HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-98REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #98-040 Eagle Creek Villas, Inc., is requesting a 22.45 foot variance to
permit a 62.46 foot setback from the center line of a County Road (Franklin Trail)
instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance to lot coverage of 21.2
percent rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent.
S. Old Business:
A. Case #98-039 (Continued) David Berens requesting front yard and lot coverage
variances for the property located at 16345 Duluth Avenue.
Cases #98-016 to 98-018 (Continued) Consider an Amendment to the original
Windsong on the Lake Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat to be
known as Windsong on the Lake 3rd Addition.
Cases 97-107 & 98-108 (Continued) Consider a proposed Amendment to the City of
Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change request for the property
located at 4520 Tower Street.
6. New Business:
A. Discuss televising Planning Commission meetings.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 23, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The March 23, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego,
Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning
Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof
Kuykendall
Criego
Cramer
Stamson
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes fi.om the March 9, 1998
presented.
A. Presentation By
.... iii?
City
bodies with Sehenck !
Council.
Schenck
[pproved as
between the
be liaisons between all advisory
Commission and City
There
13 and MnDOT.
varian
required 50
at 5172 Hope ${~et.
questing a .65 foot
the front yard setback instead of the
a future single family dwelling on the property located
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staffreport dated March 23, 1998, on file in the office
of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application fi.om Paul and Royceann
DesLauriers who are proposing to remove an existing structure and construct a new
single family residence. The lot is 49.35 feet wide at the 25 foot min/mum required front
yard setback. Section 5-8-12 of the City Code requires substandard lots have a minimum
1:\98fi les\98pl¢omm\pcmin~'a~032398.doc 1
Comments from the public:
The applicant was not present.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
lot width of 50 feet to be buildable. The existing lot width at the front yard setback is less
than 50 feet requiring a variance. The lot is located in the Condons Wood Dale 1st
Addition subdivision on Prior Lake platted in 1921. The property is located within the R-
I (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. There is not a bluffon
the property due to the fact that the slope from the 929.0 elevation to the OHW is not
30% or greater. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels.
The legal building envelope is approximately 34 feet wide and 100 feet ~i!?:i~lting in
an area footprint of approximately 3,400 sq. feet..All setbacks will b~::i~. The existing
impervious surface is 45.7%. The proposed impervious surface is 3~i!::~iii~}$~ction 5-8-3
of the City Code allows for permits to be issued on sites with im~ious"~e over
30% which are being altered, which decrease the imperious ~$~i~reducin~:'i~i!~on-
conformity). The DNR had no comments on this request..::?:i?:!?::~::~*~:'~?:::i:' ..... ~?:iiiiiiiiiii~ii~
Staff concluded the variance request for lot width is.~iantiat~i~ith hardships .:~7
pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no contr6l:"~!i?~:?,:.
In viewing the lot ~!::~§taffrepd~? the four q~ce hardship standards are met.
Supports the v~:~'equest::?~:: .~!i~?
The Planning C~i~n..:~i~ii~[~?~!g~[:~i:~cussed giving the planning director the
administrative power ~[~lve th~::~::Of width issues.
· Rye exp:!~::i~, new o~ce c,~ntains a provision that allows for the discrepancy
be~6~::~::~n on ~i~hal plat and the field verified dimension. The
~t of leeway':]~[[~?:~nches ~fii:~h would address the majority of differences.
· Ag~i~ith reasom.~ed
· Appr0 mo apg 'e valance.
Criego: "::.~!i!i? ....
· Agreed witl~:i~ommissioners.
· In favor of granting variance.
Cramer and Stamson
· Concurred.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 98-08PC GRANTING A .65 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.35
1:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcmin\mn032398.doc 2
LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50
FEET TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #98-039 David Berens is requesting a 12 foot variance to permit a
13 foot front yard setback instead of the required 25 feet for a propose~d~g~rage for
the property located at 16345 Duluth Avenue. ~
Planner Jermi Tovar presented the staffreport dated March 23,
of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application
proposing to construct a three car detached garage.
feet. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code
yard along each street of frontage, Therefore. from
the property line facing Duluth Avenue. yard
setback of 13 feet rather than the minimum required of 25 applicant will also
need a variance to lot coverage for the pr~g~d garage. City Code
allows for a maximum coverage of 22% i~:::~::only). The ~ is proposing
building coverage of 33.7%.
Lot 23, Cates Addition was P~:iP 1934. ~i¢~operty.~;cated within the R-2
(Urban Residential District)ii::~8~[~ within i~:.Shoreland district. Section 5-4-1 allows
for a maximum building::~erage,':~hiding ac~s~[y structures, not to exceed 22%.
The house foot "::" feet by ~::i~eet (960 sq~' feet) with an 8 foot by 5 foot entry
(40 square feel of 1,000 square feet or 19.2%
coverage. The I (792 square feet), resulting in total
lot coverage size allowed for a detached accessory structure is
832 structure, whichever is greater.
setb~fik 13 feet from the property line facing Duluth
for the stacking of a vehicle without
project of Duluth Avenue does not include
a new .................. , .~ng this portion of the fight of way. However, the applicant will
have to wo{~::::~: ~i~hgineefing Department to establish elevations and placement of
the new curb ~[~{{er
Under the proposed zoning ordinance, as recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission, the max'unum lot coverage of structures is 30%. This would allow for
1,560 square feet of building footprint on the lot. Given the existing house is
approximately 1,000 square feet or 19.2% lot coverage, this would allow for 560 square
feet for garage space. A typical garage is 22 feet by 22 feet or 484 square feet. One
could reduce the garage width to 20 feet and still be functional. The proposed setback for
this lot under the proposed ordinance would be 25 feet front yard setback on Pleasant
Street and 15 feet from the side yard facing Duluth Avenue.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~m032398.doc 3
The applicant can modify the plan to construct a garage that will meet the requirements of
the proposed ordinance. Such modification could include reducing the size of the garage
to 20 feet wide and 22 feet deep and make the opening of the garage face south. This
would increase the setback fi.om Duluth Avenue to be 15 feet (meeting the proposed
ordinance) and allow space for a mm-around so residents would not have to back onto
Duluth Avenue. The proposed coverage on the lot would then be reduced ~i5~t::,~84 square
feet or 28.5 %. .~.~i~ii?~::~i~:'~ii::i?:ii::::?:
Even if this proposal is modified as recommended, a variance wl[!:~:~'e~ since the
proposed ordinance has not been adopted. However, modifying t~:'Propo~i~ay reduce
negative impacts of this proposal and justify the vadance.,:~i::ii::~,:.:. '~{i!!i~: "::~?:::*i~iiiiiiii?::~ ....
the
Staff has concluded that as submitted, the ":~!!~::the four hardship:~}iii?:'
criteria. A ' Howe~g~,
staff feels the site criteria. A
continuation of the heating until April 13, 1998 would
submit a revised plan for Planning Commission review.
Cramer questioned a possible alley site
David Berens, stated he
Criego questioned ~i[~ee car ve~i!~ two car g~} Berens said he was satisfied with
a two car garage ar/ff:~i~ii~~ w~ii~i ~i~::~;~:~':'Out on to Duluth Avenue. He would
like to see a 22 x 22 foot':~::i'~':~:~i~]'~!ii!i!ii::ii
· '~::?~h Avenue is bu~} Reco~ends entering ~e g~age ~om the south rmher th~
L~d"~age - wo~i~ like to ke~ to a mi~mm.
zow ei rga,4 ?imp mou surhce resffictions.
Stay under ~% criteria.
Cramer:
· Concur with Cdego.
· Sine concerns.
Vonhof:
· Support the right to have a garage structure.
· Current plan should be corrected. The street is too busy.
· Agreed with Commissioners on lot coverage. Stay with staff's recommendation.
1598files\98pl¢omm\pcmin~nnO32398.d~c
Kuykendall:
· Concurred.
· Tovar explained the ordinance requirements.
Stamson:
· Concurred with Commissioners.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO Co~ THE
HEARING TO APRIL 13, 1998, AND DIRECT STAFF TO
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL WITH FINDINGS. '*:iiiiii! "~i~}~:~. '
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. ~"
_
C. Case File #98-032 Consider repealing O~ ~vhich delete~i?:''
mineral extraction as a conditional use in
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier
file in the office of the City Planner.
March 23, 1998 on
The purpose of this public hearing is
deleted mineral extraction as a conditional
(Conservation) Zoning
which
and C-1
re-establish mineral
In 1992,
f~om the list of
culmination of a
#9~, which deleted mineral extraction
districts. This action was the
when the City was party to a
,f a proposed mining operation on the McKerma
;t enacted a moratorium on mineral extraction
the adoption of Ordinance #92-09. The
· in Prior Lake
· . are not in place
· on City staff
· Mining are not compatible uses
When the Council adopted this ordinance, they did not amend Title 9, Chapter 6 of the
City Code which allows Excavating and Filling with a permit issued by the City
Engineer. The end result is these two provisions conflict with one another.
The conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and Section 9-6 of the City Code needs to be
resolved. The proposed zoning ordinance allows mining and extraction as a conditional
use, with several specific standards and conditions. However, that provision will most
likely not become effective until sometime this summer.
1:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcminLnm032398.doc 5
The staffhas discussed this issue with the City Attorney, and she concurs with the staff's
opinion that the record of decision for Ordinance #92-09 does not support the decision to
remove mineral extraction from the list of conditional uses. The conditional use permit
process is the approp~ate mechanism for this use in that it allows for public input in the
decision making process. The current ordinance also includes a set of standards for the
approval of conditional uses. ..::?::?!iiiiiiii~ii~ii!!iiii~iii::iii~,..
To resolve this issue, the City Attorney and the staff have suggested ~ance #92-09 be
repealed, thereby reestablishing mineral extraction as a condition0~i::~:':~!ii~. A-1 and C-
1 districts. Any applicant who wishes to establish this use could~ly fo3:~l~ditional
use permit under the current ordinance. As a provision of an~ilg¢~f~ional us~it, the
City can include a requirement that any more stringent re~ imposed
of the new zoning ordinance can automatically be attaO~"to .....th~ new conditional ~!!:?
permit. ..::~::ii?~i!iii!ii?iil;i. '::~::iii!i~{!!!~::. ':¢i::~
Staff recommends repealing Ordinance 92-09, thereby r~li~hin~Minerali , Extraction
as a conditional use in the A-1 and C-1 Districts. ':::?:ii??~iiiiii?~iiii!~
There were no comments from the public'~:'~aiii~i~ng was cl0'~!~
Comments from the Commissioners: :~i::i:~i!i~ ..:~i::iiiiii:?' ":'::~:~i~?:iii::i?~iiiiiii?~?~ii~?~:'
What is
and grading. Normal
Rye exp
current zoning
wod~i~, be included.
Road 42. The
the new ordinance will.
a conditional use.
.... ~::i!?~ ..... ..:~ii~i::i::i~?::~
It a
Vonhof: ,~:.i!?:::~ ....
· Uncomfortable repealing ordinances when the record shows strong opposition. There
was a reason for doing this in 1992. We have large mineral extraction pits near our
city borders. There is a great deal of citizen concern. The uses are permanent.
· This is proper zoning policy, to have some type of restricted use for legal activities.
· Balance the land use and zoning issues.
· Supports. But look carefully on conditional use standards. These are permanent uses.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcrnin\mn032398.doc
Kuykendall:
· Is not in favor. It is not desirable in the community.
· There is plenty of land and minerals outside the city limits that would not keep us
from making improvements, public or private. They can be trucked in.
· Will vote against it.
Criego:
· Agreed with Kuykendall except for one point. The new ordinance
all our districts on a conditional use basis.
· The conditional use allows us to get input from the public.
· Understands what staff is suggesting.
· Agreed with Vonhof. The conditional use
a lot of people.
The process should not be held up. .::~i::i? .... ~i::i!i!:~ .....
· Support staff's recommendation to repeal. :~i~ii~i?~iiiiiiiiiii}iiii~, , .,ii}ili!}?~ii::!~..
Stamson: .... ii:::(}i!!i}iii!i}i!?:i;;..
· Have been back and forth on this issu~::::~g~ does support. "~iiii!iiiiiiil}!iii~ ......
· Abstaining from voting. Has a relati i}i g?ne of the l : involved.
Discussion: :~:{}~ii~: ' .,::??::~i~::i:iiiili~?~iiii~i?~i!ii::i?:?:::::::iii~:'
Kuykendall: ':~iii?~:::." .:~i~ ....
· Go back and
opposed.
· The Cit'
· Look at the
Vonhof~?
it is a conditional use - he would be
cities.
favor.
have an impact on the land uses.
for this and with conditions it is not imperative it has to
appropriate site or does not meet the performance
· The ori
intent was not to have it here. It is not consistent with our
Criego:
· The last thing the City wants is large pits in our small community. Everyone would
agree to it.
· What we are trying to deal with are some of the minor issues under the conditional
use permits.
· Rye read some of the submittal requirements and conditions for mineral extraction
under the new proposal.
1:\98files\98plcomm~pcrainXrtmO32398.doc 7
Kuykendall:
· Why would the City want a pit?
· Could we restrict this to certain parts of the City?
Vonhof:
· Are there possibilities of someone coming into a site and doing minimal extraction
each year?
· Rye said a conditional use permit would be subjectto review evety.~.
· Would they be on-going from year to year?
· Rye responded one would need to know some analys~s of gr~g~?:flep~:;~n the
County. Prior Lake is pretty limited. Most gravel deposits a~i~long ~i~llfff facing
the River Valley.
· Could it be zoned specifically for this use? ~:iiii_.~:iiii::~
· Concerned for the long term affects.
Vonhof:
· Water and mineral ~g~ are d~fent since:[~y..Dm with the land as opposed to a use
on top of the land,?:::ii~::'is differet/(?like timber :~?
· Feels very..~$y with'~ii~upditions.
CO~::~REPEAL O~ANCE #92-09, THEREBY REESTABLISHING
Mn, m~:~:r~c~6i~ As ^ CONmT~ON~ US~ I~ Tm~ ^~ ~ Cl
Vote taken si~:~l 4 ayes. Stamson abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Continue Capital Improvement Program discussions.
No further discussion.
6. New Business:
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn032398.doc
A. 1997 PUD Annual Report
Planner Jermi Tovar presented the staff report dated March 23, 1998 on file in the office
of the City Planner.
Chapter 5-5-11(D, 7,e) of the Prior Lake City Code requires the Planing ~ission to
review all Planned Unit Development, (PUD), districts within the City..gg~}!i~::::~nce each
year. The Planning Commission is directed to submit a report to th[~i~[ Council on the
development status of each PUD District in order to monitor the ~~t progress of
each PUD District. In the event City Council would find devel~e~ occurred
within a reasonable time after the original approval, the Q~iii~::~eil ma~i~ct the
Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original.~:~trict by re~ ~e
PUD district from the official Zoning Map. .:~i!iii!~ .... . ":~i!i~ii::i~
~55:' :~i~::~ ..::~:
The City of Prior Lake currently has nine PUD!iii~i~g::..s, ~ii?~i~e indicated on the
attached PUD Inventory Map. Over half of the PUD's ~ii~letel~ developed. Tovar
reviewed the report with a brief history, site data, curr~iii!g?velopment status and a
recommendation pertinent to the disposi~gi~.each PUD.
Comments from the Commissioners.' '::':{ii~i:~: '"":~::i::iiiil}!iiiiiiii?~ii::i?:ii~:,::...~ ·
Kuykendall questioned The ~!6~:~.Sterling ~fi~ additio~ii~oject. Tovar responded the
City is working with the c[~i~i~g plans. "~!i~!i!ii!i~ii:: '
Cramer questioned ~igaused C~inal Ridge a PUD. Rye responded there
was significant of the subdivision was conveyed to
the City as parks and op6~ii~'i"~::~he philosophy of PUD's at the time was
different the gl~glicant coul~::i~t:a little more consideration, There was a desire to get
more o p e ~?:~ ~::!~:?~!?~i~i}ii!ili?~} ?:i ~i~ ....
Vo.~i~ would like to ~ili~velop~:~nts like Windsong. The first section was developed
ri~i~y, then staged i ly. He would like to see a chart for each year to track where
the de~¢ents are. Di~}i::it stall out because of market conditions?
MOTION ~i}i~O~, SECOND KUYKENDALL, TO ACCEPT THE 1997 PUD
STAFF REP0~ REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL WITH COMMENTS MADE
BY THE CO~SSIONERS.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye mentioned Commissioners Kuykendall and Stamson should submit letters of intent
to the City Manager for their planning commission tenn.
1:\98files\98pl¢omm\pcmin\rtm032398.doc 9
Commissioners would like to see a submittal of Jim Albers bluff presentation at the next
meeting.
Vonhof gave a brief update on the City Council zoning workshop. Some comments and
topics included were:
· Storage of recreational vehicles.
· Junk vehicles.
· Allowable encroachments in yards - the current language in the be
followed which basically says there is a vertical poke
through that. The recommendation to
and chimneys, etc. Their take on it is, it?
· Took screening out of storing recreational vehicles.
· Lot combinations - leave ordinance as is. Discussi0fi~:'will ~ntinue.
consensus.
· Rye spoke to the DNR on lot combinations - D~:~'~::~li~ii:msist on
combination of substantial lots in common ownership?~gretically the DNR can
enforce that restriction themselves .... ~::~::i!iii?~i~ii!!ii::::~ ....
