HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/23/2002REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
7.
8.
9.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case #02-135 Landice Wilson is requesting a variance from the front yard setback
for the construction of a detached garage for the property located at 16252
Lakeside Avenue SE.
Case #02-129 St. Michael's Church is requesting an amendment to the text of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow externally illuminated signs for churches on collector
streets in residential districts.
Case #02-137 Consider an amendment to Section 1104.201 of the Zoning
Ordinance Reclassifying Jeffers Pond and an amendment to Section 1104.302
amending the lot size for Hass Lake.
Old Business:
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAl_ OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the December 9, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Absent*
*Commissioner Stamson arrived at 6:36 p.m. and took over as Chair.
3. Approval of Minutes:
Change on Page 10 - Lemke's first comment. The Minutes from the November 25,
2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved with the change.
4. Consent:
A. Case #02-123 Karl Holm Variance Resolution
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-
021 PC APPROVING AN 11.4 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
Ayes by Lemke, Atwood, Criego, nay by Ringstad. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Criego read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case #02-133 Consider an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map for
the Spring Lake Regional Park Property located in Section 4, Spring Lake
Township.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated December 9,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
L:\02FI LES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 120902 .doc 1
Planning Commission Me~tmg
December 9, 2002
On October 21, 2002, the City Council adopted a resolution annexing approximately 275
acres of Spring Lake Park located on the north side of Shoreline Drive and west of
Northwood Road. Since this property was not included on the City plans, the Council
also initiated an amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan to include this property.
The proposed amendment designates this property for Recreation and Open Space uses
on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map.
The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan includes this area on the City's
Comprehensive Plan Map and designates the area for Recreation and Open Space uses.
This designation is consistent with the Land Use Plan designation o£the portion of Spring
Lake Park already located within the City.
City Staff recommended approval of the Amendment.
Comtnents from the public:
Jim Weninger, 2591 Spring Lake Road, questioned the criteria for posting and
notification. He was not notified. Kansier responded notices were sent out to residents
500 feet from the property and posting is not required. Weninger stated he was frustrated
over the proposed change. He did not feel the County, Park or City had a very good view
of what was planned. Some of his concerns were increasing traffic on County Road 12;
development of the park; runoff from County Road 12; original concepts for the park
programs and neighbors have not seen any plans or documentation. Weninger felt it is a
good action but the Planning Commission did not have enough information to make a
decision at this time.
Criego asked Weninger to point out where he lived on the map. Kansier stated his nanae
was on the list, along with a copy of the labels and the City did not receive any returned
notices.
Stamson questioned staff on the park development process. Kansier responded on the
procedure and rezoning. The City had been told by the County and Three Rivers Park
District they did not immediately plan on developing the park. It would be a minimum of
5 to 10 years out, primarily due to funding constraints.
Stamson explained the Comprehensive Plan guideline procedures.
Weninger questioned the hearing procedure.
Kansier pointed out under the City's Zoning Ordinance, Park and Recreational Open
Space are permitted uses and do not require public hearings for development. That is not
to say Three River Park District may hold neighborhood meetings or give a presentation.
The County is looking at County Road 12 re-alignment and would probably have
neighborhood meetings as well.
L:\02FILES\02planning comra\02pcminutes\MN120902.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
December 9, 2002
Weninger would like the neighbors to have leverage and input on the park development
as it is a real asset to the community.
Linda King, 2523 Spring Lake Road, questioned staffifthere would be a buy-out
procedure in rezoning. Stamson explained the procedure. Kansier said she was not
aware of Three Rivers Park buying out any homes. She also explained the County and
City are working on upgrading part of County Road 12.
Randy Baldwin, 2535 Spring Lake Road, questioned the alternatives and benefits to the
residents of armexing in the park. Kansier explained the procedure for adding the land
into our City map and that nothing is really changing as far as the park dynamics.
Baldwin does not want it to develop into baseball and soccer fields with lights. Kansier
responded other alternatives would allow more development. Baldwin questioned other
zoning choices. Kansier explained the park ordinances. The property is still owned by
Scott County.
Stamson questioned Scott County's park zoning designation. Kansier responded.
Barb St. John, Vergus Avenue, said she was concerned the properly would stay parkland.
If not, how much would turn into residential lots. Kansier responded she was not aware
of it changing. Another concern was that all lake residents should have been notified.
More dockage would affect boat traffic. She would like residents to be able to walk or
use a bike path around Spring Lake. Looking forward to a nice park.
Patty Pabuda, 2501 Spring Lake Road, said she did not understand the procedure and just
wants the park to stay the way it is. Kansier explained the City did not have total control
over the parkland as it is owned by Scott County and controlled by Three River Park
District. Pabuda wondered what would happen if someone found an eagle's nest.
Kansier did not know.
Louis Madsen, 2530 Spring Lake Road, was surprised to get the notice. He would like the
park to stay the same. Would like information sent to him on the development.
Stamson clarified the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Patty Pahnda stated Three Rivers Park and the DNR were the same thing. Kansier
cleared up the issue. Stamson explained the procedure. Pabuda felt the City already had
37 parks and would like to see this park to stay natural so children can go out into the
woods and see a snapping turtle and blue heron.
Stamson explained the park differences between the City and Three River Parks District.
