HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-98REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1998
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Consider Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the City of Prior Lake for
regulations for Adult Uses, Communication Towers and Antennas, and Architectural
Standards.
$. Old Business:
A. Case #97-132, Continuation of Burdick Properties variances for rear yard setback
and berm slope for 14162 Commerce Avenue and 14180 Commerce Avenue properties.
6. New Business:
A. Case #97-118 Potential sale of City Property - Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center
First Addition.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 Ea~le ~e[~ ~ve.C~.~.,5~r~ior ~e. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 12, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The January 12, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego,:~gTkendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni.:~!::::~ssistant
City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Come Carl~!ii;i;:.
Roll Calh
Vonhof Ab
sent
Cfi
ego Present
Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the December S, 1998 ~ii~:9mmission m{~g were approved
ed ~6 p ................
Commissioner Vonhof arriv
A. Case #97-1~}~:~dick.~er~des:.re~t variances for rear yard setback
and berm slope for 1416~ili~:~$~ and 14180 Commerce Avenue
properties
========================================= .:::::.:::.::::::::
Plann~E}~ Tovar"~nted the::~l~ing Report dated January 12, 1998.
14!ilg~ii~OMMERCE A~NUE:
* A 2~i!~J: variance to g~it a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential
of 581;~:i:~t, rathe~:i:~ the required 60 feet for existing building; and
· A 2 foot ~iil~ permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum
allowed 6 f4~i~ight for additional screening between the adjacent residential
properties; ~8
· A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for
additional screening between the adjacent residential properties.
14180 COMMERCE AVENUE:
· A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned
residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and
h\98files\98plcotmn\pcminXmn011298.doc 1
· A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned
residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash enclosure;
and
· A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum
allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential
properties; and
· A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3. ~: ~[..
additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. ..................
The lots are located in the subdivision known as James 1st Addifi~i::~
properties are located within the B-1 (Limited Business) district.
14162 Commerce Avenue is 9,350 square feet with 37 p~::~i~s required
has 37 stalls. There is no undeveloped land where the ~agh enclosure can be relocat~ill
Building Permit #97-274 was issued after the site p!~.~? app~:~, by the Devel~ment
Review Committee (DRC). The approved plans inaic~/t~ ~:~9 ~t~§~tback to the face of
the building. The as-built survey indicates a utility area ff~ ~structed on the west side
of the building without prior approval fron~ the city. The bu~gt on the north end of
the building encroaches two feet into the:~gif~~ 60 foot setba~i~om:the residential
property to the west. Therefore, a 2 foot ~ g?:~ng reques!~::::
14180 Commerce Avenue is 10,400 square ~$ ~i~:'4~:::¢~t~: stalls required if the
building is used entirely as ~i~ (1 stall ~250 squ~ feet). With the recently
added parking to the wes[~ 0'f~!ding), th~i}ite has 51 parking stalls. If the use
changes to entirely retai~i~hen the p~king requirement will be 52 spaces (1 stall per 200
sq. feet of retail spa~}: ~urrent u~§ are professi~hl offices and a day-care.
and then there would not ~:[::~ugh ~/ii'l~h:~:~ the lot. The approved plans indicate a 59
foot setback to::th~:£ace of th~ ~i!ding on the west side, adjacent to the residential
propertm~i ~:~e as,~!~:surv y m~s a utility area was constructed on the west side of
the bml~l~tg w~thout ~ ~pprov~i:?:~m the c~ty. The 2.5 foot bump-out on the south
en~ ~he building encrOaChes in~ the required 60 foot setback from the residential
P~'~:.~9 the west. The~fore a 2.7 foot variance for the principal structure is being
requesf~i ::
The trash endt~e:~$g180 Commerce Avenue) was constructed on the lot in 1994 and
expanded in 19'~?~?~ccommodate the recently constructed building at 14162 Commerce
Avenue. The ci~ approved the construction of the trash enclosure and addition in error.
The trash enclosure is located 16.3 feet from the west property line abutting residential.
The required setback is 60 feet. Therefore, a 43.7 foot variance is being requested for the
trash enclosure.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to fence height to allow for increased
screening between the commercial uses and the adjacent residential uses. Zoning
Ordinance Section 6.11 C and 6.11 E allow for a maximum fence height of 6 feet. The
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc 2
applicant is requesting a fence height of 8 feet. The applicant has also met with the
adjacent residential property owners in an attempt to resolve the ongoing screening issue.
City Code Section 6.10 H allows for a maximum slope of a berm to be 3:1. As part of the
screening of the adjacent residential areas, the applicant is requesting a variance to the
slope of the berm. As of yet, staff has not received the specification on the proposed
slope as indicated in the variance application. Staffrecommends the Plm~
Commission continue this specific request until specifications are submi~ge
Planning Department. .::?::.i??:?:i:~!:iiii
Staff concluded the hardship criteria have been met, considering ~i:struc~{~i!~gre
existing and both sites are at maximum build out with respe~t!$~::p~ng and::~ggks.
Due to lack of pertinent information the variance request.:~i}~::~i~Pe should
continued ::*~:
Comments from the public: ?:' '"::~ ~ ..... ~
Mark Kelly, attorney for the applicant, B. C. Burdick and B'~I5 Properties, submitted
official written comments for the record. :~,:.Kelly felt the re~ ::yariances are good
housekeeping matters. His client did not': and w~i~::~t present for any
discussions prior to the sale Other
than the signed plat, there are no records in ~. S, Office. The
applicant met with the 1997 to
discuss screening. '~ sals outlined in Exhibit A. Mr. Kelly
:setback. They do not feel it
encroaches into the se{lS~ck The the building foundation not
the overhang.
Mr. : trash enclosure and the effective screening which
would ,ed the City's Code requirement for
The neighbors are requesting a 4 foot
This request would triple the cost of the landscape
maintaining their side of the fence. The
in this project. Applicant is trying to make the property
Street, Apple Valley, the landscape architect for the
applicant presea~l the landscape proposal which included the grading and plant
screening. He feels this will solve the screening element and meet the landscape
requirements.
Harry Ray, 5726 West 98 1/2 Cir., Bloomington, stated he was representing the neighbors
on Timothy Avenue. Mr. Ray explained his interpretation of an agreement from 1979
with the residents and developer. The berm has been changed for the last building. Mr.
Ray mentioned Timothy Avenue resident, Maureen Hermann inquired at the City as to
how the berm was going to be changed and was assured there would be no changes. He
l:\98files\98picomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc 3
went on to say there was a comedy of errors with this building because this building was
in the master plan in 1979 and did not have to go before the Planning Commission. The
neighborhood does not like the lights shining in the back of the building nor the garbage
pickup in early morning. In summary, the neighborhood would like to see higher
screening.
Maureen Hermarm, 14151 Timothy Avenue, felt the zoning was different ir}?.~79 with no
retail and perceives the City is violating Minnesota State Statutes.
Kansier explained the City Attomey Pointed out the d~scussmns b~::ln':~l[::~g9 in the
minutes are not enforceable. ::~.:::?::~i:
Harry Ray stated the City has not been able to come up wi~ ~:6~ginal plan.
this plan should have gone before the Planning Commi~h. T~ere is also a
large pipe that stops at the end of the development. Off'flor the ~hn concerns of
neighbors is the removal of the trash enclosures. ~::~e!ope~ ~:.the setbacks and
went ahead and built on the line and then come back to i~:: ~i~;: and ~k for a variance.
ighb
The ne orhood would like to resolve the matter before a ¥~ance is granted.
Maureen Hermarm, 14151 Timothy Aveh~!::~:~¢ is really thr~igy this whole
rezoning issue. She revealed they found tl~::oppi:6~&~[[~!~S fi.om.~he Assembly of God
archives. Mrs. Hermann felt this issue shoU[~be:~0~':~:~i~i: She felt the berm has
been there since 1981. Now ~i5 parking ~ihd the bui!aing and she is just finding
out there might be retail i~i~ ~i[~i~g. She 4~¢tioned how the City can just change the
zoning and asked ifa ng~t~ar wast6:~t~mp woulc~:~ gnt in. The foreman on-site told the
neighbors the berm ~ ~oing to S~ and conclu~::the matter is a mess.
Mr. Ray displayed a be~:i~!~ ~:~{ne and remarked the neighbors are
entitled to have the berm the::~::!t was intended to be.
StamsP~ ~estioned:~ipn the di~sion referenced in the Minutes.
Ti¢~ili~aid there was ref~ce but they did not state any specifics. The issue was sent to
the Ci~i~gprney for re'(i~ and the City Attorney responded that the minutes are not
enforceabi~i:: ?[ i:
....
Ross Stewart, i:~i~i~imothy Avenue, feels the enclosure is in an easement. He has a
document at ho~:'indicating the restrictions in a B2 Zone. Mr. Stewart spoke on
landscape and trash enclosure encroaching on the neighbors. He was told this summer
Burdick was going to put a fence 18 inches fi.om his property. He questioned how can
this be allowed. Another main concern is a parking lot. Mr. Stewart said if the Planning
Commission grants the variances the City is taking away the neighbor's legal rights.
Sandy Wright, 14300 Timothy Avenue, stated she does not own property next to the
Burdick property but her neighborhood is affected and she was concerned. She felt the
City's errors or oversights should not be paid by the neighbor's tax dollars. The City has
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc 4
back tracked. The neighborhood remembers the issues. Ms. Wright also stated the City
is afraid of being sued and is buckling under the City Attorney's advice. The Planning
Commission is the only hope for the neighborhood for mistakes made by the staff and
developer.
Maureen Hermarm, presented the document she obtained from the Assembly of God
archives. She feels the neighborhood is suffering fi.om lower property valu~a~
Additionally she now sees cars, snowplows and can even see in the wind~::::~e
building. The existing trees are too small. There is no privacy. She ~d to the people
planting the trees who told her they had to be planted the way they.:~!i~ause of the
utility lines running through the area. A 4 foot wall and. 8 foot f~,,: is n(~ii~g too
much. Mrs. Hermann pointed out the two zoning ordinance~:g[ii~.Hall.
Ron Olson 14291 Timothy Avenue, stated he lived in ~;~ ye~s and remembers":~s
Refrigeration said they would give until the neighbq:[~ ~9uld a~ He assumed t~e
would be records kept. Now the garbage and snow~ii:~ a[[ii~!~[:.long. He contacted
the garbage hauler and told him not to pick up the trash d~gii~e night. He also does
not like the snowplowing during the night as well. He feel~[:i~:~S a white wash and
hopes it all works out ....
Mr. Ray is seeking some uniformity with the north.
The public hearing was closed:.a~g:54 p.m ii}i}
Comments from the C~ission'~: :ii?i::::.:&
· Clarification from st~g~:::~i~::?' Tovar recited the zoning ordinance and
side note..[~g.to ove~.
· Kans~::::~}~e poli~::m differences.
· M~en Herm~i(ii~¢sentedii~ii~rdinance dated 5/25/96. Staffwill make a copy
.::~ return the doc~. '~'~
· ':.!i!?~[elly said they'~:~ not know the exact height of the original berm. It was
rerri~o accomm~ite the original plat submitted in 1997.
· Tov~"~ted th~i~i~ading plan with the existing grades. The existing grading does
match ~h~::'!~m~:'plan.
· Assistant Ci~ii~hgineer Sue McDermott stated the developer is not in compliance
with the ap~i~0ved grading plan.
Stamson asked developer to explain the proposed elevation height. Eldon Hugelen asked
the architect for the original grading plans and never received them.
Criego showed the original grading plan with the elevations in 1981.
l:\98files\98plcon~n\pcmin\mn011298.doc 5
Vonhof:
· Questioned engineering staff on the drainage issue brought by the neighbors.
McDermott stated to her knowledge, the catch basin was connected to the storm
sewer.
Kuykendalh
· Appreciates the neighbors being present. ~:::i~iii~ii!ii!~ iii?i::
· Concern the documents were drawn to scale :i:::i!
· Eldon Hugelen explained the vertical elevations change as you g~:i~:: His drawings
are a concept as opposed to an engineer's drawing ..... ??
· Mark Kelly stated it is not the intent to misrepresent anything!::?~he dr~ are to
reflect the discussions from the neighborhood meeting q~i~ber 11, 1~:
· Needs a drawing to scale showing existing condition~d then overlays with:~i?;::J:~, i ~
proposed concepts f:i?
· This is beyond the level of detail the Planning ~:.i~sion ~:::i~volved with.:
· Empathize the sound issue with the maintenance. .::::::¥::::: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::
·Concem a parking lot was built without a final grade.
· Stamson questioned the variances be£q~:~he Planning Co~iog:
· Tovar said the applicant has stated th~i~ i~im~:~o withdrawn i~i~ :fence and berm
request. She also explained the ordin~'~ii::~ifo~:a 30 inc~::~:~nn.
· Criego said it seems the developer has P~pos~i?~:~gi::~eyond what is the
ordinance and now add a ~?q~fence.
· Tovar explained the v~i:~::~:~::~:::~:~:~. ::::::::i:.
· Mark Kelly explain~::i~he prop~i is a come'at, on of satisfying the neighbors and
meeting the City G~es. The ~lay is a vis~i::~ffect.
Criego:
· Questioned.the master p~:~f 1979.
· Tovar~(~:.~i~ does ~i::~a¥:~icopy of what the neighborhood has presented
tq~t.
· ::?:::~ application did ~i:::have t$:'go before the Planning Commission because what the
~:::~::"~Iicant is asking is :~ ~ennitted use.
· Th~tding was notion the approved plans.
· Tova~:~the be~ ~:~ 20 feet wide adjacent to building #3. The berm was taken
down on::~d~:~::~5 for more parking. The old berm was wider than 20 feet.
· Would like tO:~ee the Minutes of this covenant in 1979.
· City Minut~:'are not enforceable.
· What are the ordinances relating to evening garbage pickup? Kansier explained there
are no hours for garbage pickup in a commercial districts.
· Highly recommend the neighbors to contact the garbage collector.
· Harry Ray said Mr. Boyles was going to propose to the city an ordinance that the
garbage not be taken before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Mr. Ray feels neighboring
cities have requirements.
· Questioned the restrictions on the utility easement across the property. Kansier said
you can build anything that is not permanent.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc
· Questioned trash container. Tovar said one trash enclosure was put in 1994. The
expansion was 1997. Tovar pointed out the enclosure is on the plans.
Cramer:
· Trash enclosures - Has the City recommended anything different? Tovar said the
City Attorney recommended the applicant apply for a variance.
· Questioned ordinance requiring trash enclosures in the back of a build~!i¢?Tgvar said
setbacks would still have to be met.
· Question to developer regarding the parking plan? Kelly said thg~':}~:,respond to the
concerns expressed by the neighbors at the December 4, mee~g!
· Question to developer regarding feeling they are at an imp~s~i:~ith the :h~bors.
Kelly said the neighbors have many suggestions. They ~!~!!:.~,The appli~) is to
the City not the neighbors. But they are trying to corae:~i;~:' ~o~:~ solutions
issues. They are trying to accommodate the neigh~:'and ~ty Code. The a
$20,000 Letter of Credit on the landscaping. T~:.~scapin~i~ay take a year'~fter
the issuance of occupancy. The City is the leg~ ~ ~3i::ii~i:iSsues not the
neighbors.
