Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-22-97REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, April 22, 1997 7:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. 5. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Old Business: 6. New Business: A. Case #97-028 Variance request from Pinnacle Partners: Lot width at the front yard set back; square foot variance to permit a minimum lot area; setback from the Ordinary High Water Level; and setback from bluff for the property at 15408 Red Oaks Road. B. Case #97-031 Annexation petition from Mesenbrink Construction for 31.25 acres located in the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 12, Spring Lake Township. C. Case #97-032 Annexation petition from Deerfield Development for 230 acres located in the North Half of Section 12, Spring Lake Township. D. Discuss Zoning Ordinance. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: 16200Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORI~JNFFY ~MPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1997 1. Call to Order: The April 14, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Director of Plarming Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. RoliCall: Stamson Present Kuykendall Present Criego Present Vonhof Absent Wuellner Absent 3. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE MARCH 24, 1997, MINUTES. Commissioner Vonhof arrived at 6:32 p.m. Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Kuykendall, Vonhofand Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED. 4. Public Hearings: A. CASE #97-015 (Continued from the March 24, 1997 meeting.) Ronn Hechter requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow a "fast food establishment" in a B-1 Zone; a 10 foot variance to allow a rear yard setback of 20 feet rather than the required 30 feet; and a 63 parking stall variance to allow a total of 87 parking stalls rather than the 150 parking stalls. Planner Jermi Tovar presented a letter from Mr. Hechter requesting withdrawal of the application. Mr. Hechter has revised his plans eliminating the conditional use requirements and variances needed. The public hearing was closed at 6:32 p.m. l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~mn041497.doc Page I B. CASE #97-024 Consider an Amendment to Section 5-8-3 of the City Code and to Section 9.3 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance relating to the structure setback from the Ordinary High Water mark (OHW) in the Shoreland District. The public hearing was open at 6:34 p.m., and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public at attendance. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report. The public heating was to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which will change the structure setback from 75 feet to 50 feet on General Development Lakes. This proposed amendment comes at the direction of the City Council in response to a recent variance request. The approval of the proposed amendment would allow for existing and new structures to be located 50 feet from the OHW of Prior Lake or Spring Lake. From an administrative standpoint, the proposed change in the ordinance would reduce interpretations of setback averaging on General Development Lakes. The proposed amendment would also eliminate many variance requests. It would also make the submittal of surveys with building permits less complicated for the applicant. One down side to allowing a closer setback is the visual appearance of the shoreline from the lake. Buildings and structures will be located closer to the water. The building separation will remain the same between side yards. Health, safety or general welfare will not be adversely affected by the amendment. The public hearing was closed at 6:38 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: There are many different issues that need to be addressed. It sounds like the ordinance is being pieced together. My reaction is to consider it all in total in the revised ordinance. Vonhof.' · Question to staff: The City elected to have a more stringent lakeshore setback than the DNR. In the research did you find any rationale? Kansier responded staff did not find any rationale. The report states 5% of the lakeshore would be impacted which would be about a mile of i'mpacted shoreland. · How does this 25 foot extension impact existing structures? Kansier responded it would have the potential to add a 25 foot addition. · The City has to look at the unknown impact on the lake. Kuykendall: · Kansier responded staff did not talk to the previous staff or Planning Commissioners but did talk to City Council members who were on the Council when the ordinance was adopted. The City Council could not recall the rationale. · Would like to know the rationale from previous Commissioners and DNR's rationale for the 50 feet. · The two criteria that come to mind is visual impact and drainage (impervious surface). The further away a structure is from the lake the harder it will be for the runoff, if any, to reach the lake. It raises a question to the relationship of impervious surface. · Last year the Commissioners toured the lake and found the important issues were visual impact and screening (landscaping). There should be more trees and/or vegetation between the home and the lake. · 95% of the lake would have the potential to add on. Concerned for the large impact. Stamson: · Preferred the ordinance as written. There is no justification to change it. Just because someone was denied a variance does not mean the City has to change the ordinance. · It is not good policy to change on those matters. · Keep structures as far as possible away from the water. · The DNR ordinance states 50 feet and 25% impervious surface. If the City is using the DNR standards, the impervious surface should be reduced to 25%. · Prefer to leave the setback at 75 feet. Criego: · Agreed with the 75 foot setback and the setback averaging. · It is not fair for the residents who have abided by the existing ordinance and a neighbor comes in and builds 25 feet closer to the lake. The setback averaging satisfies any new neighbor coming into the area. · The existing ordinance is acceptable. · The lake is the City's focal point. Against anything affecting the lake visually or aesthetically. · Agreed with Kuykendall - concerned with the 95% existing homes on the lake. The new homes will take additional square footage. · There are too many variables associated with this ordinance. · Should table and get the whole picture. Open discussion: Kuykendall: · The City has been more restrictive in terms of protection of the lake. It is a major asset to our community. · Landscaping and screening the lake with trees is important. There should be a compromise with the landowner who wants a 25 foot variance. There is a greater public need. If someone wants this, they have to give up something. l:\97files\97plcomm\pcminXmn041497.doc Page 3 · The Commissioners need to know where the setback rationale of 50 feet and 75 feet came from. · Would like to go back and talk to the previous Planning Commissioners and DNR to get the rationale. · It will affect drainage and could have a major impact on the lake. Criego: · There are two visual problems - one looking towards the lake for neighbors and the public walking/driving by. Vonhof: · There is no real compelling reason to change the ordinance. Stamson: · No strong rationale to change. · Open to change to 50 feet with restrictions and conditions. Rye commented some of the lake setback rationale basis came from studies done by the University Geography Department in the late 1960's. They developed number indices related to lake crowding, shoreline density and many other factors. Based on that information the State Shoreland Management Act was passed and the DNR was directed to prepare regulations. Part of the rationale came from the natural environment development compared to the pristine lakes. The general development lakes (like Prior Lake) would never be a "Boundary Water" quality lake. Therefore a lesser standard was adopted. Keep in mind, for a good number of years after the Shoreland Ordinance was passed, variances were routinely granted to allow houses built at 50 feet. While the 75 foot standard was on paper, the defacto setback was 50 feet. Criego: · Combining lots were acceptable so homes were not squashed on the lake. Rye said there are provisions in some of the DNR criteria to relax some of the ordinances. Kuykendall: · Concem for water quality. Fertilizers running off into the lake is a problem. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: 1. Contact previous Planning Commissioners and discuss. 2. Contact the DNR and find out their rationale for the setbacks and impervious surface. 