HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-98REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1998
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #98-056 Consider a t~vo foot setback variance for monument sign for Nordquist
Signs on behalf of Park Nicollet Clinic.
B. Case #98-043 Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the
permitted uses in the Busioess Park Zoning District.
C. Case #98-048 James Nerison is requesting variances for impervious surface and side
yard setback for the property at 14294 Aspen Avenue.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #98-019 Discussion on proposed Official Map for the Ring Road between
Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue.
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 E~[ e~r~[~ ~'~,.,'~riorgl~,,~e, Minnesota ,5537 - 714 / Ph. (612)447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 13, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The April 13, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Crieg~ii~;~son and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kans~i::::~lal~er Jermi
Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
Vonhof Absent ....
Kuykendall Absent
Criego Present;:~ii?[~il;. "::~*~ ...... ":'::"
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The Minutes from the March 23, 1998 Pl~in~:*~i0n ~¢~ing were approved as
Commissioner Vo~hof ~::~::~i~:~i~ p.m. "~:'~',}?~?:: '
A. Cnse #98-040 E~ii~:~i~'~!i~=!i~:~==~, is requesting a 22.45 foot varinnee to
per.m.,it, a.~;~=~, foot s~.~g from the center line of a County Road (Franklin
Tra~l}~i?~i~i~l!~e requ]~iiiS$.::~[eet nnd a 1.2 percent variance to lot coverage of
21,Z~[i~rcent ra~i~an th~;~imum allowed of 20 percent.
Pl~iii~i Tovar pred~ied the staff report dated April 13, 1998 on file in the office of
the Ci~f~er. :i~iii~!i
~agle Cre¢~::*~lg~s ~:ii~;posing to const~ct t~o 4-~t to,whomes on the Apple Valley
Ready Mix sit~!iiiiili~i~emolition permit has been issued for the structures existing on the
site. The prop~ 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 fi'om the centerline.
· A 1.2% variance to permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the maximum
allowed of 20%.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin'~nn041398.doc I
The lot is a comer 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 structures to be
setback 85 feet from the centefline 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 is~ggg[ on the lot.
Staff has concluded that as submitted, the proposal does not meet ~!~ardship criteria.
The site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance requirements.
Comments from the pubhc. ::~i~ii~:.~::::.~..:::~?~. ':5!~??~?~i~i~
Attorney Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, rep[~fiting.::~e applicant,
overview on the proposed townhomes. The intentio~}i~f the d'~loper is to deve~p this
as a condominium which would address the g~!ii?~!i~XSUS :i~i::~:jmpervious surface
coverage issue required for townhouses. Huemoelle~::ili~:.~:.~?hed"::ihe double frontage
creates additional issues. By combining the buildings and ~g 10 feet to the east, the
setbacks would be met, but it would na~::ii~:::~ reasonable us$~::::~iii~::~property. He feels
there is a hardship and the proposal is re~i~¢.::~..It.is a key ini:~{ion in the City and
the applicant would like to build an attract~, C~::i~gi~:~ building. Moving the project
to the west allows the developer to do ::::;~ye[g~?~:~!i!ii:i~:' are beneficial; enhance
appearance, allow for windo~a:~/t~Ll!e interio{31Bdi[3ings, y~i~ cost effective. They do not
feel the movement of the.~i~::i~i~ili[he west ~gl interfere with public health and safety.
It is an R3 project and ag~%s adeq~b view for::::~he intersection for access and safety.
Mr. Huemoeller q~?!i!~f R~il!::ili:g~g~i~,~iiiii~[~o feels these issues would not be a
problem under the ne~?:::iiii~fi~:':'::~;i?:[:: They also feel this meets the City's
Comprehensiye..l~lan La~[i~Smer, a partner in the development was also present for
any ques~!!i?:~?:~iii:i::iii!i?:~ii!ii~:ili?~ii:i:::::i:i:::
Pat.:: iS, public housi~i!~anage~ii~r Scott County HRA manages Prior Manor adjacent
to!i::i~!!i!~l:in question. S~iii~aid they do not have anything against the variance requestand
woul~:~i~o work with ~licants. She was also representing the residents of the Manor
and aske~ili~ii~following~i~fl:'~*' estions. ....... Would there be fencing along the parking lot property
line? And, ~g~e ![l~:::~ading has been changed would there be nmoff on to the Manor
property? Kan ii lained no fencing is required by the City and the developer has to
address the gra~fig runoff to adjoining property. It is not allowed unless there is an
easement.
The public hearing was closed at 6:47 p.m.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\rrm041398.doc
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Asked staff to respond to Huemoeller's question regarding the setback fi.om the
county road under the new zoning ordinance. Kansier said they would have to go
through the conditional use process under the proposed zoning ordinance. Rye said a
potential ordinance does not provide legal basis to approve a variance.
· Regarding the setback from the county road, a hardship could to the
uniqueness of two county roads. That in a sense, might a variance
hardship.
Criego:
· Question to staff. Because it is two buildings the lot
If it was divided in two, would there be a
applicant is planning to plat to
go through the subdivision procedure even to They could plat
one large lot. A variance would '~ lot.
· Tovar read the definition of townhomes.
· With 33,000 square feet one could. ........~t~ii~gi!d.6 to 8 to~6~i!: The applicant is
creating his own hardship by splitting'~::~i~l~g~
Cramer:
· Agreed with Criego. is ~ied by W~:ht is being put on the lot as
opposed to
very large. There
· The 20%
· Do not
td::ii~e property. The building envelope is
Stflmson:
ordinance does not create an undue hardship.
uses that can be applied to this property. Just
not accommodate this one particular design does not
· i with sta~i?
Vonhof:
· Disagreed. is substantial, in view of the spirit and intent of the
ordinance, one large building versus two smaller building, and the fact it is on two
county roads, if you looked at it without the roads, the setbacks would be met and
there would not be a problem. The hardship criteria have been met.
Stamson:
· By using a different configuration the townhomes could be built.
Vonhof:
· Comer lots with dual setbacks are an issue. There are unique setbacks.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm041398.doc 3
Criego:
· Understands Vonhoffs comments. In most cases, it was almost impossible to
construct a building without the variances, but here a suitable housing configuration
can be achieved without a variance. That is the difference.
· What are the new setbacks and coverages with the new zoning ordinance? Kansier
explained the new changes. .:i}iiii::~::::~:~ .....
· Under the new ordinance it would be a conditional use permit, but [!~[~!~i~s would
be met. This proposal was not reviewed under the new ordinanc~ii!iiii~?~?~i::~ ....
· When is the new ordinance going to be passed? Rye said :~g::i~ii~. close to six
months. :~iii~ililili! .... ~::::i!~i?~?~i ii }::~::.,
· If the a licant wants to build under the new ordinance, l~d have to"::~
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMEK~::ii!~ AIIOPT RESOLUTI'~i?:¢8-
11PC DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TC[:~[MIT A:~'i~:~6 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE CENTERL1NE OF A COUNTY Rd~:::{~~?=~TRAIL) INSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK FROM TH~i?~TERLINE AND A 1.2%
VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 ~ENT RATHER THAN
0° ::~ii:::::::: ~ .... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..::i:
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 2 ~.'~::~i~::~::~[~[:~ ...... ======??====?==?====?
I>iscussion:
Criego understood Voxthof's concern for tw~ico~3 r;'~?~=~ting a hardship. Criego's
concern is the building on t!~::ii~::[~ide is fix;~[~:~'eet closer:~ the road than he would like.
The east side building is J~5~:=i~'~'i'"~;~he prop~y line. Criego would consider some type
of request if approved .;fi?~ove the ~ilding ove~iii!~¢nhof pointed out the Commissioners
could approve a vad~::for less ~ requested,.::?~:'
Tovar said the applicant ~::i:~i~ choi~"':i~::::~ove one of the units and still meet the lot
coverage ........ r:~ ~?:~:~i~i::ii::?: ~::~i~ ~:~ ....... =========================== .
Cr~;ted in the ~:~i~e Cogitation has asked applicants to reduce the coverage and
th~4re not need the':~:'~ancel%:' By reducing one of the building units by one, the
d~'~:;could create w~ the developer is aiming for and meet the requirements.
Stamson (~i~ii;~is is ~:~ign issue. Not comfortable passing a variance on that basis.
Vonhof believ~re is an argmnent for hardship, as proposed.
Cramer feels the hardship is being created by the design.
Vote taken signified ayes by Stamson and Cramer, nays by Vonhof and Criego.
MOTION FAILED
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT
AVAILABLE MEETING, MAY 11, 1998.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #98-039 (Continued) David Berens requesting front yard and lot
coverage variances for the property located at 16345 Duluth Avenue.
Planner Jermi Tovar presented the staff report dated April 13, 1998 on ~ii~iii~0ffice of
The Planning Commission originally heard this request on M~? 23, '~:. The item
was continued to allow the applicant time to revise the pl~:~'~riance r~}s. The
applicant is requesting the following variances: ....