· Questioned the neighbors regarding ~ipage with the old~ and how it has
changed with the new berm. Mauree~?[~ said they d~!?~:~ave problem with
the old berm. The concern with the n~:¢:~:.~!i~i~t, all the d~hage from buildings 1
and 2 come to the middle and a pipe to ~h~ heX~i~.~!~age. :::They are also
concerned the additional h~d surface (p~g~i?:i~t) x~t~::~ain up to the homes. She
went on to say no one h~:~ ~em any~onnation"~:garding capping the end of
Kuykendall said th~ ~d to dete~ine the drai~ge issue. Is it capped? At who's
expense? Also the ~o~igaioa~:~ii~i::::i~::see overlays. The meeting needs to be
continued. He would lik~::~i~ the Minutes.
Vonho~:a~:::~!~kendali~:'~i:~uld like to see elevation maps. If the elevations
are no~ii~ complianc~::~i~:the gr~ plan. The zoning has not changed. When there is
a 9~ge it is published i~:::~e newspaper and nobody comes to the hearings. Also, a
c~i~ial district is ne~iio a residential use. The Planning Commission does look at
those i~'~a little bit die'rent trying to make those zones compatible. There are
solutions {~::i~e this.:~ai:ter compliable. Recommend to continue. Would like to see
full size map~:'~i~?:~ievation and approved plan. There was no requirement to have this
matter before th~?~:~ing Commission because it is a permitted use in the district.
Criego added it is important the City Engineer determine the capacity of the drainage
issue. Sue McDermott said the developer has submitted that information. The trash
containment should be properly shield and/or moved by developer. Possibly give up a
couple of parking spots.
Cramer commented on the proposal submitted by the neighboring residents and the
developer. Encouraged neighbors and developer to work together.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn01 ! 298.doc 7
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO
THE JANUARY 26, 1998, MEETING TO CONSIDER THIS MATTER FURTHER
AND OBTAIN INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED RELATIVE TO
THIS MATTER.
AMENDMENT BY KUYKENDALL, ADD A NOTE THAT THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR FIND OUT WHAT THE BUILDiNG DEPARTMENT DID 2~T TOOK
PLACE. HAVE THE SAME STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT AT
MEETING. VONHOF AGREED TO AMEND, SECOND BY CRIE~
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 9'01 m The meetin reconvened.:a~:9~:~:I
P g P
B. Case #96-126, Kelvin Retterath reqnesting:i::~ide yar~::.~:arianee for the:i~:
property at 16520 Inguadona Beach Circle.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report.
On October 28, 1996 the Planning Co~:~t~rpved a 7 foo~ ~t yard setback
variance for Dave Yearling and Karlynn B~o~:~ ~ ~ fror~t':~:~d setback of 18 feet
rather than the required 25 feet for a propos~gar~ ~:'~ehtial addition. The time
period to obtain necessary pe~¢g ~Fpired ofi:':~t~ber 28, .:1~7. Upon request of the
applicant, on December 15~::l~i~::City Council granted a 90 day extension to allow
the applicant until Jang~:28, 1998:!:~~ obtain th~::~¢essary building permits for the
The ground level of the ~:':~i~ ~i[be a garage and the upper level will be
living space ~9~:i~iPg ofa ~9m and bathroom. The living area of the addition will
be attach~:~::::~i~gg stm~er the front entry. On November I1, 1997 the City
recei¥~::i~:~uilding ~g:.applic~[:~'or the proposed addition. The survey indicated a
24 £~i"wide garage wii~ 8 foo~::~ide yard setback. This is different from Resolution
9~ ~::~::~C: which indicates:.~i ~2 foot wide garage with a 10 foot side yard setback.
The appl'i~:~ ~0ntends:.:j~ change was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting
on October ~ii[:~:t996::~a was given approval to make the change. Discussion by the
Planning Co~Bh specifically raised the question of the necessity for a side yard
setback varianc~?~urther discussion indicates that staff was under the impression this is
a substandard lot. This conclusion was made using the width at the front property line of
80.6 feet. The required front lot width for R-1 SD riparian lots is 90 feet. The actual lot
width is determined at the front yard setback. Due to the pie shaped lot, this scales out to
be 104.5 feet. Therefore, the lot is not substandard as originally thought and the required
side yard setback is 10 feet on both sides.
The applicant is requesting a 2 foot side yard setback variance to allow the project to
proceed as planned. Based on the outcome of the October 28, 1996 Planning
1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcmin\rnn011298.doc
Commission meeting, the applicant had revised all plans for a 24 foot garage and was
proceeding as approved and discussed on October 28, 1996 at the Planning Commission
meeting. The reasoning for the delay in applying for a building permit were delays in
obtaining financing for the project.
The applicant contends the misunderstanding by staff on the determination of a
substandard lot and the approval of the variance by the Planning Commiss!~g[~owing
the garage would be 24 feet wide is hardship to grant the side yard setb~gi~ee. The
applicant would have asked for a side yard setback variance at the timg~ii~ that what was
The staff has conclu?d the size and physical characteristics .~::~!~::~t are
outside the applicant s control. Staff recommends appro~i?:':'?~:~ ~:.::!? .....
Comments from the public: :~:i::!::?~i?~:i?i i~.:~?i :
Kelvin Retterath, 2618 Grove Lane, Mound, represented::'~:~[.~iican~ stating Planner
Jermi Tovar explained the proposal very well. He reviewed':~[~:.}~roposal and explained
the change in the plan.!~iil}i}~}~:!ii!::!::!~ .....
The public hear/rig was closed at 9:21 p.m~i!!iL '%~!iiiiiiiii::iiiii:i[:i?i?::::~:~ ....... ?
_
_
Comments from the Comm~Irs: *?::??::::: :i;?
· Reiterated the ~i~S from tt!~ii::~ctober me~ and concluded there would be a 5'
side yard setbad~:~ "~:i~o~ff.~ii~¢:~?~pplicant the impression they could go
to 5 feet.
· Kansier.:gSg~.the su~ard lot ordinances.
· Basec[:~::~i~nversat{~:s~ports variance request.
· '::::i:-::!~:~:~}ggt part of the P~g Commission, the encroachment is very minimal and the
Pl~g:Commissi~ili~ave the impression it was okay.
Stamson: ~:,:~
· Does not agree.
· Based on the discussion with the last hearing, the Minutes are not enforceable.
· Concern the Planning Commission is basing the decision on the Minutes from
October 1997.
· However, given the hardship criteria - agreed to approve the variance.
· Commissioners Vonhof and Kuykendall support variance.
l:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcminhrm011298,doc 9
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND AN AMENDED
RESOLUTION 96-35 GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD
SETBACK OF 18 FEET FROM INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE RATHER THAN
THE MINIMLFM REQUIREMENT OF 25 FEET AND A 2 FOOT SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 8 FEET RATHER
THAN THE REQUIRED 10 FEET FOR A PROPOSED GARAGE AND
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, : i:,1:~::
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED
C. Case #97-128, City of Prior Lake eo.nsidering a propo~!?;me~,t to the
City of Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan for th~ip?~rty loca~g! 5240
160th Street ....
Platming Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Pl~g Rep~!~ated January
1998.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment f~i::~:2010 Comprehensive Plan
changing property currently designated as C~Irtmunity Retail Shop~ilO the High Density
Residential designation. This amendment W~:.i~iiia~¢d.by the elannir~i::~mission on
December 8, 1997. The purpose of the amend~¢i:~i~::~!i}!!~ the devgi~¢ment of the property.
This site consists of approximately I. 1 acres of ~kcar/f!ihnd an~:~ i~¢ated at 5240 10th Street.
This site is at the northeast qu~i~:~:~e interse'~n of Fran~in Trail and 160th Street (CSAH
44). This property is identi~::~S ~ii~CommUn¢~ Retail Shopping) on the 2010
Comprehensive Plan. ~i~esignatio~:~ii§ characteri&~g~by retail shopping centers designed to
provide shopping and:~y¢nience facilities to a broa~ residential area.
The applicant is requesting::~l~:::~:::~:~ed R-HD (High Density Residential). This
designation is C!!~rgctenzed by ~}!ings other than single family detached houses at densities
.::i ......
Safe I!~n For Youth i~[~(/Posing ~[i~0nstruct a licensed residential facility for 7 to 16 clients
on;~i~jte. An applicatio~i~r a conditional use permit for this use is presently pending before
Commission.
Adjacent L~::[Jse, Co~khensive Plan Designation and Zoning: North: Across
Westwood D~::::~::va~'~i land, designated as C-CC and zoned B-1 (Limited Business). The
owner of this vae~ t~nd is in the process of applying for permits to construct a commercial
building. South: i~cross 160th Street (CSAH 44) is an abandoned ready-mix plant and senior
housing, designated as R-HD and zoned R-3. East: To the east are single family dwellings,
designated as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) and zoned R-1 (Suburban
Residential). West: Across Franklin Trail is a multifamily dwelling, designated as R-HD, and
zoned R-3.
This property has access to both Franklin Trail and Westwood Drive. The Scott County
Highway Department has indicated no access will be permitted on 160th Street (CSAH 44).
There are no sewer and water connections to this site; however, both sewer and water are
available from the existing mains located in Westwood Drive to the north.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc
10
This amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map was initiated by the Planning
Commission at the request of the developer of the site. The discrepancy between the existing
zoning of the property (R-3) and the Comprehensive Plan designation (C-CC) was discovered
during the staff's review of the conditional use permit application.
One of the criteria for granting a conditional use permit, as stated in Section 7.5 C of the Zoning
Ordinance, states "the proposed use sha(! preserve the objectives of this Ordina~i~.qhall be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan . The proposed use of this site, a lic~'~l~ential
facility, is not consistent with the C-CC designation of the property, althog~i!~{~[~$ permitted as a
conditional use permit in the R-3 district..This discrepancy is the basi~:.~[~?~::~dment to the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. :::::::: :::::
Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Ame~:':'~:~equested. :::::::::::::::::::::::
proposed designation of this site is consistent with the .~§iing ~gning of the site,
compatible with the adjacent property. This Amen~g[ will no~:~gnificantly impact
the amount of available commercial land in the Ci~!::::~::'~i~:i::.?:::~i::~ : :::::::::::::::::: ::::?:::
Comments from the public: :%}i:;~i:?:::~:~.?:::ii:~ ....
Larry Blakeborough representing his moi~i~ihas the neighb~::[~roperty
understood this property was zoned Cl. '~?: i: ":::~:':ii~i}i!i?:}:::~ii:~:~ ......
Dan Saad, applicant 14750 ~ ~sville i~ay, said:~' would explain more in the
next item. Feels staff did a~::~6/t~::iin explai~g the proposal and supports the change.
The public hearing S~ at 9:35 ~.
Comments from the C~~!i ::::ii::'ii::!iiiiii::~:::~
· The::~inal int~i~i~ to de~}~ the property residential.
· .::~{~ information is':~cient::?
· Agre~:~i~ staff's~ommendation.
· Approve ? ii ?~::i:::~ i ~::.d:?~?~
· Concur with staff's recommendation. There is a school, park and neighboring
residential area.
Vonhof:
· Hates to give up an acre at the intersection.
· The neighboring areas are residential and park.
· Not in favor.
1:\98files\98plcon'an\pcminkmn011298.doc I I
Stamson:
· Three of the four sides are surrounded by residential.
· Identified in the Comprehensive Plan as residential.
· The use would be appropriate. Rezone the rest of the block or amend the
Comprehensive Plan.
· R-3 is appropriate.
MOTION BY STAMSON, RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COLFNCII~::~2~: THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY FROM THE CG~i~ESIGNATION
TO THE R3 PROPERTY, SECOND BY CRAMER.
Discussion: :: i::: ::::"~: ~ .:
Kuykendall could rationalize either way but agrees with ~:::: ~ :~ : ........
es a better
transition. The use is not there today and nothin s taken awax~
::iii!
Vote taken signified 4 ayes, 1 nay. MOTION C~2~i
D. Case #97-117, Safe Haven Shelter for Yooth reqU~t~ a. Conditional Use
Permit for State licensed residential fagg~::~ing ~0 pers¢~:~:. ~he R-3 District
for the property located at 5240 160th
~:.iii. :
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning ~p~:~at~J~ 12, 1998.
The City received an app~i~;~::~?~ Conditi;~ Use Permit (CLIP) from Dan Saad on
November 17, 1997. ~§: item wag~:~riginally s6h~aled to be heard by the Planning
Commission on De~r 8, 1997?:hue to inc0~:~iency with the Comprehensive Plan
(guided commerciai5 ~:~:.p[~ii~g~.~zoning to commercial (as part of the
revised Zoning Ordinancej?:.~:.ii!tem w~ ~$h~ihued. During the continued public hearing
on the revis~:~::~p~gg. Ordin~::[~he applicant requested this property remain zoned
residen[ig?i:~:~i~g Co~ ~amended the proposed zoning of the lot to remain
residential and direct¢~::~kaff to pre~e a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate
th~ use guide as reil~jatial. ~he applicant has requested the CUP be reviewed
c~!ly with the Co~iJrehensive Plan Amendment. Notices were re-sent regarding
this puBi~}::~aring. ?~ i~}:
The applica~i~Po~~::m construct a single family dwelling for the purpose of a state
licensed resider~j?i~acility serving 10 persons. The property is on the northeast comer of
Franklin Trail ~d 160th Street (Exhibit A). The proposed split level home will have a
total of 2,700 square feet on two levels with a 624 square foot attached garage (Exhibit
B). The house will have typical single family kitchen and dining area and living rooms
with 2 or 3 bathrooms and 6 bedrooms. The property is zoned R-3 Multiple Residential.
"State licensed residential facilities serving 7 to 16 persons" is a conditional use in the R-
3 zone.
Safe Haven Shelter for Youth is a non-profit organization, licensed by the state, to
provide group residential facilities. This is a Rule 8 group home for youth ages 8-18.
1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc
12
MN Statute 462.357 (or 245A. 11, Exhibit C) Subdivision 3, provides for legislation
regarding zoning of group homes. Safe Haven currently has a home serving 6 persons
located at 16706 Dublin Road in Prior Lake, which opened in February 1997. Attached is
a copy of the police report for the facility on Dublin Road (Exhibit D). Group homes
serving 6 or fewer persons are permitted in the R-1 Residential zoning district. The home
will serve the counties of Dakota, Scott, Le Sueur and Carver. The youth are referred by
county social services or are court ordered to the group home.
Activities at the facility are very similar to those at a single family re~ge Visually,
the house is designed to blend in with the neighborhood. Vehicles :0~:~:~ii~nclude a van
for transporting the residents and empl~)yee vehicles There are g~dule~ ~tdoor
recreation activities such as football. The property is maintaig~:~5~ithe staff:~}~ed
contractors including lawn maintenance and snow remov~ ~:i:::~i :. :~:: :
Upon request of the Planning staff, the applicant he[~!~:~iiiinform~i~rtal meeting on
Tuesday, January 6, 1998 to answer general questi~::the ~k!~0rhood
The proposed CUP should be reviewed in accordance with ~i~teria found in Section
7.5 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance. Section~!:~) provides A c6~!~pg~ use shall be
approved if it is found to meet specific c~:~::iii:?~iiii::i~:.~
Staff concluded the proposed use would be'~:'~pr~i~ ~}!::i~cation and blend into the
neighborhood. Staff recomm~:.::~proval o~"CUP wi~:.~e condition two front yard
trees be planted in each frg~{ii:~i~i~equired ~i~e Subdivision Ordinance for new lots
of record and the Comprehensive P~ Amendm~g[ !~ Residential High Density (R-HD)
be approved. ::::::: :::: ?:::::: .... ~!:::?? ii~?!?