Jerry Schrank, 2956 Hawk Ridge Road, would like more information and understanding
about the request and alternatives before the Commission. Kansier responded to his
concerns and said notices for public hearings would be sent to the surrounding property
owners when a plan came in.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcmin utes\MN 120902.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
December 9, 2002
Patty Pabuda, questioned why the City bought this property. Kansier said the City did not
buy the park, it is owned by Scott County and controlled by Three Rivers Park District.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego: · This is the right designation for the Comprehensive Pan. The property was
annexed a month ago and the City is labeling the territory basically the same as
the County. That is important for everyone to understand.
· Stressed this is not City property. Scott County owns the land.
· Does not see anything major taking place in the near future. Notification will be
sent out when there is a change and input from the community will be heard.
· This is actually the way the park should be.
· In favor of the Amendment.
Lemke:
· Agreed with Criego, this is more of a housekeeping procedure. The boundaries of
this property changed and are now in the City of Prior Lake. The Comprehensive
Plan Map must reflect a designation.
· Recreational Open Space is what it should be used for. How it is going to be used
is determined in the future.
Atwood: · Agreed with Commissioners.
· Be aware that Scott County had it designated as UER (Urban Expansion Reserve)
which is less desirable than what the City is proposing.
· In favor of Amendment.
Ringstad:
· This is just a housekeeping item. The property was recently annexed into the City
and because of that it must be designated as something. Based on all the options
and alternatives, the members of the audience should be comfortable with what
staff is recommending.
· Supported Amendment.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Commissioners. This is appropriate, most restrictive and the least
dense form of development. The alternative is housing or commercial, which this
property is not appropriate for.
· Residents have valid concerns with development issues. There are a number of
venues that will be reviewed. Recommend the residents stay on top of Scott
County and Three River Parks District to see what their plans are. It is in the
early stages.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~M N 120902.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
December 9, 2002
Supported the amendment.
Stamson addressed a question from the audience on why the property was annexed in.
Essentially the County asked that it be annexed into the City limits because it would be
advantageous to them. The County will still own the property, it is simply part of the
City limits.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE AMENDMENT TO ADD APPROXIMATELY 275 ACRES TO THE 2020
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND TO DESIGNATE THIS AREA FOR
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE USE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by ali. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on January 6, 2003.
B. Case #02-134 Consider an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map for
the Stemmer property located in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 4, Spring Lake Township.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated December 9,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On October 21, 2002, the City Council adopted a resolution annexing approximately 65
acres of land located on the north side of Shoreline Drive directly west of Spring Lake
Park. Since this property was not included on the City plans, the Council also initiated an
amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan to include this property. The proposed
amendment designates this property for Low to Medium Density Residential uses on the
2020 Comprehensive Plan Map.
The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan includes this area on the City's
Comprehensive Plan Map and designates the area for Low to Medium Density
Residential uses. This designation, which allows densities up to 10 units per acre, is
consistent with the Land Use Plan designation of the residential property along
Northwood Road. The potential developer for this site has indicated the property will be
developed with single family lots. This type of development is also consistent with the
proposed R-L/MD designation.
The Staff recommended approval of the Amendment as the R-L/MD designation is
consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Comments from the public:
Jim Weninger, 2591 Spring Lake Road, clarified the purpose of the hearing. He has had
several conversations in the past few weeks indicating the County is reviewing traffic
flow that is not resolved yet. The City has had discussions of extending sewer and water
L:\02 FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\M N 120902 .doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
December 9, 2002
to the area and the Three River Parks District does not have finances in their development
plan. Suggested this land not be removed from the agricultural land designation to a
development zone because of the nebulous areas of the development. County Road 12 is
not adequate to handle the traffic with a new development. Access across County Road
12 is a safety issue. Why should this be designated at this time? It would be more
appropriate to leave the property zoned agriculture until the City comes up with a plan.
Stamson explained the designation procedure at this time. Scott County will not do the
plan until the City designates the property.
Weninger disagreed with the process.
Kansier explained the ordinances and designation procedures.
Dave Brown, representing Brace and Marge Schulz, the adjoining property owners are in
favor of guiding property as proposed. They understand the platting process and there
will be another forum to discuss. They believe a future arterial road will extend through
their property all the way to MarschaI1 Road. This could pose a potential condemnation to
the property. The Schultz's know this is not the appropriate time to speak on the issue
but wanted to plant the seed.
Barb St. John, 17480 Vergus Avenue, questioned Kansier on the sewer capacity to serve
the area. Kansier responded. St John stated she is always reading in the paper that the
City has a water shortage and asked why would they do this? Kansier responded. St.
John's other concern is that lake owners should be notified of development because of the
high lake traffic.
Atwood questioned St. John if she had access to the Prior Lake American. St. John said
she had a Jordan address and has to subscribe to the paper.
Randy Baldwin, 2535 Spring Lake Road, asked if the issue of 75 boat slips was already
discussed in the paper. Kansier responded those comments were during the annexation
discussions between the Town Board. She went on to explain the development would
have to come with a complete plan. There would be notification to the adjoining
residents and it would be noticed in the paper. Baldwin said the residents are concerned
and would like input on the development. He also felt development decisions were
already made. Stamson addressed his concerns.
Jim Weninger said there was a lot of hearsay among the residents. This is not the night to
make a decision. He felt the City should uphold to the agreements made between the
County and Township.
Barb St. John, questioned the possible addition of 75 boat slips. The entire lake property
owners should be notified. The DNR has 2 parking lots in their public access - it's
obvious they feel that number of boats to the lake is appropriate. The boat traffic on the
L:\02FlLES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 120902.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
December 9, 2002
lake is so excessive in the last few years. If we allow 75 more boats there is not going to
be a time to use the lake~ She felt everyone on the lake should be personally notified.
