The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-11-98REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: A. Case #98-055 John Beaupre is requesting a 2 foot variance to permit an 8 foot side yard setback for the construction of an attached garage on property located at 16290 Park Avenue. 5. Old Business: 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. B. Case #98-043 Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the permitted uses in the Business 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. D. Case #98-056 Consider a two foot setback variance for monument sign for Nordquist Signs on behalf of Park Nicollet Clinic. 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: 16200 ~'a~e ~re~ ~e.c~.,~nor~ar~'e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 1998 1. Call to Order: The April 27, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego,:!i~son and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansie[~::::i~ Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secret~:ilConnie Carlson. Vonhof Present Kuykendall Absent Criego Presen[:~ ill} Stamson Present .... The Minutes from the April 13, 1998 Pla~gg ¢'~::~,~.m~et(~g were approved as presented. .... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: A. Case #98-05 t::~t~o foot setbl for monument sign for Nordquist Signs Planner Jenni office will b Planning Report dated April 27, 1998 on file in the so the applicant can redo their survey. The ught. The applicant has indicated to staffa revised survey 1998. A continuance of the variance until May 11, 1998 will revised survey, and staff time to review the new There were no a~hunents from the public or commissioners. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO TABLE THE REQUEST TO MAY 11, 1998 TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO SUBMIT A REVISED SURVEY. Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc 1 B. Case #98-043 Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the permitted uses in the Business Park Zoning District. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated April 27, 1998 on file in the office of the City Planner. The hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relatingi~:.~he permitted uses in the Business Park Zoning District. The proposed ameg~::i::~ill allow Gymnastics Schools as a permitted use in the Business Park (BP) ZoEi~:i~)istrict. This amendment was initiated by Charles and Bev Rutz of Prior ~e G~tics, currently located on Main Avenue in the site previously occ~::~: the Sta~::~h~ne distribution center. They are requesting the zoning ordinaa~g~3ment to to occupy space at the Prior Lake Business Center buil¢~:'(Da~e Hansen site). of a gymnastics school requires large open spaces v~g~iii~igh cei'i:i g . Buildings i~::~e Business Park are designed as office warehouse an~:~facturi~}~i~gqilities with large open interior spaces and high ceilings. Such design also'::~b~odli:~s space needs of a gymnastics school. Section 6.15 of the Zoning Ordinance oui~i~ii~:~:~itted and '~ilional uses in the Business Park (BP) Zoning District. :ii~iii~. :%?:i~ii?:?~i!i::?:::.::~i~:~ ........ Business Park uses listed as g~[,ed and c~iional amli~se which provide for basic employment within the cit~ii::!ii!?g~:~:~Ses are o~e, warehouse, and fabrication. Business service industries are p~itted us~i~:~ The distri~l:.igr~designed via development standards to accommodate sucl~::i~¢cific land:i~es and pro~'a business park atmosphere. One of the implications of:.~i~:S~igg gy~i~g::~:::i'~s a permitted use is inadequate parking on existing sites. The S~:::::~'3~:1~3:::.::~ office warehouse with parking based on number of emgI~gees~or Under.::~::~urrent o;~i!~ce, g~s' schools fall under the use of Private club health clu~?~ii?~r/vate clubs ~ilihermitt~::"in the B-2 Community Business and B-3 General Bh~:: districts and ~iiii~onditional uses in the B-1 Limited Business District. The petiti;:~ii!hgs had diffic~ locating in an existing building due to the height needed for gymnasti:~!~.~tivities. ~ costs to renovate an existing structure are significant. Staff feels the '~}:'~:"to allow gymnastics schools in the Business Park (BP) Zoning District is an in~5~ropnate 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. Staff recommended denial of the proposed amendment. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc Comments from the public: Applicant Bev Rutz, recommended approving this facility for the youth's gymnastic program. This facility will not be a permanent site in the Business Park. There are no other areas in the community available. The problem is finding a building with adequate ceiling height. Right now they are in a garage. Parents would like to stay in Prior Lake. It is a feeder program into the high school. There are 150 children involveS:~;:~g~s 4 through high school. This fall there were 190 participants. The high sc~ii::::~hing and supporting this program. This would be a nonprofit organization.: Mrs. Rutz and her husband are running the program for the sake She feels there were no parking problems at the existing site. It event and parking would be available in the Business Park. The not say "no" to the children of the community. Stamson: How many square feet are you Creigo asked how many students were ertrolled. Rutz children from age 4 on up to seniors in high school. program. This woul, Criego also asked what would alternative? Rutz said there is no program. Rutz said the~ equipment and give it to they do not have any 12 program. P.L.A.Y. r were no · 'had 150 supporting this what is the the they would buy the use it. The high school said a year round weeks). Last year there 8 weeks ago. Savage, of the ~ants are from Prior Lake. The other 1% is from ,chool District. the business p community to they really do not want to change the ordinance His real drive would be to have their own building, but to The only location in Prior Lake is the business for a year or two in the business park until they can find see a way for a one or two year period. Looking at there is no parking problem. The city is trying to promote The city runs a dance program. Criego asked if it would only be run in the evening. Rutz said their parent survey indicated they wanted evenings. If it functions well, the program would like to build their own building. Stamson asked how this would affect the new ordinance. Would it be a non-conforming use? Kansier said they would not be able to expand. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc 3 Cramer: Are there any conditions for public buildings? Kansier said this use does not meet the definition for public use and public programs. Bruce Monson, 15491 Stefan Circle, stated he was a parent of one of the students. Is it possible to change the ordinance and is it justified? Speaking from the justification point, gynmastics requires specialized coaching and it is remarkable what the Rutz's have done with their money. To get adequate training, Prior Lake parents have to New Prague or Northfield. Other communities are filling this void. and demand for the program. Parents are supportive and would like · Question to staff- was this recommended rather than conditional use? Tovar said that was the applic'~i:~!i?iiiii~i~as~ ~r~:~'or them to amend as a permitted use in the business park. The Commis'~'coul~ recommend a · It's interesting, the Fire Halt with pub[i~iii~etings is here i~::::i~i~Siness park. I remember when we ta~ked abo~t this,'"~i!l~::.!~uilding in ~::gusi~ess park, one of the reasons for allowing it as a cond~nai'"~ii~::~l~gt i~ ~es an obvious public good. Although this is a private ventur~:is a!i~bi~:~::::i~!::?There is justification for it. · The only issue is the i.