Comments from the pu~i~ i!:' ....................
Applican~ig~:~i~::~:~750 ~ville Parkway, said he is familiar with Prior Lake
and has~n a High":~l coacl~i~"~e 1993. He explained the boys are appropriate for
the::~unity and are':~:.~ye in c:~mmunity programs. Staffing ratios are 1 to 3
sa~pn. Mr. Saad re, i::~ letter of support from Ted Newcome, a neighbor on Dublin
Road. ::~ii~lar letter o~::~fipport from a neighbor on Erin Circle was submitted. ~he
program '3~pr for th~:ihcility was also present for any questions.
.... ::::::::::::::::::::: ......
Starnson aske~'~i::~e plan was for the Dublin Road facility. Saad explained the boys
will transfer to ~:'new facility and hopefully start a girl's facility on Dublin Road. The
facility will be finished right away.
Kuykendall asked if they were non-profit. Saad said they are tax exempt just like a
church would be.
Criego questioned the floor size. Saad responded the home on Dublin Road works very
easily for 6 clients. The proposed downstairs will be recreational with three bedrooms. It
is a 6 bedroom home. The office will be in the pomh.
1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm011298.doc 13
Dallas Blakeborough, representing his mother with the neighboring property said he was
hoping the zoning would stay the same because then part of her (his mother's) property
could be in the commercial district. He is concerned with the nmaways in the police
report noting an elementary school and elderly home is right next door. He asked Mr.
Saad about the availability of boys fi.om other counties. He said Saad responded that the
counties are playing hardball, if they do not agree with the program they w~.~pt use it.
Mr. Blakeborough said a halfway house was stopped fi.om coming into thd:~i~borhood
a while back.
Peggy Howell, 9642 86th Street, Program Director for the existi~:~hcili~:~'~dressed
some of the issues above. First, the elementary school - she ~.~::~rogram ~ger for a
10 bed facility next to an elementary school. There were ~i~s and had
comfortable position with the school. Safe Haven has ~i/'been..a very comfortabl~4i?.?,i::
relationship with the neighbors. Secondly, Scott Co~ is ve~:~imited in where t~y are
placing children. They may not meet the strict cnt~na':~fe ~m!~:, It terms of
rtmaways - one of the things you will find that differentigf~ ~r facilities, it is a strict
environment. Once a child leaves the facility they are consi~, a runaway. There are
continual head counts regarding the care :~::~h~ children.
Stamson asked about where the children aX~i~omi~i~::::Ms, l-I~ell responded there
are many scenarios and gave examples. Th~::ifoste~i~ar~::tSdffi~g?:~e overloaded. The
majority of children come fr0~!aek of foster~e. She al~::~xplained age limit
openings. :
Lawrence Blakebor0g~ is very c~emed for th~ ~fety of the neighborhood bringing
in boys fi.om other ~s. and.:l~g:~m~ values.
Renee Kaiser:~g~:!ken, 15053::~reen Oaks Trail, has been working as a counselor at Safe
Haven. ~ii~ ~6?:~gi:!dren ~?~,.::~:5 and feels her children are very safe with the
client~:gafe Have~! :?:~he is als6:~f~fOrtable with her own safety. It has been her
exl~:~ce it is safe. ?'?.;:?!?, '~:??~
The ptiB~}ii~earing was cited at 10:15 p.m.
Comments i'i~. th~ ~bmmissioners:
Cramer:
,, While it is difficult for some neighborhoods, this sounds like it was a very sound run
facility. There should be some conditions.
* It meets what we are trying to do in this community.
· Supported request.
Vonhof:
· Is this going to be a lock down facility? Saad responded it would not.
· What type of fire protection? Saad said they have to have meet State Fire Code.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298,doc 14
· Going to recommend additional fire protection and prevention via a sprinkler system.
· Support.
Under new zoning ordinance for use with conditions with 6 to 12.
Kuykendalh
Agreed with Commissioner Vonhof.
· Agreed
Add condition indicate the quality use for EBD only. Any o~i~e~?~:.gse they
would have to come forward.
Stamson:
· Support the CLIP.
· Needed in the community.
· Appropriate area.
Tovar read through the conditions.
1. The Comprehensive Land Use G~:~i~ii~:~r~dment ~t be approved. The
amendment changes the land use designati~, fi-o~!i:~i}~unity Commercial to R-
HD High Density Residential.. ................
2. The, applicant mUS~?:::~ubmi{~ri::~::~:iandscape:~!an indicating size, species and location
of two 2V~ trees er fr~ yard pri~ii~o the issu~::i~fa building permit
3. Prior to the iss~.:o~::i::~iiii~i~}?~i~it, the property owner must sign and
record the necessary doc~t:, granting the 1 foot sidewalk easement to the City as
indicated ~ii~i~7. includ~?~gga!:,~tescfiption as per amended Exhibit A.
4. ::?:::?[}i?:~The improvem~g~ must ,.~ done before certified copies of the resolution are
r~d for recording a~:'~:}~¢ county. The applicant has 30 days to submit plans that are
~e~:'~:~gegluirements of~ ordinance and conditions set forth upon approval (City Code
Section::~SB). The ~licant has until one year from the date of adoption of the
resolution 15~iiii~~ C!:~iii~ouncil to complete the required improvements and record the
resolution or fl~i~o~itional Use Penrfit becomes null and void (Section 5-6-8).
5. The applicant must comply with engineering memo dated January 9, 1998,
including 85 feet from the center line of Franklin Trail.
6. The group home is for youths only aged 8 to 18.
7. The group home will be used for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD)
clients only.
8. Limit to 10 clients.
h\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\rnn011298.doc 15
9. The building must have intemal sprinkling system for additional fire protection.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR SAFE HAVEN AT 5240 160TH STREET, WITH THE
CONDITIONS NOTED ABOVE AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN ~::~TAFF
REPORT
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
E. Case #97-127, City of Prior Lake considering a pr?~g:~iamend~::~o the
City of Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan ch~!~ffi:~:ffi~ designati°~i~[ ~:.:
property located at 6867, 6885 and 6899 Boudin Str:?i~?trromLow ..... to Medium
Density Residential to the Community Retail Sh~!~g desi [i0n.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the elanni~i:~el~ d~i~d January 12,
1998.
The purpose of this public heating an ~/i~ent to the 2010
Comprehensive Plan to the Community ~aii:§~g~:~esign~{ion. This amendment
was initiated by the Planning Commissio~:::as ~:?~:bst/tF:~:::.~i~Cussion on the proposed
Zoning Ordinance. :::: :ii!i:!:i :'~
This site consists of app[~imately 2!~ acres of [~gd.gnd is located at 6867, 6885 and 6899
Boudin Street. This prgge~ is locat~}~n the west S!~i~f Highway 13, directly south of Boudin
Street, and is the site:~t~ :~ater~c~g~fi~g,:~Ui!~i~ and marina.
This property is identified as ~ (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2010
Comprehens~ ~?. ~is desi~9~3 is fharactefized by a low to medium range of residential
Tt~ii~posal is to design~i~?!ii~is pr°~rty for C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) uses. This
d~i~ is characterize~!i~/retail shopping centers designed to provide shopping and
conveni~:facilities to a ~i6ader residential area
Under the piS~ Z?~i~g Ordinance, this property will be zoned C-2 (Community Business).
The purpose of ~}~i~:h'ict is to allow the concentration of general commercial development for
the convenience o~he public.
This property is the current site of an office building and marina. There is no proposal to change
these land uses.
This amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map was initiated by the Planning
Commission as a result of discussions on the proposed Zoning Ordinance. The property owner
requested the C-2 zoning district in order to allow uses more suitable to property with highway
frontage, than uses in the C-1 district, which are primarily neighborhood oriented. The Planning
Commission agreed the property should be zoned C-2. Upon review of the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map, it was discovered the designation of this property is not consistent with the
1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcmin\rrmO I 1298.doc
16
proposed zoning, or even the existing zoning. Therefore, the Planning Commission initiated this
amendment.
Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as requested. The
designation of this site is consistent with the proposed zoning of the site.
Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, was present on behalf of th~:::~!eks who own
the marina and building. The owners of the lot support the propos~i:~ent and ask
the Planning Commission to do the same. The property is adjac~i~0 I-Ii~/~ 13 and
the structures on the property make it appropriate for the zon¢~!g~e. It is
designation use and would be consistent with the Comprehe~ ~.
Bill Allen, 6823 Boudin, lives in the neighboring to~Omes, ~::~ concern for c~;~ing
the zone to complete commercial with bars and res~¢:. Kan~}i~plained restaurants
are permitted now and went on to explain the Comprehe~gg:~gl'an iS::~6onsistent with the
zoning. It also allows the marina to continue as a conform~}i~:~. It maintains the
existing uses. Concern for the private ro~i~h~t runs along the::~per~g, Traffic would be
The public heating was closed at 10:36 p.~! i:ii?~:~
Comments from the Com!!!i~i~gs:
· Supports Comp~i~e .................
· It i~i~tly reflecting ~at it is now. The use is not changed.
Commissio~(~r~¢ and Stamson supported the amendment with out comments.
COUNCr OPT A P SO U ON eaOWN THt . m N WNT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE ~ DESIGNATING THIS eaOe~V. TY C-
CC.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Old Business:
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn011298.doc 17
Commissioner Kuykendall would like Staff to obtain a comprehensive plan map or
zoning map for Savage.
Commissioner Kuykendall gave a overview of the Downtown Steering Committee.
Concern for high traffic on County Road Rd 21.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. .......
Donald Rye Connie Carlsol~i?::::~ii!ili!!iiiiiiiiili~:.
Director of Planning Recording S~tary'::~ili!iiiiiiiiiii~
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminh-nn011298.doc
18
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADDITIONS TO
THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE NEW ZONING
ORDINANCE AND A ZONING MAP
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
JANUARY 26, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 22, 1997, to
discuss the proposed zoning ordinance and zoning map. The Planning
Commission continued the public hearing on November 24, 1997, and further
discussed the ordinance on December 8, 1997. After that discussion, the
Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the City Council on the
information included in the proposed ordinance.
At this time, the public hearing is to discuss additional items which were not
included in the draft of the proposed zoning ordinance. Specifically, these items
are some additional amhitectural design requirements currently found in the
Building Code chapter of the City Code, provisions for Antennas and Towers,
and provisions for Sexually Oriented Uses. These provisions are discussed in
more detail below.
Architectural Requirements:
There are currently architectural requirements located in the Building Code
Section of the City Code (See attached Section 4-7-1 to 4-7-6). Since the
proposed Zoning Ordinance includes architectural design requirements, it makes
sense to incorporate these existing provisions into the Zoning Ordinance, and
delete them from the Building Code provisions.
The staff reviewed the existing provisions and determined that only a part of the
requirements are relevant. Portions of Section 4-7-1 have been incorporated
into the proposed Zoning Ordinance as shown on the attached pages. Sections
4-7-2 through 4-7-6 can be deleted, since these provisions are already covered
in the new Ordinance.
I:\n ewzo ne\misc\0 J:26 p~.doc ~P~@ 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. ~.E.. r'rior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61;'1 ~47-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Uses Subject to Change
Section 510.100 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance outlines "Uses Subject to
Change", such as antennas and towers and sexually oriented businesses. Due
to the sensitive nature of these uses, they are often subject not only to local
zoning regulations, but to State and Federal regulations as well. It seemed
prudent to create a section for each of these uses, so that they could be easily
amended from time to time.
Towers and Antennas:
The specific provisions for Towers and Antennas are attached to this report.
These provisions outline where these uses ara allowed, and the specific criteria
for towers and antennas. Briefly, they are permitted in all use Districts as Uses
Permitted With Conditions. Height and setbacks are more restrictive in the
Residential Use Districts than in the Commercial and Industrial Districts. The
regulations also discuss amateur radio antennas, which are primarily regulated
by the Federal Communications Commission.
Sexually Oriented Business:
While the need to regulate these uses is apparent, it is important that the
regulations are not so severe as to preclude the uses or regulate free speech.
The attached provisions attempt to accomplish this goal.
Briefly, the uses are permitted in the C-3 (Specialty Business), C-4 (General
Business) and I-1 (Industrial) districts and in the A (Agricultural) district. The
uses are subject to a 350' distance separation from any residential use, and from
other uses associated with children, such as playgrounds, schools and libraries.
The uses are also subject to a 1,000' separation from any other similar use. IN
the A district, the uses require a minimum 40 acre lot area, and a 500' lot width.
The Ordinance also restricts the size of these uses, and applies regulations to
the operation of these types of businesses.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission should review these provisions and discuss changes
or modifications.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve these sections as a part of the proposed
Zoning Ordinance as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning
Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny these sections.
h\newzone\misc\01-26pc.doc
Page 2
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purposes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed provisions to the
Zoning Ordinance.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1, Sections 4-7-1 of the Current City Code
2. Changes to Architectural Design Provisions
3. Proposed Provisions for Towers and Antennas
4. Proposed Provisions for Sexually Oriented Businesses
I:\newzon e\misc\01-26pc.doc Page 3
4-7-1 4-7-1
CHAPTER 7
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND MATERIALS
SECTION:
4-7-1:
4-7-2:
4-7-3:
4-7-4:
~--7-5:
4-7-6:
Elevations, Arcl~itectural Design, Exterior Facing
Useable Materials
Alternate Materials
Pole Building
Zoning Codes
Appeals
4-7-1:
(A)
ELEVATIONS, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, EXTERIOR
FACING:
Building Permit: The application for a building permit, in addition to
other information required, shall include exterior elevations of the
proposed structure which will adequately and accurately indicate the
height, size. design and the appearance of all elevations of the
proposed building and description of the construction and materials
proposed to be used therein. The exterior architectural design of a
structure shall not be so at variance with the character of the
applicable zoning district established by the Zoning Code of the City
as to cause a substantial depreciation in the property values of said
neighborhood within said district or elsewhere, or adversely affect
the public health, safety or general welfare.
Individuals, builders or groups of builders shall not construct a house
design which has identical front elevations to any home or proposed
home where a building permit has been issued with the following
exceptions:
1. Identical front elevations may be allowed on no more than twenty
five percent (25%) of platted lots within a block. However, identical
front elevations shall not be allowed on adjacent Iots or in cul-de-sac
turnarounds.
695
City of Prior Lake
4-7-1
4-7-3
(B)
2. The provisions of this Section apply to PUD developments but
may be modified with the consent of the City.
3. This Section applies only to single-family homes. (Ord. 95-06,
3-20-95)
Required Submittals: When required by the Building Official, the
permit applicant shall be required to submit exterior elevations of the
proposed structure, and photographs of the front exterior of
neighboring homes, in addition to all required materials for building
permit application. A list of exterior finish materials and colors may
also be required. (Ord. 90~11, 10-15-90)
4-7-2: USEABLE MATERIALS: No building permit shall be issued
for any structure for which a building permit is required which
contains exterior facing materials which rapidly deteriorate, of which for any
reason are, or quickly become unsightly. The following are examples of
such materials: concrete masonry units, common clay brick, sand lime
brick, concrete brick, unfinished structural clay tile, sheet metal, either
corrugated or plain, and exposed unfinished concrete. Such materials,
however, may be used in a special arrangement or combination with other
materials of a permanent nature with good architectural design and appeal.