The Scott County Planners Workshop is ~iii~!~ii~i~i~!ii?::::i~i,~:~ ......... ?'~ ....
The meeting was
Planning Director
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn032398.doc
10
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER COUNTY ROAD SETBACK AND LOT
COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR EAGLE CREEK
VILLAS, INC,, Case File #98-040
5255 160TH STREET
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ~J~
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
APRIL 13, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
Eagle Creek Villas is proposing to construct two 4-unit townhomes on the Apple
Valley Ready Mix site (Exhibit Al. A demolition permit has been issued for the
structure'.~ existing on the site. The property is zoned R-3 Multiple Family
Residential and is designated as R-HD Urban High Density in the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The applicant is requesting the following
variances:
· A 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a
county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback from the
centedine.
· A 1.2% variance to permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the
maximum allowed of 20%.
DISCUSSION:
The lot is a corner lot approximately 223 feet by 150 feet. The total lot area is
33,220 square feet (0.76 acres). Section 5-4-1 (M) of the City Code requires that
structures be setback 85 feet from the centerline of county roads. Section 5-4-1
allows for a maximum lot coverage of 20% for townhomes. The maximum
permitted density for townhomes in the R-3 is 14.0 units per acres. The
applicant is proposing 10.5 units per acre. The applicant will have to subdivide
the property prior to obtaining a building permit for the proposed townhomes. As
the lot exists, only one building permit can be issued on the lot.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S,E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447 4245
AN EQUAl OPPORTUNI'IY EMPLOYER
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. Permitted uses in the R-3 zoning district
include townhomes and multiple family residential structures. The building
setbacks are the same for either use, but the lot coverage is different.
Townhomes are allowed 20% lot coverage and multiple family units are
allowed 30% lot coverage. The density is the same. The legal building
envelope is approximately 15,702 square feet. Reasonable use of the
property exists without the approval of the variances.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are no unique characteristics of the property that warrant hardship.
The lot is over 33,000 square feet. The layout or number of units could be
modified to meet the ordinance and eliminate the variance request.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The lot, as it exists, is conforming to the dimensional and area requirements
of the R-3 zoning district. The hardship is caused by the applicants number
of units and proposed layout of the units. Reasonable use can be made of
the property without the variances.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of lot coverage is to provide open space and separation between
structures on lots. The intent of lot coverage can be met with the requested
variance. However, the intent of the setback from the centerline of county
road is to provide adequate spacing and front yards on lots adjacent to roads
that are typically wider and carry more traffic than a local street. The intent of
the county road setback cannot be maintained as proposed. Therefore, as
proposed the variance requests do not meet the intent of the ordinance and
are contrary to the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded that as submitted, the proposal does not meet the hardship
criteria. The site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance requirements.
L:\98FI LES\98VAR\98-040\98-040P C.DOC Page 2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this
case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings.
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 as in attached
Resolution 98-11 PC.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 98-11PC.
L:\g8FILES\98VAR\98-040\98-040PC.DOC
Page 3
RESOLUTION 98-11PC
DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL)
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE
CENTERLINE AND A 1.2% VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF
21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20%.
BE ~T RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Eagle Creek Villas Inc. has applied for a variances from Section 5-4-1 of the City
Code on property located in the R-3 (Multiple Residential) District at the following
location, to wit;
160th Street, legally described as: Commencing at a point 25 feet east of
the northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 1, Costello's Addition to Prior Lake,
Scott County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the office of the county recorder; thence south parallel to the east
line of said addition a distance of 150 feet; thence east parallel to the north
line of Section 1, T. 114, R. 22, a distance of 300 feet; thence north
parallel to the east line of said addition a distance of 150 feet; thence
westerly along the right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 13; to a
point of beginning, Scott County MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case #98-040 and held a hearing thereon on April 13, 1998.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the requested setback and lot
coverage 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.
The granting of the setback variance and lot coverage variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a snbstantial property right of the applicant. The
applicant has alternatives to eliminate the variances. The variance will serve merely
as a convenience to the applicant.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447 4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQ( AL. OPPORTUNITY EMP[OYER
5. The Board of Adjustment contends the applicant has created their own hardship
through the design of the proposed structures.
6. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the ordinance cannot be met if
the variance is granted.
7. The Board of Adjustment has concluded reasonable use can be made of the property
without the variance.
8. The contents of Plarming Case 98-040 are hereby cntered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variances for 5255 160th Street, as shown in Exhibit A (survey and legal
description);
A 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline ora
county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback from the
centerline.
2. A 1.2% variance to permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the
maximum allowed of 20%.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 13, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Plalming Director
L:\98FI LES\98VAR\98 -040~RE9811 PC.DOC 2
>
× ~
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES:
A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMITA 62.46 FOOT SETBACK FROM
THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2 PERCENT VARIANCE TO
LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED OF 20 PERCENT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FUTURE TOWNHOMES ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R-3 (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS
5255 160TH STREET.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE
(Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday,
April 13, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
Eagle Creek Villas Inc.
7765 175th Street
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PROPERTY
OWNERS:
AVR Inc.
6801 150th Street W.
Apple Valley, MN 55124
SUBJECT SITE:
5255 160th Street, legally described as follows:
Commencing at a point 25 feet east of the northeast corner
of Lot 1, Block 1, Costello's Addition to Prior Lake, Scott
County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and
of record in the office of the county recorder; thence south
parallel to the east line of said addition a distance of 150
feet; thence east parallel to the north line of Section 1, T.
114, R. 22, a distance of 300 feet; thence north parallel to
the east line of said addition a distance of 150 feet; thence
westerly along the right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway
No. 13; to a point of beginning.
L:\98FILES\98VAP,\98-040 PN .DOC l
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447 4230 / Fax (612) 447 4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTLINI FY EMPLOYER
REQUEST:
The applicant is intending to construct eight townhome units.
Townhomes are permitted in the R-3 zoning district. The
proposed setback from the centerline of Franklin Trail is
62.46 feet, rather than the required 85 feet and the
proposed lot coverage is 21.2%, rather than the maximum
coverage allowed of 20% for townhomes.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested
variance against the following criteria 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 criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: April 2, 1998
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-040PN.DOC
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF FRONT YARD
SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR
DAVID BERENS, Case File #98-039
16345 DULUTH AVENUE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER '~
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
APRIL 13, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Commission originally heard this request on March 23, 1998. The
item was continued to allow the applicant time to revise the plan and variance
requests. The applicant is requesting the following variances:
· 12 Foot Front yard setback variance to allow front yard setback of 13 feet
rather than the required 25 foot setback.
· 6.5% Lot coverage variance to permit lot coverage of 28.5% rather that he
maximum coverage allowed of 22%.
The Planning Commission also directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial
relating to the applicant's original request. Resolution #98-10PC is attached.
DISCUSSION:
The lot is a corner lot 40.0 feet by 130 feet. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code
requires that corner lots maintain the required front yard along each street of
frontage. Therefore, the required garage setback is 25 feet from the property
line facing Duluth Avenue. The requested variance is to allow a front yard
setback of 13 feet rather than the minimum required of 25 feet. The applicant is
also requesting a variance to lot coverage for the proposed garage. Section 5-4-
I of the City Code allows for a maximum coverage of 22% (structures only) in
the R-2 Urban Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing building
coverage of 28.5%.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E,, Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAt. OPPOF~TUNI FY EMPLOYER
The attached Exhibit A (survey) indicates the revised layout of the garage and
driveway. The applicant has significantly reduced the size of the garage from
792 square feet to 484 square feet. The garage now faces south, rather than
west in the original proposal, allowing for a turn around and eliminating the
overhang of parked vehicles into the right of way.
VARIANCE HARDSHIPSTANDARDS
'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. The variance requests for setback and lot
coverage are a direct result of the lot size. The Planning Commission has
stated a garage is a reasonable accessory use for a residential properties.
There is a hardship with respect to the property because the substandard lot
area or dimensions cannot be changed to meet the requirements of the
ordinance.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
The unique circumstance is the lot area and dimensions rendering the lot
substandard. The lot is also a corner lot which requires a front yard setback
on both street frontages. Considering the lot dimension is an existing
condition created in 1934 and cannot be altered to meet the ordinance
requirements, hardship does exist for lot width and lot coverage.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The lot is considered to be substandard. The lot area is 5,200 square feet
and the lot width is only 40 feet. These are conditions which have been
existing since the property was platted. The lot coverage and setback
variance requests have been modified and are of reasonable size in a
reasonable location.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of lot coverage is to provide open space on lots and separation
between structures on lots. One intent of the front yard setback is to allow for
adequate stacking of cars in a driveway. Considering Duluth Avenue is
designated as a minor collector and the proposed driveway length is 13 feet
(on the lot only), a turn around on private property is important. The applicant
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-039\98039PC2.DOC Page 2
has met the spirit and intent of the ordinance by facing the garage south and
proving for a 35 foot long driveway for adequate stacking. Considering lots in
the area are of similar size and have existing structures upon them, the
granting of a variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded that as revised, the proposal meets the four hardship
criteria.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this
case, the Planning Commission should approve Resolution #98-09PC. The
attached Resolution #98-10PC denies the original request.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to adopt Resolution #98-09PC approving the modified site
plan and motion and second to adopt Resolution #98-10PC denying the original
request.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-039\98039PC2.DOC
Page 3
· SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
DAVID BERENS,
1764§ JUNIPER PATH
SUITE NO 200
LAKEVILLE~ MN. 55044
Valley Surveying Co., PA.