· 12 Foot Front ard setback variance to allow fi:og~ii~ard se~k of 13 feet raffi~'than
· 6.5% Lot coverage variance to permit lot coverage ;:~i~/~ ratl~r that he maximum
coverage allowed of 22%.
The Planmng Commission also directed ~g~:~iig~e a resolu~n of demal relating to
the applicant's original request. Resolutio~iig98-f0g~i!~as.draft~fl:~
The lot is a comer lot 40.0 ~?::ih~!~!.30 feet. '~i~;n 5-4-[iiii~7 the City Code requires that
comer lots maintain the ~[?:~ht yard along each street of frontage. Therefore, the
required garage setba~}~[~i~: 25 fee~?ii~m the p~:~ line facing Duluth Avenue. The
requested variance ~::ii~i~:gllow a ff6ht yard setb~:"of 13 feet rather than the minimum
required of 25 feef?:?"¥~i!ii~pp!~iiii~:~i?:,~q¢~ting a variance to lot coverage for the
proposed garage. Sectior~:[~i~}:"of tfi~'"~:[t~e~'de allows for a maximum coverage of 22%
(structures ~}::!::~e R-2 ¢~:.Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing
Th~i::i~ey indicates t~}}}~vised'rii~yout of the garage and driveway. The applicant has
s~tly reduced the'i}~e of the garage from 792 square feet to 484 square feet. The
garagi:~*~:~faces south~iiiiii~hther than west in the original proposal, allowing for a turn
around ar~i~inatin~ii~ overhang of parked vehicles into the right of way.
Staff conclude~::~!!~vised proposal meets the four hardship criteria.
Comments from the public:
No comments from the applicant.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmir~\rrm041398.doc 5
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· The applicant has submitted the revised plans with our recommendations.
hardships have been met.
The
Cramer, Vonhof and Stamson.
· Concurred.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER TO ADOPT ~~ON 98-09PC
GRANTING A 12.0 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRON~ii~ARD'::~13ACK OF
13.0 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET ~!i~!~;!~,4 LOT ~gRAGE
VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF
MAXIMUM COVERAGE ALLOWED OF 22% FQ~ii~HE ..:~ONSTRUCTION%~"A
ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-10PC DE~::~ 12.0 FOOT":~CE TO PERMIT
A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 13.0 F~::ii~D OF TH~i~QLrlRED 25 FEET
AND A 12.5% LOT COVERAGE v~cg~[ii.~!iiig~?~:::=::~OT COVERAGE or
34.5% RATHER THAN THE MAXI~i!i~:.C~E~!}?~i~LOWED OF 22% FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF.:&i!::~ACHED':~GE. -:~i!!!::~
Vote taken signified az~:}~g~ all. ~ION C~gD.
Cases Consider an Amendment to the
original Windson~ on ihi~!ii:i~;'"O'i~a::::i~it Development and a Preliminary Plat
to be known:.~:~dsong ~i{~ Lake 3rd Addition.
Kansi~i!~¢~sented the staffreport dated April 13, 1998 on file
The public heating on February 23, 1998, to consider this
request, continued action on this item until March 9, 1998,
with the homeowner's association on this request. At
this item was continued again until April 13, 1998.
A meeting with the developer and Windsong Homeowner's Association was held on
March 17, 1998. The only information the staffhas received about this meeting is a 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.
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,
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc
6
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.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is required by the Department of Natural
Resources. ~:~: .....
proposal consists of a PUD Plan Amendment and a Preliminary.:~i'"'":':': The proposed
The
PUD amendment is consistent with the existing development. !i?:~'~::~glopment*~*~: is to
proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions: ~ii~i~iiiiiiiili!:~ ....
..::!:i:!:[:!::.:... ::[:[:!:i. "::Si:i:[:!:/:!:!::-.
1. No more than 11 additional boat slips shall be permitt~i!i~i~i*~veloper
a copy of the revised DNR permit allowing the.::~itional boat slips to
Planning Department.
2. The Homeowner's Association documents for ~iffdso~g"'on~::~i~the Lake must be
amended to include the new area, and the amended dd~knts must be recorded with
the final plat documents. A recorded copy of the ~l~d documents must be
submitted to the Planning Departmen~::~. 10 days after ~g the final plat.
3. There shall be no filling or grading on:*::iOuti3~ii~:~[~::B as s~n on the preliminary
plat for Windsong on the Lake Third'~dditid~::'::~i~:~.~.i~he issuance of a separate
filling and grading permit,...:.:::~y alterati~i::::t~i!::~ihe existed' vegetation on these outlots
must also be consistent.::~ii~ii~:i~Shorelanc~::!~ovisions ~ the Zoning Ordinance.
4. There shall be no ..[~l~hg or gr~hg on Lot :::~!i::~tock 2, as shown on the preliminary
plat for Winds~[~?~i~!~ the L~' Third,Addi~iBh without the issuance of a separate
filling and gradihg'::~t..::?:~::~ii~: the existing vegetation on this lot must
also be consistent wit~::ii~?i~or~'i~'::¢~sions of the Zoning Ordinance.
The prel~ii?~ii?~g[:, is c6:~lent .::: with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance
requirementS. If ~i:i~!~mina~::~i~ii::::'~'S to proceed, it should be subject to the following
12':" T~iiiiiigomeowner's ~¢::sociation documents for Windsong on the Lake must be
ame~ii[o include::~ new area, and the amended documents must be recorded with
the fimitiiii}~!~ dflg~ents. A recorded copy of the amended documents must be
submitted'~i~i~ianning Department within 10 days after recording the final plat
Staff recommer~fl~::hpproval of the amendment to the PUD Plan subject to the above listed
conditions, and the Preliminary Plat subject to the above listed condition.
Chair Stamson opened the public hearing.
Comments from the public:
Ralph Heuschele stated he had another meeting with 15 people fi.om the Homeowners
Association with discussion lasting about two hours. It was his feeling at the end of the
meeting they had adequately explained what they wanted to do and there was a level of
1:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc 7
acceptance. They are in the process of obtaining consents and at this time there has been
about a 50% response. They need 90%. Heuschele said they moved the configurations a
little bit. Forty feet was added to one dimension which Mr. Heuschele presented and
explained. The change was to deal with a safety hazard in the swimming area. This was
an important item to several people at the public meeting who also were at the
homeowners meeting.
Kansier said staffhad not reviewed this new proposal ..... ~:~, .....
Heuschele apologized to staff and said the change was made tonigl~[i~?ii:~iii:~i!iiiiiiiiii?~!i?:~
Heuschele said they have 26 slips at the present time..:~g~ i~re 24 ':i~i!iii~ith the
development scheduled to go to 38. One lot has a signifis~ii!~:i~ii::~oblem.
slips they were able to get approval. ..::~::iii? .... ~.::~
When H & H Development acquired ownership of::i~¥~ii~pert~ ~::::~ere presented with
a situation where a great amount of sand was dumped '8~}i}i~i~;beac~] The approach was
then to create another shoreline that was more natural. Tti~?~i~ only go so far out into
the water without getting into a permit s~l~n. This made'~:..l~::iput the boat docks
in that area. Heuschele said no other cha~:~!~,:~e made.
There were no other comments from the public..:~::!ii:::? '"'::::~::i::::i!i?~ii ii~:~ilil
Comments from the Corem ss~ofi~: :~ ·
Cramer: .... ?::?:i :i~:~:~::::: ':.~}~i:~i:::~
· Su ested at tI/~iii~:~eeti :::igi:; omiauo. ]ssue to let the homeowners understand
gg :!i! ............ ========================================================
the proposal. The ho~er~'i~:~:~?~flotified.
· Based on.tt~g::~nditions"~}}~Y staffin the Resolution, his concerns have been met and
supp 0~?~ !::~h:'
· ¢oncern !;i homeowners are taken care of.
· Re ends appro i;!:
· Agreed, but":~::::~ different reason.
· Understand~!::gcer 90% of the homeowners have to approve this. That gives a comfort
level they will be represented.
· Approve.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PUD PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF REVIEW THE NEW SUBMITTED
DRAWING.
1:\98 file$\98plcomm\pcmin\nm041398.doc
Discussion:
· Homeowners Association Bylaws must be amended.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Cases 97-107 & 98-108 (Continued) Consider a proposed Ameadment to the
City of Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the
property located at 4520 Tower Street.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dat~i~pril file
in the office of the City Planner.
This item was originally considered by the Planning C~isa~gn on
The Planning Commission tabled action on this iteml;;i~;:..allow"~[~:gpplicant to m~t with
the residents of the adjacent neighborhood to di~:'~ii;~i~;~a:.pl~iiii~::.this property. The
applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on Janu~i!ii~ii!:?i99~:~:'' The staff has not
received any information on the outcome.~:~ t. his meeting.