The provisions of this Section shall not apply to building permits issued for
structures in Zoning Districts A-1 or C-1. (Ord. 79-5, 12-8-80)
4-7-3: ALTERNATE MATERIALS: In the event an owner, intending
to apply for a building permit, desires to use any of the
materials included under Section 4-7-2 above as exterior finish materials,
such owner may present to the Building Inspector a request for preliminary
approval for the use of such materials prior to the preparation of final
drawings and application required by other sections of this Chapter. Such
request for preliminary approval shall include such sketches and other
information as may be necessary to indicate accurately the use to be made
of such materials and the appearance of the exterior of such structure when
completed.
If such request for preliminary approval of materials granted by the City
Planner and Building Inspector or the Council, as the case may be, the
sketch and other information shall be properly marked for identification by
the Building Inspector and be filed in his office and such data shall become
a part of the building permit application when filed. (Ord. 79-5, 12-8-80)
695
City of Prior Lake
4-7-4 4-7-6
4-7-4: POLE BUILDING: A pole building which shall be understood
to mean any building using wood or metal poles as a principle
structural support to achieve alignment and bearing capacity shall be
permitted in Zoning Districts A-1 or C-1 and only in any other district upon
approval by the City Council. Said Council shall exercise its discretion in
determining whether or not a building of such type will be compatible with
the surrounding area. Such structures may be authorized by the Council for
use as warehouse, heavy equipment storage, or other uses which would
tend to be compatible with that type of structure and in a location where it
would not be offensive to other property owners or persons within the City.
(Ord. 79-5, 12-8-80)
4-7-5: ZONING CODE: This Chapter shall be deemed
supplementary to the Zoning Code, Subdivision Ordinance
and the Construction Code of the City and shall be enforced in harmony
and in conjunction with each. (Ord. 95-06, 3-20-95)
4-7-6: APPEALS: Any person aggrieved by a decision of the
Building Inspector regarding the use of certain materials or
regarding questions of architectural design shall be entitled to appeal the
Building Inspector's decision to the Planning Commission and, if still
aggrieved, he may appeal to the City Council. (Ord. 95-06, 3-20-95)
695
City of Prior Lake
To be added to Section 507.2200 Architectural Design Standards:
507.2202 (9) Individuals, builders or group of builders shah not construct a house
design which has identical front elevations to any home or proposed home
where a building permit has been issued with the following exceptions:
a. Identical.front elevations may be allowed on no more than 25percent
of platted lots within a block. However, identical front elevations shah
not be allowed on adjacent lots or in cul-de-sac turnarounds.
b. The provisions of this Section apply to Planned Unit Developments
and Conditional Use Permits, but may be modified with the consent of
the City Council.
c. To determine compliance with this Section, the Zoning Administrator
may require the permit applicant to submit exterior elevations of the
proposed structure, and photographs of the front exterior of
neighboring homes, in addition to aH required materials for a building
permit application, listed in Section 509.501 of this Ordinance. A lit
of exterior finish materials and colors may also be required.
Changes to Section 509.500. Addition to Section 509.501 shown in italics.
509.500
509.501
Building Permits. No person shall construct, alter or expand a structure
within the City of Prior Lake without first obtaining a building permit.
An application for a building permit shall be on a form provided by the City
and shall be accompanied by the appropriate attachments including, but not
limited to, the following:
(1) A current survey of the property, unless exempted under subsection
__ of the City Code and/or a site plan drawn to a scale not to exceed
1 inch to 50 feet showing the proposed size and location of the structures,
bufferyards, parking areas, drainage, lighting, loading berths, and
landscaping existing on the site or to be installed on the site.
(2) A statement of the proposed use of the property.
(3) Exterior elevations of the proposed structure which will adequately and
accurately indicate the height, size, design and the appearance of all
elevations of the proposed building and description of the construction
and materials to be used therein.
(4) Any other information the Zoning Administrator may require to
determine compliance with the provisions of the Ord'mance.
l:~newzoneX97zonord\bldgcode.doc I
511.100
511.101
511.200
TOWERS AND ANTENNAS
Purpose and Intent. In order to accommodate the communication needs of
residents and businesses while protecting the public health, safety and general
welfare of the community, the City Council finds these regulations are
necessary to:
(1) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to
accommodate new wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce
the number of new towers necessary to serve the community;
(2) Ensure antennas and towers are designed, located and constructed in
accordance with all applicable code requirements to avoid potential
damage to adjacent properties fi.om failure of the antenna and tower
through structural standards and setback requirements;
(3) Require antennas and tower sites to be secured in order to discourage
trespassing and vandalism; and
(4) Reqtftre tower equipment to be screened from the view of persons located
on properties contiguous to the site and/or to be camouflaged in a manner
to compliment existing structures to minimize adverse visual effects of
antennas and towers.
Definitions.
Antenna. Any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or
transmitting electromagnetic waves, including but not limited to directional
antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes, and satellite dishes, and omni-
directional antennas, such as whip antennas.
Commercial l~ireless Telecommunication Services. Licensed commercial
wireless telecommunication services including cellular, personal
communication services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced
specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services that are
marketed to the general public.
Public Utility. Persons, corporations, or governments supplying gas, electric,
transportation, water, sewer, or land line telephone service to the general
public. For the purpose of this ordinance, personal wireless services shall not
be considered public utility uses, and are defined separately.
Satellite Dish Antenna. A device incorporating a reflective surface that is
solid, open mesh, or bar configured and is in the shape ora shallow dish, cone,
horn or cornucopia. Such device is used to transmit and/or receive radio or
electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and orbitally based uses. This
definition shall include, but not be limited to, what are commonly referred to
as satellite earth stations, TVROs (television, receive only) and satellite
microwave antennas.
Tower. Any ground or roof mounted pole, spire, structure or combination
thereof taller than 15 feet, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces,
l:haewzone\97zonord\antennas.doc 1
511.300
511.301
and masts, intended for the purpose of mounting an antenna, meteorological
device, or similar apparatus above grade.
Tower, Multi-User. A tower to which is attached the antennas of more than
one commercial wireless telecommunication service provider or governmental
entity.
Tower. Sinzle User. A tower to which is attached only the antennas of a
single user, although the tower may be designed to accommodate the antennas
of multiple users as required in this ordinance.
Uses Permitted With Conditions. Antennas and towers are Uses Permitted
with Conditions in all Use Districts, unless otherwise noted in this ordinance.
The use is subject to the provisions listed in Sections __ below.
Height Restrictions.
(1) Height Determination. The height oftowers shall be determined by
measuring the vertical distance fi.om the tower's point of contact with the
ground or rooftop to the highest point of the tower, including all antennas
or other attachments. When towers are mounted upon other structures,
the combined height of the structure at the tower's point of attachment
and tower must meet the height restrictions of this Section.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph 3 of this Section, maximum heights for
towers area s follows:
a. In all Residential Use Districts, the maximum height of any tower,
including all antennas and other attachments, shall be 45 feet, except
that no tower shall be in excess of a height equal to the distance fi.om
the base of the antenna and tower to the nearest overhead electrical
power line which serves more than one dwelling or place of
business, less 5 feet.
b. In the C-1 (Neighborhood Business) Use District, the maximum
height of any tower, including all antennas and other attachments,
shall not exceed 1 foot for each 4 feet the tower is setback fi.om
property located in a Residential Use District up to a maximum of
52.5 feet, except that no tower shall be in excess ora height equal to
the distance fi.om the base of the antenna and tower to the nearest
overhead electrical power line which serves more than one dwelling
or place of business, less 5 feet.
c. In the A (Agricultural) Use District and in all other Non-Residential
Use Districts, the maximum height of any tower, including all
antennas and other attachments, shall not exceed 1 foot for each 4
feet the tower is setback fi.om property located in a Residential Use
District up to a maximum of 112.5 feet, except that no tower shall be
in excess of a height equal to the distance fi.om the base of the
antenna and tower to the nearest overhead electrical power line
which serves more than one dwelling or place of business, less 5
feet.
l:~newzon¢\97zonord\antennas.doc
511.302
(3) Exceptions. The following are exceptions to the maximum height
restrictions for towers:
a. Multi-Use Towers. Multi-use towers may exceed the height
limitations of this Section by up to 20 feet.
b. Amateur Radio Antenna. In accordance with the preemption ruling
PRB 1 of the Federal Communications Commission, towers
supporting amateur radio antennas that comply with all other
requirements ofth/s Section are exempted from the height
limitations of the Section up to a total height of 70 feet, provided that
such height is tectmically necessary to receive and broadcast amateur
radio signals.
c. Towers and other antenna devices over 45 feet in height which are
attached to a structure and not freestanding may be located in a
Residential Use District under the following conditions:
· The towers an antennas are located upon existing or proposed
structures allowed as permitted uses, uses permitted with
conditions, and conditional uses in the underlying Use District
and/or upon public structures; and
· The towers and antennas are limited to a height of 15 feet
projecting above the structure.
· Subject to approval of a conditional use permit, the City Council
may permit antenna heights of up to 25 feet above the structure if
the applicant can demonstrate that, by a combination of antenna
design, positioning of the structure and/or by screening erected or
already in place on the structure, off-site views of the antenna
fi.om adjacent properties are minimized.
Setbacks. Towers shall conform with each of the minimum setback
requirements:
(1) In Non-Residential Use Districts, towers shall meet the principal structure
setbacks of the underlying Use District with the exception of the I-1
(Industrial) Use District, where towers may be located 5 feet fi.om the rear
property line, provided that the rear property line abuts another property
in the I-1 Use District, and the tower does not encroach on any utility
easements.
(2) In Residential use Districts, the required setback for an antenna and tower
not rigidly attached to a building shall be equal to the height of the
antenna and tower. Those antennas rigidly attached to a building and
whose base is on the ground, may exceed this required setback by the
amount equal to the distance from the point of attachment to the ground.
(3) Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public
street, with the following exceptions:
l:haewzone\97zonordXantennas.doc 3
511.303
511.304
511.305
511.306
a. In the I-1 (Industrial) Use District, towers may be placed within a
side yard abutting an internal industrial street.
b. On sites adjacent to public streets on all sides, towers may be placed
within a side yard abutting a local street.
(4) Upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City Council, a
tower's setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public
street varied to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or
proposed structure such as a church steeple, light pole, power line support
device, or similar structure.
Towers in Residential Use Districts. Towers in Residential Use Districts are
subject to the following additional restxictions:
(1) Towers supporting amateur radio antermas and conforming to all
applicable provisions of this Ordinance shall be allowed only in the rear
yard of parcels in Residential Use Districts.
(2) Towers supporting commercial antennas and conforming to all applicable
provisions of this Ordinance shall be allowed only as accessory uses to
the following principal uses in Residential Use Districts:
a. Religious Institutions, when camouflaged as steeples or bell towers.
b. Education/Academic uses and Public Service Structures.
(3) Only I tower shall exist at any one time on any 1 parcel in a Residential
Use District.
Lighting. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not
display strobe lights unless such lighting is specifically required by the
Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority for a
particular tower. When incorporated into the approved design of the tower for
camouflage purposes, light fixtures used to illuminate parking lots or other
similar areas may be attached to the tower.
Signs and Advertising. No singe, advertising, or identification of any kind
intended to be visible from the ground or other structure is permitted, except
applicable warning and equipment information signage required by the
manufacturer or by Federal, State or local authorities.
Accessory Equipment Shelters. Equipment shelters are permitted as an
accessory use to an essential service subject to the following regulations:
(1) An equipment shelter shall not exceed 336 square feet in area.
(2) Exterior building materials for equipment shelters shall be brick or a
material which simulates the appearance of a brick fascia, and shall be
architecturally compatible with the surrounding area.
(3) Equipment shelters must meet the setbacks of the underlying Use District,
except that setbacks between equipment shelters may be varied so long as
the proximity does not create a health safety issue.
l:haewzone~97zonord\antennas.doc 4
511.307
511.400
(4) There shall be no outside storage of equipment or vehicles permitted as
part of the equipment shelter.
(5) In order to avoid unsightliness and to mitigate against possible
diminution in property values, the location and placement of an
equipment shelter accessory to an essential service(s) shall be subject to
site plan review. The site plan must receive approval of the Planning
Director, the City Engineer and the Building Official.
Design Standards. Proposed or modified towers and antennas shall meet the
following requirements:
(1) Towers and antennas (including antenna cables) shall be designed to
blend into the surrounding environment to the maximum extent possible
through the use of building materials, colors, texture, screening,
landscaping and other camouflaging architectural treatment, except in
instances where the color is dictated by federal or state authorities.
(2) Commercial wireless telecommunication service towers shall be of a
monopole design. Alternative designs which would better blend into the
surrounding environment may be approved by the City Council through
the Conditional Use Permit process.
Co-Location Requirement. All personal wireless communication towers
erected, constructed, or located within the City shall comply with the
following requirements:
(1) A proposal for a new commercial wireless telecommunication service
tower shall not be approved unless the applicant demonstrates that the
telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be
accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a 1
mile search radius for towers over 120 feet in height, or a 1/2 mile radius
for towers between 80 and 120 feet in height, or a 1/4 mile radius for
towers less than 80 feet in height, of the proposed tower due to one or
more of the following reasons:
a. The Planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the
existing or approved tower or building as documented by a qualified
and licensed professional engineer, and the existing tower cannot be
reinfomed, modified or replaced to accommodate planned or
equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost.
b. The planned equipment would cause interference materially
impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the
tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed
engineer.
c. Existing or approved towers and buildings within the search radius
cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to
function reasonable as documented by a qualified and licensed
professional engineer.
15newzone~97zonord~antennas.doc 5
511.500
511.600
511.601
(2)
The applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to co-locate on
existing towers and structures was made, but an agreement could not be
reached.
(3) Any proposed commercial wireless telecommnnication service tower
shall be designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects to
accommodate both the applicant's antenna and comparable antennas for
at least 2 additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height, or at least
1 additional user if the tower is over 60 feet in height. Towers must be
designed to allow future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to
accept antennas mounted at varying heights.
Abandoned or Unused Towers or Portions of Towers. Abandoned or
unused towers or portions of towers and accompanying accessory facilities
shall be removed as follows:
(1) All abandoned or unused towers and associated facilities shall be
removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site. If
the tower is leased, a copy of the relevant portions of a signed lease
which requires the applicant to remove the tower and associated facilities
upon cessation of operations at the site shall be submitted at the time of
application. In the event a tower is not removed within 12 months of the
cessation of operations at the site, the tower and associated facilities may
be removed by the City and the costs of removal may be assessed to the
property owner.
(2) Unused portions of towers above a manufactured connection shall be
removed within 6 months of the time of antenna relocation. The
replacement of portions of a tower previously removed requires a new
permit application.
(3) Adler the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or
an improved state.
Permit Required. No tower or antenna shall be constructed, altered or
expanded without first obtaining a building permit.
Additional Submittal Requirements. In addition to the information required
for a building permit application listed in Section 509.501 of this Ordinance,
the following information must be submitted with an application for a tower
or antenna:
(1) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which does
the following:
a. describes the tower height and design, including across section and
elevation;
documents the height above grade for all potential mounting
positions for co-located antennas and the minimum separation
distances between antennas;
l:kuewzone\97zonorchantennas.doc
511.602
c. describes the tower's capacity, includ'mg the number and type of
antennas that it can accommodate;
d. documents what steps the applicant will take to avoid interference
with established public safety telecommunications;
e. demonstrates the tower's compliance with all applicable structural
and electrical standards and includes the engineer's stamp and
registration number; and documents compliance with the provisions
of Section 511.400 of this Ordinance.