SUITE t20-C ~ ~6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE~ MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 44?-2570
EXHIBIT A
PLEASANT .....
ST R EET
0 20
93, g
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 23, CATES ADD'N, Scott County, Minnesota. Excepting therefrom
South 20.00 feet thereof. Also showing the localion of the proposed garage,
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 942.84 lop nut hydrant {~ the NE quadrant of
Duluth Avenue and Pleasant Street.
93~5.0 Denotes existing g~ade elevation
(935.8)Denoles proposed finished grade elevallon
~ Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage
Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 936.04
Property area = 5.200 square feet
RESOLUTION 98-09PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 12.0 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT
YARD SETBACK OF 13.0 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET AND
A 6.5% LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF
28.5% RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE ALLOWED OF 22%
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
David Berens has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit
the construction of a detached garage on property located in the R-2 (Urban
Residential) District at the following location, to wit;
16345 Duluth Avenue, legally described as Lot 23, Block 3, Cates Addition
except the south 20 feet thereof, Scott County, MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #98-039 and held hearings thereon on March 23, 1998 and April 13, 1998.
The item was continued from March 23, 1998 to April 13, 1998 to allow the applicant
time to modify the proposed plan to specifically reduce the size of the garage and
provide for a longer driveway to accommodate at least one vehicle without
encroaching on the right-of-way,
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variances will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-039LRE9809PC.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447 4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN ?.QL/AL OP?ORTUNiTY EMPI,OYER
The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property,
and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located.
The unique circumstances applicable to this property include the substandard lot size,
the fact that the property was platted prior to the incorporation of the city and the fact
the lot is a comer lot and must maintain two front yards.
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 applicant, but are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
The factors listed above do not allow for an alternative location of the proposed
structure without variances.
The contents of Planning Case 98-039 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the
Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be
null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variances has
failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of
contemplated improvements.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and
approves the following variances, per attached Exhibit A, for proposed detached garage:
1. A 12.0 foot variance to permit a front yard setback of 13 feet instead of the required
25 foot setback.
2. A 6.5% lot coverage variance to permit lot coverage of 28.5% rather than the
maximum coverage allowed of 22%.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 13, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
RESOLUTION 98-10PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 12.0 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT
YARD SETBACK OF 13.0 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET AND
A 12.5% LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF
34.5% RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE ALLOWED OF 22%
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
David Berens has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit
the construction of a detached garage on property located in the R-2 (Urban
Residential) District at the following location, to wit;
16345 Duluth Avenue, legally described as Lot 23, Block 3, Cates Addition
except the south 20 feet thereof, Scott County, MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #98-039 and held hearings thereon on March 23, 1998 and April 13, 1998.
The item was continued from March 23, 1998 to April 13, 1998 to allow the applicant
time to modify the proposed plan to specifically reduce the size of the garage and
provide for a longer driveway to accommodate at least one vehicle without
encroaching on the right-of-way.
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.
The applicant has an alternative to reduce the lot coverage on the lot by reducing the
size of the proposed garage. Such an alteration of the garage and modification of the
layout can accommodate a driveway that will allow for stacking of at least one
vehicle without encroaching into the right-of-way.
6. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variances will not
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAl OPPOWI UNITY EMPLOYER
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal does not meet all four of the necessary hardships as required in granting
a variance. The variance request to lot coverage is a result of the property owner and
does not meet the intent of the ordinance. The plan can be modified to meet the intent
and be of reasonable use at the same time.
The granting of the variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right of the applicant. As originally proposed, the variances
will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate
demonstrable hardship. The factors listed above allow for an alternative location of
the proposed structure with reduced variance requests.
9. The contents of Planning Case 98-039 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variances, per attached Exhibit A, for proposed detached garage:
1. A 12.0 foot variance to permit a front yard setback of 13 feet instead of the required
25 foot setback.
2. A 12.5% lot coverage variance to permit lot coverage of 34.5% rather than the
maximum coverage allowed of 22%.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 13, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-039~RE9810PC.DOC 2
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
DAVID BERENS
17645 JUNIPER PATN
SUITE NO 200
LAKEVILLE~ MN. 55044
Volley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE ~,20-O ~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE ($1,2) 447-,2570
EXHIBIT A
PLEASANT
ST R EET
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 23, CATES ADD'N, Scott County, Mirmesota. Excepting therefrom the
South 20.00 feet thereof. Also showing the location of the proposed garage.
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 942.84 top nut hydrant ~ the NE quadrant of
Duluth Avenue and Pleasant Street.
935.0 Denotes existing grade elevation
(935.8)Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
· ,. Denotes proposed direction o f finished surface drainage
Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 936.04
Property area = 5,200 square feet
0 ZO 40
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5B
CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT
TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
KNOWN AS WINDSONG ON THE LAKE AND THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS
WINDSONG ON THE LAKE THIRD ADDITION
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATO~
YES X NO-N/A
APRIL 13, 1998
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 23, 1998, to consider this
request. The Planning Commission continued action on this item until March 9, 1998,
and suggested the applicant work with the homeowner's association on this request. At
the developer's request, this item was continued again until April 13, 1998.
The developer held a meeting with the Windsong Homeowner's Association on March
17, 1998. The only information the staffhas received about this meeting is the attached
letter from the developer, received on March 23, 1998. The developer has also submitted
a draft of the revised homeowner's association documents. The City Attorney's office is
reviewing these documents.
A copy of the Planning Report, dated February 23, 1998, is attached to tiffs report for
your information. The proposal for this development has not changed significantly.
Since this original report was written, the developer provided a revised measurement for
the lake frontage, increasing this frontage from 165 feet to 171 feet. The difference in
this measurement is the fact the measurement was taken at the 904' Ordinary High Water
Elevation rather than along a straight survey line. The increased frontage will allow 11
additional boat slips, rather than the 10 mentioned in the earlier report.
ANALYSIS:
The proposal consists of a PUD Plan Amendment and a Preliminary Plat. The proposed
PUD amendment is consistent with the existing development. If the development is to
proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions:
l:\98filcs\98puds\windsong\windpc3.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Pr. (612) 447 4230 / Fax (612) ~47 424S
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1. No more than 11 additional boat slips shall be permitted. The Developer must
provide a copy of the revised DNR permit allowing the additional boat slips to the
City Planning Department.
2. The Homeowner's Association documents for Windsong on the Lake must be
amended to include the new area, and the amended documents must be recorded with
the final plat documents. A recorded copy of the amended documents must be
submitted to the Planning Department within 10 days after recording the final plat.
3. There shall be no filling or grading on Outlots A and B, as shown on the preliminary
plat for Windsong on the Lake Third Addition without the issuance of a separate
filling and grading permit. Any alteration to the existing vegetation on these outlots
must also be consistent with the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. There shall be no filling or grading on Lot 1, Block 2, as shown on the preliminary
plat for Windsong on the Lake Third Addition without the issuance of a separate
filling and grading permit. Any alteration to the existing vegetation on this lot must
also be consistent with the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
The preliminary plat is consistent with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance
requirements. If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following
conditions:
The Homeowner's Association documents for Windsong on the Lake must be
amended to include the new area, and the amended documents must be recorded with
the final plat documents. A recorded copy of the amended documents must be
submitted to the Planning Department within 10 days after recording the final plat.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the amendment to the PUD Plan subject to the above listed
conditions, and the Preliminary Plat subject to the above listed condition.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Altemative 1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Since this request includes two separate applications, separate motions are required for
each application. These include;
1. A motion and second to recommend approval of the amendment to the PUD Plan,
subject to the conditions listed in this report.
1:\98 files\98puds\w/ndsong\windpc3.doc Page 2
A motion and second to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat to be known as
Windsong on the Lake Third Addition, subject to the conditions listed in this staff
report.
EXHIBITS:
1. Letter from H & H Land Development, dated March 23, 1998
2. Planning Report dated February 23, 1998
l:\98files\98puds\windsong\windpc3.doc
Page 3
H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT
10315 Thomas Ave,~ue South
Bloomington, MN 5~'431-3315
(612) 884-5O37
March 20, 1998
Jane Kansier
City of Pdor Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.