At this time, no specific plans for th~iii!iii!~::~::.:.developme~tliiiii~e been submitted,
although the applicant has verbally indl~t~::~::::~iiii?!!!g~, t~:..':~hstmct a three stray
multifamily dwelling. Under the present ~pi~g!i::Ordl~ili::~ultiple family dwellings
are a permitted use in the R-$::::~:~t, with a ~imum de~i~y of 14 units per acre, and a
maximum coverage of 20 g~i!~i~i~!~iii~
.......... iii::~::i::~ ~i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
An analys~s of each .~onent of~:~ apphcat~o~::::~611ows.
Comprehensive Plan ~~:i~,~?.~::i::!i!~0mprehensive!i Plan goals and objectives
which are apgliaahle to this ~st are as follows:
aon ??, Ir Zt ?'i sI va: 'E Vm o2wtE Vr.· ~ncourage the development of
sui~;' housing in a deii~ble en~onment.
OBJE'~[~ No. 1: ~vide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality
OBJECTIVE ":~ii}i![[~iS} Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality
residential enrichments.
OBJECTIVE No. 3: Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the
natural environment and the enjoyment of residents.
The R-I-ID 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
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminh~n041398.doc 9
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 Change: 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 ad0~, ......
3. The Comprehensive Plan has been amended. '::?:ii!ii:':'~
Any of these criteria can be used to evaluate a request for rezoni~i? .... ~?:iiiiiiiiiii!~ii::i~
Action on this zone change depends on the amendm~i!iii~i~0, ge
Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment to the 2010 Plan Land ~i~P
is approved, the proposed zone change is Land U~i~::~::Plan
designation. If the Comprehensive Plan the zone change
should also be denied.
When the Planning Commission ori one of the concerns
was the availability of commerciall~
reduce the amount of existing three acres.
The size of the parcel is not conducive to however, the parcel
can accommodate several di~g~ types If the property remains
zoned B-3, any of the use~::[~ii:~in that di~ct may be' developed on this site,
If the property is rez~; any of t~i~ses permi!~a?~n the R-3 district may be developed
on this site. A lis~iii~iii~ use~i::i~r~d:.::i~::~:~" R-3 district is also attached for your
information. It is impo~ii~:iii~ii~!ii~;mprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone
Change proc~5~,:;~.~ot be ~:ij~p designate a specific development. Rather, this process
is used a .~!an and zoning designation are appropriate for a
S[~iiiiii~ls the propos~?~ Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning district is
c;mp'~i~:with the desi~tion and zoning of the property directly adjacent to the east.
For this'::[~p, staff ~mmends the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan
amendmeni"~!!~pn~::::~:~inge as requested.
Cramer asked ~i~at section of Tower Street would be part of the ring road. Kansier
explained the zoning of the adjacent properties.
Vonhof asked if there was anything in the CIP to pave the gravel road? Kansier said
Criego verified the coverage.
I:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc
10
Comments from the public:
Jeffi:ey Gustafson, Stonewood Development Corporation, developer for this site, felt this
was a good project. There were neighborhood concerns, which when they met turned the
developer's thinking around. Owner-occupied units rather than tenants would be a better
fit in the neighborhood. They researched the market and at this point are proposing the
building marketed by an Edina based company to make it a for sale q~-occupied
project. This is what the neighbors wanted.
Stamson questioned why Stonewood would see the benefit ~}i?~'~i~tial over the
commercial zoned property. Stonewood said there was no expd~. ~i~ling alley
and restaurant failed. Retail needs exposure. The Prior~g~ ~11 will ~ally be
redeveloped. The owner was thinking it could be offices...::~i:?
Michael Mann, architect was concerned with how.~:~sould ~i~Y exposure ~ this
property. There is an opportunity to use it as~::!::::~:::~r b~ Priordale and the
residential neighborhood. Cannot see as commercial p~!!~::"Th~' have looked at the
existing and proposed zoning. Mr. Mann passed out a conc~i~Ivelopment.
Dale Kramers, of Home Equity Program}:'i:~i~:~::!~!l range pro~ for people wanting
to get into condominiums. This is a natio~] P~:~?~ig~ed [o~i!::~e elderly, singles and
first time home buyers. :~::ii~}ii~ ....
James Gustin, 4543 Pondvt~'T~il~opposed ~ rezomng He attended the meeting with
the developer a few ~ ago ~a?~missed th~ii~~ where this project was going to be
turned into condo~ums. ~ abandon:i?~i~l's plan and adversely affect the
neighborhoods? H~!i~!iii!i~!d b~!~i!i~it~:~l~::'lower kis property values if apartments
were built on this site. December meeting that Prior Lake was
ahead of the ~. with reg~::::~[lo rental units. Gustin said Prior Lake has 100% more
housing m~ii~:~i~ge 116~f~!:i~om:.~than Lakeville, 100% more than Apple Valley and
80% a ::ihan want to rezone more roe for a artm~nts?
................ . :.!.! p p rty p .
Peogl~'will not want td[iiI~Bk at ~ back of the Priordale Mall. There have been safety
p~i~t:with the existi~!iiiownhomes.
Gustin pd~((g out Cr[~' stated at the December meeting the Comprehensive Plan was
designed t0"~g,~ ~ commercial property to diversify the taxes. Vonhof disagreed
with the rezoni~i?!i~son had concerns with residential taxes and available commercial
land. Commiss~brs have stated in previous meeting they are against the rezoning and
nothing presented tonight has changed those concerns.
Jim Erickson, 4544 Pondview Trail, said every time they meet with the developer it
seems to be getting worse and worse. The number of apartments keep changing. Now its
low income housing. It only adds to the existing problems. All five Commissioners were
ready to deny this.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn041398.doc I 1
Dale Kramers, addressed the comments on the lower income. He feels it is not low
income. It is affordable to good citizens by minimizing a down payment allowing many
people a nice place to live.
The public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners: :~
Stamson: ..... ~::::i:i:i:i::i .....
· Does not have any qualms about the project. The issg~ili~i!i~i}i~he Planning
Commission is a comprehensive plan change. The last ti~} this ~iii~[esented I
could have gone either way. Good case for R3 or B3. I~i~t the m¢i~i?[~?uld go
either way. Since then, I stood on the property and lo~g~fl::':~::~e ring road
City is going to put in and feel the property itself it<s~'hld be B3. The resider~i~m
to think it would be a better buffer ..... ~::::ii~:iiii~i; .... ":*:i~?:?~iiii::~ ....
· Looking at tax base issues it should stay in its
· Does not support the Comprehensive Plan amendme~}}}}i}i}i!i?:iii~?~ '"'
C ri ego: ::?~?iiiiiiii!i~i~?~i~i~:: i~ .......
· Agreed it could go either way. Th~i?~]::~?~i~::::.laid out co~:'work. What we are
looking at is a zone change. '~!}}}i:::: "':::~!~.}}}}}i}}}¢}}iiii::::i~ ............ ~::. '::~
· The City needs more business area. Th~ii:is ~!i~ff~:~ii~etween R1 and B3 and he
does not feel the reside~!~, some o~:~ comme~i:~l which could go into a B3
· . ~,.??:<<'::<'"'::::'!~[?i[~ii:: ':¢~: ' 9"
area. The question ~S.:;~:::?::~at ~s:~ft for the ~umty.
Cramer: .... ::!i???:i??:i?::=~ ..... ?' :i~?
· The developm;~i ~lliii~oW~¢:ii~!~::iii~eed there is enough high density in the
· No one.~i~jaat is g~ii~, happen to Priordale Mall or the neighboring area.
Go0'~}~osal for ~3 dis~ct.
It is n~:~:{~[op~?:~n the CiW to ch~ge ~y B1 or B2 to residential. The CiW is
ow~hel~:::~¥'~ It would be prema~e to ~ow what is going on ~o~d the
development~¢::~t best it would be prema~e not ~owing what is going on.
· There will be subst~tial development in the next 5 ye~s.
Neil Boderman, the land owner and owner of the Priordale Mall, said he understands the
Commissioners reluctance to rezone the land and put into a residential zone. But he feels
the land should have never been zoned commemial. Boderman just came from meeting
with someone who wants to put in a motorcycle store in Priordale Mall. He has been
trying to work with the Priordale Mall for the last 9 years. Now the Commissioners are
trying to plan for the next five years. This proposed project would be the lesser of two
I :\98filcs\98plcomm\pcmin\ran041398 .doc 12
evils. The ring road will not enhance the area. Most retailers do not want to be that far
off Highway 13. The only reasonable approach is to come up with a different proposal.
Criego:
· Agreed with Mr. Boderman that the property will not be used for any high standard
use.
· Not sure the neighborhood would like that.
· Priordale Mall has been a sore spot in Prior Lake for years.