3. The Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District should be notified. 4. The Lake Advisory should have input. 5. Concern for visibility with a 50 foot setback and the neighbor having a 75 foot setback. 6. How all this applies to combining lots owned by a common property owner. 7. How does this fit into our floor area ratio? l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~mn041497.doc Page 4 8. Why does our current ordinance not suffice with the two conditions we have? - Setback averaging and building requests. 9. What has the history of granted variances been? Need information from '90 to '95. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO MAY 27, 1997. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED. C. CASE #97-025 Consider an Amendment to Section 5-4-1 of the City Code and to Section 4.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance relating to the structure setback and the conversion of existing decks not meeting the required setbacks to three season porches. The public heating was opened at 7:19 p.m. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report. On March 17, 1997, the City Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a variance request for a reduced lakeshore setback. The variance involved the conversion of an existing deck to a three season porch. The Council tabled action on this item; however, in response to the appeal, the Council directed staff to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which might address some of the issues raised by this appeal. This amendment relates to the conversion of existing decks which do not meet the required setbacks to a three season porch. (An amendment to the required setback from the OHWM will also be considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting.) This amendment has several implications beyond that of replacing an existing deck. First of all, the amendment applies to all setbacks, potentially allowing decks located within required side yards, rear yards and front yards to be converted to a porch, which in mm could result in porches located within easements (especially in side yards). Additionally, structural requirements for decks are very different than those required for porches or other additions. Many decks, especially older ones, either did not have building permits, or there is no documentation. There would be no way to determine if the structural foundation is adequate for a porch. This amendment is much more far reaching than the provision allowing the replacement of existing decks. The staff recommended denial of this amendment. l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~nn041497.doc Page 5 Comments from the Public: Patty Maas, 2195 NW 140th Street, stated her concern for the high level of noise on the lake. She though it may be possible that building structures accentuate the lake noise compared to vegetation and trees. Mrs. Maas ask to consider the issue and help reduce the high level of sound. The public hearing was closed at 7:26 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: · Agreed with staff. · Sees all kinds of problems. Does not agree to change an ordinance based on one denied variance. · This is related to the previous item and should be continued. Vonhof: · Can see the rationale to change a deck to a three season porch. But agreed this is another thing to be considered in tandem with the previous proposal. Both are related to variances. The City has a legal process. · There is no compelling reason for the ordinance change. Stamson: · Opposed the ordinance change. · If the footings have to be changed, a person would completely change the structure. · If a three season porch is okay, why not an addition? · The ordinance is fine as written. Criego: · Agreed with staffs concerns outlined in the report. · This is another way of getting around the ordinance. The City has to address the big picture. · This will allow many people to add on with many problems. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THIS ISSUE TO THE MAY 27, 1997 MEETING. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None l:\97files\97plcomm\pcminXmn041497.doc Page 6 A. CASE #97-023 Eagle Creek Villas requested a vacation of the Holly Circle right- of-way and the utility easements adjacent to Lot 2, 1-5, Block 2, Holly Court. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report. The City received a petition from Eagle Creek Villas to vacate Holly Circle located south of Cates Street. Eagle Creek Villas constitutes a majority of the property owners adjacent to this fight-of-way, owning Lots 2, 3, and 4. Joseph Knoblauch owns Lots 1 and 5. Holly Court was platted in 1977. The road fight-of-way for Holly Circle and drainage and utility easements on individual lots within the plat were dedicated at that time. This five lot subdivision is undeveloped and remains in a natural state. Currently, there are no utilities or drainage ways through the fight-of-way. Lots 1 and 5, owned by Joseph Knoblauch, are currently in the tax forfeiture stage. Staff felt the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will not eliminate a public need. Staff recommended approval of the vacation of Holly Circle with the following conditions: 1. Lots 2, 3, and 4 shall be combined and added to PUD 82-12 Priorview via platting and PUD. 2. A utility easement covering the entire fight-of-way be granted to the City. 3. The 20 foot drainage easement along Cates Street will be retained by the City. Comments from Commissioners: Kuykendall and Stamson: · Discussion on the easement and public fight of way. Vonhof: · Supported staff's recommendation with the conditions. Criego: Agreed with recommendations and supported the Resolution. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97- 11PC RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF THE VACATION OF HOLLY CIRCLE WITH THE FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AS STATED IN THE RESOLUTION. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Discuss amending the Zoning Ordinance and City Code to allow a 5' side yard setback for existing residential structures in the R-1 and R-2 Districts. l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~mn041497.doc Page 7 Kansier explained the background on this issue. Staff suggested further discussions as part of the special zoning ordinance meetings. Open discussion: Kuykendall: · The Planning Commission had goals and missions a year ago for the community. We should be able to go back to our objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and find the guiding light and keep relating back to our visions and policies. Criego: · The problem the Commissioners always face - the Comprehensive Plan does not always address these issues. Kuykendall: · We want environmentally sound criteria. Then define in the ordinance. Vonhof: The Commissioners deal with equity issues which is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. In the last two years we have been following stricter variance criteria. Some of the decisions are common sense. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CLOSE MEETING. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~am041497.doc Page 8 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 6A CONSIDER A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE, LOT AREA VARIANCE, ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHW) SETBACK VARIANCE, TOP OF BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE, AND A BLUFF IMPACT ZONE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR PINNACLE PARTNERS, Case File #97-028 15408 RED OAKS ROAD JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ,~_ I(,.,~' JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO APRIL 28, 1997 The Planning Department received a variance application from Pinnacle Partners who is proposing to construct a new single family residence with attached garage and deck. An existing cabin was removed this past winter in anticipation of the proposed construction. The lot is located in the Red Oaks subdivision on Prior Lake. DISCUSSION: Lot 22, Red Oaks was platted in 1930. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels. Lot attributes are as follows: Area (above 904 el) Lot Width (measured at setback) OHW Width Size Requirement to Variance be Buildable Requested (as a substandard lot) 7,374 sq. feet 7,500 sq. feet 126 sq. feet 49.53 feet 50.00 feet .47 feet 53.13 feet N/A N/A 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E,, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EHPLOYER The proposed structure has a footprint of 1,638 square feet, and a total floor area (on three levels) of approximately 3,400 square feet plus the deck. The lowest level will be a walk-out to the yard. The proposed impervious surface is 29.9%. The structure will have the following setbacks: Front Yard Side Yards OHW Setback Top of Bluff Bluff Impact Zone (20 feet from top of bluff) Proposed Setback 25 feet 5 feet (on south side) 10 feet (on north side) 52 feet 4 feet 4 feet from top of bluff Setback Variance Requirement Requested (as a substandard lot) 25 feet None 5 feet (one side) None 10 feet (other sides) 75 feet 23 feet 30 feet 26 feet 20 feet from top of 16 feet bluff The legal building envelope is approximately 34.5 feet wide and 36-40 feet deep, resulting in an area footprint of approximately 1300 sq. feet. Considering that a two car garage is approximately 480 sq. feet (20 by 24 feet), the footprint remaining for the habitable part of the structure would be approximately 820 square feet. The proposed garage is setback 25 feet, and the dwelling part of the structure is setback approximately 17 feet from the front of the garage (43 feet from the front property line). The deck is setback 4 feet from the top of the bluff (within the bluff impact zone), and the habitable part of the structure is setback about 11 feet from the top of the bluff. The applicant is proposing to excavate approximately 10 feet of the existing bluff. The current elevation at the top of the bluff is 941. The applicant is proposing to construct a walk-out structure with a floor elevation of 931. Generally, the ordinance prohibits the placement of fill and excavation materials in the bluff impact areas. A variance to the bluff impact zone and top of bluff setback would allow the applicant to excavate and fill as indicated on the survey. If a variance to the bluff impact zone or setback to the top of the bluff are granted, then the resolution should specify that storm water be diverted from the roof away from the bluff towards the front of the house. This could be achieved with gutters and/or grading. Pat Lynch, of the DNR, has recommended that no variance to top of bluff or bluff impact zone be granted. Furthermore, the excavating of the bluff does not meet the intent of the Shoreland District in the preservation of the natural features of Prior Lake. He is of the opinion that the proposed house is not conducive to this lot due to the size and topography of the lot. 97-012pc.doc Page 2 The property to the north is constructed in the bluff impact area. However, when this house was constructed (1992) there was no bluff impact setback required. Amendments to the Shoreland Ordinance that went into effect in September of 1995 included the bluff impact setback. The property to the north received a 21 foot variance to the OHW and an 8% impervious surface coverage variance. This resulted in a structure that is setback 52 feet from the OHW and a lot that has impervious surface coverage of 38%. VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance is literally enforced. In this case, there is a legal alternative for the applicant, and that is to build the proposed structure smaller to meet the setbacks as not to encroach upon the required setbacks. The building envelope can accommodate alternative layouts. However, the variance requests to lot area and width are existing conditions. There is a hardship with respect to the property because those dimensions cannot be changed to meet the criteria of the ordinance. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstances are the lot area and width. Considering that those are existing conditions created in 1930 and they cannot be altered to meet the ordinance requirements, hardships do exists for lot area and width. With respect to the setback variances, the applicant could reduce the size of the proposed addition to meet the required setbacks. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. The lot is considered to be substandard. The lot area is 7,374 sq. feet and the lot width is 49.53 at the required front setback. These are conditions which have been existing since the property was platted in 1930. The lot area and width are hardships that are not the result of the applicant's actions. The setback variance requests due to the size and shape of the proposed structure are controlled by the applicant. If the applicant reduces the size of the proposed structure and maximizes the area of the legal building envelope, the setbacks can be met and variances will not be necessary. The 97-012pc.doc Page 3 applicant has control over the proposed structure of which their size and location are not hardships. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The size and location of the proposed structure on the lot are not greatly inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The property to the north is setback 25 feet from the front property line and 54 feet from the OHW and is located within the Bluff Impact Zone. However, the property to the south (and several others in the Red Oaks addition) are older cabins and small vacant lots. Staff anticipates the future development of these lots into year round single family dwellings requesting similar variances. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded that the variance requests for lot area and width are substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no control over. However, there do exist legal alternatives for which the applicant could build the proposed structure. A reduction of the proposed dwelling and the full utilization of the legal building envelope are viable alternatives to the granting of setback variances. If variances to the Bluff Setback are granted, the Resolution should include specifications that storm water be diverted from the roof of the structure away from the bluff as to reduce erosion of the bluff. 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances 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. C NR I ' Staff recommends approval of the variances to lot width and lot area for the reasons discussed above. The attached Resolution 97-12PC is consistent with this recommendation. If the Commission agrees with this recommendation, a 97-012pc.doc Page 4 motion and second to adopt Resolution 97-12PC is needed. If the Commission feels additional variances are appropriate, you should direct the staff to prepare a resolution approving those variances with findings for Commission approval at the next meeting. 97-012pc.doc Page 5 RESOLUTION 97-12PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING A .47 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.53 LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET AND A 126 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT AREA OF 7,374 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE 7,500 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Pinnacle Partners has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-028 and held heatings thereon on April 28, 1997. 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 variances on the Comprehensive Plan. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase ,the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contxary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property, and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located. The unique circumstances applicable to this property include the substandard lot size, the fact that the property was platted prior to the incorporation of the city. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The granting of the variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants, but are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors listed above do not allow for an alternative location of the proposed structure without variances. The contents of Planning Case 97-028 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variances has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and approves the following variances for future development on the lot meeting required setbacks; 1. A .47 foot variance permitting a 49.53 foot lot width at the required front yard setback instead of the required 25 foot lot width. 2. A 126 square foot variance permitting a lot area of 7,374 square feet instead of the required area of 7,500 square feet to be buildable as a substandard lot. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 28, 1997. ATTEST: William Criego, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 1:\97var\97-028va\97-12PC.doc 2 LOCATION MAP ~7 16 -2 3 6 5 4 5 14 WIL~ SCC SURVEY PREPARED FOR.' PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP 14095 COMMERCE AVENUEN.E. PRIORLAKE~ MN. 55372 Valley Surveying Co., PA. SUITE I~O-C ) 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE~ MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 Got '~Z R~ OAK~, Scot~ ~nt¥,= Ni~neeote. Also eho~ing the locat[c~ o~ the 0 $0 60 SCALE IN FEE~' REVISED 4/4~D$ DECK TO BLUFF DIST. ......... DECK .................. ETTE_- : i KITCHEN i_ -. GREAT ROOM -D'tNt. NG F~OM-~ MAIN LEVEL ,CARA©E MSTR BEDROON~ - ~ BEDROOM o REDR OPEN TO BELOW -- T~L ..... f LEVEl (To be Submittnd with Building Permit Application) . For All Properties Located in the Sh°reland Distrmt The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address Lot Area '7, % 7~t Sq. Feet x 30% -- .............. E.: gt ~ *44-- ************************************************************************ LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET ~Z.. .. x ~q ft.. = I, IOtl . ~, x -t,o = TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE ...................... HOUSE ATTACHED GARAGE DETACHED BLDGS x (Garage/Shed) x TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ....................... DRIVEWAY/PAVED AREAS (Driveway-paved or not) (Sidewalk/Parking A!~eas) x = ~& at'/" TOTAL PAVED AREAS ......................................... PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS (Open Decks %" min. opening between boards, with a pervious surface below, are not considered to be impervious) TOTAL DECKS ........................................................ OTHER x -- X TOTAL OTHER. ...................................................... TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER/OVER Prepared By ~ Date Company [AI[,~ ..~_;zt, de~!~ ~.~A[ Phone#~3~,6~~.~ NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A .47 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.53 LOT WIDTH A T THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BE BUILDABLE; AND A 126 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A MINIMUM LOT AREA, ABOVE THE 904 ELEVATION OF PRIOR LAKE, TO BE 7,374 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 7,500 SQUARE FEET; AND A 23 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMITA 52 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (HOWL) OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET; AND A 26 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF THE BLUFF INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 30 FEET. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-'I (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS '15408 RED OAKS ROAD. You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, April 28, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: Pinnacte Partners P.O. Box 24038 Apple Valley, MN 55124 PROPERTY OWNERS: Pinnacle Partners P.O. Box 24038 Apple Valley, MN 55124 SUBJECT SITE: 15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22 Red Oaks, Scott County, MN. 97var\97-028va\97028pn.doc ! 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER REQUEST: The applicants have removed an existing cabin and are proposing to construct a new single family dwelling with attached garage and deck on an existing lot that is 49.53 feet wide at the front yard setback rather than the required 50 feet and 7,374 square feet in area rather than the required 7,500 square feet. The proposed structure will have a 52 foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake instead of the required 75 feet and a 4 foot setback from the top of a bluff instead of the required 30 feet. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. '1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447- 4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria. Prior Lake Planning Commission Date Mailed: April 16, 1997 97var~97-028va\97028pn.doc ~~°~rior Lake Planning Case File No. q~]-- ~Z Property Identification No. use APPLICATION 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 44%4245 Type of Application: [] Rezoning, from (present zoning) to (prnnosed zoning~ [] Amendment to City Code, Comp. Plan or City Ordinance [] Subdivision of Land [] Administrative Subdivision [] Conditional Use Permit [] Variance [] Other: Briefd~c~ptionofproposedpr~ect(a~ch ~ditional shee~narrafiveifdes~d) Commtru~t a new home on the proDerty. Applicable Ordinance Section(s): Applicant(s): pl nna~ e partners. L~d. Address: P.O. Box 24038 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Home Phone: N/A Work Phone: Property Owner(s) Jif different from Applicants]: Address: 432-7900 Home Phone: Type of Ownership: Fee x Work Phone: Contract for Deed __ Purchase Agreement Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): PID: 2504'2-0130 / ~ To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that appli nc~ Appl~an~ Fee Own] 'ns w~l no, be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee. ~/ ~'~q?;~.~ 4-2-97 lse~ ~'ohn Ryan, Pres. Date I P~T~RS, LTD. ~ 5[I ~ ~ ' 4-2-97 ~s' Si'i~n~al~re John Ryan, Pres. Date-- THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARrNG DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date lu-app2.doc Verlyn Raaen From: To: Subject: Date: Verlyn Raaen Jennifer Tovar Lot 22, Red Oaks Proposed House Survey Review Wednesday, April 23, 1997 11:27AM My comments re: the 4/4/96 [97?] revised survey are as follows: All the stormwater runoff originating on Lot 22 which can reasonably be conveyed to Red Oaks Rd. th¢ough the use of roof gutters and grading of the site must be so conveyed. The grading of Lot 22 from the proposed house out to the side property lines and out to Red Oaks Rd.adjacent to the side property lines must provide for drainage swales to convey surface stormwater to Red Oaks Rd. Any alterations proposed to be made to the "Bluff Impact Zone" will be required to comply with the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance. Erosion control is required to be maintained in good condition on this site whenever bare soil areas are present. Proposed improvements below elevation 904 are regulated by the DNR and may involve permit application prior to making improvements. Load limits on roadways may dictate that vehicles servicing this site lighten their loads. Page 1 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: PLANNING REPORT 4B CONSIDER ANNEXATION PETITION BY MESSENBRINK CONSTRUCTION OF 3t.25 ACRES LOCATED IN THE NE 114 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 12, SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORD NATOR _~: i~; DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES X NO-NIA APRIL 28, 1997 INTRODUCTION: Applicant: Location of Property: Zoning: Proximity to City Limits: Streets/Access: Public Utilities: Messenbrink Construction 7765 175th Street Prior Lake, MN 55372 This site consists of approximately 31.25 acres of land located south and west of County Road 21, west of County Road 87 (Revere Way), east of The Ponds Athletic Complex, and directly south of Waterfront Passage Business Park. The property is currently located within Scott County, and is subject to the Scott County Zoning Ordinance. Upon annexation, the property will be zoned A-1 (Agricultural) until the property owner petitions to rezone the property. This property is adjacent to the City limits along its northern boundary. This site is accessible from Fish Point Road, which currently ends at the northern boundary of this property. Sanitary sewer and watermain service can be extended to serve this property from the existing mains located to the north. 1:\97files\97anex\97031\97031 pc.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Cree[~ Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Hinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORllJNITY EHPLOYER This parcel is part of 270 acres owned by the developer. The developer has petitioned to annex the entire area; there are two petitions because ownership of the parcels is under two separate names, This property is currently located within the Orderly Annexation area in Spring Lake Township. The petitioner has requested the annexation of this property in order to develop the land with municipal services. The developer is proposing a mixed use development on the entire 270 acres. The development includes about 60 acres of industrial/commercial land in the eastern half of the parcel, It also includes a mixture of residential land uses, starting with R-1 development on the north side, then R-2 and R-3 development to the south and west. There is also a potential high school site consisting of 80 to 100 acres on this parcel. The total number of dwelling units on the site at buildout may vary from 400 units to 800 units, depending on whether or not the school district locates a high school on this site. The density of the site can range from 1.5 units per acre to 3 units per acre. The City originally proposed to include this site in the expanded Metropolitan Urban Service Area when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 1996; however, the acreage was removed from the MUSA when the Metropolitan Council allowed fewer acres in the MUSA than the City had originally proposed. The City has had some preliminary discussions with the Metropolitan Council staff about adding this acreage into the MUSA. The staff has given some preliminary indications that the area may be included in the MUSA if some of the new development can be used to satisfy some of the City's Livable Community goals. Minnesota Statutes Section 414.033, Subd. 2a, allows the City to annex land within an orderly annexation area if all of the landowners petition for annexation. A copy of this section is attached for your information. 