(2) For all commercial wireless telecommunication service towers, a letter of
intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the
shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet
reasonable terms and conditions for shared use, so long as there is no
negative structural impact upon the tower and there is no disruption to the
service provided.
Antennas Mounted on Roofs, Walls, and Existing Towers. In addition to
submittal requirements required elsewhere in this Ordinance, an application
for a building permit for antennas to be mounted on an existing structure shall
be accompaaied by the following information:
(1) A site plan showing the location of the proposed antennas on the structure
and documenting the request meets the requirements of this Ordinance.
(2) A building plan showing the construction of the antennas and the
proposed method of attaching them to the existing structure, and
documenting the request meets the requirements of this Ordinance.
(3) A report prepared by a qualified and licensed professional engineer
indicating the existing structure or tower's ability to support the antennas;
and
(4) An intermodulation study to ensure there will be no interference with
existing tenants or public safety telecommunication providers.
l:knewzone\97zonord\antennas.doc 7
512.100
512.101
512.102
SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES
Purpose and Intent. In order to protect the City's community image,
property values, public health, safety, welfare and business environment, the
City has found it necessary to restrict which businesses may located within the
City, and to regulate certain businesses. Only those businesses with potential
secondary impacts on neighboring properties and the City are intended to be
regulated. This section is not intended to restrict or regulate art.
Findings.
(1) The City of Prior Lake has reviewed a report entitled "Report of the
Attorney General's Working Group on Regulation of Sexually Oriented
Businesses", dated June 6, 1989, prepared by Hubert H. Humphrey, III,
Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, the Olmsted County Planning
Department "Adult Entertainment Report" dated March 2, 1988, and "A
40-Acre Study" prepared by the St. Paul Division of Planning in 1987, all
of which reports are hereafter collectively referred to as "Reports". The
Reports considered evidence fi.om studies conducted in Minneapolis and
St. Paul and in other cities throughout the country relating to sexually
oriented businesses.
(2) The Attorney General's Report, based upon the above referenced studies
and the testimony presented to it has concluded "that sexually oriented
businesses are associated with high crime rates and depression of property
values." In addition, the Attorney General's Working Group "...heard
testimony that the character of a neighborhood can dramatically change
when there is a concentration of sexually oriented businesses adjacent to
residential property." The report concludes that:
a. adult uses have an impact on the neighborhoods surrounding them
which is distinct fi.om the impact caused by other commercial uses;
b. residential neighborhoods located within close proximity to adult
theaters, bookstores, and other sexually oriented businesses experience
increased rome rates (sex-related crimes in particular),lowered
property values, increased transiency, and decreased stability of
ownership;
c. the adverse impacts which sexually oriented businesses have on
surrounding areas diminish as the distance from the sexually oriented
use increases;
d. studies of other cities have shown that among the crimes which tend
to increase either within or in the near vicinity of sexually oriented
uses are rapes, prostitution, child molestation, indecent exposure, and
other lewd and lascivious behavior;
e. The City of Phoenix, Arizona, study confirmed that the sex crime rate
was on the average 500 percent higher in areas with sexually oriented
businesses;
l:knewzone\97zonord\adultuse.doc 1
512.200
f. many members of the pubhc pemeive areas within which adult uses
are located as less safe than other areas which do not have such uses;
g. studies of other cities have shown that the values of both commercial
and residential properties either are diminished or fail to appreciate at
the rate of other comparable properties when located in proximity to
adult uses; and
h. the Indianapolis, Indiana, study established that professional real
estate appraisers believe that a sexually oriented business would have a
negative effect on the value of both residential and commercial
properties within a 1' to 3 block area of the use.
(3) The Prior Lake City Council finds that characteristics of Prior Lake are
similar to those of the cities cited by the Reports when considering the
effects of sexually oriented uses. Based on these Reports, the City
Council finds that adult uses can cause or are associated with adverse
secondary effects upon pre-existing land uses.
a. In City ofRenton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U,S. 41, 51,106 S.
Ct. 925,931, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986), the United States Supreme Court
found that a city may rely on the experiences of other cities to
determine whether certain businesses have adverse secondary effects.
b. In ILO Investments, Inc., 25 F3d 1413 (8th Cir. 1994), the court
found that it was permissible for the City of Rochester to rely on
studies conducted in Indianapolis, St. Paul and Phoenix.
(4) The Prior Lake City Council finds, based upon the Reports and studies
cited therein, that sexually oriented businesses may result in secondary
effect upon certain pre-existing land uses within the City.
(5) The Prior Lake City Council finds the risk of public health and safety
problems can be significantly reduced by careful regulation of sexually
oriented businesses.
Definitions.
Sexually Oriented Business. A sexually oriented business is any business in
which a sexually oriented use comprises more than 10 percent of the floor area
of the establishment in which it is located or which comprises more than 20
percent of the gross receipts of the entire business operation.
Sexually Oriented Use. A sexually oriented use is any of the activities and
businesses described below:
(1) Sexually Oriented Use - Body Painting Studio: An establishment or
business which provides the service of applying paints or other
substance, whether transparent or non-transparent, to the body of a
patron when such body is wholly or partially nude in terms of "specified
anatomical areas".
l:Xnewzone\97zonord\adultuse.doc
(2) Sexually Oriented Use - Bookstore: A building or portion of a building
used for the barter, rental, or sale of items consisting of printed matter,
pictures, slides, records, audio tapes, video tape or motion picture film if
such building or portion of a building is not open to the public generally,
but only to one or more classes of the public, excluding any minor by
reason of age, and ifa substantial or significant portion of such items are
distinguished and characterized by an emphasis on the presentation,
display, depiction, or description of "specified sexual activities" or
"specified anatomical areas".
(3) Sexually Oriented Use- Cabaret: A building or portion of a building
used for providing dancing or other live entertainment, if such building
or portion of a building excludes minors by virtue of age, and if such
dancing or other live entertainment is distinguished and characterized by
an emphasis on the presentation, display, depiction, or description of
"specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas".
(4) Sexually Oriented Use - Companionship Establishment: A
companionship establishment which excludes minors by reason of age,
and which provides the service of engaging in or listening to
conversation, talk, or discussion between an employee of the
establishment and a customer, if such service is distinguished and
characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or
"specified anatomical areas".
(5) Sexually Oriented Use - Conversation/Rap Parlor: A conversation/rap
parlor which excludes minors by reason of age, and which provides the
service of engaging in or listening to conversation, talk, or discussion, if
such service is distinguished and characterized by an emphasis on
"specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas".
(6) Sexually Oriented Use - Health/Sport Club: A health/sport club which
excludes minors by reason of age, if such club is distinguished and
characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or
"specified anatomical area".
(7) Sexually Oriented Use - Hotel or Motel: A hotel or motel from minors
are specifically excluded from patronage and where material is presented
which is distinguished and characterized by an emphasis on matter
depicting, describing, or relating to "specified sexual activities" or
"specified anatomical areas".
(8) Sexually Oriented Use - Massage Parlor/Health Club: A massage parlor
or health club which restricts minors by reason of age, and which
provides services of massage, if such service is distinguished and
characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or
"specified anatomical area".
(9) Sexually Oriented Use - Mini Motion Picture Theater: A building or
portion of a building with a capacity for less than 50 persons uses for
l:~newzone\97zonordXadultuse.doc 3
presenting material if such material is distinguished and characterized by
an emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to "specified
sexual activities" or "specified anatomical area".
(10) Sexually Oriented Use - Modeling Studio: An establishment whose
major business is the provision, to customers, of figure models who are
so provided with the intent of providing the sexual stimulation or sexual
gratification to such customers and who engage in "specified sexual
activities" or display "specified anatomical areas" while being observed,
painted, painted upon, sketched, drawn, sculptured, photographed, or
otherwise depicted by such customers.
(11) Sexually Oriented Use - Motion Picture Arcade: Any place to which the
public is permitted or invited wherein coin or slug-operated or
electronically, electrically, or mechanically controlled or operated still or
motion picture machines, projectors or other image-producing devices
are maintained to show images to 5 or fewer persons per machine at any
one time, and where the images so displayed are distinguished and
characterized by an emphasis on depicting or describing "specified
sexual activities" or "specified anatomical area".
(12) Sexually Oriented Use ~ Motion Picture Theater: A building or portion
ora building with a capacity of more than 50 persons used for presenting
material is such building or portion of a building as a prevailing practice
excludes minors by reason of age or if such material is distinguished or
characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or
"specified anatomical area" for observations by patrons therein.
(13) Sexually Oriented Use - Novelty Business: A business which has as a
principal activity the sale of devices which stimulate human genitals or
devises which are designed for sexual stimulation.
(14) Sexually Oriented Use - Sauna: A sauna which excludes minors by
reason of age, and which provides a steam bath or heat bathing room
used for the purpose of pleasure, bathing, relaxation, or reducing,
utilizing steam or hot air as a cleaning, relaxing or reducing agent if such
building or portion of a building restricts minors by reason of age and if
the service provided is distinguished and characterized by an emphasis
on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical area".
(15) Sexually Oriented Use - Stearnroorn/Bathhouse Facility: A building or
portion of a building used for providing a steam bath or heat bathing
room used for the purpose of pleasure, bathing, relaxation, or reducing,
utilizing steam or hot air as a cleaning, relaxing or reducing agent if such
building or portion of a building restricts minors by reason of age and if
the service provided by the steamroom/bathhouse facility is
distinguished and characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual
activities" or "specified anatomical area".
Specified Anatomical Area:
l:~newzone\97zonord\adultuse.doc
4
512.300
512.301
(1) Less than completely or opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region,
buttock, anus, or female breast(s) below a point in'anediately above the
top of the areola; and
(2) Human male genitals in a discernible turgid state, even if completely and
opaquely covered.
St~eci/ied Sexual Activities:
(1) Actual or simulated sexual intercourse, oral copulation, anal intercourse,
oral-anal copulation, bestiality, direct physical stimulation or unclothed
genitals, flagellation or torture in the context ora sexual relationship, or
the use of excretory functions in the context of a sexual relationship, and
any of the following sexually oriented acts or conduct: anilingus,
buggery, coprophagy, coprophilia, cunnilingus, fellation, necrophelia,
pederasty, pedophilia, piquerism, sapphism, zooerasty; or
(2) Clearly depicted human genitals in the state of sexual stimulation,
arousal, or tumescence; or
(3) Use of human or animal ejaculation, sodomy, oral copulation, coitus, or
masturbation; or
(4) Fondling or touching of nude human genitals, public region, buttocks, or
female breast(s); or
(5) Situations involving a person or persons, any of whom are nude, clad in
undergarments or in sexually revealing costumes, and who are engaged
in activities involving the flagellation, torture, fettering, binding, or the
physical restraint of any such persons; or
(6) Erotic or lewd touching, fondling, or other sexual oriented contact with
an animal by a human being; or
(7) Human excretion, urination, masturbation, vaginal or anal irrigation.
Uses Permitted With Conditions.
Sexually Oriented Businesses are Uses Permitted With Conditions in the C-3
(Specialty Business), C-4 (General Business) and I-1 (Industrial) Use
Districts, subject to the following conditions:
(1) No person shall operate a sexually oriented business on property, any part
of which is within the area circumscribed by a circle which has a radius
of 350 feet from any of the uses listed in subsections a and b below.
Distances shall be measured by following a straight line, without regard
to intervening structures or objects, between the closest points on the
property lines of two uses. The distance requirement applies to the
following:
a. property developed or zoned for residential uses; or
l:Lnewzone~97zonordhdultuse.doc 5
b. property frequented by children or designed as a family destination,
such as a day care facility, school, library park, playground, nature
center, religious institution, or other public recreational facility.
(2) No person shall operate a sexually oriented business on property, any part
of which is within the area circumscribed by a circle which has a radius
of 1,000 feet from another sexually oriented business.
(3) No owner, manager or employee may sell or display for sale any sexually
oriented materials except in original unopened packages.
(4) No owner, manger or employee of a sexually oriented business shall have
been convicted of a sex crime, as identified in Minnesota Statutes dealing
with sexual assault, sexual conduct, harassment, obscenity, or domestic
abuse.
(5) No owner, manager or employee of a sexual oriented business shall allow
any sexual oriented materials or entertainment to be used on any sign or
window display.
(6) No owner, manager, or employee of a sexually oriented business shall
engage in any activity or conduct or permit any other person to engage in
any activity or conduct in or about the establishment which is prohibited
by any ordinance of the City of Prior Lake, the laws of the State of
Minnesota, or the United States of America. Nothing in this Ordinance
shall be construed to authorize or permit conduct which is prohibited or
regulated by other statutes or ordinances, including but not limited to
statutes or ordinances prohibiting the exhibition, sale or distribution of
obscene material generally, or the exhibition, sale or distribution of
specified materials to minors.
(7) The owner, manager or employee shall assure than no person under the
age of 18 enters the premises.
(8) No owner, manager or employee shall allow any sexual oriented
materials or entertainment to be visible or perceivable in any manner,
including aurally, at any time from the outside of the business.
(9) No owner, manager or employee shall allow any person under the age of
18 to have access to sexually oriented materials, whether by site,
purchase, touch or any other means.
(10) Each business shall display a sign on its main entrance door which reads:
"This business sells sexually oriented material or entertainment. Persons
under the age of 18 are prohibited from entering." The sign letters shall
be a minimum of 2 inches high.
(11)No business shall exceed 10,000 square feet in gross floor area.
(12) No patron, employee or other person may physically contact any
specified anatomical area of himself or herself, or of any other person,
except that a live performer may touch himself or herself.
l:~newzone\97zonordXadultuse.doc 6
512.302
(13) Each live performer shall remain at all times a minimum distance of 10
feet fi.om all members of the audience, and shall perform on a platform
intended for that purpose, which shall be raised at least 2 feet fi.om the
level of the floor on which the audience is located. No performer may
solicit or accept any pay, tip, or other item from any member of the
audience.
(14) No business shall have any booths, stalls or partitions which separate any
area from a general public room. The restrictions of this paragraph do not
apply to restrooms, storage rooms, or private offices of the owner,
manager, or employees of the business, if such storage rooms or offices
are used solely for the running the business and no person other than the
owner, manager and employees is allowed in the storage rooms or
offices.
(15)The use is subject to all other requirements of the Use District and of this
ordinance.
Sexually Oriented Businesses are Uses Permitted With Conditions in the A
(Agricultural) Use District, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The use must be located on a separate lot having a minimum area of 40
areas and a minimum width of 500 feet.
(2) No person shall operate a sexually oriented business on property, any part
of which is within the area circumscribed by a circle which has a radius
of 350 feet from any of the uses listed in subsections a and b below.
Distances shall be measured by following a straight line, without regard
to intervening structures or objects, between the closest points on the
property lines of two uses. The distance requirement applies to the
following:
a. property developed or zoned for residential uses; or
b. property frequented by children or designed as a family destination,
such as a day care facility, school, library park, playground, nature
center, religious institution, or other public recreational facility.
(3) No person shall operate a sexually oriented business on property, any part
of which is within the area circumscribed by a circle which has a radius
of 1,000 feet from another sexually oriented business.
(4) No owner, manager or employee may sell or display for sale any sexually
oriented materials except in original unopened packages.
(5) No owner, manger or employee of a sexually oriented business shall have
been convicted of a sex crime, as identified in Minnesota Statutes dealing
with sexual assault, sexual conduct, harassment, obscenity, or domestic
abuse.