· Recommend going with staffs recommendation. ..::~:,iiiiiiiii?ii?:~ ....
· Agreed it is not high profile but there are other uses tha~::~ig,o....:m.
· It sets a bad first step to rezone and create residential,:~$~'ls the City s intent ~e
to develop commercial. ..,:~i??
· Not willing to jump the gun and rezone residemi~}i~[i~s tin~ii~::i~ is too early.'',*:~
Vonhof:
· .
· Does not totally dmagree. In a sense there is some transltl~g~:yalue between zones·
.... . ............. ~.F~i~ seen 4 different
·Sympathetic to property owner but ':~i~ii~g~mature. The"
i::i::~::il. ..::ii}i:? ........ :::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.::.:..
Criego: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ....
....
...... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::i .... :i::ii:::?:ii . 9 ' '
· Why did staff come ul~:?:~?:~l~r recomm~dation. Kansler smd they looked at the
same issues as the ~ing ~ission.':?~i~h~. property does not have access and
.... ?:?:;::~::?.. .:?:~::;i;:.:: ?:;::~}?:?:~};~
visibility. .::i!~i~!~! ................. :::::::::::::::::::::::
· Feels it should U~i~ii::::~::Get nl0~m~nt..in.th~::::~a. Concerned the residents in the area
do not realize what
· It could be either. '::~[iiii~ii~i~ii?;iiii::[
· It is a.~a~pm, I~l~ ....
BY T0? CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO R3 FROM B3. 1N ADDITION AN
NO
MOTION SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION BASED ON SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF
FACT·
There was no discussion.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Stamson and Cramer, nay by Criego. MOTION
CARRIED·
Kansier explained the City Council approval process.
h\98files\98plcomm\pcminhnm041398.doc 13
6. New Business:
A. Discuss televising Planning Commission meetings.
Rye explained the current proposal is to start televising City Council meetings in June.
Their plan was to take on the advisory committees in September. .~::?:::i?!iii?i!i!i~!ii?~iiiiiiii!i::ii:::..
The commissioners felt the meet~n s should be televised. The soon~:i~ better"
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Cramer spoke on the workshop. Some of the issues wer~?:~fi~$i!i:'maximmn ~e
and not allowing any buildings over 35 feet. No shore~Sssu~.have been discus~i::~et.
Questioned staff on City Council's decision on t~?:~ck . Rye and Tovar
responded. ":'~::iii~?~i?ilili:iiiii~? ....
· City Council's concem over downtow~::i::s:':~g)~
· Questioned if the library project was o~?~heS~i:~:[[i~iii[:!:~[~!i!ii::!:::~:~
· Question what is going to happen with t~i::9~!iii~¢':::i~giii?
8. Adjournment: ..::~ ~:
The meeting adjoum¢~!i~ 8:35
Donald Rye .::::~:~:~ri~i~,~
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~n041398.doc 14
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR MONUMENT
SIGN FOR NORDQUIST SIGNS ON BEHALF OF PARK
NICOLLET, Case File #98-056
16705 FRANKLIN TRAIL
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
APRIL 27, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Nordquist Signs
who are proposing to construct an illuminated monument sign along Franklin
Trail for Park Nicollet clinic. The lot is approximately 700 feet by 700 feet with a
strip of land providing access to Franklin Tail. The lot totals 11.06 acres.
Section 5-7-7 of the City Code requires a minimum setback of 10 feet from the
property line for monument signs. The applicant is requesting a two foot
variance to allow the sign to be set back 8 feet from the side property line.
DISCUSSION:
The lot has a metes and bounds description. The property is zoned B-3 General
Business. Upon review of the survey submitted, the applicant's sign is proposed
to be set back 8 feet from the property line and within a utility easement which
includes the access drive and underground utilities. Staff has determined more
specific information is necessary, including a revised survey indicating the actual
location of the sign with setback dimensions. Identification of the proposed sign
on the survey will also indicate compliance with respect to the 30 foot clear view
triangle.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-056\98-056PC.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
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded a revised survey is necessary to insure the proposed sign is
out of the easement and driveway. The applicant has indicated to staff that a
revised survey will be submitted by May 1, 1998. A continuance of the variance
until May 11, 1998 will allow the applicant the time to submit a revised survey,
and will allow the staff the time to review the new information.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the cimumstances. 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. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to table the request until May 26, 1998 to allow the applicant
time to submit a revised survey.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-056\98-056PC.DOC Page 2
FILE COPY
April21,1998
via fax (612) 824-6211
Nordquist Sign Co.
Atm.: Laura Alexander
312 W Lake Street
Mpls, M~ 55408
RE: Park Nicollet Variance Application
Dear Laura,
Upon review of the survey submitted in your variance application, it appears if the sign is
located 8 feet fi.om the side property line and 10 feet firom Franklin Trail R-O-W as
proposed, that the sign will be in the 30 foot clear view triangle, the city's easement and
existing driveway. In order to get a verification for this, please submit a revised survey
indicating the proposed sign location and property line setbacks. Because of the size
of the survey, a partial survey indicating the portion of the property accessing Franklin
Trail is acceptable. The proposed sign must be located out of the easement and the drive
area. Such a survey will also indicate to us ifa variance to the clear view triangle is
necessary.
At this time, we are recommending your request be continued. The item will remain on
the April 27, 1998 agenda, as notices have been sent. If you feel you can submit a
revised survey by Friday, May 1, 1998, then we can continue the request until May 11,
1998 Planning Commission meeting. Otherwise we will have to schedule the request for
a later date such as May 26, 1998. Please let me know what will work out for you.
I apologize for an inconvenience this has cause you. Please call me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
16200 EIa~gEI:I~I$~$¥.AI~I~8-10fi6¥TI&It~E~ 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1-83.72
EDGE OF BITUMINOUS
TC TC
968.2 968 I
968.3
SURVEY AS SUBMITTED
¢~ANK~
INV
TB
TOP
FND MON. RLS 018.
0.16 FT EAST ! 20
20' RCP FROM MH
TO THE NORTH. THEN
57i' PVC TO 5, aH
A LINE PARALLEL WITH
THE EAST LINE OF THE
WEST HALF OF THE SE
~/4 OF SEC 2
TOP I
UTILITY EASEMENT
274,'
SET IRON MON,
MON RLS lO 183 966.o
0. J9 FT. SOUTH, TC
O ~ 7 FT EAST TC 966.5
D. 39
TRAIL
DiP
SET IRON MON.
MON, RLS 10183
0.36 FT. NORTH,
0,16 FT. EAST
968.6
Top
UT{LITY EASEMENT ' IS"E
PER DOC. NO. - .... 45.0
~5" ST s /
TOP . 965 7
INV. 962 4-
966.5
955.6
IPOINT "A"
8* PVC
20 SAN S
N89°47' 15"E ~87.24
NORDQUIST
April 14, 1998
Mr. Don Rye
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Dear Mr. Rye:
I am writing on behalf of the HealthSystem Minnesota for the need to allow the
installation of an entrance monument at their Park Nicollet Clinic facility in Prior
Lake.
The clinic is having the following problems:
· Patients are unable to find the entrance to the clinic.
· Ambulance services have been unable to find the entrance to the clinic.
· The entrance to the clinic is located quite a distance from the building and is
actually a driveway not a street, therefore it is often very difficult for the clinic
staff to give verbal directions to people trying to locate the clinic.
· The entrance to the clinic can not be seen safely from highway 13 without an
adequate entrance monument.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
NORDQUIST SIGN COMPANY, INC.
Gregory R. Fast
GRF/la
NORDQUIST SIGN COMPANY INC,
Proposed Loca~
For Entrance
Monumen'~ Sign]
Setbacks: I
10' From Fra
8' From Prope~
O0 NOIS $SJflD~HON
m
,! .r~ ~'~
m
0
HEALTHSYSTEM MINNESOTA
PRIOR LAKE, MN.
EXHIBIT B
That port of the West Half of the Southeast Ouorter of Section 2, Township II 4, Range 22, Scott
County, Minnesota, described os follows:
Commencing at a point on the east line of said West Hclf of the Southeast Quarter, distant
1677.15 feet north of the southeast corner thereof (said east line to bear North 0 degrees 47
minutes 03 seconds East for purposes of this description); thence North 89 degrees 12 minutes 57
seconds West o distcnce of 4.78 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described;
thence South 0 degrees 57 minutes 17 seconds West o distance of 700.00 feet to the intersection
with a line drown at right angles to said east line of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter from
o point on said east line distant 700.00 feet southerly of the point of commencement; thence
North 89 degrees 12 minutes 57 seconds West c distance of 700.00 feet; thence North 0 degrees
57 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 695.85 feet to the southeasterly right--of--way of
Highway No. 15; thence northeasterly a distance of 6.68 feet along said right--of--way to the
intersection with a line that bears North 89 degrees 12 minutes 57 seconds West from the point of
beginning; thence South 89 degrees 12 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 694-.77 feet to the
point of beginning.