1. Recommend the City Council approve the annexation as requested by the landowner. 2. Recommend denial of the annexation based upon specific findings of fact. RECOMMENDATION: This property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by municipal services. Staff recommends Alternative #1 N I · A motion recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance annexing this property. 1:\97flles\97anex\97031\97031 pc.doc Page 2 In an annexation petition, the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council. The Council will hold a public hearing on this item on May 19, 1997. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Copy of Hearing Notice 1:\97flles\97anex\97031\97031 pc.doc Page 3 414.0325 M~N~qESOTA .¥1L~ICI~L BOAR/) 484 that levy year. and the municipality may not levy on the annexed area until the tBllowing levy year. Sub& 5. Planning in the area designated for orderly annexation. A joint resolution may provide for-the establishment of a board to exercise planning and land use control au- thority within any area designated as an orderly annexation area puranant to this section, in the manner prescribed by Minnesota Statutes 1976, section 471.59. subdivisions 2 to 8. in- clusive. (al A board established pursuant to a joint resolution shall have all of the powers con- rained in sections 462.351 to 462.364, and shall have the authority to adopt and enforce the uniform fire code promulgated pursuant to section 299F. 011. (b) The joint resolution may provide that joint planning and land use controls shall ap- ply to any or all parts of the area designated for orderly annexation as well as to any adjacent unincorporated or incorporated area. provided that the area to be included shall be described in the joint resolution. (c) If the joint resolution does not provide for joint planning and land use control, the following procedures shall govern: If the county and townships agree to exclude the area from their zoning and subdivision ordinances, the municipality may extend its zoning and subdivision regulations to include the entire orderly annexation area as provided in section 462.357, subdivision l, and section 462.358, subdivision I. If the county and township do not agree to such extraterritorial zoning and subdivision regulation by the municipality, zoning and subdivision regulation within the orderly annex- ation area shall be controlled by a three-member committee with one member appointed from each of the municipal, town. and county governing bodies. This committee shall serve as the "governing body" and "board of appeals and adjusmaenrs", for purposes of sections 462.357 and ~.62.358. within the orderly annexation area. The committee shall have ali of the powers contained in sections 462.351 to 462.364, and shall have the authority to adopt and enforce the uniform fire code promulgated pursuant to section 299F. 01 i. History: 1978 c 705 s 14:ISpI981 c 4 art 1 s 171.172:1982 c 424 s 116:1983 c 18 s 1; 1988 c 719 art 5 s 84:1989 c 329 art 13 s 20:1Sp1989 c I art 2 s I1:1991 c 291 art 12 s 23; 1992 c 556 s 4:1994 c 51l s 3:1996 c 303 s 10-12 414.033 ANNEXATION BY ORDLNA-NCE. Subdivision I. Unincorporated property.. Unincorporated property abutting a munic- ipality may be annexed m the municipality by ordinance as provided for in this section. Subd. 2. Conditions. A municipal council may by ordinance declare land annexed to the municipality and any such land is deemed to be urban or quburban in character or about to become so if: (1) the Iand is owned by the municipality: (2) the land is completely surrounded by land within the municipal limits: (3) the land abuts the municipality and the area to be annexed is 60 acres or less. and the area to be annexed is not presently served by public sewer facilities or public sewer facilities are not otherwise available, and the municipality receives a petition for annexation from all the property owners of the land: or (4) the land has been approved after August 1, 1995. by a preliminary plat or final plat for subdivision to provide residential lots that average 21.780 square feet or less in area and the land is located within two miles of the municipal limits. Subd. 2a. Municipality may annex. Notwithstanding the abutting requirement of sub- division 1. if land is owned by a municipality or if ali of the landowners petition for annex- ation, and the land is within an existing orderly annexation area as provided by section 414.0325, then the municipality may declare the land annexed. This municipal action does'~ not otherwise affect the other terms and conditions of existing orderly anuexation agree-j ments entered into pursuant to section 4N-.0325. Subd. 2b. Notice required. Before a municipality may adopt an ordinance under subdi- vision 2. clause ¢2). (3l, or (4), or subdivision 2a. a municipality must hold a public hearing and give 30 days' wriuen notice by certified mail to the town or towns affected by the pro* posed ordinance and to all landowners within and contiguous to the area m be annexed, Subd. 3. Perimeter, acreage requirements. If the perimeter of the area to be annexed by a municipality is 60 percent or more bordered by the municipality and if the area to be annexed is 40 acres or less. the municipality shall serve notice of inmm to annex upon the town board and the municipal board, unless the area is appropriate for annexation by ordi- nance under subdivision 2, clause (3), The town board shall have 90 days from the date of service to serve objections with the board. Ifad objections are fotxhcoming within the said 90 day period, such land may be annexed by ordinance. If objections are filed with the board, the board shall conduct hearings and issue its order as in the case of annexations under section 414.03I, subdivisions 3 and 4. Subd. 4. [Repealed. 1978 c 705 s 33] Subd. 5. Petition, objections. If the land is platted, or. if unplatted, does not exceed 200 acres, a majority of the property owners in number may petition the municipal council to have such land included within the abutting municipality and. within ten days thereafter, shall file copies of the petition with the board, the town board, the county, board and the mu- nicipal council of any other municipality which borders the land to be annexed. Within 90 days from the date of service, the town board or the municipal council of such abutting mu- nicipaLity may submit written objections to the annexation to the board and the annexing mu- nicipality. Upon receipt of such objections, the board shall proceed to hold a hearing and is- sue its order in accordance with section 4-14.031, subdivisions 3 and 4. If written objections are not submitted within the time specified in this section and if the municipal council deter- mines that property proposed for the annexation is now or is about to become urban or subur- ban in character, it may by ordinance declare such land annexed to the municipality. If the petition is not signed by all the property owners of the land proposed to be annexed, the ordi- nance shall not be enacted until the municipal council has held a hearing on the proposed annexation after at least 30 days mailed notice to all property owners within the area to be Subd. 6. If also in board proceeding. Whenever a proceeding for annexation is initi- ated under this section ~tnd all or any part of the land is included in another boundary, adjust- ment proceeding pending before the board, no action thereon shall be taken by the municipal- ity, unless otherwise provided by an order of the board, until final disposition has been made of the petition pending before the board. Under this section the board will accept a waiver from all parties having a right to object, stating they have no objections to the proposed an- nexation and waiving the 90 day period before an annexation ordinance may be adopted. Subd. 7. [Wiling; effective date; copy, levies. Any annexation ordinance provided for in this section must be filed with the board, the township, the county auditor and the secretary, of state and is final on the date the ordinance is approved by the board. A copy of the annexation ordinance must be delivered immediately by the governing body of the municipality to the comes effective on or before August 1 of a levy year, the municipality may levy on the an- hexed area beginning wi~h that same levy year. If the annexation becomes effective after Au- gust 1 of a levy year, the town may continue to levy on the annexed area for that levy year. and the municipality may not levy on the annexed area until the following levy year. Subd. 8. [Repealed, 1980 c ,!