~::::~i~iibusiness ~!~k is not having heavy m~u~actuhng or things that would a~ the su~nding are~ik~:.parking. Could be addressed. .... ?:~ncem for parking'~hng th~: day, but that problem c~ be solved. · P~i~?~onditiona~:~ ~t thi~ t~ St~ffwou~d h~w to ~o~vin~ ~ what th~ ~own side is?~ar ex~}~ed the City built the business park to create jobs and indust~ for Prior ~::~:~ of that cme with Tax Increment Financing (TIF). The pmicul~ b~g they ~e interested in is a TIF building ~om the City. With that being the i~nt, it should be for jobs in the City. ~is does not meet the co~itment the City was given for the money ~d building. · Tovar said the biggest problem is the p~king. Exmple Maufi's D~ce Studio in Bumsville. It is in ~ industhal disthct ~d ~e p~hng is not adequate. · Rye mentioned there is no guarantee the tenet in the building might add a second or third shift. Ask yourself if this is ~ appropriate use in an industhal district. If yes, what else does this open itself up for. ~at other kinds of requests do you ente~ain? h\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc Cramer: · Commissioners Vonhof and Criego put it well. Figure out a way to make this happen. · Understands staff's concerns about what this is leading up to. · Gymnastics are usually under the health club regulations. You can't really deny one and permit another. · Asked staffifthere was any way around this. Stamson: · Agreed with staff- in general the City's Feels it is inappropriate. However, this particular like to see the program succeed. Hopefully there would opening up a can of worms. proposed ordinance it would would be a temporary situation. It Would Criego: · Is there anyway to recommend a short · Kansier said "No". The use is either Crflmer: · If it as made a conditional nonprofit organizations cannot s would to nights only? Rye said you Stamson: · The chan concern is what would move ' ~osal it will create problems. Kansier's particular organization moved on and another was okay once. It would be hard to argue. be approved by this committee and the City Council, if it if any other party came it under a conditional use it would Commissioners and City Council. · The an industrial park or not. Under everybody's not but we're trying to make it work. MOTION BY ceamo, sEco BY STXUSON, TO COMU Nr) TO Discussion: Criego: · It is a worthwhile endeavor but it does not fit in the industrial park. 1:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc Vonhof: · There difference is industrial park vs. business park. The use would be more appropriate in an industrial park. It is within shouting distance from a R1 District. Recommend as a conditional use. The prospect of another group coming in could be reviewed. · Comfortable with a conditional use. Stamson and Criego withdrew their motion ..... MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY Cm,,~UEt~, TO CON~ii~.. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PE~ A G~ASTIC SCHOOL IN THE BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT AS LQ~G:.~ THE ============================ FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE INCLUDED .... 1) Limit to 3,000 square feet. ..::~[~[~[~ 2) Limit participation to evenings and wee~'~i~:i~[[}i::::~ 3) Minimum of l0 parking spaces. .... ~:5,:: ============================== Discussion: :: ............... ::::: ::: :.:.:.: ::':'::':::':'.. :.:: ::::.:.:... "::~::iiiiil ii iili: ~::~i~ ;:iii?':: · Some of the conditions should be squ~'~$~g~!igtited to e~ff{hg and weekends, safety during the day, minimum 10 paring sp'~i::~:ig!g~p::.~9:~/~e feet. · Parking is compatible. Should be contr6ii!~d~:::~!i~aw ~!i::~i:.:~a regulated? · Rutz explained most peopl~a~Op off the~r'~Ss ~d co~:back and pick them up. The building probably has::~:':par~i~pots. A'~0d gymnastic program would require 5,000 square feet., ..~::'to keep 4~ 6 kids p;~mctor. ~n an hour there probably 20 kid.~::~!ved. E~s would t~1ace at the high school or other Vote taken si~i~:..gyes by ~{~?::::~OTION C~ED. .............. K=~:[~:.::~$xplained th~::~gCdure ~i~:"the conditional use md City Council. ~bs aY cm~o0~$~gEco~n BY VONaOF, TO COST~NUE TH~ eUBLIC H~:~O M~Y ~?/~i9~8 mO ~LLOW ~nE ST~ TO ~WLOe LANGU~D~S:SING THE ~COMMENBEB CONBITIONS. ==================================..::~?:::::? Vote taken sig~.~::'ayes by all MOTION C~ED. :;~:.;~ .... C. Case ~98-048 James Nerison is requesting variances for imperious surface and side yard setback for the proper~ at 14294 Aspen Avenue. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated April 27, 1998, on file in the office of the City Planner. 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 1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc 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 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 survey indicates a proposed impervious surface of: proposed porch is setback 9.9 feet from the side property line. The lot is 130 feet and is 8,733 square feet. Therefore, this lot is a substandard one 5 foot side yard setback (Section 5-4-1 City Code). The PUD for Sand Pointe also allow one side yard setback of 5' on the garage side 8-3 of the City Code allows for a maximum impervious surf~:.~rage of Lot 16, Block 4, Sand Point 2nd Addition was platted constructed in 1983, with the garage side , side pro~:~rty line. The proposed porch is located on the c In 1985. Mr. Nerison added a deck and finished the basement, built, there was no impervious surface requirement. The ' uimment was adopted on May 4, 1987 .... ~iiii!::i::::~::~ ......... ~i¥ The impervious surface on the lot, when tl~:~r~¢f;!~i[?:~..adopt~ was 26.4% (as the house was originally built). On November ~ 1 ~::~.ii!i~'n received a permit for garage addition. Based on ............ gar~ addition, the impervious surface became 29.0% up~ addition. Sometime between this approval and February the property line and added a brick p~ alterations, property the porch increased the percent. The than t allow impervious surface of 35.2% rather to allow a setback of 9.9 feet fo~::~roposed porch. No previous variances have been this property ~i~r. Nerison has owned this property since at least 1985 when uest to impervious surface can be reduced or of the structure or driveway and patio. The setback variance can be eliminat¢~::by relocating the proposed porch. Cramer questioned the surveys. Tovar explained the proposed and the as-built drawings. Comments from the public: James Nerison, 14294 Aspen, said he built his deck without a permit. The City sent him a letter and came down to find out what to do to make it right. He was told he needed a new survey which he got. His old survey showed 11 feet to his property line. The new 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn042798.doc 7 survey shows he's 1 and 3/16th inches too close to the property line. So he's asking for a variance for 1 and 3/16th inch because his house was not where the survey said it was. Only part of his lot is in the Shoreland District. He feels he is not in the Shoreland district. He is only on the edge and he did not do anything his neighbors did not do. His neighbor did not care he extended his driveway. His patio is made up of bricks in sand and does not feel it is impervious. He feels he's only on the edge of the district and he's only asking for a short variance. Mr. Nerison submitted a letter from his n~gl~bor in support. Rye asked Mr. Nerison what was his source of information as to tho~J~og of the Shoreland District. Mr. Nerison said he came to the City and wa~ii~id he":~iii/n the watershed area and wanted to see on a map. He felt the Cit.y...