeting may be delivered prior to the time of the proposed meeting to
each member of the Commission at least (2) days prior to the special meeting. At such
meetings, no business shall be considered other than as designated in the call. The
notification provisions of Section B of the article shall be followed.
DUTIES OF COMMISSION: The duties of said Planning Advisory Commission are as
follows:
(A)
To keep the City Council and the general public informed and advised as to all
planning and development matters and make recommendations to the City
Council with respect to any current or future planning.
(B) TO prepare and keep current, in conjunction with the City Planner, the
Comprehensive Plan. (MS 462.355, subd. 2)
(c)
To monitor zoning and planning changes affecting Prior Lake and local
communities and identify factors and reasons for changes and how they apply to
or affect Prior Lake.
(D) To research and present any information from public newspapers, public
forums/workshops or publications indicating changing trends or conditions.
(E) To recommend principles and policies for guiding action affecting development in
the City and its environs.
(F) To determine whether specific proposed developments conform to the principles
and requirements for the comprehensive plan and the City ordinances.
(G) To review and make recommendations to the Council on planned unit
development and subdivision proposals.
(H)
To hold public hearings for subdivisions, planned unit developments and rezoning
applications and furnish the Council with information and recommendations of
such hearings.
To consider variances and home occupation permits. Make recommendations to
the City Council on rezoning applications, amendments to the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances and conditional use permits.
(J)
To prepare and submit to the City Council within sixty (60) days after the end of
the calendar year a summary report of all variances granted to applicants from
January 1 through December 31 of that calendar year. The summary report shall
contain such information as deemed necessary and requested by the City Council.
SECTION 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND MEETING FORMAT:
Business of the meeting will be conducted according to the Agenda prepared by the Director of
Planning. Unless extreme circumstances exist, the Director of Planning shall deliver the completed
agenda packets by Wednesday prior to the meeting date. To meet this schedule the Planning
Director shall adhere to the submittal deadlines established by staff at the beginning of each year. A
memo, report, or brief explanation of each agenda item shall be included in the Planning Commission
Agenda packet. The information provided by staff should serve to inform the Planning Commission of
the subject matter under discussion. The information should explain in detail the staff comments or
work, or state that the staff will present the necessary details and comments at the meeting. The
meeting agenda will be prepared according to the following:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Heatings
5. Old Business
6. New Business
7. Announcements / Correspondence
8. Adjournment
SECTION 3 - MINUTE PREPARATION:
The Director of Planning is responsible for the minutes of the meeting. The meeting proceedings will
be taped, recorded and transcribed by the Recording Secretary or a designated representative from
staff. The following two requirements for minute preparation will be adhered to: 1. All motions will be typed in capital letters
2. Names of the commissioners will be listed after their vote on the motion.
The official minutes shall be prepared and presented te the Planning Commission at the next
regularly scheduled meeting. The minutes shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the
presiding officer shall call for any additions or corrections. If an addition or correction is presented, the
change must be specific as to place, paragraph, and sentence. Approval of the minutes requires a
motion, second and a majority vote of the members present at the meeting.
The Director of Planning is responsible for the maintenance and filing of the minutes. The following
procedure will be used in filing of the minutes:
1. All minutes of the Planning Commission will be kept on file in the office of the City
Planner in a hard copy or on microfilm.
2. All the taped proceedings, excluding public hearings, must be kept for a minimum
of one year from the date of recording.
3. All taped proceedings that include public hearings must be kept for seven years
from the date of recording.
A*copy of the minutes of the meeting shall be distributed together with the agenda for the upcoming
meeting. The minutes and Planning Commission Agenda will be distributed to:
1. Mayor and City Council members
2. Planning Commission members
3. Selected Staff members
4. Selected residents and individuals indicated on the mailing list kept by the Planning
Department Secretary.
Remarks made by a member of the Planning Commission may be entered into the minutes by stating
that he/she desires to go on the record. These remarks shall be entered into the minutes by the
Recording Secretary by way of synopsis or verbatim record, if required by a member.
SECTION 4 - QUORUM AND VOTING PROCEDURES:
At each meeting a majority of all the members appointed, at least three out of five, shall constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business.
The voting options available to the Planning Commission when a vote has been initiated are: aye
(affirmative); nay (negative vote); and abstain (neutral vote, neither affirmative or negative). When a --
vote is to be taken, the presiding officer shall first call for the ayes, then the nays, and if applicable,
shall call for abstentions. The votes of each member shall be recorded in the minutes. If a member of
the Planning Commission is absent during a vote, the member's vote for the official minutes shall
read as "absent".
SECTION 5 - ROLES AT MEETING:
(A) On the majority of agenda items, if not all items, the time for direct citizen input, comments and
questions will be immediately after the City Staff report and/or presentation. During this time
period, every member of the public desiring to speak shall address the presiding officer (by
raising a hand or standing up) and upon recognition, shall confine their remarks to the issue
under consideration. Let all present speak once before permitting persons to speak again on the
same subject.