-87 s 23] Subd. 9. Population, The municipal board in its approval letter may state the popula- tion of the area annexed by ordinance. The stated population shall be effective on the date of tl/e letter o~ ar a later date set in the letter. If population thformation is not contained in the petition or notice of intent for annexation and the annexation ordinance, the board shall not state the population. Subd. 10. Information to board. The municipal board may. at its discretion, require the city or property owners to furnish additional information concerning an annexation by ordi- nance to inform the board about the extent to which the proposed annexation conforms to the stamto~ criteria set forth in sections 414.01, subdivision l and 4 I4.03 l, subdivision 4. Subd. 1 I. Flootiplain; shoreland area. When a municipality declares land annexed to the municipality under subdivision 2, clause (3), or subdivision 2a, and the land is within a 486 designated floodplain, as provided by section 103F. 111, subdivision 4. or a shoreland area, as provided by section 103E205, subdivision 4, the municipality shall adopt or amend its land use conu'ols to conform to chapter 103F, and any new development of the annexed land shall be subject to chapter 103l. Subd. 12. Property. taxes. When a municipality annexes land under subdivision 2, clause (2), (3), or (4), or subdivision 2a. property taxes payable on the annexed land shall continue to be paid to the affected town or towns for the year in which the annexation be- comes effective. Thereafter. property taxes on the annexed land shall be paid to the munici- pality. In the first year following the year the land was annexed, the municipality shall make a cash payment to the affected town or towns in an amount equal to 90 percent of the properoj taxes paid in the year the land was annexed; in the second year, an amount equal to 70 percent of the proper~y taxes paid in the year the land was annexed: in the third year. an amount equal to 50 percent of the property taxes paid in the year the land was annexed: in the fourth year, an amount equal to 30 percent of the property taxes paid in the year the land was annexed: and in the fifth year. an amount equal to ten percent of the property taxes paid in the year the land was annexed. The municipality and the affected township may agree to a different paythent. Sub& 13. Electric utility service notice. At least 60 days before a petition is filed under section 414.0325 or this section, the petitioner must notify the municipality that the peridom er intends to file a petition for annexation. At least 30 days before a petition is filed for annex- ation, the petitioner must be notified by the municipality that the cost of electric utility ser- vice to the petitioner may change if the land is annexed to the municipality. The notice must include an estimate of the cost impact of any change in electric utility services, including rote changes and assessments, resulting from the annexation, History: 1969 c 1146 s 12; 1975 c 271 s 6:1978 c 705 s 15-21; 1979 c 50 s 52: 1985 c 30 s 2.3; 1991 c 29l art 12 s 24; 1992 c 556 s 5~8:1994 c 5ll s 4.-8:1996 c 303 s 13.1'4 414.034 [Repealed. 1978 c 705 s 33] 414.035 Dt~'FERENTIAL TAXATION. Whenever a board order, under section 414.031, 414.0325. or 4 i-1-.033, annexes part or ali of a township to a municipality, the board may provide that the tax rote of the annexing municipality on the area annexed shall be increased in substantially equal proportions over not more than six years to equality with the tax rate on the property already within the munici- pality. The appropriate period, if any. shall be based on the time reasonably required to effec- tively provide full municipal services to the annexed area. History: 1978 c 705 s 22:1979 c 50 s 53:1987 c 50 s l: 1989 c 277 art 4 s 46 414.036 MUNICIPAL REIxMBURSEMENT. When a board order under section 414,0325 annexes part of a town to a municipality, the orderly annexation agreement between the town and municipality may provide a reimburse- ment from the municipality to the town for all or part of the taxable property annexed as part of the board order. The reimbursement shall be completed in substantially equal paymentS over not less than two nor more than six years from the time of annexation. History: 1981 c 189 s l 414.04 [Repealed. 1969 c 1146 s 20] 414.041 CONSOLIDATION OF MUNICIPALITIES. Subdivision 1. Initiating the proceeding. Two or more municipalities may be the sub- ject of a single proceeding provided that each municipality abuts at least one of the included municipalities. The proceeding shall be initiated in one of the following ways: (a) Submitting to the executive director a resolution of the city council of each affected municipality: (b) Subm/tting to the executive director a petition signed by five pement or more of the resident voters of a municipality who voted for governor at the last general election: or : CITY O]F PRIOR LAKE NOTICE OF PUBLIC I-WAKING TO CONSIDER TI:YE A~NNEXATION PETITION OF ~Y[ESENBR.I1N-I( CONSTRUCTION FOR 31.25 ACRES LOCATED ]~N TI:[E NOR'ri-LEAST 1/4 OF TI-IE NORTI-~¥EST 174 OF SECTION 12, SPR.h~G LAKE TOWNSHIP You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City. Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at Prior Lake Fire Station #I, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, SE (Southwest of the intersection of CR. 2I and Fish Point Road), on .~'[ondav. _May 19. 1997, at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereat~er as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a petition to annex 31.25 acres of land located south and west of County. Road 21, west of County. Road 87 (Revere Way), east of The Ponds Athletic Complex and directly south of Waterfront Passage Business Park in the Northeast I/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Spring Lake Township. The subject site is legally described as follows: Legal Description: The Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter except the South 8.75 acres of Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Fourteen (I 14), Range Twenty-two (22), Scott County., Minnesota. A map of this area is attached for your information. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this public hearing. The Ci~ Council will accept oral and or written comments. If you have questions regarding this matter, contact the Prior Lake Planning Deparunent at 447-4230. ier, Plannin= Coordinator City, of Prior Lake Sent by Certified Mail on Friday, April 18, 1997. 1:\97 file$\97anex\97031\9703 l pn.doc I 16200 Ea~le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: NNIN RT 4C CONSIDER ANNEXATION PETITION BY DEERFIELD DEVELOPMENT OF 230 ACRES LOCATED IN THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 12, SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR~---~ DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ YES X NO-NIA APRIL 28, 1997 INTRODUCTION: Applicant: Location of Property: Zoning: Proximity to City Limits: Streets/Access: Public Utilities: Deerfield Development 7765 175th Street Prior Lake, MN 55372 This site consists of approximately 230 acres of land located south and west of County Road 21, west of County Road 87 (Revere Way), east of The Ponds Athletic Complex, and directly south of Waterfront Passage Business Park. The property is currently located within Scott County, and is subject to the Scoff County Zoning Ordinance. Upon annexation, the property will be zoned A-1 (Agricultural) until the property owner petitions to rezone the property. This property is adjacent to the City limits along its northern boundary. This site is accessible from Fish Point Road, which currently ends at the northern boundary of this property, and from County Road 87 (Revere Way) along the eastern boundary of the site. Sanitary sewer and watermain service can be extended to serve this property from the existing mains located to 1:\97files\97anex\97032\97032pc.