Pdor Lake, MN 55372
RE: Windsong on the Lake, Third Addition
Dear Ms. Kansier:
The Windsong Homeowners met at 7:00 p.m. on March 17, 1998. The meeting
produced an issue about which I inquired to you by telephone relating to the fact that
Edinborough Avenue is a pdvate street and not a public street. It was suggested by a
homeowner that if the city decided to convert Edinborough to a city street, there would be a
need for the installation of curb and gutter and the adjacent properties would be assessed.
Under those conditions, the worst case assumption would suggest that the Windsong on the
Lake Association would be responsible for curb and gutter along part of that street, since it
would be the owner of the part of the railroad dght of way now owned by Schricker.
I wish to confirm your telephone response to my inquiry on this issue. You indicated
the following:
1. If the city took over the pdvate street and put in curb and gutter, etc. as an
assessment project, the assessment would be based on benefit to the particular
adjacent landowner.
2. If the adjacent landowners requested that the city take over the street for
maintenance purposes, the city would require that the street be upgraded to current
specifications before it would accept the street.
3. Both you and the engineering department believe that it is highly unlikely that
the city would take over a private street at without a request from the owners of the
private street.
I am attempting to document our exchange of telephone messages so that I can give
some answer to Windsong homeowners on this issue. Please let me know if my
representation of your response is inaccurate in any way.
RWH:sb
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN KNOWN AS
WINDSONG ON THE LAKE AND THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS
WINDSONG ON THE LAKE THIRD ADDITION
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR~J-~-~'
X YES NO-N/A
FEBRUARY 23, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
H & H Land Development has applied for approval of an amendment to the Windsong on
the Lake Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat to be known as Windsong on
the Lake 3rd Addition. The developer has also applied for approval of a final plat, which
will be considered by the City Council along with the PUD amendment and the
preliminary plat. The property in question is located west of CSAH 21 and south of
Lords Street. The area to be added to the PUD is located along the east boundary of the
existing PUD plan, immediately adjacent to Prior Lake at the southerly end of
Edinborough Street.
BACKGROUND:
The original Windsong on the Lake PUD was approved in 1983 and consisted of 33.36
acres of land to be developed into 26 large, single family lots, a private equestrian club,
and a private recreation area adjacent to the lake. The final plat for the original lots was
approved in 1984.
In 1988, the PUD plan was amended to eliminate the equestrian club and substitute 12
single family lots, for a total of 38 single family lots. A final plat, Windsong on the Lake
Second Addition, consisting of 7 of the 12 new lots was approved in 1995. The
remaining 5 lots have not been platted at this time. To date, approximately 12 of the 38
lots remain undeveloped.
The Planning Commission is considering two applications at this time. The first
application is a request to amend PUD Plan for this project. The second application is for
approval of a preliminary plat for this site, to be known as Windsong on the Lake Third
1'\98files\98guds\windson.nDg \wind p c. doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61Zlq-47-4245
AN EQUAL OPPOR1 UNITY EMPLOYER
Addition. Each of these applications, as well as the physical site characteristics, is
discussed in detail below.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The original PUD area consists of 33.36 acres. The area to be added to
the PUD is 0.97 acres, for a total PUD site of 34.33 acres.
Tono~ranhv: This site has a varied topography. The northerly portion of the site,
Windsong on the Lake Second Addition, is relatively level. However, the remaining site
has a fairly steep topography, with elevations ranging from 910' MSL to 980' MSL. The
topography of the site to be added to the PUD is primarily steep slopes and bluffs, with
elevations from 904' MSL to 940' MSL. There is no grading proposed as part of this
plan.
Vegetation: This existing portion of the PUD has been graded, and most of the original
vegetation removed. The area to be added to the PUD is wooded, with the exception of
the existing home site. Since no grading or land disturbing activity is proposed, a tree
inventory has not been prepared.
Wetlands: There are no existing wetlands on this site.
Access: Access to the Windsong development is from CSAH 21, via 154th Street,
Windsong Cimle, and Lords Street. Access to the existing Schricker home is from
Edinborough Street. No changes are proposed to the access.
PROPOSED PLAN
This proposal adds a portion of the Schricker property to the Windsong on the Lake PUD.
The Schricker property currently includes approximately 1.5 acres of land. This proposal
subdivides the existing Schricker home on 0.56 acres leaving the remaining 0.97 acres as
part of the PUD. The 0.97 acres is subdivided into two outlots. Outlot A is 0.57 acres in
size, and is intended as common open space. Outlot B is 0.18 acres, and is also intended
as common open space. The two outlots also provide an additional 165 feet of frontage
on the lake. The remaining 0.22 acres will be combined with Lot 2, Block 1, Windsong
on the Lake, to create a new lot 0.77 acres in size. This lot is the current site of the
Metzger home, and the additional lot area will provide frontage on the lake.
The proposed amendment does not provide any additional buildable lots to this
development. What it does provide is an additional 165 feet of lakeshore frontage under
common ownership. This additional frontage will allow more boat slips for the lot
owners in the Windsong development.
There are currently 26 boat slips located along the common area of this development.
The additional frontage this proposal provides would allow up to 10 additional boat slips
under the formula outlined in the City's Zoning Ordinance. According to the narrative
submitted by the developer, all of the boat slips would be located in the vicinity of the
l:\98filcs\98puds\windsong\windpc.doc Page 2
current docks. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources controls the actual
location and configuration of the boat slips. The current DNR permit for this
development must be amended to allow the additional slips.
ANALYSIS:
PUD Plan Amendment: The purpose of a Planned Unit Development is to allow
flexibility in residential land development, variety in the organization of the site, higher
standards of site and building design, preservation and enhancement of desirable site
characteristics, and more efficient and effective use of land. Based on these standards,
the Windsong development should probably not be a Planned Unit Development. The
issue of whether this development should remain a PUD was discussed by the Council
when the previous amendment was considered in 1988, According to the April 4, 1988,
City Council minutes, "extensive discussion occurred on the merits of retaining the PUD
designation and whether or not Windsong zoning should be changed to R~I....It was
generally agreed that the PUD zoning provided the Council with more controls over the
subdivision than a typical R-1 zoning designation." For this reason, the PUD designation
remains in place.
As mentioned above, the primary effect of this amendment is the additional boat slips
which would be allowed. The proposed outlots provide a common open space that is not
easily accessible or very useable space. For example, Outlot A is accessible only from
the adjacent lots. Both Outlot A and Outlot B are very steep, and do not provide good
access to the lakeshore.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the existing development of the Windsong
on the Lake PUD. If the development is to proceed, it should be subject to the following
conditions:
1. No more than 10 additional boat slips shall be permitted. The Developer must
provide a copy of the revised DNR permit allowing the additional boat slips to the
City Planning Department.
2. The Homeowner's Association documents for Windsong on the Lake must be
amended to include this area, and the amended documents must be recorded with the
final plat documents. A recorded copy of the an~ended documents must be submitted
to the Planning Department within 10 days after recording the final plat.
3. There shall be no filling or grading on Outlots A and B, as shown on the preliminary
plat for Windsong on the Lake Third Addition without the issuance of a separate
filling and grading permit. Any alteration to the existing vegetation on these outlots
must also be consistent with the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. There shall be no filling or grading on Lot 1, Block 2, as shown on the preliminary
plat for Windsong on the Lake Third Addition without the issuance of a separate
filling and grading permit. Any alteration to the existing vegetation on this lot must
also be consistent with the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
1:\98 files\98puds\windsong\windpc.doc
Page 3
Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat for this site, known as Windsong on the Lake
Third Addition, consists of 2.08 acres to be subdivided into 2 lots and 2 outlots. Lot 1,
Block 1, is 0.56 acres and is the site of the existing Schricker home. Access to this lot is
from Edinborough Avenue. Lot 1, Block 2, is 0.77 acres in size and is the site of the
current Metzger home. Access to this lot is from Windsong Circle. Outlots A and B are
0.57 acres and 0.18 acres respectively. These outlots are to be part of the common open
space for the Windsong development.
There is no public right-of-way or parkland dedicated in this plat. In addition, there are
no require or proposed utilities, including sanitary sewer, water mains, or storm sewer
proposed. The existing houses already have these services available, and there is no need
to provide these services to the outlots. Since no utility improvements are required, no
fees will be collected. However, a park land dedication fee will be collected for the final
plat.
The preliminary plat is consistent with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance
requirements. If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following
conditions:
The Homeowner's Association documents for Windsong on the Lake must be
amended to include this area, and the amended documents must be recorded with the
final plat documents. A recorded copy of the amended documents must be submitted
to the Planning Department within 10 days after recording the final plat.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the amendment to the PUD Plan subject to the above listed
conditions, and the Preliminary Plat subject to the above listed condition.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staffrecommends Alternative 1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Since this request includes two separate applications, separate motions are required for
each application. These include;
1. A motion and second to recommend approval of the amendment to the PUD Plan,
subject to the conditions listed in this report.
2. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat to be known as
Windsong on the Lake Third Addition, subject to the conditions listed in this staff
report.
1:\98filcs\98puds\windsong\windpc.doc Page 4
.EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Reduced Copy of Overall PUD Plax~
3. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat
4. Developer's Narrative (2 pages)
5. Letter from DNR
l:\98files\98puds\windsong\windpc.(Ioc
Page 5
/
Proposed THIRD
ADD TION' AREA
' WINDSONG on the Lake
1/30/98
Windsong on the lake Third Addition
Prior Lake, MN
Proposed by
H & H Land Development
REQUESTS
1. P.U.D. Amendment
2. Preliminary Plat/Subdivision review and approval.
3. Final Plat review and approval.
PROPOSAL
In 1983, the original 33.36 acre Windsong on the lake P.U.D. was approved by the City of Prior
Lake. It consisted of 26 single family detached home sites, a private equestrian club (8+ acres)
and private recreation areas (3.55+ acres) including tennis, trails, docks, beach, shelter building,
etc.. The private recreation areas have been built and most of the original lots sold. The P.U.D.
was amended in 1987 by eliminating the 8+ acre equestrian club and substituting 12 single
family detached lots. Of these, 7 lots were developed in 1995 and 5 remain for a future final plat
addition (subject to market demand and Co. Rd. 21 construction).
The current proposal is to add an additional 1.53 acres (John and Jolene Schricker residence -
15371 Edinborough Avenue) into the project, amend the P.U.D. and resubdivide the property.
The resubdivision would include the 0.45 acre Daniel Metzger residence (4130 Windsong
Cimle) bringing the total site to 2.08 acres.
The subdivision would:
1. Create a new 0.56 acre parcel (Lot 1, Block 1) for the existing Schricker residence
maintaining the same usable area as existing and providing 140 feet of lakeshore
frontage. Thi's residence would maintain its access from Edinborough Avenue.
Since this lot is isolated from other lots within the project, it is not going to be
included in the Windsong P.U.D.. It will just be part of the subdivision/plat process.
2. Enlarge the existing Metzger pamel to include a portion of the Schricker property to
create a new 0.77 acre parcel (Lot 1, Block 2) that has a 75' lakeshore frontage. The
existing residence would remain. The additional land provides visual lake access for
the land owner. The P.U.D. will limit boat dockage to the common dock area
maintained by the homeowners association.
3. Provide 2 pamels (Outlot A 0.57 acres and Outlot B 0.18 acres-total 0.75 acres) that
will be incorporated into the common private open space area of the P.U.D.. No
improvements are planned at this time for these areas. This brings the total P.U.D.
open space to 4.3+ acres to provide 13% park area within the 33+ acre overall
P.U.D. (total P.U.D. area excludes the 1.3 acre Hennen residence from the original
P.U.D. and the existing 0.56 acre Schricker residence form this proposal).
This proposal involves only an amendment to the P.U.D. and land subdivision. All public
improvements (street, utilities, etc.) are already in place. No site grading or other improvements
are proposed and therefore existing tree cover will remain undisturbed.
All boat slips within the P.U.D. will be through common dockage controlled by the homeowners
association and covenants and will be based solely from the existing Outlot C in Windsong on
the Lake or Outlot B, Windsong on the Lake Third Addition. The additional land provides 385'
oflakeshore frontage. Of this, 140 feet will remain with the existing Schricker parcel and 75 feet
will be added to the Metzger parcel. This leaves a net 170' oflakeshore which will allow an
additional 15 boat slips. Proposed Outlot A of the third addition will have conservation
easements based on review with the Mn DNR.
~i28840990
H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT
10315 Thomas Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55431-3315
(612) 884-5037
(612) 884-0990 Fax
RALPH HEUSCHELE ATTY PAGE
February 19, 1998
By FAX and by U. S. Mail
FAX No. 447-4245
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ava.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Windsong en the Lake
3rd Addition
Dear Ms. Kansier;
In reviewing the narrative of our application, I find that we have an error in the
last paragraph. The number of additional boat slips should be 11, not 15.
I also note that there is no specific request for additional boat slips in this
application. Is this needed? The actual permit comes from the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources.
Very truly
Ralph .
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5C
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO
THE 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM THE C-CC
(COMMUNITY RETAIL SHOPPING) DESIGNATION TO
THE R-HD (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DESIGNATION
AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM THE B-3 (GENERAL
BUSINESS) DISTRICT TO THE R-3 (MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
APRIL 13, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider a request by Stonewood Development
Corporation to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to the High Density Residential
designation and to rezone the property to the R-3 district to allow for the development of
a multifamily residential structure on the property.
The details of this application are as follows:
Applicant:
Stonewood Development Corporation
4901 West 77th Street
Suite #125
Edina, MN 55435
Property Owner:
Nell Boderman
6805 Gieason Court
Edina, MN 55436
Size and Location of
Property:
This site consists of approximately 3 acres of vacant
land and is located on the south side of Tower Street,
between Toronto Avenue and Duluth Avenue, south of
Priordale Mall and west of Pond's Edge Early Learning
School.
Current Comprehensive
Plan Designation:
This property is identified as C-CC (Community Retail
Shopping) on the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This
designation is characterized by retail shopping centers
designed to provide shopping and convenience facilities
to a broader residential area.
1:\9~'fi1~\97 rez~)n e\9,7,- 1~ 8\9~ 108pc2 .¢Joc .......
16200 Eagle ~.reek ,~ve. ~.m, ~'rior LaKe, Minnesota 55.~/~±/~'~ / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~g~7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Proposed
Comprehensive Plan
Designation:
Current Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
Adjacent Land Use,
Comprehensive Plan
Designation and Zoning:
Streets/Access:
Natural Features:
Public Utilities:
The applicant is requesting the property be designated
R-HD (High Density Residential). This designation is
characterized by dwellings other than single family
detached houses at densities up to 30 units per acre.
B-3 (General Business)
R-3 (Multiple Residential)
North: Vacant land and Priordale Mall, designated as
C-CC and zoned B-3.
South: Single family dwellings, designated as R-L/MD
(Urban Low to Medium Density Residential) and zoned
R-1 (Suburban Residential).
East: Pond's Edge Early Learning Center designated
as R-HD and zoned R-3.
West: Vacant land and wetland designated as C-CC
and zoned B-3.
Access to this site is from Tower Street on the north.
The Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan
identifies Tower Street as a minor collector.
This site has an elevation change of about 10 feet from
the east to the west boundary. The site also includes
several trees, but we have no tree inventory to indicate
whether these trees are classified as significant under
the tree preservation ordinance.
Sanitary sewer and watermain service is readily
available to this site through existing mains located in
Tower Street.
ANALYSIS:
This item was originally considered by the Planning Commission on December 8, 1997.
The Planning Commission tabled action on this item to allow the applicant to meet with
the residents of the adjacent neighborhood to discuss his plans for this property. The
applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on January 27, 1998. The staff has not
received any information on the outcome of this meeting.
At this time, no specific plans for the property development have been submitted,
although the applicant has verbally indicated his plans to construct a three story
multifamily dwelling. Under the present Zoning Ordinance, multiple family dwellings are
a permitted use in the R-3 district, with a maximum density of 14 units per acre, and a
maximum coverage of 20 percent.
1:\97files\97rezone\97-108\97108pc2.doc Page 2
An analysis of each component of this application follows.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives
which are applicable to this request are as follows:
GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT: Encourage the development of
suitable housing in a desirable environment.
OBJECTIVE No. 1: Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality housing.
OBJECTIVE No. 2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality
residential environments.
OBJECTIVE No. 3: Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the
natural environment and the enjoyment of residents.
The R-HD designation is intended to provide an opportunity to create population centers
near community activity areas. This designation is consistent with the above stated
goals and objectives in that it offers a variety of housing, and it is consistent with the
City's Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. The R-HD
designation is also consistent with the designation of the property to the east.
Zone Chanqe: The criteria for granting a zoning change include the following:
1. There was a mistake in the original zoning
2. Conditions have changed significantly since the current zoning was adopted.
3. The Comprehensive Plan has been amended.
Any of these criteria can be used to evaluate a request for rezoning.
Action on this zone change depends on the outcome of the amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map is approved, the proposed zone change is consistent with the revised Land Use
Plan designation. If the Comprehensive Plan amendment is not approved, the zone
change should also be denied.
When the Planning Commission originally considered this request, one of the concerns
was the availability of commercially zoned land in the City. Approval of this request will
reduce the amount of existing commercially zoned land by approximately three acres.
The size of the parcel is not conducive to a large scale development; however, the
parcel can accommodate several different types of commercial uses. If the property
remains zoned B-3, any of the uses permitted in that district may be developed on this
site. A list of the uses permitted in the B-3 district is attached.