~mea~ed ever~':~::they could to find him 1,000 feet from the lake. Tovar said she::~i::~::!fi~ve the inf~l!~?:~:. with her .... Stamson asked if it has been legal in the past to build"~i:i~a:.the l~F:~6~y line. Nerison responded it was. Rye said it was not. Creigo asked when he replaced the deck,:~:lhe deck have a ;~i~Orl.~g Nerison said "No it did not." Criego went on to say l~!~r!~ beyond and:~i?'~'roof on. Nerison admitted he did. Tovar explained putting a dr~O the pr~ .... line an~{ility., easement is not legal. Nenson saxd several p~pl'~'~n h~s ~hborhood::.~¢: extended their driveways over the property line .... ?:::i?~i!!:~il ::~ii~i~?? :.i?? Criego explained the issd:~i?~ii:.~:"~:'::{~::i~er an utility easement rather than up to the rty li prope ne ................ .:-: :.~ :.:..::. Warr~!~fisch, 14287:i~i~n Ave~?:does not see a problem with the 1 3/16 inch. His cor[~ is the drivewa3?~ili~he prO~:~rty line. His neighbor does not care if he builds his dd~g to the property~iI~e. Obviously there is a problem if it is on an easement. Mr. Buscl~:~}~oned if the ~i~ting driveways will have to be removed. Tovar responded there wa~ii~gfficient s~to accomplish this. Vonhof explained the 5 foot setback from the properts?~i~ili~a~!ii~n the ordinance passed in 1995. Busch said he wanted to put in a driveway. Vo~i~:~nt on to explain one cannot build any structure or driveway over an easement. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · Nerison already has most of the unit set up and not going to argue over the inch or so. The main concern is the impervious surface. It has to be determined if it is in the impervious surface. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc Cramer: · Agreed with Criego. The setback is not an issue. · The impervious surface is an issue. · Is unsure where the shoreline district comes into play when part of the lot is divided. Need more information before making a decision. Vonhof: · Agreed with previous comments by Commissioners. Impervious surface is an issue. There are alternatives to this. The setback is not an issue. · Question to staff: Do we know where the 1,000 feet.~e[~':::~)n this Tovar said part of the property is in and section available. Stamson: · Agreed with s built his structure already variance. He could have easily ! variance base( deck up and expect a variance in hind si · Avoiding the process that wot~i~l not otherwise be allowed. In · The 35% is still surface is a ~M[. Nerison had not granting a go slap the and on and on. The impervious Criego: )ack. The survey in possession said 11 feet and · ~urface. reference :he definition of Shomland District. Rye said the to how much is in or out. Them is no or out. Interpretation in the past has been any portion of the lot MOTION BY QKIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO MAY 11, 1998. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: A. Case #98-019 Discussion on proposed Official Map for the Ring Road between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doe 9 Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 27, 1998 on file in the office of the City Planner. 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 thq?~i~gk Nicollet Clinic and the changes to the access points on Highway 13 has facilitat~i::~itt for this road. In order to better plan for this road, the City staffhave proposedi:~ official map for the right-of-way, i::::::::ii?~ii:~?~ :: ~::ii?i!iiii:ii?~i!?:::~~? .. An Official Map is an ordinance in map form adopted h~::!iii~i~ii~ity that "~g~!usively shows the location and width of proposed streets or futur~ii~i~i:ii~d and requirements for an Official Map are identified in the.:~i~{e Statutes. The purpo~'~?iii~Fan Official Map is to prevent private development fro~i?~ncroaclqi~g on sites for pig~osed public improvements. The adoption of an Officiali::~'ii!~9¢s n~ii)~i~ the City any right, title or interest in areas identified for public purposes, B~iii~[~?~3es ~thorize the City to acquire such interests without paying compensation for bu{~i~g~ or structures erected in such areas without a permit or in violatiq~:~i~:~:~)e conditions ~:~:~::~pgroved permit. The Official Map also governs th~ issuance '~ii~$~igg::.permits in i~i::i::~ii is not required to issue a permit for a structure within the ':~pbli~:~:~[~[:~?~!3ed b~::hn official map. The statute also provides a property owner with ~h. ap~g~ i~iiii:: The purpose of the propos~g:?~::~hd is to p~gide access to the commercial properties on the southwest side ~ighwa3?!?i~, and to/~ that traffic from Highway 13 to a local street. The p~.sed aliments will a¢~plish this by directing traffic from Franklin Trail to ~:~i~::~::.~v~:i:ii~::.~m~:~ access to the properties adjacent to Highway 13 and the pro~:~b/i::~"~:~':~:~::!::!::i::::::!ii!::::~ On Feb~i::i~!:::iii::~i~;::i::::~e Pla~i~g~:::~pInmission reviewed three alignment alternatives. After .~t:¢wing the":~sed alt~:~iives, the Planning Commission requested the staff lool!:iii~io the possibilit~ii~ provi'fl~hg a 90° angle at the intersection of Toronto and the At this ti' iiiiihe staff is~::::~king the Planning Commission to provide some direction about which alig~i~!iii~is.~§t desirable. Once direction has been established, a survey of the property will 6'ai! ared, 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. There were no comments from the public. Discussion by the Commissioners: Criego asked the speed limit. Kansier explained it was 30 mph. 1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc 10 What is the advantage of going around the building? Kansier said it gave more options and helps property owner. Can the landowner effectively use his property? Kansier said if the landowner cannot use the property the City would be liable to buy it. Creigo feels the options are open to the City not the land owner. Stamson disagreed, the landowner has options. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECI CITY COUNCIL AS DIRECTION TO THE RING ROAD. Vote taken signified ayes by all, MOTION CARRIED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A zoning ordinance meeting is scheduled for Cramer and Vonhof will try to make it. L set. tall. A geotech gave a presentation to the 8. Adjournment: hemeet~ng adjoumed at.:g~g~ DonaldRye ?~:~iiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiii~ ....... ~iiiiiiiiii}iiiiii!i!ii~i~i~i~i~:~:~,~:::~::::::::::::~ii!? Connie Carlson DirectorofPlanning .... ~ii!}!!i!iii}i~}~!:~?~::::.:.:~:::::*~*~i~!~!iiii~ii!iiii!i~ii~ii~;? .... Recording Secretary 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mnO42798.doc 11 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: CONSIDER A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR JOHN BEAUPRE, Case File #98-055 16290 PARK AVENUE JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO MAY 11, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from John Beaupre who is proposing to construct an attached garage to an existing house. The proposed garage will be setback 59.2 feet from the front property line, 5 feet from the southerly side lot line and 8 feet from the northerly side lot line. This lot is a substandard lot. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code requires side yard setbacks to be 10 feet; however, substandard lots can maintain one side yard setback of 5 feet, as long as a minimum separation of 10 feet is maintained on the adjacent lot. The applicant is therefore requesting a variance of 2' to the required side yard setback. The applicant will also need a variance to driveway setback. Section 5-5-5 requires a minimum 5 foot side yard setback for driveways. The applicant is proposing to pave the existing driveway, which is 10 feet wide, centered on the front lot line. The front lot line is 16.7 feet wide. This results in a sideyard setback of 3.35 feet for each side of the driveway. Therefore, a 1.65 foot variance to driveway setback (for each side of the driveway) is required. The proposed driveway setbacks are based on a verbal conversation with the applicants surveyor, Allan Hastings (4/30/98). A revised survey indicating these dimensions will be required. DISCUSSION: Lot 12, Lakeside Park was platted in 1921. The property is located within the R~ 1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. There is no bluff on the property and the proposed structure is located out of the flood plain. The impervious surface coverage will be less than 30%. The applicant is in the process of purchasing this lot and does not own either of the adjacent parcels. L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-055\98-055PC.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 The legal building envelope is approximately 2,818 sq. feet. In 1974 a variance was granted to allow a 9 foot setback on the south property line and an 8 foot setback from the north property line for an addition. Attached are the minutes and approved site plan. The DNR has not commented on this request. 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. No garage exists on the property. The Planning Commission has stated garages are reasonable uses. Considering a variance was granted in 1974 to allow a setback of 8 feet on the same side of the property, the proposed garage will line up with the house. The ordinance requires driveways to be paved and setback 5 feet from lot lines. Considering the lot width is 16.70 feet, and the proposed driveway width is 10 feet (minimal), hardship exists with respect to the property. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstances are the lot width and lot configuration. The lot is a substandard lot and an existing condition created in 1921. The lot cannot be altered to accommodate the proposed driveway or garage. The proposed driveway and garage are reasonable uses. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. The lot is considered to be substandard. The lot area is 7,980 square feet and the lot width is 16.70 feet at the front property line. These are conditions which have been existing since the property was platted in 1921. The lot width and lot configuration are hardships that is not the result of the applicant's actions. The proposed garage and driveway are reasonable. 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 driveway setback is to allow for storage of snow and to keep car overhangs within ones own property. Considering the lot is a pie shaped lot, the driveway setback is increased to 5 feet at a distance of 25 feet from the front property line. The proposed driveway will be 59 feet long. Therefore, the intent is met. The side yard setback for the garage is 8 feet. L:\98FI LES~98VAR\98-055\98-055PC.DOC Page 2 Considering the existing home is setback 8 feet and adjacent lots are of similar size and configuration and have existing structures upon them, the granting of the variances will not be contrary to the public interest. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded the ordinance criteria have been met. The applicant has no control over the hardships pertaining to the lot. ALTERNATIVES: 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. In this case, the Planning Commission should direct the staff to prepare a resolution, with findings, denying the request. ACTION REQUIRED: Adoption of the attached Resolution #98-13PC approving the requested variances. L:\98 FILES\98VAR~98-055\98-055PC,DOC Page 3 RESOLUTION 98-13PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 2.00 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN 8.00 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET; AND A 1.65 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 3.35 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS John Beaupre has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an attached garage on property located, in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 16290 Park Avenue, legally described as Lot 12, Lakeside Park, Scott County, MN. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #98-055 and held heatings thereon on May 11, 1998. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 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. 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. 1:\98file$\98var\98-055kre9813pc.doc 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 granting of the variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants, but are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors listed above do not allow for an alternative location of the proposed structure and driveway without the variances. 7. The contents of Planning Case 98-055 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 (I) 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 including the future structure, yet to be designed. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and approves the following variances, as shown in attached Exhibit A, for future garage and driveway; 1. A 2.00 foot variance permitting an 8.00 foot side yard setback instead of the required 10 foot setback; and 2. A 1.65 foot variance permitting 3.35 foot driveway setbacks instead of the required 5 foot driveway setback from side yards. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 11, 1998. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director l:\98filesX98varX98-055h'e9813pc.doc 2 CITY OF PKIOR LAKE Impervious surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) For Ail ProPerties Located in the Shoreland District (SI The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address L,D'T' [~0 "L-~[[~[ ~)~ ;%TT~t/{ Lot Area }~{~O0~ ~121).:(~:-'/C)~:~), Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. .~.'~9~r -0-9~-~. HOUSE . x ATTACHED GARAGE x LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET DETACHED BLDGS (Garage/Shed) DRIVEWAY/PAVED AKEAS (Dr veway-paved or not) (Sidewalk/Parking Areas) PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS (Open Decks ½" min. opening between boatds, with a pervious surface below, ate not considered to be Impervious) X X TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....~ .................. TOTAL PAVED AREAS ......................................... TOTAL DECKS ........................................................ TOTAL' OTHER....; .................................................. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Date SCOTT COUNTY PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION - Minules of May 16, 1974 The meeting of the Prior Lake Planning Commission was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by Chairman Bissonett. Members present: Tercerc, Jobst, Stack. Also present were Michael McGuire, City Administrator, Mayor Walter Stock, and City Planner Charies Tooker. Members absent: Hours, Walker, and Miller. " Minutes of previous meeting were approved as submitted. First item on the agenda was Charles Tooke, commenting on the study plan t:or a proposed S,mnset Hills Addition. Mr. Tooker will send out a re'sume' cf his comments to al! Planning Commissio:~ers for their review. Jobst mede the motion to invite the developer of Sunset Hills ' Addition: Scotfland Builders, to the next Planning Commission meeting for discussion and Commission's recommendation to Ihe Council, seconded by Stack end upon a vote taken, it was duly passed. , .~. Mr. Gerald Kiesner c~'me before the P]anning Commission for a ~-arlance to build a garage 6 ft.