Together with that part of said West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 2 described os
follows:
Commencing at a point on the east line of said West Half of the Southeast Quarter, distant
1677 13 feet north of the southeast corner thereof (said east line to bear North 0 degrees 4-7
minutes 0.~ seconds East for purposes of this description); thence North 89 degrees 12 minutes 57
seconds West a distance of 4.78 feet to a line which bears North 0 degrees .57 minutes 17
seconds East from the southeast corner of said West Half of the Southeast Quarter; thence North
0 degrees 37 minutes t7 seconds East o distance of 263.95 feet, more or less, to the southerly
right-of-way line of County Road No. 39 (Franklin Trail); thence westerly along said southerly
right-of-way line a distance of 150.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described;
thence South 0 degrees 57 minutes 17 seconds West o distance of 256.4-4- feet to the intersection
with a line that bears North 89 degrees 12 minutes 57 seconds West from the point of
commencement; thence North 89 degrees 12 minutes 57 seconds West o distance of 61.25 feet to
the intersection with a line 215.84- feet westerly, os measured ot right angles, of said east line of
the West Half of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 0 degrees 47 minutes 03 seconds East
parallel with said east line a distance of 255.41 feet to the intersection with said southerly
right-of-way line of County Rood No..59 (Franklin Trail); thence easterly along said parallel line o
distance of 60.57 feet to the point of beginning.
?LAN VIEW
SCALE 1/2" = 1'-0"
1/~." FABP,.ICATED ALUM
CAP PAINT GREY
AKZO-1DB-H-1
CABINET I=TD. VIOLET #175-F6
VINYL 220-2B0
(OP^C~UE)
CAP PAINT {~EEY , '~
AKZO-I~,B-H-1
IMPACT
ACRYLIC FACE W/VINYL BKGD
(CUBTOM -~M COLOR-TO
MATCH COLORMAP PG. 175-F6
~IOLET)
COPY TO ILLUM. WHITE
(PER LOGO ON FILE)
M RETAINER
PTD. TO MATCH FACE
COPY, LOGO DORDER &
ILLUM WHITE
(ARTWOF. K ON FILE')
(DLACK VINYL BKGD)
~. 2" EEYEAL~
PTD. MAP STOCK BLACK;
ALL 51DEB
24"
-- #a¢ .~CH. 40 E, TEEL PIPE
24" DJ.&. CONCRETE
FOUNDATION
(ELEVATION: 51GN TYPE PR-2 D/F
SCALE 1/2" = 1'-0"
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
PERMITTED USES IN THE BUSINESS PARK (BP)
ZONING DISTRICT (Case File #98-043)
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
X YES NO
APRIL 27, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance relating to the permitted uses in the Business Park Zoning District.
The proposed amendment will allow Gymnastics Schools as a permitted use in
the Business Park (BP) Zoning District.
DISCUSSION:
This amendment was initiated by Charles and Bev Rutz of Prior Lake
Gymnastics. They are currently located on Main Avenue in the site previously
occupied by the Star Tribune distribution center. They are requesting the zoning
ordinance amendment to allow them to occupy space at the Prior Lake Business
Center building (Dave Hansen site). The use of a gymnastics school requires
large open spaces with high ceilings. Buildings in the Business Park are
designed as office warehouse and manufacturing facilities with large open
interior spaces and high ceilings. Such design also accommodates space needs
of a gymnastics school.
Section 6.15 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the permitted and conditional uses
in the Business Park (BP) Zoning District. Subsection C and D of this section
state the following:
(C) Permitted Uses: Permitted uses in a BP district are: 1. Offices.
2. Manufacturing fabrication, compounding, processing, packaging,
treatment and/or assembly of products, goods and materials.
3. Utility services.
1:\98files\98ordamd~zon[ng\98-043\98043pc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372~1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4. Wholesale use occurring within an enclosed building, but not involving
live animals.
5. Warehouse, enclosed storage.
6. Business services.
7. Blueprint, Photostat and printing shops.
8. Research and testing laboratories.
(D). Conditional Uses: Uses allowed by conditional use permit in the BP district
are:
1. Storage or parking of vehicles larger than one ton capacity; provided that
such vehicles ara used in connection with a business located in the
principal structure on site and are screened from view of adjacent
residential property and public streets in accordance with the City's
landscape and screening ordinance.
2. Outdoor storage; provided, that such use occupies an area no larger than
fifty percent (50%) of the floor area of the principal structure and provided
it is screened from view of adjacent residential property and public
streets in accordance with the City's landscaping and screening
ordinance.
3. Public buildings.
4. Animal and veterinary clinics; provided, all animals are kept within the
principal structure.
5. Heliport.
6. Retail sa/es or services to the public; provided, that such use occupies no
more than two thousand (2,000) square feet of floor area in the principal
structure.
Section 5-2-2 of the City Code states the purpose of the Business Park as
follows:
BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT is intended to promote high standards of design
and construction for business park uses in the City. These standards are set
forth in order to enhance the visual appearance of each Business Park District
within the City, to preserve the taxable value and to promote the public health,
safety and we/fare.
Business Park uses listed as permitted and conditional are those which provide
for basic employment within the city. Such uses are office, warehouse, and
fabrication. Business service industries are permitted uses. The district is
designed via development standards to accommodate such specific land uses
and promote a business park atmosphere. One of the implications of allowing
gymnastics schools as a permitted use is inadequate parking on existing sites.
The sites were designed as office warehouse with parking based on number of
employees or office use.
1:\98flles\98ordamd~zoning\98-O43\98043pc.doc Page 2
Under the current ordinance, gymnastics schools fall under the use of Private
club, health club. Private clubs are permitted in the B-2 Community Business
and B-3 General Business districts and are conditional uses in the B-1 Limited
Business District. The petitioner has had difficulty locating in an existing building
due to the height needed for gymnastics activities. The costs to renovate an
existing structure are significant.
Staff feels the request to allow gymnastics schools in the Business Park (BP)
Zoning District is an inappropriate use of the Business Park zoning district. The
district is not designed to accommodate recreational activities. These
recreational uses are allowed in all of the other business districts.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends alternative #2.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending denial of the proposed amendments.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Amendment
2. Application
3. Hearing Notice
1:\98files\98ordamd~_oning\98-043\98043pc.doc
Page 3
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 98- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-5-15 (C) OF THE PRIOR LAKE
CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 6.15 (C) OF THE PRIOR LAKE
ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. Section 5-5-15 (C) of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 6.15 (C) of the Prior Lake
Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to add "Gymnastics Schools" to the list
of Permitted Uses in the B-P (Business Park) Districts.
This ordinance shall become effective liom and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this day of May, 1998.
ATTEST:
City Manager Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
__ day of May, 1998.
16200 l~il~:l~t~l~'u[g\~}lt~hlaat~l,db~innesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~47-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION $-5-15 (C) OF THE OF THE CITY CODE AND SECTION 6.15 (C) OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO PERMITTED USES IN THE
BUSINESS PARK (BP) ZONING DISTRICT
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE, on Monday,
April 27, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the
public heating is to consider an amendment to Section 5-5-15 (C) of the City Code and
6.15 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance to list Gymnastic Schools as a permitted use in the
Business Park (BP) Zoning District.
If you wish to be heard in reference to this item, you should attend the public hearing.
Oral and written comments will be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have
questions regarding this matter, please contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at
447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Prepared this 8th day of April, 1998 by:
Jennifer Tovar, Planner
City of Prior Lake
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON APRIL 11, 1998
1:\98file$~98ordamd~zoning\98-O43\98043pn.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTLINITY EMPLOYER
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) 44%4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application:
[] Rezoning, from (present zoning/ sheets/narrative if desired)
to (pronosed zonin~/
~Amendment to City Code, Cojnp. Plan or City Ordinance
[] Subdivision of Land
[] Administrative Subdivision
[] Conditional Use Permit
[] Variance
Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
Applicable Ordinance Seotion(s): __ ~ Ill
t.~-'z<~ c,n~ ca.. ~' ~ O~.
Address:/,Yd:,9 /
Home Phone:
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]: L~, O. d. ~nq,Lrpr;Se$ - %~.¢v~. ~,a.~.C.a.~
Address: ~/~-/o ~l~i~ Cl~d Or~qC ~~':~, ~ ~3 q~
HomePhone: WorkPhone: ~ ~t-o~gq ~t['~lO0 ~'~i
Type of Ownership: Fee X Contract for Deed ~ Purchase Agreement ~
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
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
applications,l~ill not be processed until d~e4~d complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
App ica~ s S gnature <Z~ Date
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEAR22qG
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARi-NG
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date
lu-app2.do¢
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4C
CONSIDER A SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND
AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE FOR JAMES
NERISON, Case File #98-048
14294 ASPEN AVENUE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER,.~
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
APRIL 27, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
On February 23, 1998, Mr. Nerison applied for a building permit to allow for the
construction of a three season porch, which he had already begun construction
on without obtaining a building permit. His property is located at 14294 Aspen
Avenue in the Sand Pointe 2nd Addition. The property is zoned PUD and is
within the SD Shoreland District. Upon review of the building permit it became
apparent that the proposed porch does not meet the required setback and
impervious surface ordinances.