Stamson said the State sets the guidelines on notification and suggested lake owners
should subscribe to the Prior Lake American or create some way of communication
between neighbors to stay on top of the notices.
Dick Sloan, son-in-law of the property owner, Warren Stemmm', questioned what the
consequences would be if the Commission votes against the staff recommendation.
Kansier said the Commissioners make a recommendation to the City Council who will
make the final decision. Stamson explained the State requires the City to designate the
property in some way appropriate for the long term.
Jim Weninger, said he fully understands the notification guidelines, but signs should be
posted for the rezoning. Kansier responded every attempt would be made when a
specific development plan is submitted.
Marjean Townley, a new resident at 2530 South Shore Drive, recommended keeping the
zoning "Agricultural" under the Comprehensive Plan. When Prior Lake has a "No
Wake" enforcement, Spring Lake does not, which will cause a lot of erosion problems.
Barb St. John, questioned the Low-Medium Density and mailing delivery routes.
Stamson responded that was a Federal Postal issue.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· Felt Mr. Weninger had a good idea for posting when the specific rezoning
changes are proposed.
· This property does need to be designated. We're not acting on a specific plan.
· Supported the land designation as recommended by staff.
Atwood:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
· This is a very preliminary step in the process. There will be ample opportunity
for resident input.
Lemke: · Thanked the residents for coming forward.
· This action was initiated by City Council. The annexation has already taken
place.
· The Comprehensive Plan designates land for its future. By its definition it goes
out 20 years. It is important that someone new can go to the City government
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMNl20902.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
December 9, 2002
offices and find out what the 20 year plan is going to be. It would be a lie to tell
someone this property will be zoned "Agricultural" 20 years from now.
Support staff's recommendation.
Criego:
· Questioned staffon the Low - Medium density category. Is there anything lower
at the zoning level? Kansier said R1 is 3.6 units/acre.
· This issue has come up before. City Council and the Planning Commission needs
to address the designation. It is too wide and too broad. It basically allows a
maximum of 7.2 units per acre. This is an area developed for single family
housing, not multi-unit housing.
· Could this be discussed at a later time.
· Questioned Scott County's Comprehensive Plan designation of"Rural
Development". Kansier responded she did not have their information, probably 10
acres. The County's designation was to keep the property vacant until municipal
services are available.
· If a developer comes forward at a later time with a single family development he
would be in favor of support.
· Go forward with current designation.
Stamson: · Disagreed with Criego, this is not a change from the County. The County wanted
to keep the land vacant until it could be brought into the City and more fully
developed.
· This land is an appropriate use would be Low Density development.
· Agreed with Criego when this goes to the zoning phase, will be looking for a low
density project on this site.
· Long term the guiding for this property should be Low Density housing.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF AN AMENDMENT ADDING APPROXIMATELY 65 ACRES TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY FOR
LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This recommendation will go before the City Council on January 6, 2003.
Atwood suggested future discussions on the Low-Medium density issue. Kansier said it
is in the budget proposal for 2003 to put funding into consultants to update our
Comprehensive Plan. Staff had hoped to get it this year, but was overwhelmed with
developments.
Stamson suggested trying to post the area when rezoning is brought forth.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 120902.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
December 9, 2002
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
There wilt a meeting scheduled for December 23, 2002.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNI20902.doc 9
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CASE FILE:
5A
CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 576
SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE
16252 LAKESIDE AVENUE
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
~X YES NO-N/A
DECEMBER 23, 2002
02-135
INTRODUCTION:
Landice W'dson is requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance for the construction of a
576 square foot detached garage on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD
(Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 16252 Lakeside Avenue (Lot 23, Lakeside Park).
The property is guided Urban Low/Medium Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive
In order to construct the proposed addition to the dwelling shown on Attachmem 3, the
following variance is required:
1. A 16.2 foot variance from the 36.2 foot average front yard setback to allow a 20 foot
setback (Section 1102.405 (4) Setback Requirements for Residential Structures.)
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is a riparian lot on Prior Lake. A single fatal}7 dwelling, constructed in
1957, currently occupies the site. The property was platted as Lot 23, Lakeside Park in 1921.
The lot is 9,708 square feet in area and 50 feet in width. A garage is not present on the
property.
Setback variances have been granted to this property in the past. In 1981, a 4.5 foot side
yard setback variance was granted for the construction of a deck and a 1.5 foot side yard
setback variance for a kitchen addition. Also, in 1985, a 7 foot side yard setback variance
was approved for a deck.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
Planning Report -Wilson Variance
December 23, 2002
Page 2
According to the survey, the existing dwelling is set back approximately 60 feet from the
property line abutting Lakeside Avenue and is 86.8 feet from the ordinary high water level of
Prior Lake (904). Off-street parking is currently provided on a gravel surface between the
dwelling and Lakeside Avenue. A concrete block retaining wall supports the gravel parking
surface and the elevation change between the off-street parking and dwelling.
The ske exhibits extreme topography from Lakeside Avenue (938') to Prior Lake (904').
The elevation change between the house and the gravel parking area results in an average
slope of approximately 28 percent. The zoning ordinance de£mes a bluff as a topographic
feature that exhibits a grade from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the
ordinary high water level of Prior Lake that averages 30 percent or more. The average slope
for the subject site was determined by measuring the elevation change at three points. As is
evident by the picture below, the only portion of the dwelling visible from Lakeside Avenue
is the roof.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant would like
to constmet a 24 foot by
24 foot (576 sq. ft.)
detached accessory
structure on the property.