-from his north p~operly line. Af~?r a genera] discussion, Stack made a motion to grant :the variance with the 6 ft. side yarc setback , no less, other setbacks as proposed, seconded by Terqero and .upon ~ vote taken, it was duly passed. ~Mr. ~. Mrs. Robert Bell came before the Planr,;ng Commission For a variance to add a 12 x 24 ft. addition to the east side of their small cabin and a 10 x 10 Ft. addition the west side. Motion was made by Tercerc to grant variance as specified on drawing, seconded by Stack and upon a ,~ote taken, it was duly passed. Mr. John Lewin also came before the Planning Commission for" ,,arkmce to build a garage 4 ft. from his north ic;' llne ~nd 4 ft. from his west lot llne. Motion was made by Sta~:k to contact the City Engineer, through the Admlni.'.trator's O:fice, to check the easement situi=tlon which will be reported at the next Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Jobst and upon a vole taken, it was duly pas~ed. follow-up on Cleen-'up Week w~ll be made, wi;h ecch Commissioner asigned to certa.;n areas inspe:tlon at next Planning Commi:sion meering. Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Submitted by Shirlene Grisham, Secretary APPROVED BY THE PRIOR PlANNiNG COMMI$510N_:-' DATE NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A 2.0 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMITAN 8.0 FOOTSlDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-'I (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 16290 PARK 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, May 11, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: John Beaupre 4251 Quaker Trail NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PROPERTY OWNERS: Mark Slaughter 16290 Park Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 SUBJECT SITE: 16290 Park Avenue described as Lot 12, Lakeside Park, Scott County, MN. REQUEST: The applicant is intending to construct an attached garage approximately 26 feet deep and 20 feet wide. The required side yard setback is 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other. The proposed garage will be setback 5 feet on the south side and 8 feet on the north side. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-055\98-055PN.DOC 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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 27, 1998 L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-055\98-055PN.DOC N I/2 SEC.. 2 ~, I R.L.s, ,KESIDE AVE. / ! ESTATES COND. 1016 COURT PLANNING REPORT AGENDAITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 5A CONTINUED DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER COUNTY ROAD SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR EAGLE CREEK VILLAS, INC., Case File #98-040 5255 160TH STREET JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO MAY 11, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Commission heard this request on April 13, 1998 and continued discussion until May 11, 1998 when all of the Planning Commissioners would be present. The original request included a 22.54' variance to the setback from the centerline of Franklin Trail, and 1.2% variance to the maximum lot coverage requirement. The applicant has since revised his plans showing a setback from the centerline of Franklin Trail at 72.00 feet rather than the original request of 62.46 feet. The applicant is currently requesting the following variances: · A 13.00 foot variance to permit a 72.00 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%. A more detailed discussion of this request is included in the attached Planning Report dated April 13, 1998. VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. L:\98 FILES\98VAR\98-040\98040PC2.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 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 townhouses and multiple family residential structures. The building setbacks are the same for either use, but the lot coverage is different. Townhouses 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 and revised, the proposal does not meet the hardship criteria. The site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance requirements. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-040\98040PC2.DOC Page 2 case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purposes. 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:\98 FILES\98VAR\98-040\98040PC2.DOC Page 3 RESOLUTION 98-11PC DENYING A 22.56 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 AND THE MODIFIED SETBACK REQUEST OF 13.00 FOOT VARIANT TO PERMIT A 72.00 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2% VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20%. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 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 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 Tnmk Highway No. 13; to a point of beginning, Scott County MN. 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 Planning Commission tabled the discussion on the request to May 11, 1998. 3. The applicant submitted a revised plan on April 29, 1998, increasing the setback to the centerline of Franklin Trail from 62.46 feet to 72.00 feet. 4. The Board of Adjustment continued discussion on the request and the revised plan on May 11, 1998. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. $.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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 substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has alternatives to eliminate the variances. The variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant. 7. The Board of Adjustment contends the applicant has created their own hardship through the design of the proposed structures. 8. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the ordinance cannot be met if the variance is granted. 9. The Board of Adjustment has concluded reasonable use can be made of the property without the variance. 10. The contents of Planning Case 98-040 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 5255 160th Street, as shown in Exhibit A (survey and legal description); 1. 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. The revised 13.00 foot variance request to permit a 72.00 foot setback from the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback. 3. 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 May 11, 1998. Anthony Stamson, Chair L:k98FILES\98VARLa8-040kRE9811 PC.DOC 2 ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director L:~98FILESX98VAR\98-O40~E9811 PC.DOC 3 I1.1 III 45.3 ./" /// ~.\. \ ! O0'OSI, __ -~" PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: 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 ,.))~2~- JANE RANS ER, PLANNING COORD .ATOR 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 A). A demolition permit has been issued for the structures 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 read (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 reads. 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 OPPORTUNITY 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 centedine 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:\98FILES\98VAR\98-040\98-040PC.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 staffto 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 98-11 PC. L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-040~98-040PC.DOC Page 3 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:\98 FILES\98VAR\98-040PN.DOC ] 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER REQUEST: The applicant is intending to construct eight townhome units. Townhomes am 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. 