(6) No owner, manager or employee of a sexual oriented business shall allow
any sexual oriented materials or entertainment to be used on any sign or
window display.
l:~newzone\97zonord~adultuse.doc 7
(7) No owner, manager, or employee of a sexually oriented business shall
engage in any activity or conduct or permit any other person to engage in
any activity or conduct in or about the establishment which is prohibited
by any ordinance of the City of Prior Lake, the laws of the State of
Minnesota, or the United States of America. Nothing in this Ordinance
shall be construed to authorize or permit conduct which is prohibited or
regulated by other statutes or ordinances, including but not limited to
statutes or ordinances prohibiting the exhibition, sale or distribution of
obscene material generally, or the exhibition, sale or distribution of
specified materials to minors.
(8) The owner, manager or employee shall assure than no person under the
age of 18 enters the premises.
(9) No owner, manager or employee shall allow any sexual oriented
materials or entertainment to be visible or perceivable in any manner,
including aurally, at any time fi:om the outside of the business.
(10)No owner, manager or employee shall allow any person under the age of
18 to have access to sexually oriented materials, whether by site,
purchase, touch or any other means.
(11) Each business shall display a sign on its main entrance door which reads:
"This business sells sexually oriented material or entertainment. Persons
under the age of 18 are prohibited from entering." The sign letters shall
be a minimum of 2 inches high.
(12) No business shall exceed 10,000 square feet in gross floor area.
(13)No patron, employee or other person may physically contact any
specified anatomical area of himself or herself, or of any other person,
except that a live performer may touch himself or herself.
(14) Each live performer shall remain at all times a minimum distance of 10
feet fi:om all members of the audience, and shall perform on a platform
intended for that purpose, which shall be raised at least 2 feet fi:om the
level of the floor on which the audience is located. No performer may
solicit or accept any pay, tip, or other item fi:om any member of the
audience.
(15)No business shall have any booths, stalls or partitions which separate any
area fi:om a general public room. The restrictions of this paragraph do not
apply to restrooms, storage rooms, or private offices of the owner,
manager, or employees of the business, if such storage rooms or offices
are used solely for the running the business and no person other than the
owner, manager and employees is allowed in the storage rooms or
offices.
(16) The use is subject to all other requirements of the Use District and of this
ordinance.
l:~newzone\97zonord\adultuse.doc 8
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
CONSIDER REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
PROPERTY ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY,
FENCE HEIGHT, AND BERM SLOPE FOR BURDICK
PROPERTIES, Case File ~97-132
14162 COMMERCE AVENUE AND 14180 COMMERCE
AVENUE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES X NO
JANUARY 26, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
On January 12, 1998 the Planning Commission heard the request for variances
on the respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances relate to
two existing commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. 14180
Commerce Avenue was built in 1994 and 14162 Commerce Avenue was built in
1997. The following variances are being applied for at the respective addresses:
14162 COMMERCE AVENUE:
A 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property
zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for
existing building; and
A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the
maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the
adjacent residential properties; and
A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1
for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties.
14180 COMMERCE AVENUE:
A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property
zoned residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for
existing building; and
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\97132PC2.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property
zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an
existing trash enclosure; and
A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the
maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the
adjacent residential properties; and
A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3_:1
for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties.
The Planing Commission continued the hearing and requested staff to supply
additional information. Specifically, the Planning Commission asked for the
following information:
· A copy of previous City Council minutes relating to berm and parking
setbacks.
· Verification of the Zoning of PDQ and changes to the zoning of PDQ.
· Verification if the existing trash enclosure located at 14180
Commerce Avenue is on an easement.
Verification of the hook-up of the storm sewer beehive located on the
easement of the property located at 14162 Commerce Avenue and
information regarding the capacity of the pipe.
· Existing elevations of the berm and building located at 14162
Commerce Avenue.
· Approved grading plan and topographical survey of 14162 Commerce
Avenue pdor to construction activity.
· Full size copies of the approved site plan for 14162 Commerce
Avenue.
At the January 12, 1998 hearing, the applicant stated he is not applying for a
variance to berm slope or fence height. Staff had asked for this in writing and
has yet to receive anything. Therefore, the request should proceed as applied
for until further notice. Staff had also asked the applicant to submit a revised
completed landscape plan for review and to address the issue of the trash
enclosure on the easement. Attached is the correspondence relating to the
request. Staff has not received a revised landscape plan for review as of yet. In
a telephone conversation with Mr. Kelly (applicant's representative) on January
21, 1998, the submittal of a revised landscape plan is pending specific feedback
from the adjacent residential property owners.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\97132PC2.DOC Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Attached is a copy of a memorandum from City Attorney Suesan Pace, relating
to the history of James 1st Addition and Burdick #3. She specifically discusses
the legal issues of what has happened with respect to the Zoning Ordinance.
This memorandum has the necessary related minutes and documentation
relating to the issues brought up by residents and information as requested by
the Planning Commission.
The current zoning of PDQ is B-1. The entire James 1st Addition was rezoned
from R-1 to B-1 on October 22, 1979. James Refrigeration had asked that the
lots adjacent to HWY. 13 be zoned B-2, a more intense commercial use. The
City Council denied this request twice, hence the zoning was and is B-I. There
have been no subsequent changes to zoning of any of the lots located in James
1st Addition. The City Council minutes approving the rezoning are attached
(Exhibit D of City Attorney memorandum). Also included in the packet is a copy
of the permitted uses in the B-1 zoning district from 1975 and from 1980. When
James 1st Addition was preliminary platted in 1979, retail uses were conditional.
Based on the information in micro-fiche records, the zoning ordinance was
amended in June 1980 to allow retail uses as permitted in the B-1 zoning district.
The plat of James 1st Addition indicates a 20 foot drainage and utility easement
located in the rear of lots (Exhibit E of City Attorney memorandum). Therefore,
because the existing setback of the trash enclosure is 16.3 feet from the property
line, it encroaches 3.7 feet into the easement. If the Planning Commission
grants the variances, a "Use of Public Easement" agreement must be signed and
recorded by the developer.
On January 20, 1998 the Engineering Department measured the elevation of the
constructed berm located at 14162 Commerce Avenue. Attached Exhibit F
details the existing elevations of the berm. The elevation at top of sidewalk
(located at rear of building) is 935.9 el. as indicated on the approved grading
plan. Therefore, it is engineering's conclusion that the elevation of the building is
as indicated on the approved grading plan (936.0 el.). The berm, in general, is
1.5 feet shorter than as on approved grading plan.
Engineering has provided the necessary information relating to the storm sewer
location and use. Attached memorandum dated December 12, 1997 from City
Engineer Greg Ilkka states that the beehive catch basin is connected to city
storm sewer system as indicated on the approved plan (see Burdick Building #3
approved plans). The attached memorandum dated January 16, 1998 from Lani
Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator, discusses the size of the pie and
overflow.
Attached are full-size copies of the approved site plan, grading plan, and
landscape plan. These are plans the city approved with respect to the proposed
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\97132PC2.DOC Page 3
construction at 14162 Commerce Avenue. The Planning Commission also
requested a copy of the topographical survey of 14162 Commerce Avenue prior
to construction or grading. It is attached as Exhibit F. Because there is no
approved grading plan as part of the plat on file, part of engineering approval of
the proposed grading plan was that the proposed elevations be consistent with
the elevations of the berm that were existing on the site.
Attached is the staff report from January 12, 1998 detailing the variance requests
and hardship criteria.
At the public hearing on January 12, 1998, Maureen Hermann and Marv Mirsch
submitted documents for the public record that they specifically requested be
returned. The Planning Department made copies of the originals, and returned a
copy of the information submitted to each of them via certified mail. Signed
cards as proof of receipt of the documents were returned to the City from the
Post Office.
ALTERNATIVES:
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
As stated in the staff report dated January 12, 1998, staff has concluded the
hardship criteria have been met, considering the structures are existing and both
sites are at maximum build out with respect to parking and setbacks. Due to lack
of pertinent information the vadance request to berm slope should be continued.
Considering that the trash enclosure is located in the drainage and utility
easement, staff recommends a "Use of Public Easement" agreement be signed
and recorded by the applicant (as amended in Resolution 98-01 PC).
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolutions 98-01PC and 98-02PC and a separate motion
continuing the variance request to slope of berm.
L:\97 FiLES\97VAR\97-132\97132PC2.DOC Page 4
RESOLUTION 98-01PC
A 2.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK
ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 57.30 FEET
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR EXISTING BUILDING
AND A 43.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK
ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 16.3 FEET
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR AN EXISTING TRASH
ENCLOSURE AND A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FENCE
HEIGHT OF 8.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED 6
FOOT HEIGHT FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE
ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE FOR BURDICK PROPERTIES.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Burdick Properties has applied for variances from Section 5-4-1, 5-4-1 E, and 5-5-10
H and 5-5-I 1 E of the City Code on property located in the B-1 (Limited Business)
District at the following location, to wit;
14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, James 1 st
Addition, Scott County, MN.
The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #97-132 and held hearings thereon on January 12, 1998. The heating was
continued to January 26, 1998 to gather more information.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for variances and requested
additional information for Case #97-132 and held a continued hearing on January 26,
1998.
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.
5. The structure on the lot exists and the lot is built to capacity in terms of building
setbacks and parking.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.~ Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNI~ 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, and is necessary to aileviate demonstrable hardship as
no reasonable alternatives exist.
The contents of Planning Case 97-132 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 this variance will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null
and void one (1) year fi.om the date of approval if the holder of the variance 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 approves the
following variances for 14180 Commeme Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1,
James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN, as shown in Exhibit D;
1. A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned
residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building.
2. A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned
residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash
enclosure.
A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the
maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent
residential properties on property.
The approval of the variances is contingent upon the following conditions:
A "Use of Public Easement" document be signed and recorded by the applicant as
part of the variance approving the trash enclosure on the drainage and utility
easement.
2. A certified copy of the variance shall be filed with the County Recorder of Scott
County by the applicant within 60 days of granting of this variance or by March 27,
1998. A copy of the recorded resolution shall be delivered to the Zoning Officer as
evidence of satisfying this requirement.
l:\97var\97-132\98-01 PCre.doc 2
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 26, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\97var\97-132\98-01PCre.doc 3
DELMAR H,
EXHIBIT D
RESOLUTION 98-02PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED
RESIDENTIAL OF 58.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60
FEET FOR EXISTING BUILDING AND A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A FENCE HEIGHT OF 8.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED 6 FOOT HEIGHT FOR ADDITIONAL
SCREENING BETWEEN THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14162 COMMERCE
AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Burdick Properties has applied for variances tSom Section 5-4-1, 5-4~1 E, and 5-5-10
H and 5-5-11 E of the City Code on property located in the B-1 (Limited Business)
District at the following location, to wit;
14162 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, James 1st
Addition, Scott County, MN;
The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #97-132 and held hearings thereon on January 12, 1998. The hearing was
continued to January 26, 1998 to gather more information.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for variances and requested
additional information for Case #97-132 and held a continued hearing on January 26,
1998.
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.
5. The structures on the lot exists and the lot is built to capacity in terms of setbacks and
parking.
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, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as
no reasonable alternatives exist.
The contents of Planning Case 97-132 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 this variance will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null
and void one (1) year fi-om the date of approval if the holder of the variance 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 approves the
following variances for 14162 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block I,
James 1 st Addition, Scott County, MN, as shown in Exhibit B;
A resolution approving a 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback
adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required
60 feet for existing building.
A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the
maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the
adjacent residential properties.
The approval of the variances is contingent upon the following conditions:
A certified copy of the variance shall be filed with the County Recorder of Scott
County by the applicant within 60 days of granting of this variance or by March 27,
1998. A copy of the recorded resolution shall be delivered to the Zoning Officer as
evidence of satisfying this requirement.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 26, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\98-02PC.DOC 2
Su~rvey For:
Burdlck Pretties
~84 ~,~io~ ~,~r~ EXHIBIT B
DELMAR H. SCHWANZ
,SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
/ /
o,,,e ~1-2~-97 ,
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
PROPERTY ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
AND BERM SLOPE FOR BURDICK PROPERTIES,
Case File ~97-132
14162 COMMERCE AVENUE AND 14180 COMMERCE
AVENUE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES X NO
JANUARY 12, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The requested variances relate to two existing commemial properties located on
Commerce Avenue. 14180 Commeme Avenue was built in 1994 and 14162
Commerce Avenue was built in 1997. The following variances are being applied
for at the respective addresses:
14162 COMMERCE AVENUE:
A 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property
zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for
existing building; and
A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the
maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the
adjacent residential properties; and
A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1
for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties.
14180 COMMERCE AVENUE:
A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property
zoned residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for
existing building; and
L:\97F[LES\97VAR\97-132~97-132PC.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property
zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an
existing trash enclosure; and
A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the
maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the
adjacent residential properties; and
A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1
for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties.
DISCUSSION:
The lots are located in the subdivision known as James 1st Addition (1981). The
properties are located within the B-1 (Limited Business) district. The following
setbacks apply:
25 feet
· 25 feet
· 10 feet
· 60 feet
· 20 feet
Front Yard (Section 4.2 Zoning Ordinance)
Rear Yard (Section 4.2 Zoning Ordinance)
Side Yard (Section 4.2 Zoning Ordinance)
Structure Abutting Residential (Section 4.1 D Zoning Ordinance)
Parking Abutting Residential (Section 4.1 D Zoning Ordinance)
14162 Commerce Avenue is 9,350 square feet with 37 parking stalls required
(Exhibit A). The site has 37 stalls. There is no undeveloped land where the
trash enclosure can be relocated. Building Permit #97-274 was issued after the
site plan was approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC). The
approved plans indicate a 60 foot setback to the face of the building. However,
the as built survey (Exhibit B) indicates a utility area was constructed on the west
side of the building without prior approval from the city. The bump-out on the
north end of the building encroaches two feet into the required 60 foot setback
from the residential property to the west. Therefore, a 2 foot variance is being
requested.
14180 Commerce Avenue (Exhibit C) is 10,400 square feet with 42 parking stalls
required if the building is used entirely as office use (1 stall per 250 square feet).
With the recently added parking to the west (rear of building), the site has 51
parking stalls. If the use changes to entirely retail, then the parking requirement
will be 52 spaces (1 stall per 200 sq. feet of retail space). Current uses are
professional offices and a day-care. Considering that retail uses are permitted,
the entire building could be used for retail activities and then there would not be
enough parking on the lot. The approved plans indicate a 59 foot setback to the
face of the building on the west side, adjacent to the residential properties.
However, the as built survey (Exhibit D) indicates a utility area was constructed
on the west side of the building without prior approval from the city. The 2.5 foot
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\97-132PC.DOC Page 2
bump-out on the south end of the building encroaches into the required 60 foot
setback from the residential property to the west. Therefore, a 2.7 foot variance
for the principal structure is being requested.
The trash enclosure (14180 Commerce Avenue) was constructed on the lot in
1994 and expanded in 1997 to accommodate the recently constructed building at
14162 Commerce Avenue. The city approved the construction of the trash
enclosure and addition in error. The trash enclosure is located 16.3 feet from the
west property line abutting residential. The required setback is 60 feet.
Therefore, a 43.7 foot variance is being requested for the trash enclosure.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to fence height to allow for increased
screening between the commercial uses and the adjacent residential uses.
Zoning Ordinance Section 6.11 C and 6.11 E allow for a maximum fence height
of 6 feet. The applicant is requesting a fence height of 8 feet. The applicant has
also met with the adjacent residential property owners in an attempt to resolve
the ongoing screening issue.