The detached garage is
proposed to be set back
20 feet from the front
property line, 6 feet from
the north property line
(side), 15 feet from the
south property line (side),
and 16 feet from the
dwelling. Elevation plans
depicting the appearance
of the garage where not submitted with the application, but the applicant has stated that the
garage will have one, double door and will be compatible in appearance to the existing
dwelling.
The zoning ordinance requires the front yard setback to be a minimum of 25 feet in the R-1
use district. However, the ordinance allows the setback to be the average of other structures
within 150 feet on the same block front, with the setback being a minimum of 20 feet and a
maximum of 50 feet. In this instance, the minimum front yard setback is required to be 36.2
feet.
Side yard setbacks on nonconforming shore, land lots of record are permitted to be a
minimum of 5 feet provided that that sum Of the side yards is 15 feet and a minimum
separation of 15 feet is maintained from structures on adjacent lots. No yard encroachments
(i.e., eaves, gutters, and basement egress windows) are permitted with a 5 foot setback. The
L: \O2FILES \02variances \O 2-13 5 \PC Report.DOT
Planning Report -Wilson Variance
December 23, 2002
Page 3
proposed side yard setback on the noxth is 6 feet, thus the eave would be limited to one foot
in order to meet the 5 foot setback.
On shoreland lots, detached accessory structures are permitted between the front building
wall and the street offering access to the lot provided it complies with required front and
side yard setbacks and is compatible in design and materials with the principal structure.
The proposed garage meets all required setbacks, except for the front yarc[ It will be a
condition of approval that the garage is compatible in appearance with existing dwelling,
since plans have not yet been prepared. Also, detached accessory structures in residential
use districts are limited to 832 square feet in area. The proposal is only 576 square feet, so it
is in compliance.
In the R-1 use district, a single family dwolllng is a permitted use, and a detached private
garage is an accessory use. A private garage is defined as "a detad:ed accessory build~ orportim
mawr mSk~es..." The zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 2 parking stalls for a single
family dw~lllng. The site currently has parking on an open gravel sttrface. Although the
zoning ordinance does not require parking for a single family dwelling to be completely
endosed, a two-stall garage is customarily considered a reasonable use in a residential use
district, particularly in Minnesota.
The existing impervious surface coverage is 26.8 percent and the proposed impervious
surface is' 28.5 percent. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that the existing
driveway be reduced to 24 feet in width for two reasons: (1) to comply with the maximum
24 foot driveway standard for residential properties and (2) to reduce the overall amount of
impervious surface on the site. Impervious surface is limited to 30 percent on properties
within the shoreland overlay district. The driveway should also comply with the minimum 5
foot side yard setback.
Applicant's Perceived Hardship:
The applicant contends that "there are several reasons for the request: First, there is no
garage on the property at this time. Second, by building a garage with the current setback
requirement, the garage would be very dose to the house. There is already an existing water
drainage problem in the basement on the end of the house proposed for a garage. This is
the only side the garage can be built on because building k on the other side would obstruct
access to the front door. Third, due to the steep slope of the land toward the house,
construction would be less costly the doser to the road k could be built. Fourth, in the past
few months I've had a car damaged by a hit and nm driver and a boat trailer stolen because
they were sitting outside. I would like to be able to protect my property by storing k in a
garage."
VARIANCE HARDSHIP FINDINGS
Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a Variance from the strict
application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance, provided that:
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-135M>C Report.DOT
Planning Report -wilson Variance
December 23, 2002
Page 4
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason
of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this
Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a
manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which said
lot is located.
The location of the existing single family dwelling and shape and size of the lot dictate
the placement of a garage. Furthermore, the topography of the site impacts the location
of any structure.
A customary and legally permissible (reasonable) use within the R-1 use district is a single
family dwelling with a two stall garage. The property currently only has a single family
dwelling, so a reasonable use is not present on the property.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other
land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
The property exhibits extreme topography that constrains development of the property,
in particular limits the location of a garage. Although other lots on Prior Lake have
topography that constrain development, this particular property is unique in that the
location of the dwelling is positioned at the toe of the slope, leaving a garage to be
located at the top of the slope and Lakeside Avenue. If the garage were to be skirted
further from the front property line to maintain a greater setback, the slope and garage
stability may be further compromised.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property tight of the owner.
The granting of the setback variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyrrm~t of a
reasonable use of the property because without the relief the applicant will not be able to
construct a garage on the property.
The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the
public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The setback variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or negatively impact public safety.
The grant'mg of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surround'mg area, or in any other way impair the health,
safety, and comfort of the area.
L:\02F1LES\02vafiances\02-135\PC Report.DOT
Planning Report -Wilson Variance
December 23, 2002
Page 5
Relief from the setback provision of the zoning ordinance will not unreasonably impact
the character and development of the Lakeside Avenue neighborhood. Detached
garages are a customary accessory use within that and other single family residential
neighborhoods within Prior Lake.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "prov/de adequate off--sereetparking and load~
fac~/tks." The variance appears to be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance,
that is, to allow the storage of vehides and other materials within an endosed structure.
The property currently does not have a garage, and a garage is customarily considered to
be a reasonable use in residential zoning districts.
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.
The front yard setback variance is not a convenience as there are no other options for
the construction of a garage on the propertywithln the bnildable area. It is necessary to
alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship - the property cannot be put to a reasonable
use as allowed in the R-1 use district.