If the property is rezoned, any of the uses permitted in the R-3 district may be
developed on this site. A list of the uses permitted in the R-3 district is also attached for
your information. It is important to remember the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Zone Change process cannot be used to designate a specific development. Rather, this
process is used to determine if a Land Use Plan and Zoning designation are appropriate
for a specific site.
1:\97files\97rezone\97-108\97108pc2.dac
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
zone change as requested.
Table or continue the public hearing to a date and time certain and provide the
developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future
Planning Commission review.
3. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific findings of fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and Zoning district is compatible with
the designation and zoning of the property directly adjacent to the east. For this reason,
staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion recommending the City Council adopt a resolution approving the amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designating this property as R-HD and an
ordinance rezoning this property to the R-3 district as proposed.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Copy of Application
5. List of Uses Permitted in the B-3 and R-3 Districts
6. Copy of Hearing Notice
1:\97files\97rezone\97-108\97108pc2.doc Page 4
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
zone change as requested.
Table or continue the public hearing to a date and time certain and provide the
developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future
Planning Commission review.
3. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific findings of fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and Zoning district is compatible with
the designation and zoning of the property directly adjacent to the east. For this reason,
staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion recommending the City Council adopt a resolution approving the amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designating this property as R-HD and an
ordinance rezoning this property to the R-3 district as proposed.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Copy of Application
5. Minutes of 12/8/97 Planning Commission Meeting
6. List of Uses Permitted in the B-3 and R-3 Districts
7. Copy of Hearing Notice
k\97files\97rezone\97-108\97108pc2.doc
Page 4
THE POND
ATHLETIC COMPL~=X
ORD~
,t
LOWER PRIOR LAKE
5-83PUD
C.1o
:ER PRIOR LAKE
S-D
,7¸
LAKE
Planning Case File No. ~ "~[6'~'
Proper~y Identification No. ~-~t~O- /703- 0
City. of PriorLake ~- ~q - ~ -o
L~N~ USE ~PLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E./Pr/or Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: · ·
[] Rezoning, from (=re=¢nr zonin-~)
to (proeosed zoning)
~Amendment to City Code~ or City Ordinance
[] Subdivision of Land
[] Admknisrrative Subdivision
[] Conditiooal Use Permit
[] Variance
Brief description of proposed project (atxach additional
shee~/narra£ive if desired)
2
I Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
Applicant(s): ~'7'-~ ~o~co~,o6 ~c,,C-,,~oa,.,-~
Home Phone: qq~ ~ Work Phone:
Prope~ Owner(s) [If d~erent from Applicants]:
Address: ~ ~/~ ~ ~F
HomePhone: ~l~- ¢2~D WorkPhone:
Type of Ownership: Fee .~ Coa~act for Deed ~ P~chase Agreement
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on tbJs sheet):
To the best of my knowledge the information procided io this application and other material submitted i.s correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applications w~,l not,be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
t]
Fee Ownd"s Signature
Dace
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLAN~ING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNrNG COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEAR_CNG
CITY COUqNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
12/8/97 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
req
Kansier-
to resolve the issues are fair. Kuykendall suggestion to meet the
e incorporated. If the plat is approved d~,a 50' setback apply?
current OHW set~ick. We can't change the OHW
They are grandfather ir~or 1 year at 50' OHW setback.
Cramer-
Vonho f- Supports
past plats.
This plat includes no variance. Exception to
Stamson- Supports
1 meet current ordinances.
ectto the 3
conditions listed in I
5 Ayes,
considered by the council anuary 5.
C. Cases #97-107 and 9%108 Consider a proposed amendment to the City of Prior
Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and a Zone Change Request for the property
located at 4520 Tower Street.
Applicant is Stonewood Development Corp. Owner is Boderman. Site plan on overhead
showing location of property to N, E, S, & W. Comp plan show community retail.
Applicant wasn't to be R~HD. Current zoning is B-3, applicant proposes R-3. Staff
described adjacent comp plan designations and zoning. Topography- no tree inventory,
trees do exist. Sewer and water are directly available. Future development will be multi-
family 3 story apartment. Number of units is unknown. Multi -family is permitted in the
R-3 zoning district. Staffhas no specific site plan. Analysis is based on Comp Plan.
Comp Plan is specific to residential, opportunities in housing, location and access. The
designation is consistent with variety of housing and comp plan. Conditions have
changes or mistake in zoning or comp plan has changed. If comp plan is amended, then
zoning change is appropriate. Under current R-3, multi-family is permitted. Under
proposed, appropriate use is R-4.
Staffrecommends alternative #1.
Questions:
Stamson- vacant A-1 to south?
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINkMN 120897.DOC 8
Kansier- Windstar development. Map has not been amended.
Cramer- Has EDA designated this as retail or redevelopment? Ring Road?
Kansier- Not part of Priordale mall or redevelopment or ring road.
Public Comment:
JeffGustafson, Stonewood Development. We do primarily residential, but we are
currently doing commercial in Bumsville. Hired by Boderman to determine highest and
best use of the property. Property should be apartments. Proximity to commercial.
Buffer to mall and residential or other commemial and residential. Highest and best use
is apartments. If approve, our intention is move ahead and develop the property within
the next year. Maximum onth 14 U/acres. Ideal is to get 16 units per building.
Underground parking with units above it.
Jim Erickson, 4554 Pondview Trail. Lives behind the property. Comp plans provides
guidance to meet need of people. Does not think property should be amended to meek
needs of developer. This is a prime area for another business. Commercial land is rare in
thc city. To change it would be a disservice to the city to remove commercial property
from the tax base is not justified. Proposed plan is inconsistent with comp plan. Wants
denial of the comp plan change. Justification to change zoning must be consistent with
Comprehensive plan. Early learning Center was changed to be permitted in city. Schools
not permitted in commercial. Another apartment will cause more problems for
neighborhood. Police reports to Tower Apartments are numerous.
Kuykendall- You are more comfortable to business next to your home than apartments.
Jim Erickson: Yes. Prefers commercial. Office. Day care closes early evening. No
disturbance to me.
Pam Prescott, 4562 Pondview, Lived here 4 months. Residents of PL for 16 years. Seen
a lot of positive residential growth. Apartment on Franklin Trail, low income housing,
duplexes, Priordale Mall is vacant. Overhead with Hollywood, Hooligans, bars. The
Towers, and Townhomes police activity in neighborhood is a lot. Feel her back yard will
be a public playground for neighborhood. Land value will drop. Privacy will be gone.
Children have no where to go. Suggests: area for seniors if anything. Housing for old
people who don't cause problems for neighborhood. Fell very strong about this.
James Guston, 4543 Pondview, Windstar develop property was rezoned to be consistent
with comp plan. This is a disturbance that the plan could be an error. The city already has
apartments. Bta'nett Realtor informed him that affordable of low income housing will
decrease the value of his property. Internet got statistics 100% more Low Income, 80%
more than Rosemount, 100% more than Savage, 100% more than Lakeville. Opposed to
rezoning.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~IN 120897.DOC 9
Neil Boderman, Edina, owner of Priordale Mall. Had a chance to put in a bar, but didn't.
Multi-family is a good buffer. Bar is not appropriate. Wants something downzoned from
commemial to be a buffer between commercial and residential.
Jim Erickson, I would not want a bar behind the house. He lived behind the bowling
alley when it was a bar. Does not prefer bar to multi-family housing. It was not so
bothersome when it was a bowling alley. Prefers senior housing.
Criego- Comprehensive plan was to create more commercial property to diversify tax
base. Wants to keep property as B-3. No need to change the zoning. If we are to change
zoning, then we should change whole street. Recommends keeping it the same zoning.
Cramer- Familiar of property and day care. Kids are escorted to bus stop. Heavy
concentration of multi-family will exaggerate existing problems. Buffer area-multi-
family is not appropriate buffer to commercial and single family. Keep same, awaiting
Priordale Mall outcome.
Vonhof- 1 st time residents have come forward to oppose residential land to commercial.
Vast majority of land in city is R-1. Commercial property is at a premium in City.
Disagrees with staff.
Kuykendall- What would be allowed in B-37
Kansier- Current ordinance auto sales eating drinking, recreation, food and drinking
establishments, etc. gas stations, health clubs, auto repairs are permitted uses in the B-3
district.
Kuykendall- Appreciates concern of neighbors. Developer can develop property as
needed. Land does change over time. Buffer is good, logical. In practice other valid
issues are raised. Doesn't like the ides of piece meal zoning. Resindeit probably
wouldn't like auto repair. This is one action you see. Tomorrow it could be something
else. Housing section of comp plan addresses affordable housing. We are ahead of game
in that. Some of those are dictate by state laws. We have to go along with that to comply
and make an effort to comply. Given that, this is not the time to address this one request.