(B) Immediately after citizen input is finished on the issue, the members of the Planning Commission
take turns addressing the issue. Each individual member of the Planning Commission may
recognize a member of the public when the member has been recognized to speak by the
presiding officer. Members of the Planning Commission must use judgment and discretion when
recognizing members of the public to speak during the time they have the floor.
(C) Members of the general public, interested parties or their authorized representatives may
address the Planning Commission y written communications in regard to matters under
discussion. Written communications may be read aloud at the meeting if so requested by the
author and will become part of the record. The communication(s) shall be read by the presiding
officer or her/his designee.
(D) One member of the Planning Commission shall serve as the Chair and one as Vice-Chair. The
Vice-Chair shall preside at all meetings when the Chair is absent from the meeting. When the
Vice-Chair is presiding at the meeting he/she shall assume the authority and responsibility of the
presiding officer at the meeting.
(E) If in the event the Chair and Vice-Chair are absent, the Director of Planning shall call the meeting
to order and preside until such a time that the Planning Commission elects among itself a
member to preside at the meeting. After a member of the Planning Commission has been
selected to preside over the meeting, the Planning Director shall step down. The presiding
officer, at all times, shall be allowed to vote in the same manner as all other Commissioners.
(F) The presiding officer has two unique powers: interpreting and applying the rules of procedure;
and recognizing speakers from the audience. That official shall have the obligation to be impartial
and objective in conducting the meeting.
(G) The presiding officer shall open all public hearings at the predetermined time and date. The
presiding officer shall, for informational purposes, state the purpose of the heating or read the
public notice calling for the hearing into the record of the meeting proceedings.
(H) The presiding officer shall recognize all speakers from the audience, except when a member of
the Planning Commission has the floor and they expressly recognize a member of the audience
who desires to speak on the issue under consideration.
The presiding officer has the responsibility to facilitate discussion by the Planning Commission.
This may occur in a variety of ways, including:
· Interpret and apply rules of procedure
Decide whether motions are properly made.
· Decide whether motions are in order.
· Decide whether questions of special privilege ought to be granted.
· Decide when to recognize speakers.
· Call for motions or recommend motions.
Expel disorderly persons from the meeting.
· Enforce speaking procedures.
(J)
If a motion is unnecessary, unsuitable for consideration, and/or proposed at an inopportune time
for the purpose of delaying or embarrassing other, the presiding officer may rule the motion out
of order on her/his own initiative.
(K) The presiding officer is responsible for maintaining order at the meetings. Although meetings
must be open to the public, no person who is noisy or unruly has a right to remain in the Council
Chambers. When individuals abuse their tights to be present, the presiding officer, subject to
overrule by the Planning Commission, can order their removal from the room.
SECTION 6 - PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT:
Public hearings shall be conducted in the following manner:
1. The Chair calls the public hearing to order and declares the time of opening. It is the intent of the
Planning Commission to open all public heatings at the predetermined and published time. From
a practical standpoint, not all heatings can be opened at their designated time. The presiding
officer may delay the start of a hearing until the business at hand is acted upon, in any manner,
by the Planning Commission. In no circumstances can a hearing be opened prior to the
predetermined and published time.
2. The presiding officer shall read, from the heating notice, the details on the heating suffident to
provide the public a general understanding of the purpose and procedures for the hearing and the
fact that the heating iS their exclusive or primary opportunity to provide input to the city on the
subject.
3. The Recording Secretary shall pass out to the audience a sign up sheet with columns for name,
address, and phone number. This sheet shall become part of the public heating record.
4, The presiding officer announces that input will now be received from the citizens. Formal input
includes the name and address of the speaker delivered from the podium.
5, The procedure for public heatings shall be as follows:
· Staff shall make a presentation or report on the subject matter.
· If applicable, the applicant makes a presentation or report on the subject matter.
· The presiding officer shall ask for citizen input, comments and questions. The
presiding officer shall facilitate this portion of the meeting.
· The Planning Commission shall address the subject matter through deliberation,
questions to citizens and staff, reactions and statements of position on the subject.
6. The presiding officer closes the public hearing and states the time that the hearing is closed or
continues the public hearing (see 8 below).
7. The Planning Commission should take action on the application before them in the form of a
motion by resolution. However, the Commission may formulate a recommendation which outlines
the parameters under which an approval would be granted. The reasons and conditions shall be _
stated in the motion or resolution for approval or denial. Continuation of an action may occur in
the event insufficient information is present to make a decision. The Planning Commission shall
delineate the missing information before continuing the item.
If the Planning Commission decides to continue the deliberation on the subject matter of a
headng, the presiding officer in consultation with the Director of Planning shall select a time and
date during a future specified regularly scheduled meeting to reopen the hearing for further
deliberation and possible action subject to the discretion of the city council to reopen and continue
the public hearing by majority vote.