On April 3, 1998, the Planning Department received a variance application from
James Nerison. The attached survey (Exhibit A) indicates a proposed
impervious surface of 35.2% and the proposed porch is setback 9.9 feet from the
side property line. The lot is approximately 65 feet by 130 feet and is 8,733
square feet. Therefore, this lot is a substandard Eot and can utilize one 5 foot
side yard setback (Section 5-4-1 City Code). The PUD provisions for Sand
Pointe also allow one side yard setback of 5' on the garage side of the house.
Section 5-8-3 of the City Code allows for a maximum impervious surface
coverage of 30 percent.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 16, Block 4, Sand Point 2nd Addition was platted in 1982. The house was
constructed in 1983 as shown in Exhibit B, with the garage side of the house
setback 5' from the side property line. The proposed porch is located on the
opposite side of the house. In 1985, Mr. Nerison added a deck and finished the
basement. In 1983, when the house was built, there was no impervious surface
requirement. The impervious surface requirement was adopted on May 4, 1987.
16200
L:\98FiLES\98VAR\98-048\98-048PC.DOC Page 1
Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The impervious surface on the lot, when the ordinance was adopted was 26.4%
(as the house was originally built). On November 13, 1987, Mr. Nerison received
a permit for garage addition. Based on the survey submitted for the garage
addition (Exhibit C), the impervious surface became 29.0% upon completion of
the garage addition. Sometime between this approval and February 23, 1998,
the applicant expanded the driveway to the property line and added a brick patio.
While permits are not required for such alterations, property owners must comply
with the ordinance. These additions and the recent construction of the porch
increased the impervious surface to over 30 percent.
The applicant is now requesting a variance to allow impervious surface of 35.2%
rather than the maximum of 30% and a side yard setback variance to allow a
setback of 9.9 feet rather than the required 10 feet for proposed porch. No
previous variances have been granted for this property. Mr. Nerison has owned
this property since at least 1985 when the deck permit was issued.
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. The property has been utilized as a single
family residence for 15 years. Reasonable use of the property has existed
and will continue to exist as a single family dwelling without the variance.
There is no hardship with respect to the property. The legal building
envelope and 30% maximum impervious surface allow for reasonable use of
the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
Considering the area was platted as a PUD, and most of the lots are 8,000 to
10,000 square feet in area, there are no unique circumstances of the lot.
While the impervious surface ordinance was adopted after the lot was
created, which the applicant had no control over, it does not warrant a
hardship.
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 8,733 sq. feet and
65 feet wide. However, the hardship was created by the applicant, not the
property. The applicant can modify the plan to reduce or eliminate the
impervious surface. The existing driveway is non-conforming (up to the lot
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-048\98-048PC.DOC Page 2
line), and the applicant has options for eliminating impervious surface. The
setback variance can also be eliminated if the porch is moved to meet the
setback. The hardship is caused by the actions of the property owner.
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 a maximum impervious surface is to reduce the surface run-off
to bodies of water located within the Shoreland District. Considering the
impervious surface can be reduced, the intent cannot be met as proposed.
The variance request to side yard has little if any impact on altering the intent
of side yard setback. Without mitigating measures, the granting of the
variance request is contrary to the public interest. The variance to impervious
surface can be reduced or eliminated upon a redesign of the structure and/or
removal of a portion of the driveway and patio.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded the variance request to impervious surface can be reduced
or eliminated upon redesign of the structure or driveway and patio. The setback
variance can be eliminated by relocating the proposed porch.
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.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Adoption of the attached Resolution #98-12PC denying the variance to
impervious surface and side yard setback.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-048\98-048PC.DOC Page 3
RESOLUTION 98-12PC
DENYING A 0.1 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 9.9 FOOT SIDE YARD
SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT SETBACK AND A 5.2
PERCENT VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF
35.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 30
PERCENT.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
James Nerison has applied for a variances from Section 5-8-3 and 5-4-I of the City
Code on property located in the PUD (Planned Unit Development) and SD
(Shoreland Overlay) Districts at the following location, to wit;
14294 Aspen Avenue, legally described as Lot 16, Block 4, Sand Pointe
Second Addition, Scott County MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case #98-048 and held a hearing thereon on April 27, 1998.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the requested setback and
impervious surface 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 impervious surface coverage variance is not
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant. The applicant has alternatives to eliminate and reduce the variances. The
variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant.
The Board of Adjustment finds the applicant has created his own hardship through the
design of the proposed porch, expansion of the driveway and failure to obtain a
building permit which would have brought the issues to the applicants attention prior
to beginning construction.
l:X98files\98var\98-048Xre9812pc.doc Page 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax {612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the ordinances 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 variances.
8. The contents of Planning Case 98-048 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 for 14294 Aspen Avenue, as shown in Exhibit A (survey and legal
description);
1. A 0. I foot variance to permit a 9.9 foot side yard setback instead of the
required 10 foot setback from the centerline.
2. A 5.2 percent variance to permit impervious surface coverage of 35.2 percent
rather than the maximum allowed of 30 pement.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 27, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\98files\98var\98-048h'e9812pc.doc
Page 2
EXHIBIT A
LOT 16, BLOCK 4-
SAND POINTE SECOND ADDITION
$coTr COUNTY, MINNESOTA
30 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE - FEET
LEGEND
NO. TS98,O036 FILE NO. 1386 NEt T8036SB1,*
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Applie~oo)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address 14-7-.%~- J~p~, /~.
Lot.area ~srS~ Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. 7_.(~;q .qO
LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
HOUSE x
i x =
ATTACHED GA_KAGE x =
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTUI~ ...................... t~%~. (~%
DETACHED BLDGS x
(Garage/Shed) X
TOTAL DETACH'ED BUILDINGS ...................... --
DRIVEWAY/PAVED AREAS
~'~"~paved or not)
(Sidewalk/Parking Are~)
x = t~3.
(Open D¢ck.~ ¼. min. opening
boards, with a perwious su~facc below,
~c not consid~cd to be imperious)
TOTAL PAVED AREAS .........................................
x
X
TOTA.L DECKS ........................................................ 7__<31.1.5
O/HEP..
X
TOTAL OTttER. ..................................................
TOTAl, 12VEPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDE~
Prepared By
Company
Date
Phone #
3
0509
~IIIVD~O£ D£V£L ODMENT
PBOPOS[O ELEVATIONS
Top of Block
Lo,est Floor
C~rage Floor
LOT lb, 8~oc~ 4,
EXHIBIT C
c/~no[e~ /r,on monornenl~,
P~'o~.cl ekvcdhog gho~n
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
TOp of Block
Lo,est Floor
~arag~ Floor
:'Lo~' t~ , ~oc~ ~ ,
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES:
A 5.2 PERCENT VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE OP 35.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED OF 30 PERCENT AND
A 0.1 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMITA SIDE YARD SETBACK 0F9.9
FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT SETBACK
FOR AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND PROPOSED THREE SEASON PORCH
ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE PUD 4-83 AND SHORELAND OVERLAY
DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 14294 ASPEN AVENUE.
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 27, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
James Nerison
14294 Aspen Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
14294 Aspen Avenue, legally described as Lot 16, Block 4
Sand Pointe Second Addition.
REQUEST:
There is an existing single family home on the property. The
applicant is requesting a variance to impervious surface and
side yard setback to allow the construction of a three season
porch. The proposed impervious surface coverage is
35.2%, rather than the maximum allowed of 30% on lots
within the Shoreland District. The proposed side yard
setback is 9.9 feet rather than the minimum setback
requirement of 10 feet.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested
variances against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-048\98-048PN.DOC i
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions
related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department
by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written
comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed
construction and requested variances are or ara not consistent with the above-
listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: April 16, 1998
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-048\98-048PN.DOC
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED OFFICIAL MAP FOR THE
RING ROAD BETWEEN FRANKLIN TRAIL AND
TORONTO AVENUE
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO-N/A
APRIL 27, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The City of Prior Lake has, for several years, anticipated the construction of a ring road
between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. This road is shown on the Transportation
Map in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The recent construction of the Park Nicollet
Clinic and the changes to the access points on Highway 13 has facilitated the need for
this road. In order to better plan for this road, the City staff have proposed an official
map for the right-of-way.