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above- listed criteria. Prior Lake Planning Commission Date Mailed: April 2, 1998 L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-040PN.DOC PLANNING REPORT AGENDAITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 5B CONTINUED 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) JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO MAY 11, 1998 INTRODUCTION: On April 27, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed a request to allow gymnastic schools in the B-P (Business Park) District. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this use should be permitted as a conditional use in the B-P district. The Planning Commission continued this request to May 11, 1998, to allow staff to address the conditions proposed by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION: The applicant's original proposal would have included gymnastic schools as a permitted use in the B-P District. However, the Planning Commission felt this use was more appropriate as a conditional use. The Commission also suggested the standards for maximum floor area occupied by the use, hours of operation and required parking must be addressed before the amendment proceeds to the City Council. Each of these standards is discussed below. Maximum Floor Area: The Planning Commission suggested the maximum floor area for these uses be limited to 3,000 square feet. The effect of this limitation is that any gymnastic school established in the B-P District will remain relatively small. Larger operations will be required to relocate. Hours of Operation: The applicants indicated the general hours of operation for the existing facility are evenings and weekends. The Planning Commission 1:\98files\98ordamd~oning\98-043\98043pc2.doc Page 1 :t6200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-~_714 / Ph. (6J. 2) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER members felt that by limiting the use to these hours, there would be less interference with the business park operation. Suggested hours of operation are 5:00 PM to 11:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM, Saturday and Sunday. This restriction limits the use of the gymnastic facility even when school is not in session. The hours also will also have less impact on the business operations, unless a business chooses to run a third shift. Required Parking: There are a variety of ways to determine the required number of parking spaces. One way is to base the required parking on the number of students and/or employees, Another method is to base the required parking on the floor area of the use. This is generally the easiest method to administer, since the square footage does not change, while the number of students or employees may change frequently. The current Zoning Ordinance does not include a standard for parking for this type of use. The proposed ordinance suggests a standard of one parking space for each 400 square feet of floor are for studios, which includes martial arts or dance studios. The Planning Commission suggested 10 parking spaces should be provided for this use, which equals one parking space for each 300 square feet of floor area. One important fact to remember here is that the design and number of parking spaces in the B- P District was intended for industrial/office uses. These uses typically require far less parking then other business uses. Devoting parking to the gymnastic school will eliminate parking available for the business use, especially in the event of a third shift. If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend this amendment, the following language should be incorporated into Section 6.15 (D) Conditional Uses in the B-P District) of the Zoning Ordinance: 7. Gymnastics Schools; provided that such use occupies no more than 3,000 square feet of floor area in the principal structure, hours of operation are limited are limited to 5:00 PM to 11:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, and 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM on Saturday and Sunday, and a minimum of one parking space per 300 square feet of floor area is provided. The minimum parking requirement is not to be combined or shared parking with other uses in the business park. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as modified, 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. 1:\98files\98ordamd~zonin¢98-043\98043pc2.doc Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends alternative #2. While gymnastic schools are certainly beneficial to the community, the B-P District is not designed or intended for these uses, and the use is allowed in the other commercial districts in the City. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second recommending denial of the proposed amendments. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised Draft Ordinance 2. Draft Minutes of April 27, 1998, Planning Commission Meeting 3. April 27, 1998, Staff Report 1:\98files\98ordamd~.oning\98-O43\98043pc2.doc Page 3 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 98- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-5-15 (D) OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 6.15 (D) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: Section 5-5-15 (D) of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 6.15 (D) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to add the following: Gymnastics Schools; provided that such use occupies no more than 3,000 square feet of floor ama in the principal structure, hours of operation are limited are limited to 5:00 PM to 11:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, and 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM on Saturday and Sunday, and a minimum of one parking space per 300 square feet of floor area is provided. Thc minimum parking requirement is not to be combined or shared parking with other uses in the business park. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this day of ,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 ,1998. 1:\98files\98ordamdXzoning\98-043Xdraftord.doc PAGE 1 .vRAFT MINUTES OF 4/27/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING B. Case #98-043 Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the permitted uses in the Business Park Zoning District. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated April 27, 1998 on file in the office of the City Planner. The hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating ~i~i3~¢ permitted uses in the Business Park Zoning District. The proposed ame~?'::~ill allow Gymnastics Schools as a permitted use in the Business Park (BP) Zo~!~?istrict. This amendment was ~mtiated by Charles and Bev Rutz of Prior ~e G~t~cs, currently located on Main Avenue in the site previously occt~lCi~'~ the St~!mne distribution center. They are requesting the zoning ordin~ii~ent to ali~em~. to occupy space at the Prior Lake Business Center bnil~i~:"(Da'~e Hansen site). of a gymnastics school requires large open spaces wi~ii~igh cei:i~gs. Buildings Business Park are designed as office warehouse anS~::i~f~ctmS~!~qilities with large open interior spaces and high ceilings. Such design als0::~od~i~s space needs of a gymnastics school. "*~*~*~:~ .... Section 6.15 of the Zoning Ordinance ou~!~!ii~::~g~rmitted and ~itional uses in the Business Park uses listed as ~,~t~ed and c'~t~onal areiiii~se which provide for basic employment within the ci~iiiiii::i::~?