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 difficulty was created by the topographic change from Lakeside Avenue to Prior
Lake together with the required 36.2 foot from yard setback. The property owner did
not create the difficulty.
9. Increased devdopment or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall
not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Economic considerations are not the basis for the variance request.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant would like to construct a 24 foot by 24 foot (576 square feet) detached garage
on property zoned R-1 and SD. In order to do such, a 16.2 foot variance from the 36.2 foot
required average front yard setback is required.
The property currently does not have a garage and therefore does not have a reasonable use.
The topography of the site along with the required 36.2 foot front yard setback make
constructing a detached garage difficult on the property. Staff supports the requested
variance because the applicant has demonstrated a hardship and a reasonable use is not
present on the property.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-135'~PC Report. DOT
Plamfing Report -Wilson Variance
December 23, 2002
Page 6
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance requested by the applicant, or approve any va_dance the Planning
Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated
hardship under the zoning code criteria, In this case, the Planning Commission should
direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings denying the variance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the 16.2 foot variance from the 36.2 foot average front yard
setback for the construction of a detached garage, subject to the following conditions:
The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along with the acknowledged G'lty Assent Form, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
3. The driveway shall be a maximum of 24 feet in width at the property line and meet the
minimum 5 foot side yard setback.
4. The driveway shall be surfaced with bituminous or concrete.
5. The garage shall be compatible in design and materials with the prindpal structure.
6. Impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 30 percent.
ACTION REQUIRED:
This request requires the following motion:
1. A motion and second adopting Resolution 02-022PC for a 16.2 foot variance from the
required 36.2 foot front yard setback for the construction of a detached garage.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 02-022PC
2. Location map
3. Applicant's letter
4. Survey
5. Applicable regulation
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-135x&'C Report. DOT
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION 02-022PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 16.2 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 36.2
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 576
SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake,
Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Landice Wilson has applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance for the
construction of a 576 square foot detached garage on property zoned R-1 (Low
Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) at the following location, to wit;
16252 Lakeside Avenue, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot
23, Lakeside Park, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for the variance as
contained in Case #02-135PC and held a hearing thereon on December 23, 2002.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on
property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on
the Comprehensive Plan.
The location of the existing single family dwelling and shape and size of the lot
dictate the placement of a garage. The topography of the site impacts the location
of any structure. A customary and legally permissible (reasonable) use wkhin the
R-1 use district is a single family dwelling with a two stall garage. The property
currently only has a single family dwelling, so a reasonable use is not present on the
property.
The property exhibits extreme topography that constrains development of the
property, in particular limits the location of a garage. Although other lots on Prior
Lake have topography that constrain development, this particular property is
unique in that the location of the dwelling is positioned at the toe of the slope,
leaving a garage to be located between the top of the slope and Lakeside Avenue. If
l:\02files\02variances\02-135\approve resolution.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
the garage were to be shifted further from the front property line to maintain a
greater setback, the slope and garage stability may be further compromised.
The granting of the setback variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a reasonable use of the property because without the relief the
applicant will not be able to construct a garage on the property.
One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "provide adequate offstreet parking and
loading facilities." The variance appears to be consistent with the intent of the
zoning ordinance, that is, to allow the storage of vehicles and other materials
within an enclosed structure. The property currently does not have a garage, and a
garage is customarily considered to be a reasonable use in residential zoning
districts.
The front yard setback variance will not serve as a convenience as there are no
other options for the construction of a garage on the property within the buildable
area. It is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship - the property
cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as allowed by the R-1 use district.
The hardship was created the topographic change from Lakeside Avenue to Prior
Lake along with the required 36.2 foot front yard setback. The property owner did
not create the difficulty.
10. The contents of Planning Case #02-135PC are hereby entered into and made a part
of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following variance to allow for the construction of a detached garage, as shown on
Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey:
A 16.2 foot variance from the 36.2 foot front yard setback to allow a 20 foot
front yard setback. (Sectioh 1102.405 (4) Setback Requirements for
Residential Structures.)
The following conditions shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the construction of a single family dwelling on the subject site:
The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption.
Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be
submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
l:\02files\O2variances\O2-135\approve resolution.doc 2
3. The driveway shall be a maximum of 24 feet in width at the property line and meet
the 5 foot side yard setback.
4. The driveway shall be surfaced with bituminous or concrete.
5. The garage shall be compatible in design and materials with the principal structure.
6. Impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 30 percent.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on December 23, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Community Development Director
l:\02files\O2variances\O2-135\approve resolution.doc 3
LANI WILSON
VALLEY SURVEYING CO., P.A.
L.sT
2~
LEGEND
:ii~!~ PROPOSED GAR/
ATTACHIVIEN'
~E
1
ATTACHMENT 2
Location Map
for Wilson Vanance
COLORADO ST
PLEASANT ST PLEASANT ST
'
GREEN HEIGHTS TRL SW
N
November 20, 2002
Planning Department
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-17:~4
Dear Planning Commission,
Enclosed is an application for a 20 foot variance in order to place a 24' X 24'
detached garage 5 feet closer to the road than the city zoning ordinance permits.
There are several reasons for this request: First; there is no garage on the property at
this time. Second; by building a garage with the current setback requirements, the
garage would be very close to the house. There is already and existing water drainage
problem in the basement on the end of the house proposed for a garage. This is the
only side the garage can be built on because building it on the other side would obstruct
access to the front door. Third; due to the steep slope of the land toward the house,
construction would be less costly the closer to the road it could be built. Fourth; in the
past few months I've had a car damaged by a hit and run driver and a boat trailer stolen
because they were sitting outside. ! would like to be able to protect my property by
storing it in a garage.