An Official Map is an ordinance in map form adopted by the City that conclusively shows
the location and width of proposed streets or future public land and facilities. The
requirements for an Official Map are identified in the State Statutes (see attached). The
purpose of an Official Map is to prevent private development from encroaching on sites
for proposed public improvements. The adoption of an Official Map does not give the
City any right, title or interest in areas identified for public purposes, but it does authorize
the City to acquire such interests without paying compensation for buildings or
structures erected in such areas without a permit or in violation of the conditions of an
approved permit. The Official Map also governs the issuance of building permits in that
it is not required to issue a permit for a structure within the public area defined by an
official map. The statute also provides a property owner with an appeal process.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the proposed ring road is to provide access to the commercial properties
on the southwest side of Highway 13, and to reroute that traffic from Highway 13 to a
local street. The proposed alignments will accomplish this by directing traffic from
Franklin Trail to Toronto Avenue, and provides access to the properties adjacent to
Highway 13 and the properties to the south.
Four alignments are attached for your review. On February 9, 1998, the Planning
Commission reviewed three alignment alternatives. After reviewing the proposed
alternatives, the Planning Commission requested the staff look into the possibility of
providing a 900 angle at the intersection of Toronto and the ring road. This is attached
as Alternative D.
1:\9~flle, e~s\98~ u b, jec\98~0~9\9~019p~:2.~oc
16200 Eagle L. reeK ,ave. ~.~., ~'rior t_a~.e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax [61z)~'~7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
At this time, the staff is asking the Planning Commission to provide some direction about
which alignment is most desirable. Once we have this direction, a survey of the
property will be prepared, and a public hearing scheduled to review the Official Map.
The City Council will ultimately determine the alignment of the road with the final
approval of the Official Map.
ACTION REClUIRED:
Provide direction to the staff on which alignment is most suitable.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. State Statute
3. Potential Alignments (Attachments A, B, C and D)
4. Minutes of February 9, 1998, Planning Commission Meeting
1:~98files\98su bjec~98-019\98019pc2.doc Page 2
WILDERNESS PONDS
-' I
THE POND
ATHLETIC COMPLEX
ORDERLY ANt
826
surface areas necessary for mined under~ound space development pursuant to sections
4.69.135 to 469,141, together with their estimated cost, the justification for each improve-
ment. the impact that such improvements will have on the current operating expense of the
municipality, and such other information on capital improvements as may be pertinent.
Subd. I0. Official map. "Official map" means a map adopted in accordance with sec-
tion 462.359 which may show existing and proposed futura streets, roads, and highways of
the municipality and county, the area needed for widening of existing streets, roads, and
highways of the municipality and county, existing and proposed air space and subsurface
areas necessary for mined underground space development pursuant to sections 469.135 to
469.141. and existing and future county state aid highways and state trunk highway rights-
of-way. An official map may also show the location of existing and furore public land and
facilities within the municipality. In counties in the metropolitan area as defined in section
473.12 I. official maps may for a period of up to five years designate the boundaries of areas
reserved for purposes of soil conservation, water supply consetwation, flood control and sur-
face water drainage and removal including appropriate regulations protecting such areas
against encroachment by buildings, other physical structures or facilities.
Subd. I l. Governing body. "Governing body" in the case of cries means the council by
whatever name known, and in the case of a town. means the town board.
Sub& 12. Subdivision. "Subdivision" means the separation of an area. parcel, or tract
of land under single ownership into two or mom parcels, tracts, lots, or long-term leasehold
interests where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets,
roads, or alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any combination
thereof, except those separations:
(al Where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in
size and 500 feet in width t'or residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial
and industrial uses:
(b) Creating cemetery lots;
(c) Resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a com-
mon boundary.
Subd. 13. Plat. "Plat" means the drawing or map of a subdivision prepared for filing of
record pursuant to chapter 505 and containing all elements and requirements set forth in
plicable local regulations adopted pursuant to section 462.358 and chapter 505.
Subd. 14. Subdivision regulation. "Subdivision regulation" means an ordinance
adopted pursuant to section 462.358 regulating the subdivision of land.
Subd. 15. Official controls. "Official controls" or "controls" means ordinances and
regulations which control the physical development of a city, county or town or any part
thereof including air space and subsurface areas necessary for mined underground space de-
velopment pursuant to sections 469.135 to 469.141, or any detail thereof and implement the
general objectives of the comprehensive plan. Official controls may include ordinances es-
tablishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes
and official maps.
Subd. 16. Preliminary approval. "Preliminary approval" means official action taken
by a municipality on an application to create a subdivision which establishes the rights and
obligations set forth in section 462.358 and the applicable subdivision regulation. In accor-
dance with section 462.358, and unless otherwise specified in the applicable subdivision reg-
ulation, preliminary approval may be granted only following the review and approval of a
preliminary plat or other map or drawing establishing without limitation the number, layout,
and location of lots, tracts, blocks, and parcels to be created, location of streets, roads, utili-
ties and facilities, park and drainage facilities, and lands to be dedicated for public use.
Sub& 17. Property fights. The words "area," "interest in real property," "ground,"
"land." "lot," "parcel," "property," "real estate," "real property," "site," "territory," and
"tract," and other terms describing real property shall include within their meaning, but not
827
be limite
opment r
Hist
1980 c 5~
art 2 s I
462.353
Sub
nicipal p[
nicipalit~.
Stlb,
pality
displays.
public on
SuN
any fired:
pality ma3
Subd
by it in
official ct,
permit or,
Subd
informatit
permit or,
taxes whit:
poses of th
order, conr
Histo,
462.354 O
Subdi
planning a~
vote of all;
as other po
the ~bllo~ i:
officials an
may be a di
sion shall b
12) It r
and shaft th
istration. Ti
staff as in tt
Subd. _
adopting or
462.3585 HOUSING, REDEVELOP,MEN'r. pLA,NN[NG, ZONING
836
462.3585 JOINT PLANNING BOARD.
Upon request of a home role charter or statutory city council or county or town board by
resolution presented to the county auditor of the county of the affected territory a board shall
be established to exercise planning and land use control authority in the unincorporated area
within two miles of the corporate limits of a city. The board shall have members in a number
determined by the city. county, and town. Each governmental unit shall have an equal num-
ber of members. The members shall be appointed from the governing bodies of the city,
county, and town, Upon request of more than one county or town board with respect to the
unincorporated area within two miles of the corporate limits of a single city, the parties may
create one board rather than a separate board for each county or town. with equal member-
ship from each affected governmental unit. The board shall serve as the governing body and
board of appeals and adjustments for purposes of sections 462.351 to 462.36a within the
two--mile area. The board shall have all of the powers contained in sections 462.351 to
462.364 and shall have authority to adopt and enforce the uniform fire code promulgated
pursuant to section 299F.011. The city shall provide staff for the preparation and administra-
tion of land use controls unless otherwise agreed by the governmental units. If a municipality
extends the application of its subdivision regulations to unincorporated territory, located
within two miles of its limits pursuant to section 462.358. subdivision la, before the creation
of a joint board, the subdivision regulations which the municipality has extended shall apply
until the joint board adopts subdivision regulations.
History: 1982 c 507 s 24
462.359 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION: OFFICIAL MAPS,
Subdivision 1. Statement of purpose. Land that is needed ~rbr futura street purposes
and as sites for other necessary public facilities and services is frequently diverted to nonpub-
lic uses which could have been located on other lands without hardship or inconvenience to
the owners, When this happens, public uses of land may be denied or may be obtained later
only at prohibitive cost or at the expense of dislocating the owners and occupants of the land.
Identification on an official map of land needed for future public uses permits both the public
and private proper~y owners to adjust their building plans equitably and conveniently before
investments are made which will make such adjustments difficult to accomplish.
Subd. 2. Adoption. After the planning agency has adopted a major thoroughfare plan
and a community facilities plan, it ma3. for the purpose of carrying out the policies of the
major thoroughfare plan and communit,x facilities plan. prepare and recommend to the gov-
erning body u proposed official map covering the entire municipality or any portion thereof.
The governing body ma3. after holding a public heating, adopt and amend the official map by
ordinance. A notice of the time. place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the
official newspaper of the municipalit? at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. The
official map or maps shall be prepared in sufficient detail to permit the establishment of the
future acquisition lines on the ground, in unplatted areas a minimum of a centerline survey
shall have been made prior to the preparation of the final draft of the official map. The accura-
cy of the futura acquisition lines shown on the official map shall be attested to by a registered
land surveyor. After adoption, a copy of the official map. or sections thereof with a copy of
the adopting ordinance attached shall be filed with the county recorder as provided in sec-
tions 462.351 to 462.364.