~!i~Ses are o~ee, wareh0~se, and fabrication. Business service industries are p~itted us~!!i! The dis~t is::designed via development standards to accommodate suclt::ii~¢cific Ian6ii~'es and pro~:"a business park atmosphere. One of the implications of~ii~gg g~gi~::~!giii~ a permitted use is inadequate parking on existing sites. The ~:i~i!::::~:~:::::~i~:iiii~' office warehouse with parking based on number of emglo~ees or Under:~**~urrent o';~i~ce, g~¢i~s schools fall under the use of Private club, health clu~i~ii~:~Pfivate clubs ~iiii~ermitt~:' in the B-2 Community Business and B-3 General B~,: districts and ~!i!i~onditional uses in the B-1 Limited Business District. The petiti;~ii::has had diffic~ locating in an existing building due to the height needed for gymnasti'~!?~fivities. ~ costs to renovate an existing structure are significant. Staff feels the '~"to allow gymnastics schools in the Business Park (BP) Zoning District is an in~ropriate 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. Staff recormmended denial of the proposed amendment. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc 2 Comments from the public: Applicant Bev Rutz, recommended approving this facility for the youth's gymnastic program. This facility will not be a permanent site in the Business Park. There are no other areas in the community available. The problem is finding a building with adequate ceiling height. Right now they are in a garage. Parents would like to stay in Prior Lake. It is a feeder program into the high school. There are through high school. This fall there were 190 participants. and supporting this program. This would be a nonprofit Mrs. Rutz and her husband are running the program for the sake She feels there were no parking problems at the existing site. It ..... event and parking would be available in the Business Park. The busine~s are say "no" to the children of the community. Stamson: How many square feet are you requiring~::?:~iz resp~gd it was 2,400 f~t. Creigo asked how many students were enrolled. Rutz s f ii gi o ;:: ihey had 150 children from age 4 on up to seniors in high school. The hi~ii~hool is supporting this program. This would be a non-profit org~pn. "::~::iiii:}?~ii~ii::::~::¥::~:?:::::i::~ Criego also asked what would happen if tt~ii~gc~:~ii~g~ed.d~, what is the alternative? Rutz said there is no altemativ~::ihut ~' ~i~t to continue the program. Rutz said they check~;~ith the sc~d~"'and tolai!i m they would buy the equipment and give it to t~[~!~i~!!~;~st let th~:}~?mmunity use it. The high school said they do not have any p!:g~'~o store :~ equipme~l::~:..~ents would like a year round program. P.L.A.Y. r~::~i~evious g~astic progr~:"(six to eight weeks). Last year there were no programs. ::'~i!!~i h~i~g~::~m~6ii~s program 8 weeks ago. Rutz explaine.~.:.~:}~ of the ~'~pants are from Prior Lake. The other 1% is fi'om Savage, but~iii:~ii~i~ig~r Lak~7~gg~?.School District. Chu~::~utz, 15691 S~i~iCircle?:~id they really do not want to change the ordinance bU~'~I;/~::are no othe opt~o!~s. H~s real drive would be to have their own building, .but to do th~ii~ediately is o~iiCf the question. The only location in Prior Lake is the business park. H~:~d like to::~ction for a year or two in the business park until they can find another buif~:>H~i::~uld like to see a way for a one or two year period. Looking at the business p~"~;i~'ght, there is no parking problem. The city is trying to promote community togetherness. The city runs a dance program. Criego asked if it would only be run in the evening. Rutz said their parent survey indicated they wanted evenings. If it functions well, the program would like to build their own building. Stamson asked how this would affect the new ordinance. Would it be a non-conforming use? Kansier said they would not be able to expand. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn042798.doc Cramer: Are there any conditions for public buildings? Kansier said this use does not meet the definition for public use and public programs. Bruce Monson, 15491 Stefan Circle, stated he was a parent of one of the students. Is it possible to change the ordinance and is it justified? Speaking from the justification point, gymnastics requires specialized coaching and it is remarkable what the Rutz's have done with their money. To get adequate training, Prior Lake parents have to dri~::~.Eagan, New Prague or Northfield. Other communities are filling this void. The~i~[ii~i::i~t interest and demand for the program. Parents are supportive and would like [~iii~p this program Comments from the Commissioners: ......... '~iii::i::~ Vonhof: * Question to staff- Why was this recommended ~i~ii~ermitt~::~ii~e rather than aCii~ .... conditional use? Tovar said that was the applic'~i:~i!~it,~vas::~'i~::for them to amend as a permitted use in the business park. The Commi~:~:"coul'~ recommend a conditional use. · It's interesting, the Fire Hall with pul,~i~i.i~.~tings is here i/i'~!::~iness park. I remember when we talked about this,'~i::~g,:.~mldmg ~n t~ ~0usmess park, one of the reasons for allowing it as a cond~naf'~ii~::i~hgt i~..i~es an obvious public good. Although this is a private venmre~*ii~:is aiii~bii:~ii::~?There is justification for it. . :....~:;~::?:::iiigiii!;~ ~ .... ':~:?~i!ii}i? .... .~iii:::~ .... · The only issue is the is not having heavy manufacturing or things that would ~0~t the surfriding are~ii~!~$.parking. Could be addressed. · Most of the park~g~i!~ould be ~!i~ight. Not a~'fic concern and ample parking is .,:.?:ii:.. ": :~iiii::!i::ii!ii:i~ .... ~!i::ii!iii iiii::ii~!ii[!~!:~i~,~,~, ......................... ¢::i? available. .:;~:~,~:~:~ · ~:t see a reason ~:.somet~r~g like this could not be in the business park. .::~5::i~gcem for parking~hng th~ day but that problem can be solved. o':¢i::'"i~:'~§::serve a public:.i~¢od and the community has a need for the use. · Pe~i~?:~conditional:~ at this type. Staffwould have to convince us what the down side is?:~g~ exg~ed the City built the business park to create jobs and industry for Prior f}~}i~::'part of that came with Tax Increment Financing (TIF). The particular b~!~ihg'they are interested in is a TIF building from the City. With that being the infant, it should be for jobs in the City. This does not meet the commitment the City was given for the money and building. · Tovar said the biggest problem is the parking. Example Maud's Dance Studio in Burnsville. It is in an industrial district and the parking is not adequate. · Rye mentioned there is no guarantee the tenant in the building might add a second or third shift. Ask yourself if this is an appropriate use in an industrial district. If yes, what else does this open itself up for. What other kinds of requests do you entertain? l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mnO42798.do¢ 4 Cramer: · Commissioners Vonhof and Criego put it well. Figure out a way to make this happen. · Understands staff's concerns about what this is leading up to. · Gymnastics are usually under the health club regulations. You can't really deny one and permit another. · Asked staff if there was any way around this. Stamson: .:~'~ii~i!ii!{il.. · A~reed with staff- in general the City's allowing a private cl~l~i:~'~:~::i~gstrial park. FeeV ls it is inappropriate. However, this particular program is ~y valu~i~i~:.NVould like to see the program succeed. Hopefully there would.:~?:~ to allov~i~:[hout opening up a can of worms. If we change the ordin~:.!:'~t ~l to change th~::iiiiiiiiili!i~i!i!i::::!::!iiiiii proposed ordinance it would give them four month~:::~' mov~i~ln and be operatin~?~t would be a temporary situation. It would be wo~h~le for':i~5,:City. ':~ .... · Is there anyway t,o, recommend a short. J~rm use? "~;i~i!i!ii?:~ · · · ~ ~ , · · ======================== · . "::?i![:::i~'i~::, . :~:~[: Kanmer smd No . The use is e~ther ~..as a cond~tmn~::i~ or not. Cramer: '~!iiii:~, ·' >~iii!iii~iiiii~i!