City Code Section 6.10 H allows for a maximum slope of a berm to be 3:1. As
part of the screening of the adjacent residential areas, the applicant is requesting
a variance to the slope of the berm. As of yet, staff has not received the
specification on the proposed slope as indicated in the variance application.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue this specific request until
specifics are submitted to the Planning Department.
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, the lots and structures are
existing. As indicated by the building envelopes and given the minimum
parking requirements, there are no reasonable legal alternatives for
relocating any of the structures. The applicant contends literal enfomement
of the ordinance with respect to the fence height will result in undue hardship
to the adjacent residential properties.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are unique cimumstances in this case. The structures on the lots are
existing. The commercial property is adjacent to residential property and
some of the adjacent residential properties slope down toward the
commercial property making effective screening difficult to achieve,
L:\97FI LES\97VAR~97~ 132\97-132PC.DOC Page 3
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 lots are built to a maximum capacity considering building setbacks and
parking requirements. There is not open area to relocate the trash enclosure
on either lot. The increased height of the fence is due to the existing grades
of the commercial and residential properties and the need to provide
additional screening between the two. The hardship is caused by the
previous applications of the provisions of the Ordinance and existing
conditions. It is not the result of proposed conditions that can be changed by
the applicant.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The granting of the combined requested variances can meet the intent of the
Ordinance and be in the public interest. The spirit and intent of the setback
from residential properties can be protected with the increased fence height
and additional landscaping. The granting of such variance is not contrary to
the public interest, as the setback variances are small and there will be
increased screening.
ALTERNATIVES:
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded the hardship criteria have been met, considering the
structures are existing and both sites are at maximum build out with respect to
parking and setbacks. Due to lack of pertinent information the variance request
to berm slope should be continued.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolutions 98-01PC and 98-02PC and a separate motion
continuing the variance request to slope of berm.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\97-132PC.DOC Page 4
RESOLUTION 98-01PC
A 2.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK
ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 57.30 FEET
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR EXISTING BUILDING
AND A 43.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK
ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 16.3 FEET
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR AN EXISTING TRASH
ENCLOSURE AND A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FENCE
HEIGHT OF 8.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED 6
FOOT HEIGHT FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE
ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE FOR BURDICK PROPERTIES.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Burdick Properties has applied for variances from Section 5-4-1, 5-4-1 E, and 5-5-10
H and 5-5-11 E of the City Code on property located in the B-1 (Limited Business)
District at the following location, to wit;
14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block I, James 1st
Addition, Scott County, MN.
1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #97-132 and held hearings thereon on January 12, 1998.
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.
3. The structure on the lot exists and the lot is built to capacity in terms of building
setbacks and parking.
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, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as
no reasonable alternatives exist.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The contents of Planning Case 97-132 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 this variance 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 variance 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 approves the
following variances for 14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1,
James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN, as shown in Exhibit D;
1. A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned
residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building.
A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned
residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash
enclosure.
A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the
maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent
residential properties on property.
The approval of the variances is contingent upon the following conditions:
A certified copy of the variance shall be filed with the County Recorder of Scott
County by the applicant within 60 days of granting of this variance or by March 12,
1998. A copy of the recorded resolution shall be delivered to the Zoning Officer as
evidence of satisfying this requirement.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 12, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
h\97var\97-132\98-01PCre.doc 2
RESOLUTION 98-02PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED
RESIDENTIAL OF 58.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60
FEET FOR EXISTING BUILDING AND A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A FENCE HEIGHT OF 8.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED 6 FOOT HEIGHT FOR ADDITIONAL
SCREENING BETWEEN THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14162 COMMERCE
AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Burdick Properties has applied for variances from Section 5-4-1, 5-4-1 E, and 5-5-10
H and 5-5-11 E of the City Code on property located in the B-1 (Limited Business)
District at the following location, to wit;
14162 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, James Ist
Addition, Scott County, MN;
1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #97-132 and held hearings thereon on January 12, 1998.
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.
3. The structures on the lot exists and the lot is built to capacity in terms of setbacks and
parking.
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, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as
no reasonable alternatives exist.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
5. The contents of Planning Case 97-132 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 this variance 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 variance has failed
to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of
contemplated improvements.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth aboye, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following variances for 14162 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1,
James 1 st Addition, Scott County, MN, as shown in Exhibit B;
A resolution approving a 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback
adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required
60 feet for existing building.
A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the
maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screehing between the
adjacent residential properties.
The approval of the variances is contingent upon the following conditions:
A certified copy of the variance shall be filed with the County Recorder of Scott
County by the applicant within 60 days of granting of this variance or by March 12,
1998. A copy of the recorded resolution shall be delivered to the Zoning Officer as
evidence of satisfying this requirement.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 12, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\98-02PC.DOC 2
EXHIBIT A
A V E N U E
EXHIBIT B
DELMAR H. SCHWANZ
EXHIBIT C
III
E
EXISTING BUILDING
EXHIBIT C
PAGE 2
EXISTING BUILDING
D E
CO
TY~
TY~
DELMAR H.'
EXHIBIT D
Scale: i inch ~ 40 feet
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4.230, Fax (612) 4474245
By
Type of Application:
[] Rezoning, fi.om (present zoning)
to (proposed zoning~
[] Amendment to City Code, Comp. Plan or City Ordinance
[] Subdivision of Land
[] Adm/nistrative Subdivision
[] Conditional Use Permit
[] Variance
[] Other:
si
Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
See attached Exhibit "A".
Applicable Ordinance Secnontsj:
Applicant(s): Burdick Properties, Inc.
Address:. 6__84 Excelsio~r Boulevard_______i, Excelsio____~r,_ M~N 55331_
Home Ph0ne: .... W0rk Phone: 474-5243
Property Owner(s) ~f different from Applicants]: B.C. Burdick
Address: 4930 Meadville Street, Excelsior, MN 55331
HomoPhone: 474-3796 WorkPhone: 474-5243
Type of Ownership: Fee .')< Contract for Deed __ Purchase Agreement __
Legal Description of Property (AXach a copy if&ere is not enough space on this sheet):
Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1, James First Addition, Scott County, Minnesota
Commonly Known as 14180 and 14162 Commerce Avenue, Prior Lake, MN 55372
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
~puplications will not be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
RDICK PROPE~_~IES, INC. ~
Applicant's $igna~,_ Brian B/u_..rdick / Date l
Fee Owner's Signature, B.C. Burdick Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED I/IoxJ'~ ~( DATE OF HEAR/NG
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
[u-app2.doc
EXHIBIT "A"
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Applicant is the owner of 14162 and 14180 Commerce Avenue,
Prior Lake, Minnesota, which each are host to one office building.
Prior Lake Code requires screening along the rear lot line of the
property in favor of neighboring residential properties (Section
6.10G and 6.1lB, C, and F). Prior Lake Code Section 4.1D requires
a 60-foot setback for any rear yard abutting any R District. In
addition, the building trash enclosure must be screened 6.10G.
Variances Required:
1. Trash Enclosure.
The buildings in question are serviced by a brick trash
enclosure built under City building permit in 1994 and
expanded under City building permit in 1997. The trash
enclosure is 16.5 feet from the rear lot line of 14180
Commerce Avenue. A variance to Section 4.1D is necessary to
permit the trash enclosure as a lawful conforming use.
2. Buildinq Encroachment 14180 Commerce Avenue.
Survey of the building at 14180 Commerce Avenue (Lot 4, Block
1, James First Addition, Scott County, Minnesota) as built,
shows that it encroaches on the required 60-foot setback at
1
the building's southwesterly corner 0.2 feet along the rear
wall and an additional projection of 2.5 feet (total
encroachment 2.7 feet) into the rear yard setback to
accommodate brick facing/ screening of electrical utilities.
A variance to Section 4.1D of 2.7
corner is necessary to permit
confirming use.
feet at the southwesterly
the building as lawful
3. Buildinq Encroachment 14162 Commerce Avenue.
A survey of the building at 14162 Commerce Avenue (Lot 3,
Block 1, James First Addition, Scott County, Minnesota), as
built shows that its rear brick wall is in conformance with
the 60-foot rear yard setback, however, the brick
facing/screening around the electrical utilities at the
northwest building corner encroaches two (2.0) feet into the
required 60-foot rear yard setback. A variance to Prior Lake
Code Section 4.1D of 2.0 feet is necessary to permit the
building as lawful conforming uses.
4. Screeninq.
The Prior Lake Code Section 6.10G and 6.1lB require screening
of adjacent residential properties. The neighbors on Timothy
Avenue have requested:
a) An 8-foot fence; and
b) Increased berm height
screening.
as part of the required
Variances will be necessary to Prior Lake Code sections 6.10G,
6.10H and 6.11C to permit an 8-foot fence and enlarged berm
height and slopes greater than permitted if the landscaping
plan is to be implemented. Exact specification will be
forthcoming.
ADplicable Ordinance Sections.
Section 4.1D; 6.10G; 6.10H; 6.11C.
3
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES AT 14162 COMMERCE
AVENUE:
A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY
ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 58.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR
EXISTING BUILDING; AND
A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FENCE HEIGHT OF 8.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED 6 FOOT HEIGHT FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE
ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENLARGED BERM HEIGHT AND SLOPES GREATER THAN
3:1 FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES.
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES AT 14180 COMMERCE
AVENUE:
A 2. 7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMITA REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY
ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 57.30 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR
EXISTING BUILDING; AND
A 43. 7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMITA REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY
ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF ~ 6.3 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR AN
EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE.
A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FENCE HEIGHT OF 8.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED 6 FOOT HEIGHT FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE
ADJA CENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES; AND
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENLARGED BERM HEIGHT AND SLOPES GREATER THAN
3:~ FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES.
FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE B-I
(LIMITED BUSINESS) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 14'180 COMMERCE AVENUE AND 14'162 COMMERCE
AVENUE.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire
Station #1, located at 16778 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point
Road), on: Monday, January 12, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
Burdick Properties
684 Excelsior Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
PROPERTY
OWNERS:
B,C. Burdick
4930 Meadville St.
Excelsior, MN 55331
SUBJECT SITE:
14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, James 1st
Addition AND 14162 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1,
James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN.
L:\97FI LES\97VAR\97-132\97132PN.DOC t
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNFFY EMPLOYER
REQUEST: The applicants are requesting the vadances to make the existing buildings
conforming and to permit additional screening from the adjacent residential
properties.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the
following cdteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
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 cdteda.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: December31, 1997
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\97132PN.DOC 2
DELMAR H,
SCHWANZ
B9722
DELMAR H. SCHWANZ
183/55
Dwq. 9709
/
/ /
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVENUE SE, PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
Number of pages including cover sheet:
To:
Brian Bm:dick
Burdick Properties
Phone: 474-5243
Fax phone: 474-7543
CC:
From:
Jenni Tovar
City of Prior Lake
Phone: (612)447-4230
Fax phone: (612)447-4245
REMARKS: [] Urgent [] For your review [] Reply ASAP [] Please comment
Brian, Please submit the following information prior to Tuesday January 20, 1998. This information is needed for
the continuation of the variance requests:
· Landscape plan (I 0 full size and one 11 x 17 inch reduction) indicating changes to the landscape plan already
submitted and approved as part of your initial site plan review. Indicate the size of the plantings as planted.
The display Eldon submitted indicates 12' Red Pines. This appears to be the size at maturity or at least 5 years
out. 6' trees are the minimum requirement for coniferous. Also need actual elevations shown on plan. The
cross-section of the berm submitted is not reflective of the approved berm as per the approved grading plan.
· Submit a revised grading plan if you are not intending to grade as on approved grading plan. Last time
engineering inspected the berm, it was lower than the approved grading plan.
· Show easements on as-built survey for 14180 Commerce. The 20 foot drainage and utility easement is shown
on the plat and should be shown on the survey. Address the use of the trash enclosure on the easement.
Let me know if you have any questions.
KELLY L^W OF C :S
Establi:thed 1948
January 16. 1998
Ms. Jennl Tovar
City of Prtor Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
BY FAX: 447-4245
Re: Response to Faxed Communication Sent Jan~_.,-y 15, 1998, 5:23 P,M.
to the Attention of Brian Burdiek
Dear Ms. Tovar:
We are presently requesting our architect to prepare an updated landscaping
plan. It is news to us that the grading performed to date ostensibly does not
conform with the grading plan earlier submitted. If your Engineering Department
has details, we would be most Interested In reviewIng that information. Please fax
it to our attention.
While the trees indicated on the proposed landscaping illustration show a 12-foot
height, we are mindful that the Code requires 6-foot coniferous trees.
It should be noted that. as yet. no one has discussed the merits of any of our
landscaping proposals intended to benefit both our property and the neighboring
property owners. The neighbors have not replied to the merits of the proposal.
The Planning Commission has not commented on the merits of the proposal. All
discussion by the neighbors and the Planning Commission appears to dwell
exclusively on Minutes of City Council Meetings from 1979 of which we were
never a party. It is our hope that at some Juncture in the near future, all
interested parties will begin to discuss the merits of the landscaping proposal,
As regards thc question of the presence of a trash enclosure on the utility and
drainage easement, it is a matter of established case law that an easement holder
has only those rights which are specffically enumerated to the easement holder
In the casement grant. The grant of an easement does not strip the owner of the
fee title of the right to use the property. The use is limited only by a proscription
against unreasonable interference with the narrow use provided to the holder of
the easement. It should be observed that drainage and utility easements
81/16/1998 13:51 6124749575 KELLY L~W BUILDING P~G5 82
KELLY LAW OFFICES
-2-
frequently have improvements -- driveways, fences, sheds, etc. There a~e
presently gas and electric lines buried In the drainage and utility easement. But
for an emergency which would require excavation immediately adjacent the trash
enclosure there is little likelihood of the trash enclosure needing to be disturbed.
However, to the extent that the trash enclosure would need to be disturbed at a
future date, the property owner is the party that assumes all risk of injury or
harm to the structure. The presenceof the structure on the drainage and utility
easement is regulated exclusively by the City Zoning Code, consequently, we
submitted a variance request to conform the trash enclosure to the Zoning Code.
We will request Gopher One State identify locations of gas and electric lines
relative to the trash enclosure.
If I can provide further information, please call.
Sincerely.
Mark W. Kelly
1975 ZONING ORDINANCE
P~,~ITTED USES
CONDITIONAL USES
R-2 UP. BAN RESIDENTIAL cont.
8. Funeral Homes
9. Townhouses
10. Multiple F~mily Dwellings
11. Planned Unit Development
12. Mobile Home Parks
13. Charitable Institutions
i2. Boarding Houses
R-3 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
1. Townhouses
2. Multiple Family Dwellings
3- Public & Parochial Schools
4. Public Parks & Playgrounds
Churches
6. Funeral Homes
1. Single F~ni~y Dwellings
2. Two Family Dwe]~_ings
3. Nursing Homes
2. Hospitals & Clinics
5 · Public Utility B~Ti l dings
6. Public B~ildings
7. Private Clubs & Schools
8. Planned Unit Development
9. Charitable Institutions
10. Boarding Houses
B-1 LIMITED BUSINESS
1. Personal & Professional Services
2. Funeral Homes
3- Clinics
Offices & Banks
1. Eating & Drink~g Places
2. Ret~l Business
3. Motor Fuel Stations
B-2 CC~MUNITYBUSINESS
1. Retail Business
2. Eating & Drinking Places
3. Offices & Banks
Personal & Professional Services
5. Public B~ildings
6. Parking Lots
7. Wholesale Business
8. Commercial Schools
9. Hospitals & Clinics
lO. Auto Sales, Serw-ice & Repai~
ll. Motor Fuel Station
1. Research Laboratories
2. Public Util.~ty B~ldings
3. Multiple Fam~y Dwellings
Home & Trailer Sales & Display
5. Farm Implement Sales Service & Repair
6. Supply Yards
7. Commercial Recreation
8. Hotels & Motels
9. Animal Clinics
10. Recreation Equipment, Sales Service
and Repair
AMENDED ZONING
R-2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL cont.