Would like to consider the entire picture. Recommends keeping zoning the same. In
principle, accepts concept of property. Public must understand permitted uses.
Stamson- If zoned R-3 apartments not permitted?
Kansier- R~4 under new zoning ordinance.
Stamson- Comp Plan is not specific (line or brush stroke). Could have been drawn wither
way. Concerned about residential taxes and commercial land availability. No
recommendation.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMkPCMINhMN 120897.DOC ]. 0
Kuykendall- Motion to recommend to City council not approve the comprehensive plan
amendment and zone change as requested.
2nd- Vonhof
Discussion:
Kuykendall- Re-looking at commemial/Priordale area. haven't come to grips with what
we want to look like when we grow up. Commercial development has to be looked at,
Both sides of the issue are valid. Big picture is important. Not ready to do what was
recommended by staff. Ask that the developer and neighbors come back to work out a
solution.
Criego- How much property does developer own?
Kansier- No other.
Jeffrey Gustafson- Does it make any difference what type of apartments? Not interested
gin Low income apartments. Lots of apartments in Edina. Problems in Brooklyn Park.
We do know how to build them. Senior High-rise in St. Anthony is going OK.
Kuykendall- MaYbe come back with a design to satisfy neighbors.
Stamson- Is R-3 appropriate?
Kuykendall- Yes. Buffer zone is important. Here is best and proper use of the land.
Future use of the property is incumbent upon the developer. A separate issue over and
above this request.
Criego- Developer needs to work out alternatives with neighborhood.
Jeffrey Gustafson- Can we postpone request to work with neighbors?
Kansier- Can table indefinitely if a waive is signed.
Kuykendall- Withdraws motion.
Cramer- Ponds Edge.
Kuykendall- Motion to table until next meeting, 1/22 unless we get a waive.
2nd Von_ho f.
Discussion:
5 Ayes, 0 Nays.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINWIN 120897.DOC 11
PERMI'I-rED USES
2.
3,
4.
Single Family Dwellings
Two Family Dwellings
Public & Parochial Schools
Public Parks & Playgrounds
5. Churches
1. Townhouses
3.
4.
5.
Multiple Family Dwellings
Public & Parochial Schools
Public Parks & Playgrounds
Churches
6. Funeral Homes
R-1 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
14,
15.
R-2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
R-3 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
1.
2.
3,
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9,
10.
CONDITIONAL USES
Existing Neighborhood
Commemial Recreation
Services
Public Parking Lots
(Ord. 90-07)
Cemeteries
Nursing Homes
Hospitals & Clinics
Public Utility
Buildings
Public Buildings
Private Clubs &
Schools
Licensed day care
facilities for 13 or
more persons.
Funeral Homes
Townhouses
Multiple Family
Dwellings
Planned Unit
Development
Charitable
institutions
Boarding Houses
Madna
Existing Neighborhood
Commercial Recreation
Services
Openland Recreational
Use
Public Parking Lots
(Ord. 90-07)
State licensed resid.
facilities for 7-16
persons,
Single Family
Dwellings
Two Family Dwellings
Nursing Homes
Hospitals & Clinics
Public Utility
Buildings
Public Buildings
Private Clubs &
Schools
Planned Unit
Development
Charitable
Institutions
Boarding Houses
Section 3, Page 2
PERMr~-I'ED USES
11.
12.
13.
14.
R-4 MIXED CODE RESIDENTIAL
Manufactured Single Family
Dwellings
Single Family Dwellings
Two Family Dwellings
Public & Parochial Schools
Public Parks & Playgrounds
Churches
5.
6.
7.
Retail Business
Personal Services
B-1 LIMITED BUSINESS
1.
2.
Funeral Homes
Clinics
Offices & Banks
Business & Professional Office
Nursery Schools & Day Care
Centers for more than 12 children
Retail Business
Eating & Drinking Places
5.
6.
7.
8,
9.
10.
B-2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS
1.
2.
CONDITIONAL USES
Marina
Licensed day care
facilities for 13 or
more persons.
Care Centers for mot{
than 16 children
Public Parking Lots
State licensed res
facilities serving
7 - 16 persons.
Public Buildings
Private Clubs &
Schools
Licensed day care
facilities for 13 or
more persons.
Townhouses
Multiple Family
Dwellings
Charitable
Institutions
Public Parking Lots
(Ord. 90-07)
State licensed res.
facilities for 7-16
persons.
Eating & Drinking
Places
Motor Fuel Stations
with repair limited
to auto repair minor
(Ord. 85-08)
Public Buildings
Public Utility
Buildings
Fast Food
Private Club - Health
Club
Theaters & Assembly
Ag. Product Stands
Automobile Repair
Minor (Ord. 85-08)
Car Wash (Ord 87-09)
Research
laboratories
Public Utility
Buildings
Section 3, Page 3
PERMITTED USES CONDITIONAL USES
B-2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS
3. Offices & Banks
Personal & Professional Services
5. Business Service
6. Public Buildings
7. Parking Lots
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
8.
9.
10.
11.
13.
14.
15.
16,
17
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
12.
13.
15.
Wholesale Business
Commercial Schools
Hospitals & Clinics
Automobile Sales (Ord. 85-08)
Motor Fuel Station
Funeral Homes
Private Club - Health Club
Theaters & Assembly
Automobile Repair Minor(Od. 85-08)
Automobile Repair Major (Od 83-6)(Od.85-08)
~ B-3 GENERAL BUSINESS
1.
2.
Retail Business (Ord. 85-08)
Automobile Sa[es
Eating & Drinking Places
Hotels & Motels
Wholesale Business
Supply Yards
Funeral Homes
Commercial Recreation
Home & Trailer Sales & Display
Animal Clinics
Parking Lots
Recreation Equipment, Sales
Service & Repair
Motor Fuel Stations
Private Club - Health Club
Day Care Facilities (Ord. 84-02)
Automobile Repair Minor(Ord.85-08)
Automobile Repair Major (Ord.84-2 Ord.85-8)
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
B-P BUSINESS PARK
Multiple Family
Dwellings
Home & Trailer Sales
& Display
Farm Implement Sales
Services & Repair
Supply Yards
Commercial
Recreation
Hotels & Motels
Animal. Clinics
Recreation Equipment,
Sales & Repair
Fast Food
Newspaper Publishing
Blueprinting/Photostatic
Ag. Products Stands
Car Wash (Ord. 88-07)
Public Buildings
Public Utility
Buildings
Fast Food
Establishments
Personal &
Professional Services
Farm Implement Sales
Service & Repair
Equipment & Storage
Yards
Radio & T.V. Stations
Car Wash
Outdoor Sales
Theaters & Clinics
Hospitals & Clinics
Research
Laboratories
Testing Laboratories
Ag. Product Stands
Mini-Storage Units
See Section 6.14 herein
for a complete listing.
(Ord. 93-18)
See Section 6.14 herein
for a complete listing.
(Ord. 93-18)
Section 3, Page 4
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE YEAR 2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER STREET
You are hereby notified that the Planning Commission will continue the public hearing at Prior
Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE on Monday, April 13, 1998 at 6:30
p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.
The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a proposal to amend the 2010 Comprehensive
Plan to change the designation of approximately 3 acres located on the south side of Tower
Street, between Toronto Avenue and Duluth Avenue, south of Priordale Mall and west of Pond's
Edge Early Learning School fi.om the C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R-
t-ID (High Density Residential) designation, and to rezone this property fi.om the B-3 (General
Business) District to the R-3 (Multiple Residential) district. The Planning Commission
originally held a public hearing on this item on December 8, 1997, and continued the matter at
the request of the applicant.
Legal Description:
Lot 1, Block 2, Enevid First Addition
and
That part of Outlot A, Enevid First Addition, contained within the following described tracts:
That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1 st Addition, according to the plat on file in the
office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southwest
corner of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along
the west line of said Lot 1,300.00 feet to the south line of a roadway and utility easement; thence
North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51.99 feet; thence North 28
degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly line of said easement 247.34 feet to
the south line of South Anna Lane, now known as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said
south line 105.18 feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central
angle of 2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of 2,547.98 feet and the chord of said curve
bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15
seconds East, tangent to said curve 39.82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds
West a distance of 379.84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316.39 feet
to the point of beg/nning. Together with that part of the south half of vacated South Anna Lane,
known as Tower Street, which lies between the northerly extension of the easterly line of said
property and the southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville
Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof.
l:\97files\97rezone\97-108\97108on2.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
If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this public hearing. The
Planning Commission will accept oral and or written comments. If you have questions regarding
this matter, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230.
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
TO BE PUBLISHlgD IN THE, PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON SATURDAY, MARCH 28,
1998.
l:\97filesX97rezone\97-108\97108pn2.doc Page 2