~iii:::::[~,:::<...<,:~::' .~i~ · If it as made a conditional, use, would th~:h~i~y le~ii!!~ifications by limiting to nonprofit organizations.~ii~ations o~:{~eekends ~i nights only? Rye said you cannot specify thingg~i!~"pro~atus or o~ership. · The change is ci'ty-~i.i.::.~:iii~i~i:.~osal it will create problems. Kansier's concern is what would h::~¢n if this particular organization moved on and another move ~i}:~i~i~:~d we '~}gin ii?vas okay once. It would be hard to argue. · ::~ii?~i~nditional use ha~iii~ be approved by this committee and the City Council, ~f xt ..... n~:ithe conditions.lii!~ if any other party came it under a conditional use it would hav;~[::~iii!~g;:approve~::[~~ both the Commissioners and City Council. · The qu~i~g:is vch~her it is suitable in an industrial park or not. Under everybody's normal ra~i~!~i~'.is not but we're trying to make it work. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL TO THE PROPOSED REQUEST. Discussion: Criego: · It is a worthwhile endeavor but it does not fit in the industrial park. 1:\98files\98plconm~\pcmin~mn042798.doc Vonhof: · There difference is industrial park vs. business park. The use would be more appropriate in an industrial park. It is within shouting distance from a R1 District. Recommend as a conditional use. The prospect of another group coming in could be reviewed. · Comfortable with a conditional use. Stamson and Criego withdrew their motion. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONSI~i~.. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PE~ A ~*STIC SCHOOL IN THE BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT AS LQ~.~S THE Discussion: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ........ =============================================== · Some of the conditions should be squ~::~g~..limited to e~hg and weekends, safety dunng the day, m~mmum 10 parI~mg space~!::!~i~00 sqlpare feet. · Parking is compatible. Should be contrc~i~.::??~gW":~iii~?:~i~regulated? · Rutz explained most pe~!~?:~E:.offthei;*:~} and co~::i~ack and pick them up. The building probably ha5~;~:'~ar~!sl}pots. A '~pd gymnastic program would require 5,000 square feet....~:"to keep ~i~i~6 6 kids pe~}~tmctor. In an hour there are probably 20 kidai::~:(:_~lved. E~:~s would tak~}i~ace at the high school or other Vote taken.~}~::~yes by ~i~ii?~!~OT;ON CARRIED. Kansie~!::~plained th~'::'~edure ~i~::ihe conditional use and City Council. BY CRIEGdii! ECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE TaE eUBLIC HE~:~i~TO MAY !:ii?i998 TO ALLOW THE STAFF IO DEVELOP LANGU~ii~DRE~ING THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. Vote taken si~!~:~,es by all. MOTION CARRIED. C. Case #98-048 James Nerison is requesting variances for impervious surface and side yard setback for the property at 14294 Aspen Avenue. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated April 27, 1998, on file in the office of the City Planner. 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 1:\98 filcs\98plcomm\pcmin\nm042798.do¢ 6 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~zoning\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 OPPORTUN[~ EMPLOYER 4. Wholesale use occurring within an enclosed building, but not involving five 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 largerthan one ton capacity; provided that such vehicles are 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 sales 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 welfare. 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:\98files\98ordamd~zoning\98-043\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:\98flles\98ordamd~zoning\98-043\98043pc.doc Page 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-5-15 (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 hearing 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 l:\98fll~s\98ordamd~zoning\98-O45\98043pn.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 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-I714 / Phone (612) 44%4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 Type of Application: [] Rezoning, from (present zoning) to (proposed zoning) J~Amendment to City Code, Cojnp. Plan or City Ordinance [] S bdiviaion of Land [] Administrative Subdivision [] Conditional Use Permit [] Variance Brief description of proposed project (attach additional sheets/narrative if desired) Applicable Ordinance Section(s): Address:l,.S'&91 ~.<et.~'bee ~;,~c/¢ ~S. ~', ~r-,o,- t_e~t~e ~ ,'~/~. Home Phone: /a,I ), - q'/q~ ~2 :z :2 WorkPhone: ~'12 - .3L. ~ - ~,a°2 2 Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]: Address: ~lt'to ~ie~ C~la.,d Or'~ ~le- ~c'L~ ~;.:< , Home Phone: Work Phone: Type of Ownership: Fee )~ 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~ill not be processed until d~a~d complete by the Planning Director or assignee. Applicant s Signature ~ Date Fee Owner's Signature Date THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANN1NG COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARFNG CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE DF HEARFNG CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date lu-app2.doc PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 5C CONTINUED DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER A SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE FOR JAMES NERISON, Case File #98-048 14294 ASPEN AVENUE JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO MAY 11, 1998 INTRODUCTION: On April 27, 1998, the Planning Commission continued the discussion on this request until May 11, 1998, in order to allow the staff to gather additional information. On May 4, 1998, the applicant submitted a letter requesting the item be continued until the May 26, 1998, meeting due to scheduling conflicts on his part. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second to continue this item until May 26, 1998. L:\98 FILES\98VAR\98-048\98048PC3.DOC Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUN[TY EMPLOYER James Nerison 14294 Aspen Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 May 4, 1908 Attention Jane Kansier: This memo is in regards to the Planning Commission Agenda for Monday, May 11, 1998. At this particular City Council meeting case #98-043 is expected to be heard, pertaining to a request for variance for impervious surface and side yard setback for my property at 14294 Aspen Avenue I am requesting that this case be changed from its current date, Monday, May 11 1998, to Monday, May 26 1998, due to personal schedule conflicts I would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter and thank you very much for your time James Nerison PLANNING REPORT AGENDAITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 5D 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 May 11, 1998 INTRODUCTION: On April 30, 1998, the Planning Department received a letter from Nordquist Signs withdrawing the above variance application. No action is therefore required. L:\98FiLES\98VAR\98-056\98056PC2.DOC Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, [Vlinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER NORDQUIST April 30, 1998 City of Prior Lake Attn: Jennifer Tovar 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 Re: Park Nicollet Variance Application Dear Jennifer: As per our conversation today, we are withdrawing our application to install an entrance monument sign at this time. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Thank you for you help and I look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, NORDQUIST SIGN COMPANY, INC. Laura Alexander Project Manger