Although the enclosed radius map will show that no structures in the immediate vicinity
of my property are closer to the road than 25 feet, there are a few structures on that
short stretch of Lakeside Avenue that are closer. Furthermore, this garage and
subsequent landscaping will improve the appearance of the property where there is now
a gravel parking area, weeds, and an old cement block wall.
have enclosed the following required items to help you with your decision:
-,/ :i. This letter 2. Zoning/Land Use Application, including checklist
3. Radius map, list, and 2 sets of mailing labels
4. Letter signed by abstract company
$. 10 full-scale copies of survey
6. 10 11'~C].7" copies of survey
7. Impervious surface report
8. Check for $150.00
If you have any questions please contact me at:
home: (952) 447-8699
work: (952) 826-6718
Sincerely,
Landice Wilson
APPLICANT'S LETTER
LANI W~LSON
', L.oT
VALLEY SURVEYING CO., P.A.
FAX (952) 447-2571
ATTACHME ~IT 4
LEGEND
.............. PROPOSED GARI ~E
.............. ""~ ~JRVEY
ATTACHMENT 5
Zoning Ordinance
All home occupations shall be subject to an annual inspecton to insure
compliance with the above conditions.
k. All applicable permits from other governmental agencies have been
obtained.
(2) Group Day Care/Nursery School in a religious institution, community center, or
academic educational institution comCying with all of the following conditiofis:
a. At least 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil is provided.
b. The outside play areas are fenced and screened with a buffer yard.
1102.405
Drop off and loading points are established which do not hteffere with traffic
and pedestrian movements.
Dimensional Standards.
(1)
(2)
No structure shall exceed 3 stories or 35 feet in height, whichever is less, except' as
provided in subsection 1101.508.
The ground floor area ratio within the R-1 Use District shall not exceed 0.3.
(3)
The following minimum requirements and those additional requirements, exception
and modifications contained in provisions (4) through (9) below and in the
Subdivision Ordinance shall govern the use and development cf lots in the "R-1"
Use District.
(4)
Lot Area (Sq: ft.)
12,000
Lot Width (ft.)
86
Front Yard (ft.)
25
Side Yard (ft.) Rear Yard (ft.)
10 25
The depth of the front yard of a lot shall be at least 25 feet. If the average depth .
of at least 2 existing front yards, for buildings within 150 feet along the same
block front of the lot in question are less or greater than 35 feet, the required front
yard shall be the average depth of such existing front yards. However, the depth
of a front yard shall not be less than 20 feet or be required to exceed 50 feet.
(5) Through lots and corner lots shall have a required front yard on each street.
(6)
The width of the side yard setback abutting a building wall shall be increased 2
inches for each 1 foot the length of the building wall exceeds 50 feet. The
additional setback will not be applied if there is a break in the building wall equal
to 10% of the entire length of the wall. For the purpose of this subsection, a wail
includes any building wall within 10 degrees of being parallel to and abutting the
side lot line of a lot. (Ord. 00-08- pub. 67i0/00)
(7)
Side yard widths may be reduced if the side wall of a building is not parallel by
more than 10 degrees with the side lot line, to permit the average depth of the
side yard to conform to the minimum side yard depth in the District, but no side
of APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
May 22, 1999 1102/p14
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5B
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO SECTION 1107.808 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
RELATING TO INSTITUTIONAL SIGNS (Case File
#02-129)
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
DECEMBER 23, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant, the Church of St. Michael, is requesting an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow externally illuminated institutional
signs along collector streets in residential zoning districts.
Institutional signs are defined as signs which identify the name and other
characteristics of a public or semi-public institution on the property where the
sign is located. A public or semi-public use could include schools, public
buildings, libraries, religious institutions, parks, etc. The Zoning Ordinance
regulates institutional signs as follows:
Institutional Signs: Freestanding or waft institutional signs are permitted in any
Use District provided that the total sign area does not exceed 75 square feet.
Internally illuminated signs are permitted if the sign is located so it faces an
arterial road as identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Freestanding
signs may be no higher than 6 feet above the adjacent grade or center line grade
of the adjacent street, whichever is higher.
This language was amended in 2000 to allow internally illuminated signs along
arterial roads at the request of Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church.
The Church of St. Michael is requesting the following amendment to this
ordinance:
1:\02flies\02ordamend~.oning\02-129 inst sign\02-129 pc rpt.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, M~nnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Institutional Signs: Freestanding or wall institutional signs are permitted in any
Use District provided that the total sign area does not exceed 75 square feet.
Internally or externally illuminated signs are permitted if the sign is located so it
faces an arterial road or a collector street as identified in the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. Freestanding signs may be no higher than 6 feet above the
adjacent grade or center line grade of the adjacent street, whichever is higher.
This amendment would allow the existing signs along Duluth Avenue to be lit by
an external light source, such as spot lights. The amendment would apply to all
churches, schools or other institutional uses in residential districts.
DISCUSSION:
Religious uses must be located on a collector or arterial street as required in the
Zoning Ordinance within Residential Use Districts. This access requirement is
consistent with the proposed amendment. Other institutional uses, including
schools, within the City are located within Residential Use Districts with access to
a collector or arterial street.
RECOMMENDATION:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states specific findings that must be
met to change the ordinance. These are:
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this
Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the
City.