R-3 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
1. Townh ous es
2. Multiple Family Dwellings
S. Public 6 Parochial Schools
Public Parks ~ Playgrounds
S. Churches
6. Funeral Homes
B-1 LIMITED BUSINESS
1. Retail Business
2. Personal Services
$. Funeral Homes
4. Clinics
S. Offices 5 Banks
6. Business & Professional Office
B-2 COFB{UNITY BUSINESS
1. Retail Business
2. Eating & Drinking Places
3. Offices ~ Banks
4. Personal ~ Professional Services
S. Business Service
6. Public Buildings
7. Parking Lots
8. Wholesale Business
9. Commercial Schools
10. Hospitals & Clinics
11. Auto Sales, Service ~ Repair
12. Motor Fuel Station
1S. Funeral Homes
14. Private Club-Health Club
8, Funeral Homes
9. Townhouses
10. Multiple Family Dwellings
11. Planned Unit Development
12. Mobile Home Parks
IS. Charitable Institutions
14. Boarding Houses
1. Single Family Dwellings
2. Two Family Dwellings
3. Nursing Homes
4. Hospitals & Clinics
S. Public Utility Buildings
6. Public Buildings
7. Private Clubs ~ Schools
8. Planned Unit Development
9. Charitable Institutions
10. Boarding Houses
1. Eating & Drinking Places
2. Motor Fuel Stations
$. Public Buildings
4, Public Utility Buildings
S. Fast Food
6. Private Club - Health Club
1. Research Laboratories
2. Public Utility Buildings
S. Multiple Family Dwellings
4. Home & Trailer Sales ~ Display
5. Farm Implement SaIes Service
& Repair
6. Supply Yards
7. Commercial RecreatiOn
8. Hotels ~ Motels
9. Animal Clinics
10. Recreation Equipment, Sales
§ Repair
tl. Fast Food
12. Theaters & Assembly
15. Newspaper Publishing
14. Blueprinting Photostating
=ROPERTY LINE
m
EXHIBIT E
INFORMATION
Z
m
Memo
DATE:
TO:
CC:
January 16, 1997
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
Sue McDermott, Assistant City Engineer
FROM: ~Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator
RE: Project 97-44, Burdick office building #3 storm sewer review
This memo is in regards to the capacity of the existing 21" storm sewer that runs west to east
along the south property line of Burdick office building #3. I have reviewed the existing
drainage area which consists of properties on the east side of Timothy Avenue. The backyards
of these properties drain to the existing catch basin located on Lot 6, Block 4 Boudin's Manor
4th Addition. This catch basin is the end structure on the 21" storm sewer pipe that flows to the
east through the Burdick property.
This line was originally oversized to handle the increased flow due to additional commercial
property that is being and will be developed in this area. After reviewing the submitted
hydraulic calculations for building #3, I have determined that the existing storm sewer network
that serves this area is sized correctly to handle the 10 year frequency storm as required in the
City's Public Works Design Manual. If you have any other questions regarding this matter,
please let me know.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
Memo
DATE:
TO:
CC:
FROM:
RE:
December 12, 1997
Frank Boyles, City Manager
Greg Ilkka, City Engineer
Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator
Drainage issue at Burdick Building rear berm
This memo is in regards to the catchbasin in the southwest comer of the Burdick Office Building
#3 property. This catchbasin is inside of the west property line of the Burdick property by
approximately nine (9) feet. On Friday afternoon of December 12, I997, I confirmed that this
catchbasin is indeed connected to the City storm sewer system as indicated on the construction
plans. Attached is a letter I wrote dated November 21, 1997, to Mr. Alan Mix regarding his rear
yard drainage to this catchbasin. Per my field observation and survey of the area as shown on
the map, this area should drain properly. An as-built grading plan is a requirement as part of the
Burdick Office Building #3 project. When this is received we can verify that the swale along the
west side of the berm is graded properly. If not, we will have an opportunity to require the
developer to make any corrections prior to issuing the final certificate of occupancy.
16200 Eagle Creek A~t'3~31!~.efi!*rior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
November 21, 1997
Mr. Alan Mix
14171 Timothy Ave. N.E.
Pr/or Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mr. Mix:
On Friday, November 21, ~oa'~ [ ~:,~
.... re ...... a copy of a letter from you indicating the potential for
drainage problems on your lot due to the relocation of the berm on Commerce Avenue. That same
morning I surveyed the area and found that your back yard has a positive grade toward the catchbasin,
except for one area along the east property line (see attached map). At this particular Iow point water
would have to pond less than 0.1' (l.2") before it would drain to the catchbasin. The month of July 1997
was the wettest recorded historically for that month, which resulted in many Prior Lake citizens
experiencing water problems on their property. The City was virtually "swamped" with phone calls from
people saying that they had drainage problems in their yards. Many of them that had never had problems
in the past.
Again, from the_survey that was taken, it appears that some minor ponding would occur before it reached
the catchbasin. There is an existing I0 foot drainage and utility easement along the rear property line
which is for this very purpose. If you notice this problem continuing in the future, where the water is
ponding beyond the 10 foot drainage easement, please let me know and I can lock into this issue further.
If you have any other questions regarding this matter please give me a call at 447-4230.
Sincerely,
Lanol ~e~ich~.E.
Water Resources Coordinator
cc: Greg Ilkka, Public Works Director
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIT~ EMPLOYER
=
I"=ZL2'
141'71
DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT
9.~0.?/
g30.g ' --
CATCH r~A$1N ~ ~
)NRY
END CURB
SAWQJT ExiSTING
PAVEMENT
INSTALL 21 L.F,
OF 10' PVC
STORM SEWER
PIPE 0 1.O%
T STORM SEWER MANHOLE
TING 21' STORM SEWER PiPE
3.5 (MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT)
STING RiPE
NEW
TOP OF<-.
_.~IT~ FI FV.
· ':- -=,~ .~,- ~ k_ - - 9-3-7.2 - __ 5 = ...... ' ......
BIT. 934 '
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
CONSIDER REQUEST TO SELL PROPERTY OWNED BY
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
YES X NO-N/A
JANUARY 26, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The City of Prior Lake has received a request to sell a piece of property located at the
south east corner of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue, legally described as Lot 2, Block
3, Brooksville Center First Addition. State Statute (attached) requires that the Planning
Commission determine if such a sale of property is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
ANALYSIS:
The Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan designates this property as R-HD.
Residential High Density. While the future land uses of a private developer are
unknown, it is known that the city has no immediate or long range plans to develop the
property as high density residential (or anything else). The City purchased this property
for the connection of Toronto Avenue to property that is now known as Woodridge
Estates. The City held the property with the idea that the remaining parcel to the east of
Toronto Avenue could be used for a future dance studio. However, considering the
recent referendum and location of the future dance studio downtown, the need for the
City to hold the property has been eliminated.
While.the request was from a specific person, the property would be sold through the
bidding process. The Development Review Committee has reviewed the request.
Attached is a memorandum from Jane Kansier to the City Manager detailing the
necessary requirements including obtaining a survey and appraisal.
The Planning Commission finding will be forwarded to the City Council. The City
Council will need to determine whether or not to proceed with the sale of the property
and to direct staff accordingly.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Find the sale of the property for development consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. Find the sale of the property inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
1:~98files\985u bjec\98~-118p~doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.5.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~g~-~7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIT~ EMPLOYER
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1. The proposed sale of public property is consistent
with the Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second finding the sale of City property located at Lot 2, Block 3
Brooksville Center First Addition consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This finding
will be forwarded to the City Council.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
3. Letter of Request
4. DRC memo
5, State Statute
1:\98files\98subjec\98-118pc.doc Page 2
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP
.......R-HD
C-CC
ORDE
TOWER STREET '~,]T~'I-' '
::~i:::::::: Z~i
~?~:: ~ ~ k '
:::::: :' :: ~
:: ~:.: ~
?~ ~:~l / / / /
~ ~ 170TH STREET
-
~ ~ N.~ ~~o
ODR[DGE
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
CC:
Frank Boyles, City Manager
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator/-~.b~"
U
November 10, 1997
Request to Purchase City Property
DRC Membem
The DP, C reviewed the request by Michael Falk of Weston Real Estate Corporation to
purchase the City property legally described as Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st
Addition. This property was originally purchased by the City for the extension of
Toronto Avenue to 170th Street. Only a portion of the lot is used for the street. The
residual parcel is vacant and potentially developable.
The DRC members discussed whether or not there is a public use for this site. At one
time, there was some discussion about building a dance studio on the site; however, with
the construction of the new library, the dance studio will be located in the old library
building. WE did not identify any other public use for the site.
If Mr. Falk wishes to pursue the purchase of the site, the following should occur:
· The property must be surveyed to determine the precise location of the road and the
necessary r/ght-o-way. An Administrative Land Subdivision or a Plat should be
prepared to handle the actual subdivision of the site.
· An appraisal of the site should be prepared to determine a value and pr/ce for the
property.
· Any sale of public property must be reviewed by the Planning Commission for
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan prior to the approval of the City Council.
Thank you for the oppommity to comment on this matter. If you have any questions,
please contact me.
l:\drc\dis~nemo\weston.doc
Weston Real Estate
Corporation
October 27, 1997
Mr. Frank Boyles
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Drive S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 5>372
RE: City Property Lot 2, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition
Dear Mr. Boyles:
The owners of the Towering Woods Condominiums in Prior Lake are comemplating the next
phase of their project for 1998. In researching city standards and requirements, it came to our
attention that the City of Prior Lake acquired property adjacent to ours for right of way for the
extension of Toronto Avenue and that south of this property may be considered surplus. In that
this property is adjacent to ours and may fit in well with our development plans, we would be
interested in purchasing the portion of Lot 2, Block 3 Brooksville Center 1st Addition not needed
for Toronto Avenue right of way.
We are beginning our planning process now and would appreciate a timely response to this
inquiry. I can be reached at 435-5592. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Falk
Phone: (612) 435-5592 · Fax: (612) 435-5058
1000 Hilloway Circle · Burnsville, Minnesota 55306-5487
828
ve the powers set forth in section
Except as otherwise provided by
t there be a separate board of ap-
aning commission or a committee
and adjustments, and it may pro-
liven such other duties as the gov-
as the board, the governing body
:he decisions of the board on mat-
w or are final subject to appeal to
iso~ to the council. Heatings by
uch time and upon such notice to
g the hoard. The board shall with-
t shall serve a copy of such order
~ear at the hearing in person or by
nosed by the governing body, the
it. Sach roles may include provi-
written briefs by the parties. The
shall include the minutes of its
r heard by it, including the final
,es not act as the board of adjust-
appeal or petition until the plan-
~ it has had reasonable opportuni-
of adjustments and appeals upon
DMENT OF COMPREHEN-
g agency shall
nning agency shall consult with
and agencies of the municipality.
.)f the comprehensive mumcipal
: due cognizance of the plaon/ng
d public agencies. The planning
nendments whenever necessary..
~s. Each municipality in the met-
shall review and update its com-
rovided in section 473.864, sub-
~ent. The planning agency may,
: with the municipal charter, mc-
r from time to time of a compre-
~pted in sections, each of which
ical section of the municipality.
:ipal plan and amendments t? !t
ting the comprehensive mumct-
ag agency shall hold at least one
ose of the hearing shall be pub-
~st ten days before the day of the
mprehensive plan or an amend-
it has received the recommenda°
*m the date an amendment prO-.
lng agency
dy may by resolution by a two-
~'hensive
829
HOUSING. REDEVELOPMENT, PL4.NNING. ZOniNG 462.357
as the official municipal plan upon such notice and hearing as may be prescribed by ordi-
nance,
Sub& 4. Interim ordinance. If a municipality is conducting studies or has authorized a
study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a heating for the purpose of considering
adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official controls as defined in section
462,352. subdivision 15, or if new territory for which plans or controls have not been adopted
is annexed to a municipality, the governing body of the municipality may adopt an interim
ordinance applicable to ali or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning
process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. The interim ordinance may regulate.
restrict or prohibit any use, development, or subdivision within the jurisdiction t)r a portion
thereof for a period not to exceed ()ne year from the date it is effective, and may be extended
for such additional periods as the municipality may deem appropriate, not exceeding a total
additional period of 18 months. No interim ordinance may halt. delay, or impede a subdivi-
sion which has been given preliminary, approval prior to the effective date of the interim ordi-
ha flee.
History: 1965 c 670 s 5; 1976 c 127 ~ 2 l: 1977 c $-J7 s 68:t980 c 566 ~ 24:1983 c
2]6 art l ~ 67:1985 c 62 x 1,2:1995 c 176 s 4
462.356 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION: GENERALLY.
Subdivision [. Recommendations for plan execution. Upon the recommendation by
the planning agency of the comprehensive mnnicipal plan or sectiuas thereof, thc planning
agency shall study and propose to the go~ erning body ma>onable and practicable means [:or
putting the plan or section of the plan into effect. Subject to the limitations of the fol[o~,,ing
sections, such means include, but are not limited to, zoning regulations, regulations for the
subdivision of' land, an official map, a program for coordination of the r~ormal public im-
provements and services of the municipality, urban renewal and a capital improvements pro-
ffrarn.
Subd. 2. Compliance with plan. ,a.i'~er a comlvrehensive municipal plan or section
thereof has been reqommended bv the plannth~ agency and a cony ['ilecl with the ~,o,,ernin.g
body. no publlclv owned interest (n ?cai pronely wttmn tae municipalitv shall be acouired or
~f. nor sSalt anv capitol tmprovemem be authorized by the m'unicipalitv or specifir
district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction witbin the
municipality u,ntil afier th.e planning agency has reviewed the proposed acq.uisition, di~osal.
or capital improvement anu renorreu in wot ng ~u m= uo,,ernlng oouv or other special cllstnct
or agency or pohncal subd~viston concerned. ~ lmdmg~ as to comphanc.e, gt the nrooosed
accluisition, dis~osakor improvement w,ith the ~9mne~'h~'nqi'-'o municinal [?]an. Failure of the
l~la'nmm, aoencv to report on the proposal within 45 days after such a reft:ronco, or such other
period as may be designated by the governing body shall he deemed to have satisfied the re-
quirements of this subdivision. The governing body may. by resolution adopted by two--
thirds vote dispense with the requirements of this subdivision when in its judgment it finds
that the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property or capital improvement has no rela-
tionship to the comprehensive municipal plan.
History.: 1965 c 670 s 6
462.357 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION: ZONING.
Subdivision 1. Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public health.
safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate on the earth's
surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height,
width, bulk. type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the
percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density
and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and stracmres for trade, industry, resi-
dence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade, industry,
residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry., soil conservation, water supply conservation.
conservation of shorelands, as defined in sections 103F.201 to 103F. 221. access to direct sun-
light for solar energy systems as defined in section 216C,06. flood control or other purposes.
and may establish standards and procedures regulating such uses. No regulation may pmhib-