Subd. 3. Effect. After an official map has been adopted and filed, the issuance of build-
ing permits by the municipality shall be subject to the provisions of this section. Whenever
any street or highway is widened or improved or any new street is opened, or interests in
lands for other public purposes are acquired by the municipality, it is not required in such
proceedings to pay for any building or structure placed without a permit or in violation of
conditions of a permit within the limits of the mapped street or outside of any building line
that may have been established upon the existing street or within any area thus identified for
public purposes. The adoption of an official map does not give the municipality any tight,
title, or interest in areas identified for public purposes thereon, but the adoption of the map
does authorize the municipality to acquire such interests without paying compensation for
buildings or structures erected in such areas without a permit or in violation of the conditions
of a permit.
837
Subd. 4. Appe:
tion is denied, the b
with it by the Owner
any case in which t!
that the entire prop
forms a part cannot
granted, and (b) tha
the official map and
property in the use
or approval is requ~
heating required b5
newspaper once at 1
adjustments authon
board or commissio
of the board to insti
proceedings are sta~
provals shall issue tk
nances. The board s!
the extent and chars
History: 1965
462.3595 CONDI3
Subdivision 1.
types of deve[opmer
activities as conditic
the governing body
dards and criteria
include both genera
quirements specific
Subd. 2, Publi{
shall be held in the ~
Subd. 3. Durati
tions agreed upon a~
from enacting or am
Subd. 4. Filing
with the county reco
pality is located for r
the property include
History: 1982
462.3597 INTERI?
Subdivision i. 1
ticular date, untiI the
permit it.
Subd. 2. Autho
im uses. The regulati
permission for an im
I 1 ) the use conf
(2) the date or ~
(3) permission c
for the public to take
(4) the user agre
mission of the use.
Any interim use
836
~r tOWn board by
dry a board shall
~cor~orated area
~ers in a number
e an equal num-
dies of the city,
ch respect to the
the part/es may
equal member-
:ming body and
364 within the
3ns 462.351 to
:e promulgated
!nd administra-
a. municipality
rntory located
,re the creation
led shall apply
)*PS.
reel purposes
ed to nonpub-
mvenience to
~btained later
ts of'the land.
~th the public
fiently before
ish.
ughfare plao
}i/c/es of the
d to the gov-
'lion thereoi'~
/ishedmap by
in the
tearing. The
~ment of the
rline survey
The accura'-
a registered
:h a copy of
ided in sec-
ce of build-
Whenever
interests in
ed in such
Joia:ion of
:ilding line
-ratified for
any right.
)f the map
)sar/on tbr
uonditions
837
~. Subd. 4. Appeals, If a land use or zoning permit or approval for a building in such loca-
tion is denied, the board of appeals and adjustments shall have the power, upon appeal, filed
with it by the owner of the land. to grant a permit or approval fur building in such location in
any case in which the board finds, upon the evidence and the arguments presented to it, (al
that the entire property of the appellant of which such area identified for public purposes
forms a part cannot yield a reasonable return to the owner unless such a permit or approval is
granted, and lb) that balancing the interest of the municipality in preserving the integrity of
the official map and of the comprehensive municipal plan and the interest of the owner of the
property in the use of the property and in the benefits of ownership, the grant of such permit
or approval is required by considerations of justice and equity. In addition to the notice of
hearing required by section 462.354. subdivision 2. a notice shall be published in the official
newspaper once at least ten days before the day of the hearing. If the board of appeals and
adjustments authorizes the issuance of a permit or approval the governing body or other
board or commission having jurisdiction shall have six months from the date of the decision
of the board to institute proceedings to acquire such land or interest therein, and if no such
proceedings are started within that tirte, the officer responsible for issuing permits or ap-
provals shall issue the permit or approval ii'' the application other.vise conforms to local ordi-
nances. The board shall specify the exact location, ground area. height and other details as to
the extent and character of the building for which the permit or approval is granted.
History: 1965 c 670 ¥ 9:1976 c 181 s 2:1986 c 444:1995 c 254 art 3 s 8
462.3595 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
Subdivision [. Authority. The governing body may by ordinance designate certain
types of developments, including planned unit developments, and certain land development
activities as conditional uses under zoning regulations. Conditional uses may be approved by
the governing body or other designated authority by a showing by the applicant that the stan-
dards and criteria stated in the ordinance ',','ill be satisfied. The standards and criteria shall
include both general requirements for all conditional uses. and insofar as practicable, re-
quirements specific to each designated conditional use.
Subd. 2. Public hearings. Public hearings on the granting of conditional use permits
shall be held in the manner provided in section 462.357, subdivision 3.
Subd. 3. Duration. A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the condi-
tions agreed upon are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the municipality
from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses.
Subd. 4. Filing of permit. A certified copy of any conditional use permit shall be filed
with the county recorder or registrar of titles of the county or counties in which the munici-
pality is located for record. The conditional use permit shall include the legal description of
the property included.
History: 1982 c 507 s 25
462.3597 INTERIM USES.
Subdivision l. Definition. An "interim use" is a temporary use of property until a par-
ticular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer
permit it.
Subd. 2. Authority. Zoning regulations may permit the governing body to allow inter-
im uses. The regulations may set conditions on interim uses. The governing body may grant
permission for an interim use of property if:
(1) the use conforms to the zoning regulations:
(2) the date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty;
(3) permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary
for the public to take the property in the future: and
(4) the user agrees to any conditions that the governing body deems appropriate for per-
mission of the use.
Any interim use may be terminated by a change in zoning regulations.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/'
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
MINUTES OF 2/9/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
B. Discussion on Proposed Official Map for the Ring Road between Franklin Trail
and Tower Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report.
Thc City of Prior Lake has, for several years, anticipated the construction of a ring road between
Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. This road is shown on the Transportation Map in the 2010
Comprehensive Plan. The recent construction of the Park Nicollet Clinic and the changes to the
access points on Highway 13 has facilitated the need for this road. In order to better plan for this
road, the City staff have proposed an official map for the right-of-way.
An Official Map is an ordinance in map form adopted by the City that conclusively shows the
location and width of proposed streets or future public land and facilities. The requirements for
an Official Map are identified in the State Statutes. The purpose of an Official Map is to prevent
private development from encroaching on sites for proposed public improvements. The adoption
of an Official Map does not give the City any right, title or interest in areas identified for public
purposes, but it does authorize the City to acquire such interests without paying compensation
for buildings or structures erected in such areas without a permit or in violation of the conditions
of an approved permit. The Official Map also governs the issuance of building permits in that it
is not required to issue a permit for a structure within the public area defined by an official map.
The statute also provides a property owner with an appeal process.
The purpose of the proposed ring road is to provide access to the commercial properties on the
southwest side of Highway 13, and to reroute that traffic from Highway 13 to a local street. The
proposed alignments will accomplish this by directing traffic from Franklin Trail to Toronto
Avenue, and provides access to the properties adjacent to Highway 13 and the properties to the
south.
At this time, the staff is asking the Planning Commission to provide some direction about which
alignment is most desirable. Once staffhas direction, a survey of the property will be prepared,
and a public hearing scheduled to review the Official Map. The City Council will ultimately
determine the alignment of the road with the final approval of the Official Map.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Cramer:
· Questioned the wetlands and potential redevelopment of Priordaie Mall.
Kuykendall:
· What is the projected traffic? Kansier said they do not have exact numbers.
· Rye explained the frontage road in front of Highway 13 is a private road.
· What is the State's role in this? It is an impact on the City.
· The State has an obligation.
· Rye explained there is another option.
Criego:
· From a safety standpoint, a 30 mph speed limit would be acceptable. Option C would
be the best alternative.
1:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcmin\mn020998.doc
· The landscaping will look nice.
· The property with Option C would be less costly.
Vonhof:
· Why does it come in at an angle? Kansier explained the traffic flow process.
· Recommend Option C.
Stamson:
· Would the City end up buying the block building on Toronto? Kansier said probably.
· Option C would be best.
· The City could take out some of the curve.
Cramer:
· option C will work.
Kuykendall:
· Favors option A. Concerned with the way Toronto is connected. Bring it in at 90
degrees. There should be a right-of-way.
· Make it an attractive facility for people to use. Prefers the flat curve.
· It should be designed for people to use.
· There should be a stop sign on Toronto Avenue.
Criego:
· option C goes into two properties. By bringing the road further south, the City would
only have to deal with the brick building.
· Go back and put a "T" on it. McDermott said they can look into it.
The commissioners decided to have staff review and bring back a new drawing.
7. An~nts and Corresponden~
· Downtown Steen'~g4~mmittee meeti~s scheduled for February 10, 1998.
· Kans~itlt~k~City ~*6mey finalizing the Zoning Ordinance. The City
Council will review. '~ . .
· The j~nty Plan~g C~a~ission meeting is tentatively scheduled for
Tuesday, March 31,7 ~
8. Adjournm~,~ ~
The meeting ~mmed at 7:39 p.m.
Don Rye~ Connie..Caflson
Direct~of Plarming Recording Secretary
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn020998.doc 6