3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal
requirements.
The staff has no objections to the proposed amendment. The ordinance already
allows internally Illuminated signs along arterial streets. The additional
provisions would help to identify public and semi-public gathering sites after
sunset. In order to minimize any impact on the adjacent residential areas, the
staff would suggest including a provision limiting the visible illumination,
measured in footcandles, at the property line. This provision is consistent with
the lighting provisions in the ordinance. The specific language is included in the
attached draft ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
l:\02files\02ordamend~oning\02-129 inst sign\02-129 pc rpt.doc
Page 2
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment with
modifications as recommended by staff and indicated in the attached ordinance
amendment.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Amendment
1:\02files\02ordarnend~zoning\02-129 inst sign\02-129 pc rpt.doc Page 3
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 03 - XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1107.808 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
I. Section 1107.808 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
Institutional Signs: Freestanding or wall institutional signs are permitted in any Use District
provided that the total sign area does not exceed 75 square feet. Internally or externally
illuminated signs are permitted if the sign is located so it faces an arterial roador a collector
street as identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Reflected glare or spill light
from the sign shall not exceed 0.5 footcandle when the source abuts any residential
parcel or 1.0 footcandle at any public right-of-way measured at 1 foot above the
ground. Freestanding signs may be no higher than 6 feet above the adjacent grade or center
line grade of the adjacent street, whichever is higher.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this day of _, 2003.
ATTEST:
City Manager Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
day of ,2003.
l:\02files\02ordamendlzoning\02-129 inst sign\draftord.doc
PAGE1
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5C
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING JEFFERS POND AND
AN AMENDMENT TO THE REQUIRED LOT SIZE IN
THE HASS LAKE SHORELAND DISTRICT (Case File
#02-137)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
DECEMBER 23, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public heating is to consider two amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance. These are:
An amendment to Section 1104.201 reclassifying Jeffers Pond from a Natural
Enviroment Lake to a Recreational Development Lake; and
An amendment to Section 1104.302 of the Zoning Ordinance changing the minimum
lot area for lots within the Hass Lake Shoreland District from 20,000 square feet to
12,000 square feet.
DISCUSSION:
Jeffers Pond Reclassification:
Jeffers Pond is a 45-acre lake located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of
CSAH 42 and CSAH 21. The DNR originally classified the lake as a Natural
Environment Lake in 1984. Recently, the City asked the DNR to reevaluate this
classification. In November, 2002, the DNR notified the City that the original
classification was based on outdated or erroneous data and that the Recreational
Development classification was more appropriate for Jeffers Pond (see Exhibit A). The
purpose of this agenda item is to amend the table in Section 1104.201 of the Zoning
Ordinance and identify Jeffers Pond as a Recreational Development Lake.
1:\0 fil \02ordamend o lng 'effers o d\02-1 7pc.doc
16200 Eagtef ~reek Ave. ~.~., ~rior ~a~e, ~iinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (95~)a~f~7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
RECOMMENDATION:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states specific findings that must be met to
change the ordinance. These are:
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this Ordinance, the
Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the City.
3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the DNR action relating to the
classifications of Jeffers Pond and Hass Lake. The staffrecommends approval of the
proposed amendments. The specific language is included in the attached draft ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with changes
specified by the Pla~ing Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Altemative 1. The Planning staff finds the proposed
amendments consistent with the DNR action on the classification of Jeffers Pond and
Hass Lake.
ACTION REQUIRED:
This proposal requires a motion and second recommending approval of the proposed
amendment as indicated in the attached ordinance amendment.
EXHIBITS:
1. Exhibit 1 - DNR Letter dated November 7, 2002
2. Exhibit 2 - DNR Letter dated August 26, 2002
3. Draft Ordinance
l:\02files\02ordamend~zoning\jeffers pond\02-137 pc.doc
Page 2
EXHIBIT I
Minnesota Department of Natural Rest
Waters
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul [Vlinnesom 55155-403._~2
Mr. Donald Rye
Community Development Director
City of Prior Lake
1600 Eagle Creek Ave., SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
October 31, 2002
Dear Mr, Rye:
(NE) TO RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (RD) SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION
Based on the information provided in your two letters dated August 26 and October 16, 2002,
and subsequent meeting on October 23, 2002, the Department of Natural Resources approves the
above reclassification. Specifically, you were able to document the physical changes within the
basin itself as it went from a series of semi-drained wetlands in the early 1950's, the raising and
enlarging of the basin by an outlet control structure in the late 1960's, and the routing of the
Prior Lake outlet through the pond in the mid-1980's. DNR Area Fisheries has no indication that
Jeffers Pond is subject to winterkill. The connection to Prior Lake provides ~eater water
circulation through the pond and allows for the input of fish from the lake.
We approve of the conceptual plan for the site noting that it will encompass the entire lake basin
and much of the adjacent shoretand area within a PUD. As we discussed at the meeting, it would
have been possible to allow the RD density, but keep the NE classification as we did recently
with Hass Lake (70-78W). However, the two lakes are sufficiently different that the
reclassification of Jeffers Pond stands on its own merit.
We note with approval that the conceptual plan for the PUD includes the following:
· a publicly-o,~qaed 50 to 60 foot buffer of natural vegetation around ['ne entire margin of
the lake;
· the developer is willing to accept surface water controls adopted by the city that would
exclude motorized watercraft and private docks;
· there is potential for public use through trails, a possible school, interpretive center and
kids fishing dock;
· the design is such that many of the steeper slopes and associated trees can be preserved;
· storm~vater retention ponds are part of the design. We trust that the Prior Lake - Spring
Lake Watershed District will assist in the development of a stormwater management plan
for the site that makes use of natural buffers, infiltration and retention to lessen the
impact of stormwater (quantity and quality) upon Jeffers Pond.
Document file name
DN'R Information: 651-296-6157 ®
An Equal Opportunity Employer
1-888-646-6367 ®
q_-l¥: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
Pdnted on Recycled Paper Contaimng a
Page Two
October 31, 2002
Because of its small size and the adjacent steep slopes, Jeffers Pond will always be sensitive to
stormwater and the impacts of nonpoint source pollution that come with any development. For
this reason, we suggest that the PUD strive to maintain the Natural Environment setback of 150
feet from the pond's edge (ordinary high water level) where it is possible to do so. With a 50 -
60 foot buffer strip in place, it should be easy to at least meet a 100 foot setback.
Please continue to keep Area Hydrologist Pat Lynch apprised of the development as it proceeds.
We agree with you that there should be much public benefit to this project when it is completed.
Sincerely,
DIVISION OF WATERS
John Linc Sfine
Water Management Administrator
Gl
Pat Lynch
Dale Homuth
Peder Otterson
Prior Lake - Spring Lake Watershed District
Scott County Planning & Zoning
Document fi[e name
EXHIBIT 2
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Waters
5(R) Lal'ayeuc Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-403~_
Mayor Jack Hangen
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
August 26, 2002
Dear Mayor Haugen:
~a:: c, noretama R=c as,mcado l, raass LaKe (#/0-/6 :&' ), City of Prior Lake, Scott County
The Department of Natural Resoumes has reviewed the City's June 6, 2002, request to consider
reclassification of the shoretand of Hass Lake (#70-78W) from Natural Environment to Recreational
Development. The City's justification is noted along with the recommendation for approval by Area
Hydrologist Pat Lynch.
In his review, Mr. Lynch stated that Hass Lake is a 31- acre, type 4 wetland having roughly 4300 feet of
shoreline and an average depth of two feet. As such, it has little recreational value to future riparian
owners or the general public. Our principle concern for the lake lies in preserving its water quality and
adjacent habitat. As such, it does retain value as potential parkland and passive open space. Accordingly,
we support the City's intention to acquire and/or protect the riparian area and adjacent steep slopes and
bluffs on the western side of the lake. With the future expansion of CR 42 to the north and the existing
golf course to the south, the actual development of riparian lakeshore should not exceed 50% of the
shoreline.
Therefore, the Department of Natural Resoumes approves of the City's request to rezone the shore land of
Hass Lake to meet the standards of Recreational Development lot sizes and uses. However, because of its
small size, shallow depth and adjacent wetlands, we require that Hass Lake remain classified as Natural
Environment for purposes of structural setback (150 feet) and preservation of the shore impact zone (75
feet).
Please provide Area Hydrologist Pat Lynch at our Central Region office located at 1200 Warner Road, St.
Paul, Minnesota, 55106, with a certified copy of your amended zoning ordinance once the changes have
been made. If you have any questions, please contact Area Hydrologist Pat Lynch at 651-772-7917.
Sincerely,
Administrator, Permits and Land Use Section
Dale Homuth, DNR Regional Hydrologist
Pat Lynch, DNR Area Hydrologist
Peder Otterson, DNR Shoreland Hydrologist
Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District
Document file name
DNR Information: 651-296-6157
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
1-888-646-6367 · TTY:651-296-5484 ° 1-800-657-3929
Printed on RecycJed Paper Containing a
Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 03 - XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1104.201 AND 1104.302 OF THE
PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. Section 1104.201 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
Natural Environment Lakes DNR ID No. OHWM
1. Howard Lake 70-73P 957.3
Township 114, l15N,
Range 22W, Sections 5, 32
2. Pike Lake 70-76P 820.5
Township 115N, Range 22W, Section 23
3. Unnamed (Arctic Lake) 70/85 906.7
Township 115N, Range 22W, Sections 33,
34SW
4. Keup's Lake (Mystic Lake) 70-79W 960.0
Township 115N, Range 22W, Section
27NW
5. Hass Lake 70-78 907.3
Township 115N, Range 22W, Section
27NW
~ tt ..... ~ ttn~r~,,~ ~,,a~ 70 77 Not
Recreational Environment Lakes DNR ID No. OH'WM
1. Markley Lake 70-21W Not
Township 114N, Range 21, 22W, Section established
6.1
2. Unnamed (Blind Lake) 70-53 948.7
Township 114, Range 22W, Sections 1, 2
3. Unnamed {Jeffers Pond) 70-77 Not
Township 115N, Range 22W~ Section 27 established
l:\02files\02ordamendXzoning\jeffers pond\drMlord.doc
PAGE 1
Section 1104.302 (I) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
(1) Natural Environment:
I Riparian Lots I Non-Riparian Lots
Area Width Area Width
Single_* 40,000 125 20,000 100
Duplex 70,000 225 35,000 220
Triplex 100,000 325 52,000 315
Quad 130,000 425 65,000 410
*For non-riparian lots within the Hass Lake Shoreland District, the
minimum lot area shall be 12,000 square feet and the minimum Iotwidth
shall be 86 feet.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this day of ., 2003.
ATTEST:
City Manager Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
day of ,2003.
l:\02files\02ordamend~zoning\jeffers pondXdraftord.doc PAGE 2