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLO'~ER the north. ANALYSIS: This parcel is part of 270 acres owned by the developer. The developer has petitioned to annex the entire area; there are two petitions because ownership of the parcels is under two separate names. This property is currently located within the Orderly Annexation area in Spring Lake Township, The petitioner has requested the annexation of this property in order to develop the land with municipal services, The developer is proposing a mixed use development on the entire 270 acres. The development includes about 60 acres of industrial/commercial land in the eastern half of the parcel. It also includes a mixture of residential land uses, starting with R-1 development on the north side, then R-2 and R-3 development to the south and west. There is also a potential high school site consisting of 80 to 100 acres on this parcel. The total number of dwelling units on the site at buildout may vary from 400 units to 800 units, depending on whether or not the school district locates a high school on this site, The density of the site can range from 1.5 units per acre to 3 units per acre. The City originally proposed to include this site in the expanded Metropolitan Urban Service Area when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 1996; however, the acreage was removed from the MUSA when the Metropolitan Council allowed fewer acres in the MUSA than the City had originally proposed. The City has had some preliminary discussions with the Metropolitan Council staff about adding this acreage into the MUSA. The staff has given some preliminary indications that the area may be included in the MUSA if some of the new development can be used to satisfy some of the City's Livable Community goals, Minnesota Statutes Section 414,033, Subd. 2a, allows the City to annex land within an orderly annexation area if all of the landowners petition for annexation, A copy of this section is attached for your information. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the City Council approve the annexation as requested by the landowner. 2. Recommend denial of the annexation based upon specific findings of fact. DATI · This property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by municipal services. Staff recommends Alternative #1 ACTION REQUIRED: A motion recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance annexing this property. 1:\97fi[es\97anex\97032~97032pc.doc Page 2 In an annexation petition, the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council. The Council will hold a public hearing on this item on May 19, 1997. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Copy of Hearing Notice 1:\97files\97anex\97032\97032pc.doc Page 3 484 that levy year. and the municipality may not levy on the annexed area until the following levy year. Subd. 5. Pi;inning in the area designated for orderly annexation. A joint resolut/on may provide for-the establishment of a board to exercise planning and land use control au- thority within any area designated as an orderly annexation area pursuant to this section, in the manner prescrthed by Minnesota Statutes 1976, section 471.59. subdivisions 2 to 8. in- clusive. (a) A board established pursuant to ajoint resolution shall have all of the powers con- rained in sections 462.351 to 462.36,~. and shall have the authority to adopt and enforce the uniform fire code promulgated pursuant to section 299F. 01 I. (b) The joint resolution may provide that joint planning and land use controls shall ap- ply to any or all parts of the area designated for orderly annexation as well as to any adjacent unincorporated or incorporated area. provided that the area to be included shall be described in the ,joint resolution. (c) If the joint resolution does not provide for joint planning and land use control, the following procedures shall govern: If the county and townships agree to exclude the area from their znning and subdivision ordinances, the municipality may extend its zoning and subdivision regulations to include the entire orderly annexation area as provided in section 462.357, subdivision I, and section 462.358, subdivision 1. If the county and township do not agree to such extraterfitor/al zoning and subdivision regulation by the municipality, zoning and subdivision regulation within the orderly annex- ation area shall be controlled by a three-member ¢omm/ttee with one member appointed from each of the municipal, town. and county governing bodies. This aomminee shall serve as the "governing body" and "board of appeals and adjustments", for purposes of sections 462,357 and 462.358. within the orderly annexation area. The committee shall have all of the powers contained in sections 462,351 to 462,264, and shall have the authority to adopt and enforce the uniform tire code promulgated pursuant to section 299F. 01 i. I-Iistory: 1978 c 705 s 14:1Sp1981 c 4 are 1 s 171.172:1982 c 424 s 116:]983 c 18 s 1:1988 c 719 are $ s 84:1989 c 329 are 13 s 20; ]Sp1989 c 1 are 2 s Ii; 1991 c 291 are 12 s 23:1992 c .556 s 4:1994 c 511 s 3:1996 c 303 s 10-12 414.033 ANNEXATION BY ORDLNANCE. Subdivision 1. Unincorporated property. Unincorporated property abutting a munic- ipality may be annexed to the municipality by ordinance as provided for in this section. Subd. 2. Conditions. A municipal council may by ordinance deelare land annexed to the municipality and any such land is deemed to be urban or quburban in character or about to become so if: (1) the land is owned by the municipality; (2) the land is completely surrounded by land within the municipal limits: (3) the Iand abuts the municipality and the area to be annexed is 60 acres or less. and the area to be annexed is not presently served by public sewer facilities or public sewer thcilities are not otherwise available, and the municipality receives a petition for annexation t¥om all the property owners of the land: or (4) the land has been approved after August 1, 1995, by a preliminary, plat or final plat for subdivision to provide residential lots that average 21.780 square feet ur less in area and the land is located within two miles of the municipal limits. Subd. 2a. Municipality may annex. Notwithstanding the abutting requirement of sub- division I, if land is owned by a municipaliw or if all of the landowners petition for annex- ation, and the land is within an existing orderly annexation area as provided by section 4,14.0325, then the municipality may declare the Iand annexed. This municipal action does':\ not otherwise affect the other terms and conditions of existing orderly annexation agree-J menra entered into pursuant to section 414.0325. Subd. 2b. Notice required. Before a municipality may adopt an ordinance under subdi- vision 2. clause (2/. (3), or (-;), or subdivision 2a. a municipality must hold a public heanng and ~ve 30 days' written notice by certified mail to the town or towns affected by the pro- posed ordinance and to all landowners within and contiguous to the area to be annexed. Subd, 3. Perimeter, acreage requirements. If the perimeter of the area to be annexed bva municipality is 60 percent or more bordered by the municipality and if the area to be a~mexed is a0 acres or less, the municipality shall serve notice of intent to annex upon the town board and the municipal board, unless the area is appropriate for annexation by ordi- nance under subdivision I. clause (3). The town board shall have 90 days from the date of service to serve objections with the board, If no objections are forthcoming within the said 90 day period, such land may be annexed by ordinance. If objections are filed with the board, the hoard shall conduct hearings and issue its order as in the c~se of annexations under section 41<t.031, subdivisions 3 and 4.. Sabd, 4, [Repealed. 