· No additional publication or notice requirements are needed if a hearing is
continued to a later date.
· In the event that an issue is denied, the applicant has the option to appeal the
decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The process of appeal
begins when the applicant contacts the Director of Planning during regular office -
hours to schedule the appeal before the City Council. The chair should advise an
applicant of the applicable time limits for appeal.
SECTION 7 - OFFICERS:
A)
Officers - The Chair shall be nominated from among the Commission's membership and shall be
elected by majority vote prior to the first meeting in September. The term of the chair shall begin
in September and run for two years. The City Planning staff shall serve as secretary of the
Commission.
B)
Chair- the duties of the Chair include: 1. Approval of meeting agendas.
2. Presiding at meetings.
3. Participating with the City Council in the selection of Commission members.
4. Semi-annual reporting to the City Council on all information collected under
Sec. 2-3-4 and shall give an accounting of its activities and any information the
Commission may consider relevant before the City Council or as directed
otherwise
5. Representation of the Commission as appropriate.
C) Vice-Chair - The Vice-Chair shall be selected annually by the Commission and shall perform the
duties of the Chair in his/her absence. The Vice-Chair shall assume such other duties as
assigned by the Chair.
D) Secretary_ - The City Manager or his/her designee shall act as the Secretary and shall be
responsible for recording and compiling a written summary of all official activities of the
Commission.
E) AODointment - The commission shall consist of members appointed by the Prior Lake City Council
for a term of three (3) years. Newly appointed members may be required to serve an
apprenticeship as set forth in 2-3-1. The commission shall be representative of the citizens who
live in Prior Lake. Commission members may serve additional terms upon approval by the Pdor
Lake City Council. based upon satisfactory attendance and participation, continued residence in
Prior Lake and in accordance with the term limits policy established by the City Council.
F) Vacancies - If the office of Chair becomes vacant the Planning Commission shall appoint a --
replacement as set forth in Section 7A. If the Office of Vice-Chair becomes vacant, the
Commission shall elect a successor from its membership at the next regular meeting, and such
election shall be for the unexpired term of said office. Should a member resign, or otherwise
vacate a seat on the Commission, Prior Lake City Council shall appoint a replacement to
complete the term. The selection of the Chair or Commission member will be filled in accordance
with City Council Bylaws.
G) Performance Criteria - Annually 'the Committee shall perform a written self-evaluation on the
following:
1. Implementation of the Preamble.
2. Achievement of Goals and Objectives.
3. Compliance with Bylaws.
4. Formulation of proposals and recommendations and overall
5. Visitation of subject sites as applicable.
6. Annual personal attendance record of at least 75%.
accomplishments.
The Committee shall forward this evaluation to a review committee comprised of the
staff member assigned to the Committee, City Manager, Mayor, and one member of
the City Council. The review committee shall present this report and any additional
comments to the Council by the first week of December for action and
recommendation at the annual meeting in accordance with the Council Bylaws.
H) ~ - It is the policy of the Prior Lake City Council to impose a three term' (or 9 year)
service limitation for all appointed positions within the committees and commission. Partial terms
do not count toward the term limitation. The purpose of the term limit policy is to encourage
resident participation on City advisory bodies and provide community members with the
opportunity to participate in their local government.
I) Conflict of Interest - A member shall refrain from discussing, voting on, or in any manner taking
part in an action or decision of the Planning Commission:
The member has, or reasonably expects to have during the member's term of office, a
direct interest in the outcome of the action or decision, unless the effect of the action or
decision on the member's interests would be no greater than its effect on other
persons or property similarly situated; or
The member has a direct or indirect interest in any sale, lease, or contract that is the
subject of the action or decision, except as expressly permitted under state laws
governing municipal contracts.
If a conflict involves the presiding officer, in addition to refraining from padicipation in the action or
decision as provided in this section, the presiding officer shall disqualify him/herself from the
duties of presiding officer and shall pass the gavel to the Vice-Chair or to any member who has
no conflict. The presiding officer may resume the chair once the issue has been dispatched.
The section shall be construed and interpreted according to Minnesota statutes and case law.
(J) Code of Conduct - Committee members will adhere to the following:
Commission member's opinions pertaining to a function, organization or specific
application or issue shall not be given to the public or media unless there is a clear _
qualification that the opinion is that of the member and not the. official opinion of the
Committee or the City. if a Committee member gives or represents the opinions of the
Committee, he/she shall do so only after receiving the official direction from the
Committee.
2. The conduct of Commission members shall reflect positively upon the Commission,
individual member and City.
3. Commission members shall avoid any actual or apparent impropriety.
(K) Amendments - These bylaws shall be reviewed by the Commission annually. The Commission
may recommend revised Bylaws to the City Council for approval.
8