1978 c 705 s 33] Sabd. 5. Petition. objection. If the land is platted, or. if unpintted, does not exceed 200 acres, a majority, of the property owners in number may petition the municipal council to have such land included within the abunthg municipality, and. within ten days thereafter, shall file copies of the petition with the board, the town board, the coun~ board and the a/cipal council of any other municipality which borders the land to be annexed. Within 90 days from the date of service, the town board or the municipal council of such abu~ng alcipality may submit written objections to the annexation to the board and the mmexing mu- nicipality. Upon receipt of such objections, the board shall proceed to hold a hearing and is- sue its order in accordance with section ~14.031, subdivisions 3 and 4. If written objections are not submitted within the time specified in this section and if the municipal council deter- mines that prnpere/proposed for the annexation is now or is about to become urban or subur- ban ;n character, it may by ordinance declare such land annexed to the municipality. If the petition is not signed by all the property owners of the land proposed to be annexed, the ordi- nance shall not be enacted until the municipal council has held a hearing on the proposed m'mexation ~,ffer at least 30 days mailed notice to all property owners within the area to be annexed. Subd. 6. ifa[so in board proceeding. Whenever a proceeding for annexation is initi- ated under this section and all or any par~ of the land is included in another boundary, adjust- mere proceeding pending before the board, no action thereon shall be taken by the municipal- it'y, artless otherwise provided by an order of the board, until final disposition has been made of the petition pending before the board. Under this section the board will accept a waiver from all parties having a right to object, stating they have no objections to the proposed an- uexation and waiving the 90 day period before an annexation ordinance may be adopted. Subd. 7. l~iling; effective date; copy, levies..Any annexation ordinance provided for in this section must be filed with the. board, the township, the coun ,ty auditor and the secretary, of state and is final on the date the ordinance is approved by the board. A copy of the annexation ordinance must be delivered immediately by the governing body of the municipality, to the approptiato county auditor or auditors. For the purposes of tm'cation, if the annexation be- comes effective on or before August l of a levy year. the municipality may levy on the an- hexed area beginffmg with that same levy year. If the annexation becomes effective after Au- gust l of a levy year. the town may continue to levy on the annexed area tot that levy year. and the municipality may not levy on the annexed area ant, il the following levy year. Subd. g. ~Repealed. 1980 c 487 s 23] Subd. 9. Population. The municipal board in its approval letter may state the popula- tion of the area annexed by ordinance. The stated population shall be effective on the date of the [ett. e~ or at a [ater date set in the letter, £f population information is not contained in the petition or notice of intent for annexation and the annexation ordinance, the board shall not state the population. Subd. 10. Information to board. The municipal board may. at its discretion, require the city or properg' owners to furnish additional information concerning an annexation by ordi- nance to inform the board about the extent to which the proposed annexation conforms to the statutory criteria set forth in sections 41~-.0 l, subdivision 1 and ,1.14.03 l, subdivision 4. Subd. 1 i. Floodplain; shoretand area. When a municipality declares land annexed to the mUracipality under subdivision 2, clause (3), or subdivision 2a. and the land is within a 4S6 designated floodplain, as- provided by section I03E 111, subdivision 4. or a shoreland area, as provided by section 103F. 205. subdivision 4, the municipality shall adopt or amend its land use controls to conform to chapter I03F. and any new development of the annexed land shall be subject to chapter 103F. Subd. 12. Property, taxes. When a municipality annexes land under subdivision 2, clause (2). (3), or (4.). or subdivision 2a, property, taxes payable on the annexed land sha/l continue to be paid to the affected town or towns for the year in which the annexation be- comes effective. Thereafter, property taxes on the annexed land shall be paid to the munici. pality. In the first year following the year the land was annexed, the municipality shall make a cash payment to the affected town or towns in an amount equal to 90 percent of the property taxes paid in the year the land was annexed: in the second year. an amount equal to 70 percent of the property taxes paid in the year the land was annexed: in the third year. an amount equal to 50 percent of the property taxes paid in the year the land was annexed: in the fourth year. an amount equal to 30 percent of the prope~y taxes paid in the year the land was annexed: and in the fifth year. an amount equal to ten percent of the property taxes paid in the year the land was annexed. The municipality and the affected township may agree to a different payment. Sub& 13. Electeic utility service notice. At least 60 days before a petidon is flied under section 414.0325 or this section, the ~tifioner must notify the municipafity that the er intends to file a petition for annexation. At least 30 days before a petition is filed for annex- ation, the petitioner must be notified by the municipality that the cost of electric utility ser- vice to the petitioner may change if the land is annexed to the municipality. The notice must include an estimate of the cost impact of any change in electric utili~ services, including rote changes and assessments, resulting from the annexation. BJstor3': 1969 c 1146 s 12; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1978 c 705 s 15-21:1979 c 50 s 52; 1985 c 30 s 2,3; 1991 c 291 art 12 s 24; I992 c 556 s 5-8: 199,~ c 51] s 4-8:1996 c 303 s 13.14 414.034 [Repealed. 1978 c 705 s 33] 4.14.035 D~ERENTIAL TA3L4.TION. Whenever a board order, under section 4.14..031.4.14..0325. or 4.14..033. annexes par~ or all of a township to a municipalky, the board may provide that the tax rate of the annexing municipality on the area annexed shall be increased in substantially equal proportions over not more than six years to equality with the tax rate on the property already within the manici- pality. The appropriate period, if any. shall be based on the time reasonably required to effec- tively provide full municipal services to the annexed area. l"Iistory: 1978c 705s22: 1979c50s$3: I987c50s l: 1989 c 277 arr 4 s 46 414.036 MUNICIPAL REIMBURSEMENT. When a board order under section 414.0325 annexes part of a town to a municipality, the orderly annexation a~m-eement between the town and municipality may provide a reimburse- ment from the municipality to the town for all or part of the taxable pmperx3, annexed as pan of the board order The reimbursement shall be complemd in substantially equal paymentS over not less than two nor more than six years from the time of annexation. History: 1981 c 189s l 414.04 [Repealed. 1969 c 1146 s 20] 414.041 CONSOLIDATION OF MUNICIPALITIES. Subdiv sion Initiating the proceeding. Two ur more municipalities may be the sub- ject of a single proceed ng provided that each municipality abuts at least one of'the included municipalities. The proceeding shall be initiated in one of the following ways: (a) Submitting to the executive director a resolution of the city council of each affected municipality: (b) Subm/tting to the executive director a petition signed by five percent or more of the resident voters of a municipality who voted for governor at the last general election: or ~ t'NNES~ CITY OF PRIOR LAKE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ANNEXATION PETITION OF DEERFIELD DEVELOPMENT FOR 230 ACRES LOCATED IN THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 12, SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, SE (Southwest of the intersection of CR. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday. May 19. 1997. at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a petition to annex 230 acres of land located south and west of County Road 21, west of County Road 87 (Revere Way), east of The Ponds Athletic Complex and directly south of Waterfront Passage Business Park in the North 1/2 of Section 12, Spring Lake Township. The subject site is legally described as follows: Legal Description: That part of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) lying south of the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad right-of-way; the West Half (W 1/2) of the Northwest Quarter CNW 1/4); the South Eight and 75/100 (8.75) acres of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE 1/4 of NW 1/4); AND the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE 1/4 of NW 1/4); All in Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Fourteen (114), Range Twenty-two (22), Scott County, Minnesota, EXCEPTING from the above Registered Land Survey Nos. 19, 98, 114 and 128. And Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 114, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Scott County, Minnesota. A map of this area is attached for your information. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this public hearing. The City Council will accept oral and or written comments. If you have questions regarding this matter, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-,4230. ier, Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake Sent by Certified Mail on Friday, April 18, 1997. 1:\97filesX97anex\97032\97032pn.doc l 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior lake. Minnesota 5.5372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4-230 / Fax (612) 447-424-5 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER