HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-13-98REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #98-081 Wensmann Realty requesting a variance to allow a cul-de-sac
longer than 500 feet and variance to vary the standard design of the cul-de-sac to
allow a hammerhead turnaround for the development known as Glynwater.
B. Case #98-076 Michael and Mary Prekker are requesting variances for a 3.1 foot
variance to permit a 21.9 foot front yard setback instead of the required 25 feet; and a
21.0 foot variance to permit a 64.0 foot setback from the centefline of a County Road
(Franklin Trail) rather than the required setback of 85 feet from the centerline.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 Eagle ~ee~ ~ ~.~.,~r<ior l}ar~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 22, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The June 22, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego~i~(~endall
and Stamson, City Attorney Suesan Pace, Planning Director Don Rye,
Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott, ~:,e Lt. Steve
Schmidt and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
Criego
Cramer Present
Stamson Present
The Minutes from the June 8, 1998 Plannin~!i~o~sgi$~ii~ihg were approved as
presented. ====================================== .... '~i!i?~}iiiiiii~ .~::ii¢ii::::~ ....
Chairperson ~
A. Case AN AMENDMENT TO PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE
PRIOR LAKE CITY
ordinator J~ii~ansier presented the Planning Report dated June 22, 1998 on
file in of the ~i~ Planner.
The public consider regulations for the operation of motorized recreational
vehicles in the ]. The regulations may include such matters as
locations for the operation of these vehicles, hours of operation, use of the vehicles,
required permits, equipment standards and enforcement provisions. The hearing is also to
determine what type of regulations, if any, should be adopted.
In the summer of 1997 and the spring of 1998, the City received several complaints
concerning the operation of off-road motomycles in the area in and near the Titus
Addition. The complaints primarily concerned the noise and disturbance caused by this
activity.
l:\98files\98plcorarn\pcmin~nm062298.doc 1
On April 6, 1998, the City Council adopted a moratorium on the operation of motorized
recreational vehicles in order to allow the City the opportunity to study the issue. The
moratorium is effective for 90 days, or until July 6, 1998, although the City Council has
the option of extending the moratorium for up to 18 months.
Draft #1 of the proposed ordinance was sent out for public comment. The ~1~ includes
a definition of motorized recreational vehicles, and other pertinent defini~?~bvisions
for the operation of such vehicles, required permits, equipment standartt~!iand
enforcement provisions. .'::?-!iiii~::~::::?:?:i::!::!::i?:~ ....
The draft defines a motorized recreational vehicle as any "m~t~$~ two-, t/i~::~orfour-
wheeled or track, self propelled vehicle designed or used f~ii~;}}'onal purp~i::l~:,... ...::?:~:.
including, but not l!,mited to all-terrain vehicles, trail b.i~} ho~rcrafls, motorcycle, s?and
motorized bicycles'. Snowmobiles are not included.:~i~is def~on since they at~::~ ....
regulated under a separate chapter of the City Cod~i?'!::ii~i!i!i!i!i!i::~ .... ..::i:~ii}?~!ili?~?~?~!i?::;~ ....
The draft also outlines the location and manner of the oper~il~::of these vehicles.
Essentially, these regulations do not of m(~ed ~ehicles on any
residentially zoned property less than 10
careless, reckless or negligent manner,
unusual noise which disturbs, annoys
persons. The ordinance does
following a public
10
in any
~ crea~ loud, unnecessary or
and quiet of other
vehicles on
e issuance of a permit,
these vehicles are not allowed
within , bo~trie's.
Law enforcement officel:~::::~li::i~'"~:~:~'~::!~onsible for the enforcement of this
ordinance. Vio.lgtion of the"~imnce ....... is considered a misdeme~or, p~ishable for a fine
not exceed~:::::$~ ~or by i~V~}g~ent for a period not to exceed 90 days, or both.
Th~::::~visions of the "::~:~ .....~:':~:" ' ' ' '
p~sed ordinance ~e s~m~l~ to the prows~ons of other motorized
r~al vehicle ordi~ces ~oughout the State. M~y co~ities have b~ed the
use of':~::~es ofve~l~s in ~e city limits altogether. ~ ~ effo~ to tailor these
provisio~::?~}:~ge ci~ ?~or L~e, we have modified the ordin~ce in Draft ~2.
The City receig~e feedback on the proposed ordin~ce provisions. One of the
concerns is the ~{n~ce prohbits the use of all-te~ain vehicles even when used for
pu~oses other ~ recreation for exmple, lam ~d g~den work. Drafi ~2 addresses
tbs concem by modi~ng the definition of a motorized recreational vehicle to eliminme
· e word "desired" ~d to limit the scope of~e provisions to those vehicles used for
recreational pu¢oses. In the operational provisions, a section was inse~ed stating "in a
manner that simulates a race or tempora~ race, or creates or causes unnecessa~ engine
noise, tire squealin& or causes tires to spin or slide upon the acceleration or stopping of
sam vehicles to unnecessarily turn ab~ptly or sway from side to side". This provision
specifically addresses the issues of racing the vehicles.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~m062298.doc 2
The provision prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles on residentially zoned property
less than 10 acres in size remains the same.
Staffhas also revised the ordinance to distinguish public property from public streets.
Public property typically includes parks, school property and other government owned
areas. The operation of motorized recreational vehicles on is
legislated by State Statute provisions pertaining
traffic laws. Speed limits for these vehicles are also included in the laws. The
City cannot legislate the speed of the vehicles on
Another addition to the ordinance is a reference to the procedure
The procedure for a public hearing will be the same as use,
with a heating before the Planning Commission and r,e.:~'by ~e City Council
notification requirements will also include mailed n~:.~'ito o~:gfproperty wi~h
500 feet, and publication in the newspaper. ':~ii::::~::':':'::~:~::::iii~iii~iiii~ .... ?~i~}ii~:iiiiii)i?.
Draft #2 also eliminates the provisions generally rate Statutes, such as the
requirements for head lights and tail li ~peration
while under the influence of drug
Finally, the enforcement
official, rather than just law e
The staff recommended~ption c
recommended by
as written, or with changes
Questions from Co
....... ~i~!::::iii~ilililiiiiiiiii ! ~:':':~: ~' "::~?:!ii::i::~?!~ ...... 9 '
Cfiego: ~w::~o*si::~:elate to'::l~:~r~wmohile regulations. And what makes this
The snowmolS~li~i~ordin~e designates what streets they are allowed to drive on.
snowmobile use?
regulations and are not in the zoning ordinance.
and right-of-way laws.
a similar use of snowmobiles in the winter that would cause
Kansier:
The)
Criego:
noise
Lt. Schmidt: It is under the traffic code. You can drive your snowmobile on private land.
Kuykendall: Is noise the issue?
Kansier: Noise and disturbance was a large part of the original issue.
Kuykendall: Is there any decibel level or duration?
Kansier: The ordinance was written as is because there was no other way.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~'m062298.doc 3
Kuykendall: We haven't solved the noise issue. We're addressing noise pollution.
Rye: The State Rules on noise typically are based on a fixed source. It is very difficult to
demonstrate without specific standards for the duration and level of noise based on the
land use that is creating it. You could have a very loud noise in a short period of time and
you've violated those noise roles. Currently the City has not adopted the State Rules.
The City has a general nuisance provision about noise. The decibel leve relate to
fixed noise.
Kuykendall: Were there any studies pulled on noise?
Rye said we did not specifically deal with just the noise.
Comments from the public:
John Packer, has
owns motorcycles, snowmobiles People moved
into a development didn't know there was race course
people did not care a development was going in. The' Packer uses his
ATV's for many home uses,
gardening, etc.
snowblower and weedwhip. His other , G.
"Without lighted head and tail lights". :'::i~{iiiii::~:~ ~.::~ii::i~ ....
....... i:i!~i~!i!ii!i!i!:i ................. ~ii::iiii
Pace explained the reason..t6ii~:'i~}prized v~le reqnirihg the headlights during dusk.
Lloyd Lucht, 5960 Circleiiii hd redrowski and some
of his concerns .t has not been addressed is use in the
winter. He does use his. also uses it in the winter to
go
to Mr. Packer's comments, she
1 of 19~'7 and there was no race track. Miller uses her ATV in
feed her horses. The race track noise is unbearable. We are
not
Tom Cos Cimle, said when he moved in 10 years ago there were
only horses There have been many police calls. He feels they have been held
hostage on thei~j~n property. This activity can be taken elsewhere which it has. He is
in full support of this ordinance. The use of ATV for uses other than racing should be
acceptable. He feels a person should not have to leave their property to enjoy quiet.
Once this ordinance is adopted it canbe enfomed. This will benefit the majority of the
people.
Greg Herming, 13171 Pike Lake Trail, owns the race track. Last July he was sent a letter
from the zoning code officer. At that time he followed the noise and setback ordinance.
A few of the neighbors called the police several times. The police could do nothing
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~mn062298.doe
because he was in compliance with the ordinance. The motorcycles are not any noisier
than a weedwhip or chain saw. Many people are now involved in this issue. It used to be
a neighborhood issue not a City issue. He does not see why the 4-wheelers are involved,
they were never been part of the complaint. The motorcycles do not have head or tail
lights. He has ten acres of land zoned residential. Up until April 6, he was within his
fights to use his property for this reason, not to be a nuisance. If it is zoned agricultural
you have to get a permit. Setbacks are 300 feet.
the situation
Herming said a neighborhood meeting was called last Se
and hours would be set aside. The compromises did not come
would not compromise on hours to use the property.
The complaints have been the noise. A lot of issues ow it
is you against us. What this boils down is a prot
Mike Mankowski, 3171 Butternut Circle, uses his::::::~'A~i:i~or rec~gnal and
purposes. He believes there should never have bee~:~c ho~:: He questioned how
complaints did the City have other than the motor~ii~i~Xlso'i~hat steps have the
many
City taken to resolve the issue between the parties?
Lt. Schmidt explained the process involv~i~?~ngs with th~i~i~borhood and a
compromise could not be reached. There ~re ~:::F~!i~[duals~o would not
compromise with a set number of hours, no other resolution
but to go before the City Coug~2[ ~d deal wi~::(~ issue b~?~dinance.
Rye explained a numb~::i!~:~eside~iii~ppeared':":: ":::': :::: :' ":':':--l~i~q[~:the City Council who then directed
this public hearing...::~iii~ii!iil;i; ..... ~:ii? i::i?~i~~i7
"::::::¥ :'" '"'"":' ::~ ............... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: no ' dry t
Mankowski went on to say~;~¢~:.'ls a nms'~::~ t an ATV ~asue and contr o what
was said earli.~j~:::[~.idents :ntitled to peace and quiet. If someone wants peace and
I a house in the middle of it. We are entitled to a
reaso~t~ r rural
pr~!~. The available to the City. They are used on the
l~i~ket people loud boats. It will take a little bit of effort for
enforce~, the ATV fights of other residents. When
noise, is the City going to come out and plow my
drivewa' ' dock? At what point do we give in to every phone call and
complaint Mr. Mankowski stated he could solve this
problem parties and we wouldn't be talking about it again. If City Council
passes this ordinance they are sending a message to the commun/ty they would rather
take the easy way out and pass new restrictive laws rather mediate a peaceful solution that
does not infringe on the fights of law abiding ATV owners.
Jim Space, 16094 Eagle Creek Avenue, said he does not know either party in dispute and
has no gain either way. Mr. Space uses his ATV to remove his fish house, landscape,
remove milfoil, and for commercial and developing property. The use of the ATV is not
a toy, it is a real utility use. He is against the ordinance because there are so many good
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhnm062298.doc 5
uses for ATV's. A noise ordinance should be figured out without enforcing this.
ordinance. If the parties can not work out the issues the City and police should work with
the people.
Rosearme Campagnoli, 13200 Henning Circle, believes Oakview Estates had been there
when she arrived. Agreed with both sides of the issue. But common sense and fact
should prevail. There is a lot of rhetoric and emotions involved. No the
recreational vehicles. The property was turned into a
people from outside Prior Lake. It was We are
not a country club environment. Our taxes are hefty and we in return
but so does Greg Henning. It is not
two parties, there are many residents from the Pike Lake e was
embarrassed and resentful this is
club and property owner. When good
the next level. Make sensible decisions on
people have been forced to live
Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue it is a noise issue.
Prior Lake is a recreational community. ~g[~..is it going to be
snowmobiles, personal watercraft etc. If~i~ ~!~i~:!~day who i, a bunch of people
who live on the lake hear a snowmobile at':i~:3~'~iii~¢:~d n0~i~e're going to ban
snowmobiles. Once you take the first step ~;.nq~ii~:~ii~.
Doug Nagel, owns
he talked to Frank
others it is a noise
months. What is
wants to ride around
this issue last summer
recreational area. Agreed with
sales in the last three
yard with an ATV or your kid
in his ,,
banning
group
down, try for
them down.
Nagel said any ATV
Avenue, Dist. 23 Motocross Vice Chairman for the AMA,
misquotes in the paper. Both parties have rights. Instead of
r not limit their use? Why the extreme measures.'? Why
Instead of everyone getting excited and shutting
ground. Them is a way of quieting motomycles, but is slows
part of the motorcycle.
Cramer: Are there any ether practice facilities other than personal property? Ohland
responded there are a few private tracks. The closest is 70 miles away in Znmbrota, the
next one is 100 miles away. Jordan has one tentatively set up for one to two days a
month. The State is working for recreational areas. One possibly in the this County.
Rye asked when they are done practicing where do they compete? Ohland responded
Zumbrota, Brainerd, Deer River and Texas.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhnnO62298.doc
Bruce Hennen, 4671 Martindale Street, said the issue is responsible use of ATV's, as
long as they are not used carelessly. A few bad apples wreck it for everyone. This is a
safety issue for the people in the community. When there are 10 or 12 bikes in a small
area it is too much. Our rural area is being squeezed every day. Maybe the motorcycle
people can buy some property. Motocross bikes are the noisiest. Not the ATV's. The
noise goes out for over a mile. Put them in your back yard for an hour. R~3ts should
not have to listen to this. It would be okay out in the country. It is the p~i~:~O use
the vehicles that create the problem. This is something that happener~?:~}:..surmner. The
windows are closed in the winter fi:om the snowmobile noise· T13~}i~ii~es are not
licensed and do not have lights. Not only is the sound disturbin~ii~f~0 the":~..;;.gnd dirt.
Commend the C~ty Council for the peace and qmet that has l~.:~ught bac~ ~e
neighborhood.
Lori Ohland, 18391 Vergus Avenue, said this is abq:g~i~mPro~i~~. We have an ':i~i~:'' 1/2
acre parcel in Spring Lake Township. But we do ~$t:::~i~ c~:,~de at all hours of
the day. We respect our neighbors. '~il i~i::::~:::~::iiii?' ':~:'
The public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.~iiiii::!~i~:~
Comments from the Commissioners: ¥{iii::~: ":'::::~::i::::iiii~!i!i!i!~}}iiii}ii::?:iii~::~ .... '~::~?:~ ....
Stamson.--
n the City. There are a lot of valid uses.
s that are not necessarily
· It is unreasonable to b
People have
problematic.
· The real problem is ~
· This
property setbacks.
A conditional use could be
entire City.
, of Prior Lake.
issue.
level of noise. Any
· A maj States is noise pollution.
· What is an ! There is constant noise living on the lake.
· Get evidence from professionals, such as Boston, to pin down an acceptable
level of noise. There are other ways to address the issue.
· The ordinance is unacceptable. It is not political.
· Consider tabling the issue.
Criego:
· First of all, this is a recreational area. We spend a lot of time protecting our lake,
parks and trails. People move out here for the recreational uses.
· To outlaw some of the recreational vehicles is not right when the issue is noise.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~un062298.doc 7
· There are other recreational issues that disturb neighborhoods.
· There has to be a way to regulate noise.
· What happens when my neighbor has a band and is too loud? Lt. Schmidt explained
the procedures.
· Why wouldn't the nuisance laws address the issue mad why did if have to come to this
point? Lt. Schmidt responded it is a code issue and said there is a court date in July
dealing with the incidents.
· This is the wrong vehicle to use. Noise is a serious problem.
Cramer:
· The ordinance does not address the problem.
Empathizes with the lack of facilities.
· There are valid uses in the community. We are
would make sense to ban all recreational vehicles
tight quarters. Prior Lake has
· This comes down to basically two issues
· The snowmobiles are on trails and go from one
· Dirt bikes stay in one a
.~ noise.
have small lots
Stamson said the
with this ordinance.
the ordinance.
Rye said you
entirely different directi
- one way or the other; based on
off in an
Stamson r
up
use ~
amendment and recommend the staff come
specifically developed tracks and conditional
the
the noise issue.
Rye
to Council they deny the proposal along with an additional
to resolve this issue.
the Commissioners have been discussing noise problems for a long
time. but the City has to shit~ and hire more people - it will cost the
residents more bucks and residents don't want tax increases. If this wasn't important the
residents wouldn't be here. The City needs to address noise over all and asked that this
subject be tabled and look for the cost of enforcement.
Rye pointed out the City works on a complaint basis.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nnO62298.doc
Criego said the police have been there time and time again. There is nothing for them to
enforce. This body cannot address it. The Commissioners do not have the power to
come up with a noise ordinance.
Rye said if the City was going with State standards, it would not be in the zoning
ordinance. It would be in the City Code enforced probably by the code enforcement
officer. It is a whole separate and broader issue. This is a land issue, its the
property, safety and noise. To the extent you are not satisfied with this make
recommendations that are appropriate to ~ would like to
proceed.
The moratorium is scheduled to expire on July 6, 1998.
extend that up to 18 months.
Kuykendall suggested the moratorium be lifted and
the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. We
upon our findings make a recommendation with
Pull the information and find out the cost of the City
a conditional use.
r to
not
and then, based
Council.
Part of it might be
Stamson: It is a land use issue which
noise issue. Then look at noise.
Cramer suggested:
· Recommend denial
· Recommend to ~
an entire City
include only off-
a address dirt bike tracks.
the noise ordinance and determine who
and set a date or dead line for this ordinance to
5
LAKE
USE OF
TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE
CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 5-9 AND THE PRIOR
BY ADDING SECTION 10, REGULATING THE
Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY
COUNCIL MODIFY THE CURRENT MORATORIUM BANNING ALL OFF-ROAD
VEHICLES TO BANNING ONLY OFF-ROAD DIRT BIKES USED IN RACING AND
EXTEND THE MODIFIED MORATORIUM TO ALLOW FURTHER STUDY OF
THE ISSUE.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn062298.doc 9
Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND STAFF TO
COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH REGULATIONS FOR RACE
TRACK OR OTHER MOTORIZED VEHICLES THAT CAN BE USED IN THE CITY
LIMITS. ::.~:ii~?i~i~i}i!i~ii~i~::~i~:?:.::
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO
CITY COUNCIL TO COME LrP WITH A
OR
SPECIFIC TO THIS ISSUE BUT
THROUGHOUT THE CITY SUCH AS BUT NOT
VEHICLES.
Find out what other cities are doing and i~!~/f~:~ ":~i:'ii!i!i!ii!i?
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION'~:~!::i::iiii~iiiil}i!iiiiii~ii~i!i!iii!i
...... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 'ilili~iiii:" ,.
A discussion followed reg~::~ercial r~[eation not including race tracks or ~y
org~ized racing t~ing:,gt~e. Co~ is the i~%:not the s~ction.
Requested staff to fi~?:~!::~ha~::~::~ma[k~i~f$al estate issues.
K~sier said ~h~:;:[~0~en~n~ will go to the City Council on July 6.
A reces~::~s called"~i~3i~ p.m. ':~J~eeting reconvened at 8:21 p.m.
98-077 CONSmER CONDITION USE
FOR T.E PRO.CT TO OWS
ml~ing Cooi~¢~"J~e Kmsier presented the el~ng R~on dated J~e 22, 1998 on
file in the offic~::~ the Ciw Plier.
Wensmarm Realty has applied for a Conditional Use Permit and a Preliminary Plat for the
property located on the south side of CSAH 82, just west of Fremont Avenue and directly
south of the entrance to The Wilds. The application includes a request for a conditional
use permit to allow the development of the property with 121 townhouse units, and a
preliminary plat consisting of 109 lots for the townhouse units and open space.
l:\98files\98pl¢omm\pcmin~mn062298.doc
10
In December, 1997, the applicant filed an application for a Schematic Planned Unit
Development for a townhouse development on this property. On January 5, 1998, the
City Council denied this application based on the fact the proposed Schematic PUD Plan
was inconsistent with the stated purposes and intent of the PUD section of the Zoning
Ordinance in that the same proposal, with the exception of the private streets, could be
accomplished through the Conditional Use Permit Process. The developer then filed an
application for a zone change, a conditional use permit and a preliminary p,!~:~.These
applications were considered by the Planning Commission on February.}~i~¥~:and by
the City Council on March 16, 1998. On March 16, 1998, the Counci[.:,~proved the zone
change to the R-2 (Urban Residential) District, and the prelimin~t~!~ili}~.April 20,
1998, the Council approved the conditional use permit.
Following these approvals, the developer applied for and
begin grading the property. The developer also a
Shortly thereafter, it was brou
within 500' of the site had been notified. The due to the fact that
the developer's title company This list was
not verified by the staff, and so proper notification was not adjacent property
On June 1, 1998, this issue was reviewed ~;~ii~t}~i~i!i~cil. ~:~'~i advice from the
City Attorney, the Council noted the zone c~ge::5~'":~iii~!~e individual notices are
not required for rezoning of nlog~than 5 acre~!ii~i~wever, ~::'~ouncil adopted Resolution
98-68, rescinding the appm~i:':'~i~conditio~i~:.use permii and preliminary plat due to
improper notification .<*~:~:~
Because the public review process of the
over. The Planning
Commission ' dications at this time. The first application is to
approve ect. The second request is for approval of
a 31ynwater.
~i~[ CLIP area 82 right-of-way) consists of 41.57 acres. The net area
acres.
There are alg~i!i~[~p, g!~lses, or slopes in excess of 20%, located on this site. These slopes
are generally l~:~)n the eastern half of the site. There are several areas in which the
steep slopes wi~:~ disturbed by the placement of building pads and utilities.
Information submitted by the developer indicates 5.33 acres of the site are considered
steep slopes. Of this 5.33 acres, 1.64 acres, or 4% of the entire site, will be disturbed for
site grading and the installation of sanitary sewer lines.
This vegetation on this site consists of vacant cropland. The eastern and southern
boundaries of the property are wooded, as is the area adjacent to the wetlands. The
project is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nnO62298.doc 11
applicant has submitted an inventory of the significant trees on the site which indicates a
total of 203 caliper inches of significant trees.
There are three wetlands located within this site, with a total area of 9.45 acres. The
wetlands are located in the southeast comer of the site, along the southern boundary of
the site, and in the center of the site.
Access to the site is from CSAH 82, on the north. CSAH 82 is
Arterial street in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Count,
access permit will be required for each opening onto CSAH 82.
"righMn/right-out" access onto Fremont Avenue,
left tums.
noted an
The property is zoned R-2 (Urban Residential), which
Comprehensive Plan designation. The R-2 district
conditional use, with a density not to
i'as a
The plan proposes 121 units on a total of 41.57 acres.
acres of the site, or in thi
plan is 3.7 units per acre,
buildable
>er acre.
The preliminary plat consists
are 103 lots for the
parkland, and
~pen space. There
The plat also includes
t of development signs.
This plan proposes
turning
some improvements to
include a median, to restrict
gutter.
This'
11.91
property. The total park site is
and ponds and steep slopes.
for this site is 4.2 acres, consisting of dry upland
The'
located on:
be served b,
' sewer line from the existing line
82 at Fremont Avenue. The development will actually
The developer has submitted a landscaping plan which identifies a total of 206 new trees
on the site. Most of the trees will be located in front of the units along the new road
right-of-way.
Since not all of this site is located within the present MUSA, the development will be
phased accordingly. The first phase will be that portion within the MUSA, and includes
82 units. There will be a temporary turnaround located at the westerly end of Glynwater
Trail until the remaining area is added to the MUSA and is developed.
1:\98 files~98plcomm\pcmin~'nn062298.doc
12
Proliminarv Plat: The preliminary plat for this site, known as Glynwater, consists of
42.04 acres to be subdivided into 109 lots, parkland and 6 outlots. In general, the
proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning
Ordinance. Since this has been through the process once already, all of the engineering
requirements have been addressed. One of the outstanding issues which must be
addressed is the disturbance of the slopes on this site. Section 6-6-6 E
Ordinance states "whenever possible, slopes
not be disturbed and should be retained as private or public open
several locations in which slopes of 20% or greater are
of roads and utilities or the placement of homes.
This plat has
placement
Conditional Use Permit Plan: The proposed CUP must
the criteria found in Section 7.5(C) of the Zoning
that a conditional use shall be a
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a proposed
zone change request, the Preliminary Plat and : Permit.
If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it sh~!~!i~i}~;~j;.~ct to the conditions:
1..4 letter of credit for the landscaping a~i~lr~a~f~ii~nust be submitted prior
2. The homeowner's
be recorded with the
If the Conditional>Use
c o n dit ion s~::iiii;~iiii;~?~i~!i~I~iiiiii!iii~i? ....
1.
should be subject to the following
and tree replacement must be submitted prior
2.
clude the correct
These documents must be recorded with the
The Planning approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the above
listed conditions, and the Conditional Use Permit subject to the above listed condition.
Comments from the public:
Developer Terry Wensmann, Wensmann Homes, said he realizes the Planning
Commission knows the background. Wensmann apologized to the residents who were
not identified due to an error from the title company. Last week the residents were
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\rrm062298.doc 13
invited by Wensmann to join them on a bus tour of current developments they had going
in other areas similar to the proposed Glynwater. About 10 people went on the tour and
told Wensmann what their concerns were.
Stephanie Renslow, 14516 Fremont Avenue, said they tried to organize the residents to
condense their comments. She understands there has been some adjustment in the
Planning Department to better inform residents. Chuck Gerlach was
their issues.
Some of the residents are concerned the rezoning issue will not
meeting. Renslow pointed out the lake association'
households. She feels Fremont Avenue has become a hi
many meetings and has hired an attorney
Their two basic concerns are 1) the financial
the Glynwater project.
They agreed the track of development is inevitable.
homes and they are disappointed it is townhomes.
continue to monitor.
the contingency of the MUSA?
the residents have homes over the ~
family
and will
on
many of
Chuck
and future residents
nature of the system
Bay Knolls
in driveway
Knolls off Count)
their
problems
residents
they know the
His concern is for the access on
go? Will they be turning around
:listance from Bay
15 fee0. Mr. Gerlach explained
Road 82. He also feels there is existing speed
, children.
alternatives and invited the Commissioners and
Avenue intersection. Suggested going back the
Mr. Wensmann would lose one townhome but there
Mr. Gerlach s Commissioners regarding the cul-de-sacs and their
concerns for and maintenance vehicles (snow plowing). We can't stop
development but can control how it grows. Suggested to deny Bay Knolls intersection.
Tom Finn, 15672 Fremont Avenue, explained he had a video tape of the intersection off
County Road 82 and Fremont showing the heavy traffic. He said he has been a
professional driver for 28 years and has never seen such an intersection. Traffic off
County Road 82 is heavy and very dangerous, Finn feels a hammerhead or cul-de-sac
would solve all the problems.
1:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcminXmnO62298,doc
14
Jan Ferguson, 15745 Island View, presented pictures of County Road 82 and Fremont
Avenue. Ferguson pointed-out stakes and questioned if there are only 15 additional trips
why is the intersection there? She claims the distance is 20 feet. She also feels fire
tracks will not be able to make the comer. It makes no sense for anything other than
snowplowing. The access makes no sense.
Kansier pointed out the stake is probably a right-of-way line not the Ba, ; Drive.
Nick Polta, Pioneer Engineer, stated the edge of the bituminous of, ;Road 82 to
Bay Knolls Drive is 60 feet. Not sure what the stakes in the the
County right-of-way. Adding the 15 feet it would make it a 75
Fiona Hein, 15567 Fremont Avenue, said if the
that would allow for 3 cars to turn on that road,
the comer off County Road 82. Her other concern
people possibly turning around in her driveway.
Mike Soukop, 15669 Fremont Avenue, has the sam, He feels
residents will take the other route througl~::::~re~ont to avoid
Rick Renslow, 15651 Fremont Avenue, ch~!!en~ii~r~e to ~e down County Road
82 and tum on to Fremont at 5:00 p.m. The:::~t?~i~::;~i!i~rous without the
development.
Mike Comoy, 15531 F~nt Ave~, said he ~s:,the closest house to the comer, and
people turn around i~::i~} drivewa~?:~t is occasi~::~md it does not bother him But it
could become a pro~l~i!ii~:..fut~i!gg.e..~{g~g~osed for the west side of Fremont
which will bring additio~!~hi~i'i':':Xa~:~::i::~' and now there is too much congestion. A
: a bette~:;~tltion.
permit?
is of the traffic study with the
and time it was done. Kansier explained how
:1. Finn questioned what was included in the traffic and
~ home values. And what is required with a conditional use
the criteria and procedures.
Chuck ' talked to the County about putting in an access that
close. Kansier ~esponded the City and County had several discussions. McDermott
stated the County required the right in/right out on the access on Fremont.
Rick Renslow, 15616 Fremont Avenue, said he had one thing to say. Staff and
Commissioners are here to work for us. Residents pay big taxes to the City. Staff better
not look in the manual, they should get off their butts and take a look at what is going on
before making any kind of decision on this project. The developer is the outsider. Not
taking anything away from the developer, he's probably a great guy. We live here and
pay taxes. The City better listen to what we're are saying.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn062298.doc 15
Fiona Hein, 15567 Fremont Avenue, stated they all know development is going to go on,
and appreciate all the efforts to control what is going on. We also know the area on
Highway 13 near McDonalds and County Market are used on a daily basis. For any of the
development in the area of County Road 82 to Dakotah Fitness, there really isn't any easy
access to get to there except through Fremont. So we see this double yellow line, a new
housing development is going in and we don't know about it, so it looks su~icious. Her
concern for the longer term plan. Why a highway through a wonderful
Elizabeth Tobeck, 15759 Fremont Avenue, said the first _w, eek house
she was almost hit by a car. She has small children, there s r~o!ii~t~iiigign no":~:_~d
bumps. How is my kid suppose to cross the street to get to.:*~::ii~::~:':Now you ~!i~din~:..
more traffic. Can you put a main highway anywhere? .~ it'..m....atter ther~are
the area? She doesn't want her one and three year o~?~. get hii:~:.a car.
Terry Wensmann stated he appreciated and understands ~ii~o~r s concern. The
City notified them to conduct a traffic study. The amount ~i~c from their
development will be less than the study s~ Does not wani:~igi~t~gte but explained
Wensmarm explained the cul-de-sac gradinii~[ohl~':.:::~5~ii~bns were explored and
what is presented tonight was.lh~:~bost soluti0~i::~i::i~e main.~cem is for emergency
vehicles and plowing. He..:S~i~::ii~ii~ould not'~, opposed io going back to the
hammerhead situation ~::i~ot have'[!the acces~iiiin Eremont.
Kuykendall questiO~ii~wa~ ~ ~id[~ !fi~i~he access point Pulta said curb to
Mike Sou~!!~:i~!~ii~l~emoni'i~::~stioned the Planning Commission, why was a Bay
Comme~i~!iii~0m the C~m~ssloners:
Criego:
· Much ofth~::i~cussion has turned to Fremont Avenue.
· The MUSA will not interfere with the development.
· The Planning Commissioner's concern is to keep the property as is with as many
slopes, wetlands and trees. The developer could have had 30% more homes in the
development. He is at 70% of what the code requires.
· There is a lot of open land.
· The Planning Commission has addressed many of the issues brought up tonight.
Every community wants to keep their neighborhood as it was.
· The problems with traffic on Fremont would be there without the development.
l:\98file$\98plcomm\pcrainh-nn062298.doc 16
· McDermott requested the developer improve half of Fremont and the City would pay
for the other half with curb and gutter. There is 450 foot piece of Fremont that is not
improved.
· McDermott said there are no plans at this time for redeveloping Fremont at this time.
· There should be some discussion for safety, We can't control people as it relates to
violating traffic laws. But we can control the intersection being so close to County
Road 82. ~:~ ......
Cramer:
· Kansier stated Fremont has been classified as a collector
· Rye explained the street system starting
very limited properties, then collector I ~ the
such as County Roads 82 and 21, which turn into hi
· Roman Kohout, lives on the comer of Fremont ?.~gad 82,
changed the road designation, the City should ha~!d us. ~::::~ent on to sa;v 'the
City puts a median on Fremont it will devaluat~::hi~:~r[gi?:~?:~?:iiiii~ii::~:·
· Polta said Bay Knolls is a little over 600 feet in
· Kansier explained the cul-de-sac and hammerhead desig~i~th the involved
variances. = ==========================&= ..........
Well aware of a similar traffic sltUatlon~i~.. '~.:*~:?:5~::~5i::~i~?:~5i:~ ....... ~5
· It comes down to safety. Try to get a h~e~ii::~tc}'
Kuykendall: .... ?:::iiiii~iiiiiillii:~i!iii!iiiii~ii?~:~?::: ~::iiiiil}iii:~iI
· Concurs with Conug~{:bners."::i! ii:: :~::i!iii~
· Strongly suggestedli~tending tff~i~*right-ofwa~i~remont. Closing the intersection
on Fremont mig~::i~i!~possil~ii~:~.~op,~:~g~:~ute the traffic.
· This kind of design (~~i~et the design requirements.
· Does not f,e..~l the existi~*~:~ii~i will create a traffic hazard, but another desi could
....... · ::.::::::::::::::::::::::: ....... g,..:.:.::ii!:~i:~gn gn
Sta~;: ~:~?:~ii iiiii::i: ~iii}i::::~
· .::.iiiiiii:::i:~l~:~e exception o~e intersection of Bay Knolls and Fremont, this is an
design foCi!he development.
· at the erhead cul-de-sac design.
· Ask the'~::~i:::~ire Departments if the design is workable. Would rather make a
decision a~i~t~ing to them.
· McDermott~J~id the proposed design concept would be acceptable to Public Works.
Criego:
· Likes the hammerhead design.
· It might be worthwhile to put a trail on the end of the Bay Knolls to the sidewalk on
Fremont for pedestrians as well as bikers. No access by vehicles.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT KNOWN AS GLYNWATER ALONG WITH THE
1:\98filcs\98pl¢orrma\pemin~rm062298.doe 17
CHANGES LAID OUT NAMELY BAY KNOLLS WILL BE HAMMERHEAD END-
CAPPED. A VARIANCE WILL NEED TO BE GRANTED FOR THAT PURPOSE
AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT.
Discussion with City Attomey and Commissioners regarding the variance and notice.
MOTION AMENDED BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE F
CONDITIONS:
1. Bay Knolls Drive must be redesigned to eliminate the access ~ and
to include a hammerhead turnaround. This design must
connection from the end of Bay Knolls Drive
2. The developer must submit an application for a vq~ce to.:gh~ Subdivision
Ordinance requirements for the revised design. ~ ?noll~i~{~e. This vari~i~ce
must be approved prior to final plat approval. ' .....~ii!?~i??~iii::::~::.. zi!?:':':':'::~::i!ii~ii~:-
A letter of credit for the landscaping and tree replacer~:~i~st be submittedprior to
3.
approval ofthefinalplat documents..::?:~iiii3i::ii::~i~:~ .......
4. The homeowner--s association documd~:::~i!~gs~vised to i~de the correct legal
descriptions for each association. TheJ~i!tlocu~!i!~t.bg ~corded with the final
plat documents.
Vote taken
MOTION BY *
OF
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A letter of
2.
· and tree replacement must be submittedprior to
'~tments must be revised to include the correct legal
These documents must be recorded with the final
all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS
WINDSONG ON THE LAKE 3RD ADDITION
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 22, 1998 on
file in the office of the City Planner.
H & H Land Development has applied for approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as
Windsong on the Lake 3rd Addition. The property in question is located along the east
boundary of the existing Windsong on the Lake Development, immediately adjacent to
Prior Lake at the southerly end of Edinborough Street.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXnm062298.doc
18
On February 23, 1998, the Planning Conunission considered an application to amend the
Windsong on the Lake PUD Plan to add this property, less the existing home site, to the
PUD Plan. The purpose of the amendment was to gain additional lake shore, which
would then allow 11 additional boat slips. At the same time, the Planning Commission
considered a preliminary plat for this site. The prelimina~, plat included 1 lot for the
existing dwelling, and two outlots. A portion of the site was also Lot 2,
Block 1, Windsong on the Lake Addition. The outlots would have
common open space for the Windsong on the Lake development.
The Planning Commission approved the PUD
April 13, 1998. A condition of approval req~
documents for the development be amended
requested that the item be delayed until he was able to
This proposal differs from the original proposal
in the existing Windsong on the Lake development.
acres to be subdivided into 1 lot and 3 outlots.
The single family lot is 24,212 square fee~i::~i:,:~a~::~utlo dare feet,
Outlot B includes 14,903 square feet and ~tlot ¢~i~..10,! 3~'~quare feet. All of the
lots include at least 75' of frontage at the O~p~ji~i~i::~ii~levation. Outlot B will
be sold to the owner of the adj:~g[:property ~::'2, Blocl~;::iii::?Windsong on the Lake). In
the original plan, Outlot ~i~:~i~ to be ad~d to the PUD common space. In his
narrative, the develope[ gig"not indicted his r these outlots if they are not
included in the PUD~,~!iiii~?~!!;i;i
The site of the existing ~d~i~i~::::~:i~::i~i:i' ,H, owevc-r, the,remaining site is primarily
a4~l:.hluffs, wi~i~otions from 904 MSL to 940 MSL. There is
steep
slopes
no
grading p~?~i~ of thi~::i~!~,...~ccess to the existing home is from Edinborough
Stre~?~re is no S~[{e acces~il~::~the outlots; access is proposed from adjacent lots.
~i~:is wooded, wit~i}~e exception of the existing home site. Since no grading or
land d~!~ing activity i~i~'oposed, a tree inventors, has not been prepared.
Preliminar~:::iffiat: ~*~:~reliminary plat does not create any additional buildable lots.
Lot 1, Block l~:~ii~{e of the existing dwelling, meets all minimum lot area and width
requirements. ~re is no public right-of-way or parkland dedicated in this plat. In
addition, there are no required or proposed utilities, including sanitary sewer, water
mains, or storm sewer proposed. The existing house akeady has these services available,
and there is no need to provide these services to the outlots. Since no utility
improvements are required, no fees will be collected. However, a park land dedication
fee will be collected for the final plat.
The outstanding issue in this plat is the status of the outlots. Without the PUD
amendment, there is no guarantee the outlots will be included as part of the common open
l:\98files\98plcormu\pcmin~062298.doc 19
space. With the exception of Outlot B, the developer has not provided any future plans
for these outlots, including ownership and maintenance. Outlot C does not have any
access other than through adjacent lots. This issue must be discussed and resolved prior
to approval of the plat.
Another issue concerns the existing encroachments on the outlots. According to the
preliminary plat documents, there is a stairway providing access to the lake~g~/~e across
both Outlot A and B. In addition, there appears to be a shed located on ~i~=:~i::? These
encroachments must either be removed or addressed prior to final pl~::::i~.[oval.
The preliminary plat is generally consistent with the Subdivision~i~ Zon~'dinance
requirements. If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it shoul~!~::~ject to ~:[[gwing
conditions:
1. The developer must address the ownership and ~enanc~ii~.each of the outtalk. In
addition, future access to Outlot C must be
2. The encroachments on Outlots A, B and C must be a~d. These structures
should be removed, or their use addressed. "::~i::i~!?~?~i~i!::~
The Planning staff recommends approval ~itt~::~¢~ii~g~ Plat.~ject to the above
listed conditions.
Comments from the Puh~c~: ======?=====?=======
Ralph Heuschele, t~:i::~loper, ~d they ~s~}}~r this request (preliminary plat) for
financial reasons, approval, they were put in position
where they had a purchas~i~ment f~{"~:':g'chricker property but had not closed on it.
They were gig~gi~g!fima~i~::~!he seller to close on the April 28, or the property
would g~:!g~fi~"6~:~i~arket. ~?~g~hers ofH & H Land Development decided rather
than.~l~:"loosing the ......................... ;t and l~i~hg the ability to accomplish what they had put their
wo~ilgto so far, that a ahead and buy the property. They proceeded at the
[pprovals. At this time they have come up with an
There were discussions with homeowners adjacent to the
~"would be interested in purchasing the property. Heuschele
only residents with legal access. The encroachments
e dealt with. He is expecting in time he will get total
(shed
homeowners a
Mary Mirsch, 2260 Sargent, St. Paul, and 15432 Red Oaks Road, felt this was a fail-safe
matter, if the developer can't get the ownership or the homeowners to agree to pumhase
the property which was to give boat slips to the outlot then he looses the boat slips.
Kansier explained that was a different issue.
The public heating was closed at 10:35 p.m.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn062298.doc
20
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· All questions have been answered.
· Sounds reasonable.
Criego:
· Happy with staff's recommendatio~
properties.
acent
Crflmer:
· Agreed with Commissioner Criego.
Stamson: ,:~:~::i:!:!':~ .~
· Concurred .... ?:~ii~ii?~?~iiiili::i~ .... "~!i!ii~i~iii::~ .... '
MOTION BY STmSON, SECOND BY THE
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BI~i~WN AS WINDSONG
ON THE LAKE THIRD TO THE FOm~G
CO~,~DIT~ONS: l) COV~/~S STATINO
THE OUTLOTS MAY ONLY BE SOLD'
OWNERS; AND 2)
THE ENCROACHMENT ADDRESSED. THESE
SSED.
Vote taken signifi~
Kansier said it will
.... i~iiii~ii~i~i~i ....
6.
6, 1998.
J
Correspondence:
A. Down: ~date.
Rye approved the draft design report for downtown. The EDA
will get the final report in July. The committee wanted community-wide support, not
just support fi.om the EDA and Planning Commission. They would like to market to
the community. There should be some incentive.
B. Update on status of zoning administrator.
The City hired Steve Horsman for the zoning administrator position, who will be starting
July 1.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~n062298.doc 21
Kuykendall suggested a workshop on noise management.
Criego requested an engineering presentation on bluff determinations.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 10:47 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
RecordingS~tary'::~iliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii,~
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminknm062298.doc
22
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS TO
ALLOW A CUL-DE-SAC GREATER THAN 500' IN
LENGTH AND TO VARY THE STANDARD CUL-DE-
SAC DESIGN
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
~ULY 13, 1998 --
INTRODUCTION:
Wensmann Realty has applied for a variance to the provisions of the Subdivision
Ordinance to allow a cul-de-sac exceeding 500' in length and utilizing a hammerhead
design rather than the standard cul-de-sac design. The proposed street is called Bay
Knolls Drive and is located on the west side of Fremont Avenue, east of Glynwater Trail
in the proposed Glynwater Development.
BACKGROUND~
On June 22, 1998, the Planning Commission considered a preliminary plat and
conditional use permit for the townhouse development to be known as Glynwater. Based
on the original plans, Bay Knolls Drive extended from Glynwater Trial to Fremont
Avenue. However, based on testimony received at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission determined the connection to Fremont Avenue should be eliminated. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the
following conditions:
1. Bay Knolls Drive must be redesigned to eliminate the access to Fremont Avenue and
to include a hammerhead turnaround. This design must also include a pedestrian
connection from the end of Bay Knolls Drive to Fremont Avenue.
The developer must submit an application for a variance to the Subdivision
Ordinance requirements for the revised design of Bay Knolls Drive. This variance
must be approved prior to final plat approval.
l:\98files\98var\98-082\9~082nc.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
On July 7, 1998, the City Council considered the preliminary plat for Glynwater. The
City Council also approved the preliminary plat, subject to the same conditions.
DISCUSSION:
This request includes two variances to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
first is a variance to Section 6-6-2 (E) which states that the maximum length of a cul-de-
sac shall be 500 feet. As proposed, Bay Knolls Drive is approximately 620' in length
from Glynwater Trail to the east end of the street.
The second request is to vary the provisions of Section 6-6-2 (B) which states that streets
must be designed in accordance with the Public Works Design Manual. The standard
design for a cul-de-sac, or dead end street, is a tear drop cul-de-sac. As proposed, Bay
Knolls Drive is designed with a hammerhead turnaround.
Section 6-9-1 of the Subdivision Ordinance allows the City Council to grant a variance
from the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance "upon receiving a report from the
Planning Commission in any particular case where the Subdivider can show by reason of
exceptional topography or any other physical conditions that strict compliance with these
regulations wouM cause exceptional and undue hardship, provided such relief may be
granted without detriment to the public welfare and without impairing the intent and
purpose of these regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend variances from
the requirements of this chapter in specific cases which, in its opinion, would not affect
the intent of the Comprehensive Plan or this Chapter."
At the public hearing, the Planning Commission heard testimony which outlined several
concerns about the traffic on Fremont and at the intersection of Fremont Avenue and
CSAH 82. These included speed, number of vehicles, and difficulty in making turns onto
Fremont from CSAH 82. The consensus of those testifying was that the access onto
Fremont from this development would increase those problems. The residents of the area
suggested this access be eliminated, and Bay Knolls Drive be designed with a
hammerhead turnaround. This would still provide access to the townhouses, but would
eliminate the need for an access to Fremont Avenue. The developer did not object to this
design. The Planning Commission also concurred with this recommendation.
The original design of the plat was intended to preserve the steep slopes on the site. The
use of a standard cul-de-sac design would have a greater impact on the slopes than the
proposed hammerhead design. The hammerhead design lessens the impact on the slopes
and still provides the necessary turnaround for vehicles.
The Engineering and Public Works Department also reviewed the proposed design, and
finds it acceptable with the following changes:
· Increase the hammerhead width to 24' in order to
equipment.
· Provide an easement at the hammerhead location.
accommodate snowplow
l:\98files\98var\98-082\980821~.doc Page 2
· Add a 20' by 32' paved area behind the curb at the end of Bay Knolls Drive to allow
for snow storage.
· Designate Bay Knolls Drive as a "No Parking" area.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the variance.
While the Subdivision Ordinance does not require the same specific findings of fact for a
variance as those required by the Zoning Ordinance, th,e Planning Commission must base
its recommendations on findings of fact. The criteria listed in the Subdivision Ordinance,
and the staff recommendation for are listed below:
1. By reason of exceptional topography or any other physical conditions, strict
compliance with these regulations would cause exceptional and undue hardship.
The connection to Fremont Avenue would potentially increase the existing traffic
problems on this street. The use of a standard cul-de-sac design would also increase
the disturbance of the steep slopes on this site. The use of the hammerhead design
provides the appropriate access and does not cause additional disturbance to the
slopes.
2. Such relief may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without
impairing the intent and purpose of these regulations.
As noted above, the use of the hammerhead design provides the appropriate access
and does not cause additional disturbance to the slopes.
3. The Planning Commission may recommend variances from the requirements of
this chapter in specific cases which, in its opinion, would not affect the intent of
the Comprehensive Plan or this Chapter
The proposed variance will not affect the intent of the Comprehensive Plan or the
Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed hammerhead design provides the appropriate
access to the townhouses. In addition, the plans provide a pedestrian connection to
Fremont Avenue.
Approval of this variance request should also be subject to the following conditions:
1. Increase the hammerhead width to 24' in order to accommodate snowplow
equipment.
2. Provide an easement at the hammerhead location.
3. Add a 20' by 32'paved area behind the curb at the end of Bay Knolls Drive to allow
for snow storage.
4. Designate Bay Knolls Drive as a "No Parking" area.
l:\98files\98var\98-082\98082pc.doc Page 3
ALTEJ1NATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the variance request subject to the above listed conditions.
2. Recommend denial o f the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second to recommend approval of the variance request subject to the
conditions listed in this report.
1:\98file$\98var\98-082\98082p¢.doc Page 4
O~
Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND STAFF TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH REGULATIONS FOR RACE
· OR OTHER MOTORIZED VEHICLES THAT CAN BE USED IN THE CITY
ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY
CITY
SPECIFIC TO THIS
THROUGHOUT ~1
VEHICLES.
SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO
TO THE APPROPRIATE
SUCH AS BUT 7
Discussion:
Find out what other cities are
Vote taken si
A discussion followed
track.
race tracks or any
A developed
Back on
would be,
real estate issues
) to the City ,6.
called at
#98-077
~.m. reeonvened at 8:21 p.m.
a~798-078':'::~:': CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO BE KNOWN AS
Planning· presented the Planning Report dated June 22, 1998 on
file in the office of the City Planner.
Wensmann Realty has applied for a Conditional Use Permit and a Preliminary Plat for the
property located on the south side of CSAH 82, just west of Fremont Avenue and directly
south of the entrance to The Wilds. The application includes a request for a conditional
use permit to allow the development of the property with 121 townhouse units, and a
preliminary plat consisting of 109 lots for the townhouse units and open space.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn062298.doc 10
In December, 1997, the applicant filed an application for a Schematic Planned Unit
Development for a townhouse development on this property. On January 5, 1998, the
City Council denied this application based on the fact the proposed Schematic PUD Plan
was inconsistent with the stated purposes and intent of the PUD section of the Zoning
Ordinance in that the same proposal, with the exception of the private streets, could be
accomplished through the Conditional Use Permit Process. The developer then filed an
application for a zone change, a conditional use permit and a preliminary p~}~:.:..These
applications were considered by the Planning Commission on February 2~3~:~iiii~::~!~i~:and by
the City Council on March 16, 1998. On March 16, 1998, the Council~i::~roved the zone
change to the R-2 (Urban Residential) District, and the prelimin~::~]~i~!iiiii~.April 20,
1998, the Council approved the conditional use permit, ii~ii!ii~iiiiii!-- "::~i~i~::iiiiii?~?~ii::i~
Following these approvals, the developer applied for and.[~i?:~ading
begin grading the property. The developer also applie~?:(~"app[~val ora final pla/i*:iiiiiiii!i?
Shortly thereafter, it was brought to the staffs atten~:~iihat no~:~g..owners ofpro~y
within 500' of the site had been notified. The erro~iiii~::::~ificati~[i~as due to the fact that
the developer's title company had submitted an incompi~i~iii~:~i~:~n~s. This list was
not verified by the staff, and so proper notification was not ~:'[~.~o adjacent property
owners .....?::i::i::~:~ ...... . ....~::!iiiiiiiiii!?:::~ ........
On June 1, 1998, this issue was reviewed ¢~!i~th;:':~?:~mlci!i ~Y~ advice from the
City Attorney, the Council noted the zone c~ge::~":¢~i~i~t~e individual notices are
not required for rezoning of r~om,than 5 acre~ii!i::~bwever, i~:~ouncil adopted Resolution
98-68, rescinding the appm~f:~i~ii~conditio~i:use permii and preliminary plat due to
improper notification...::~i::ii!~i? ..... ?~ii?~?~i} '~iii~i::ii::~
Because the previo~[~t~,als..:~a?:beea~ci~d, the public review process of the
preliminary plat and con~i~i~::~:~:~i~!ii~:iications is starting over. The Planning
Commission ~g.:.~g~idering"~:~i~pplications at this time. The first application is to
approve ~[:~l::~se Pe~?~[or..~is project. The second request is for approval of
a prelirdi~ plat f~i~::~site, to'~?~own as Glynwater.
· ~ii~[: CUP area (less'::i~ CSAH 82 right-of-way) consists of 41.57 acres. The net area
of this'::g~J~i~:less wetlandsi?~!~ 32.12 acres.
There are al~!i~!~p.,:~!g~es, or slopes in excess of 20%, located on this site. These slopes
are generally 16~::'0n the eastern half of the site There are several areas in which the
steep slopes wit!:[i~'e disturbed by the placement of building pads and utilities.
Information submitted by the developer indicates 5.33 acres of the site are considered
steep slopes. Of this 5.33 acres, 1.64 acres, or 4% of the entire site, will be disturbed for
site grading and the installation of sanitary sewer lines.
This vegetation on this site consists of vacant cropland. The eastern and southern
boundaries of the property are wooded, as is the area adjacent to the wetlands. The
project is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminh'xm062298.doc 11
applicant has submitted an inventory of the significant trees on the site which indicates a
total of 203 caliper inches of significant trees.
There are three wetlands located within this site, with a total area of 9.45 acres. The
wetlands are located in the southeast comer of the site, along the southern boundary of
the site, and in the center of the site.
Access to the site is from CSAH 82, on the north.
Arterial street in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The County
access permit will be required for each opening onto CSAH 82.
"right-in/fight-out" access onto Fremont Avenue, with a median
left tums.
noted an
> proposed a
The property is zoned R-2 (Urban Residential), which [~::i~sis~nt with the
Comprehensive Plan designation. The R-2 district
conditional use, with a density not to exceed 5.5
asa
The plan proposes 121 units on a total of 41.57 acres.
acres of the site, or in this case on 32.12:
plan is 3.7 units per acre,
The preliminary p
are 103
parkland, and 6
This plan 1[
the north
turning
based on the buildable
in this
~er acre.
There
The plat also includes
The plaiii~i~' proposes some improvements to
include a median, to restrict
gutter.
This
11.91
property. The total park site is
and ponds and steep slopes.
is 4.2 acres, consisting of dry upland
The plar
located on ~
be served b,
' sewer line from the existing line
of CSAH 82 at Fremont Avenue. The development will actually
The developer has submitted a landscaping plan which identifies a total of 206 new trees
on the site. Most of the trees will be located in front of the units along the new road
right-of-way.
Since not all of this site is located within the present MUSA, the development will be
phased accordingly. The first phase will be that portion within the MUSA, and includes
82 units. There will be a temporary turnaround located at the westerly end of Glynwater
Trail until the remaining area is added to the MUSA and is developed.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin'mm062298.doc 12
Preliminary_ Plat: The preliminary plat for this site, known as Glynwater, consists of
42.04 acres to be subdivided into 109 lots, parkland and 6 outlots. In general, the
proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning
Ordinance. Since this has been through the process once already, all of the engineering
requirements have been addressed. One of the outstanding issues which must be
addressed is the disturbance of the slopes on this site. Section 6-6-6 E ofttl~nbdivision
· " ' o .... i~::ii~::'::~i~i~i~:i::ii~::ii~!il ......
Ordinance states whenever posszble, slopes of twenty percent (20%)
not be disturbed and should be retained as private or public open spa¢~ili!~} This plat has
several locations in which slopes of 20% or greater are disturbed, ei~::~e placement
of roads and utilities or the placement of homes. {??~iiiii??: ":'~i!ii~ii!iiii?~!i::i~ ....
· :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: , ' "[:i:i:i:~:i:i:i::.
Conditional Use Permit Plan: The proposed CUP must ~::~evlexeed in accordlxll~::~l~h
the criteria found in Section 7.5(C) of the Zoning Ordin~. Section 7.5(C) prov~? ....
that a conditional use shall be approved if it is found::~ii~eet sp~c criteria.
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a r~dati~h on the proposed
zone change request, the Preliminary Plat and the Conditio~?i~:~..Permit.
.... i~::i::i::i;ii:~ ....... ===================================
If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it sh~!!~?~ect to the f~:ii<. ~hg conditions:
1. A letter of credit for the landscaping a~::~lrea~$~i::~nust be submitted prior
to approval of the final plat:documents. '~:'iiiiiii?:? .... .::~i?,i:,::~
2. the homeowner's as~]~tiO~::ii~euments ....... ~st be revised to include the correct
legal descriptions~Feach ass~tion. Th~::~cuments must be recorded with the
final plat docunt~i~ .... i:?
If the Conditip~!...~se Pen~{~il~:~pproved it should be subject to the following
.... ===========================================
condltlons~ ........................................................ ============================
1...:~?~tter of credit fo'~(~ landg$~ping and tree replacement must be submltted prior
.:::?:~::~i?i~roval of the fiii~lat, documents.
2. Th'Jii~eowner's a~ctatton documents must be revised to include the correct
legat ii~fp.:..,tions~:'each association. These documents must be recorded with the
final plat':~#n~' ts.
==========================================
The Planning st~iffrecommends approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the above
listed conditions, and the Conditional Use Permit subject to the above listed condition.
Comments from the public:
Developer Terry Wensmarm, Wensmarm Homes, said he realizes the Planning
Commission knows the background. Wensmann apologized to the residents who were
not identified due to an error fi.om the title company. Last week the residents were
1:\98files\98plcomtn\pcmin~nn062298.doc 13
invited by Wensmarm to join them on a bus tour of current developments they had going
in other areas similar to the proposed Glynwater. About 10 people went on the tour and
told Wensmarm what their concerns were.
Stephanie Renslow, 14516 Fremont Avenue, said they tried to organize the residents to
condense their comments. She understands there has been some adjustment in the
Planning Department to better inform residents. Chuck Gerlach was preser~t~t~ co-present
their issues. ' ........................
Some of the residents are concerned the rezoning issue will not b.e ~:_. ~..at this
meeting. Renslow pointed out the lake association property has ~oxin~ig::.31
households. She feels Fremont Avenue has become a highv(~::.~ neighb~:.§g~l had
many meetings and has hired an attorney because they wer~¢~:~l~ to assert ~
Their two basic concerns are 1) the financial stability c and 2) access
the Glynwater project.
%::..
They agreed the track of development is inevitable.
homes and they are disappointed it is townhomes. Th% on quality and will
continue to monitor. Concerned with the~SA line.
the contingency of the MUSA? , of
the residents have homes over the $200
Chuck Gerlach, 1605,c
and futura residents
nature of the s
Bay Knolls
Knolls off County Road
problems
would be
effects all residents
present because they know the
His concern is for the access on
go? Will they be turning around
.y
15 feet). Mr. Gerlach explained
' Road 82. He also feels there is existing speed
sidew~i~?~::~any children.
with ~,eral alternatives and invited the Commissioners and
the Fremont Avenue intersection. Suggested going back the
access. Mr. Wensmaun would lose one townhome but there
~¢gess.
Mr. Gerlach s regarding the cul-de-sacs and their
concerns for emergency and maintenance vehicles (snow plowing). We can't stop
development but can control how it grows. Suggested to deny Bay Knolls intersection.
Tom Finn, 15672 Fremont Avenue, explained he had a video tape of the intersection off
County Road 82 and Fremont showing the heavy traffic. He said he has been a
professional driver for 28 years and has never seen such an intersection. Traffic off
County Road 82 is heavy and very dangerous. Finn feels a hammerhead cul-de-sac
would solve all the problems.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~raO62298,doc 14
Jan Ferguson, 15745 Island View, presented pictures of County Road 82 and Fremont
Avenue. F&guson pointed out stakes and questioned if there are only 15 additional trips
why is the intersection there? She claims the distance is 20 feet. She also feels fire
tracks will not be able to make the comer. It makes no sense for anything other than
snowplowing. The access makes no sense.
Kansier pointed out the stake is probably a right-of-way line not the Bay ~!~.Drive.
Nick Polta, Pioneer Engineer, stated the edge of the bituminous Road 82 to
Bay Knolls Drive is 60 feet. Not sure what the stakes in the the
County right-of-way. Adding the 15 feet it would make it a 75
Fiend Hein, 15567 Fremont Avenue,
that would allow for 3 cars to ttma on that road,
the comer off County Road 82. Her other concern
people possibly turning around in her driveway.
Mike Soukop, 15669 Fremont Avenue, has the same
residents will take the
He feels
Rick Renslow, 15651 Fremont Avenue ...~i~; down County Road
82 and turn on to Fremont at 5:00 p.m. without the
development.
Mike Conroy, 15531 F~nt Ave~:.~, said he ~.~:~...,t. he closest house to the comer, and
people turn around i~i~} drivewa,~i?it is occasi~f~':and it does not bother him. But it
could become a pr0~:l;~ilig::.fut~!i~g~gg::~}g~::~i~osed for the west side of Fremont
which will bring additio~i~h~'"X3~:ih~ and now there is too much congestion. A
the results of the traffic study with the
and time it was done. Kansier explained how
Firm questioned what was included in the traffic and
home values. And what is required with a conditional use
procedures.
, talked to the County about putting in an access that
close. Kansier ~sponded the City and County had several discussions. McDermott
stated the County required the right in/right out on the access on Fremont.
Rick Renslow, 15616 Fremont Avenue, said he had one thing to say "You are here to
work for us. We pay big taxes to the City. From Jane Kansier to Frank Boyles to the
City Attorney to the Planning Commissioners all the way down the line. You better not
look in your manual, you better get your butts out there and take a look at what is going
on before you make any kind of decision on this project. That is what you guys are here
for. The developer, he is the outsider. I'm not taking anything away from the developer,
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn062298.doc
15
he's probably a great guy. We live here and pay taxes. You guys better listen to what
we're are saying. Thank you."
Fiona Hein, 15567 Fremont Avenue, stated they all know development is going to go on,
and appreciate all the efforts to control what is going on. We also know the area on
Highway 13 near McDonalds and County Market are used on a daily basis. For any of the
development in the area of County Road 82 to Dakotah Fitness, there reallgi::~t any easy
access to get to there except through Fremont. So we see this double ye~¢iiii~:a new
housing development is going in and we don't know about it, so it lool~ii~uspicious. Her
concern for the longer term plan. Why a
neighborhood?
Elizabeth Tobeck, 15759 Fremont Avenue, said the first
she was almost hit by a car. She has small children, the~g~:~ no stop
bumps. How is my kid suppose to cross the street to
more traffic. Can you put a main hi
the area? She doesn't want her one and three' a dar.
Terry Wensmann stated he appreciated a~t~ii:.~..~rstands the h~'s concern. The
C~ty notffied them to conduct a traffic stu~?~ii~ount of trafff~i::::~om their
devel,opment will be less than the study shes. Da~i:,g~i~t ~0::a~spute but explained
possiale routes.
Wensmarm explmned the .~i~e:~[~}i~gradmg problems. All optmns were explored and
what is presented tonig~as the b~i solution. :~.::gaain concern is for emergency
vehicles and plowing~iii~iig~ stated h~}~ould not b~?5!~osed to going back to the
hammerhead situat~:~i~0t l~i~iii~ggii!~t Fremont.
Kuykendal! ~fgest~ned Gl~er Street width to the access point. Pulta said curb to
Mik~;ukop, 15669 F~gnt qu~iioned the Planning Commission, why was a Bay
~q'~I~i~ven considered ~ the townhomes?
The publiS~ng w~i~sed at 9:39 p.m.
Comments frg~iii~!~::"~ommissioners:
Criego:
· Much of the discussion has turned to Fremont Avenue.
· The MUSA will not interfere with the development.
· The Planning Commissioner's concern is to keep the property as is with as many
slopes, wetlands and trees. The developer could have had 30% more homes in the
development. He is at 70% of what the code requires.
· There is a lot of open land.
are children in
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn062298.doc 16
· The Planning Commission has addressed many of the issues brought up tonight.
Every community wahts to keep their neighborhood as it was.
· The problems with traffic on Fremont would be there without the development.
· McDermott requested the developer improve half of Fremont and the City would pay
for the other half with curb and gutter. There is 450 foot piece of Fremont that is not
improved.
· McDermott said there are no plans at ~ time.
· There should be some discussion for safety. We can't control to
violating traffic laws. But we e to County
Road 82. "~
· Kansier stated 1973.
· Rye explained the street system starting with loc~[!ii~identi~[?cess streets se~i~g
very limited properties, then collector (Fremon~)::ii~j~ets feedli~!o..the arterial sti;}ets
such as County Roads 82 and 21, which turn in~; l~y~!i~i~eways.
· Roman rohout, lives on the comer of Fremont and C;~i:!~oad 82, said if the City
changed the road designation the Citz:~ould have told r~ii~ ~ent on to say if the
City puts a median on Fremont it wiltlii~g~e his propert~:!~iiiiiiiiiii!iiiii?
· Polta said Bay Knolls is a little over 6~i?~iii~iii!~[~: .:~iii!ii?[ii::i~ ....
· Kansier explained the cul-de-sac and h~er~¢i~:~8~ii~ith the involved
variances ......... ::::i~}ii~:¢iil~: i:~!ilili::~ ....
·Well aware ofa slmllar::~::ii~atlon.
· It comes down to sa t a cad cul-de-sac.
..................... ..::~iiii?:
Kuykendall: ,~=ili!:::=~:~:~:~:~:~:~: :~:~ ....
· Concurs with
· Strongly
· .~!~s not feel the
Closing the intersection
the traffic.
gn requirements.
des~ will create a traffic hazard, but another design could
· With th~::~t~O~ii:::~fthe":' ':'~:':':':" ": >>: intersection of Bay Knolls and Fremont, this is an
exceptional'~ for the development.
· Should loo!~iii~i the hammerhead cul-de-sac design.
· Ask the Police and Fire Departments if the design is workable. Would rather make a
decision after talking to them.
· McDermott said the proposed design concept would be acceptable to Public Works.
Criego:
· Likes the hammerhead design.
· It might be worthwhile to put a trail on the end of the Bay Knolls to the sidewalk on
Fremont for pedestrians as well as bikers. No access by vehicles.
1:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcmin~ran062298,doc
17
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT KNOWN AS GLYNWATER ALONG WITH THE
CHANGES LAID OUT NAMELY BAY KNOLLS WILL BE HAMMERHEAD END-
CAPPED. A VARIANCE WILL NEED TO BE GRANTED FOR THAT PURPOSE
AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT.
Discussion with City Attorney and Commissioners regarding the varianc~i~i~tice.
MOTION AMENDED BY CRAMER, SECOND BY
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE
1. Bay Knolls Drive must be redesigned to eliminate t
to include a hammerhead turnaround.
connection from the end of Bay
2. The developer must submit an application for a ...... Subdivision
of Bay KnoT~i~rzve. This variance
Ordinance requirements for the revised design .... ~[~':?:%:' '
must be approvedprior tofinalplat ~[~.
3. A letter of credit for the landscaping a~:t~i~::i~ent mff~::'be submitted prior to
approval ofthefinalplat documents.
4. The homeowner's assoc~[~i~uments ~t be revix~t to include the c°rrect legal
descriptions for each..:~i~:J~ii These d~ments must be recorded with the final
plat documents .....~iii?' o {iii?~i?
Vote taken signifi~ii~ii::!~y al[...:=~ION c~ED.
MOTION C IOO, S OtSO TO P COm ND aePaOVAL OF
CONDIT!~8~:,?ERM~i!}NJECT~5~ TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. ~{i~}er of credit fO'}}~ lands~ing and tree replacement must be submitted prior to
.... z::~ii~roval of the final ~t documents.
2. Th~iii~t~eowner's as~iation documents must be revised to include the correct legal
desc~ for eae~iii~ssoeiation. These documents must be recorded with the final
Vote taken signl~ed ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case #98-017 C~DER A PRELI~ARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS
WINDSONG ON THE LA__ION
Planning Coordinator Jane K.a~I~I~ presente~ll~Lanning Report dated June 22, 1998 on
file in the office of the~anner. ~
h\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mnO62298.doc 18
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
CONSIDER A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
AND SETBACK FROM CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY
ROAD FOR MICHAEL AND MARY PREKKER, Case
File #98-076
16511 FRANKLIN TRAIL
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
JULY 13, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Michael and Mary
Prekker who are proposing to construct a front porch on an existing structure.
The lot is 90.00 feet wide at the 25 foot minimum required front yard setback.
The proposed porch is located 21.9 feet from the lot line and 64 feet from the
centedine of Franklin Trail. This does not include proposed steps, which
encroach 3.5 feet further into the required setbacks. Therefore, the requested
setback is 18.4 feet from the front property line and 60.5 feet from the centedine
of Franklin Trail. Section 5-4-1 requires a setback of 85 feet from the centerline
of county reads and 25 feet from front property lines.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 2, Block 1, Borgerdings 2nd Addition, was platted in 1974. The property is
located within the R-1 (Urban Residential) District. The lot is 90 feet wide and
150 feet deep (13,500 square feet). The property fronts on a County read
(Franklin Trail). The house was constructed in 1976 and no previous variances
have been granted. The building envelope (Exhibit B) is 70 feet wide and 82 feet
deep (5,740 square feet). The existing entry consists of a six foot wide by
approximately 10 feet long deck with stairs (not shown on sur~ey) located on the
front of the house.
Franklin Trail is on the turn back list to be given to the City. If the read were to
become a local street the setback would be 25 feet from the property line.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNI'CY EMPLOYER
However, the road has not been turned over at this point and has been on the
list for at least two years. The City and County have yet to work out the details
and conditions upon which the City will accept ownership of Franklin Trail. There
is no timeline as to when this will occur. Additionally, the 85 foot setback from
the centerline is not in the proposed Zoning Ordinance under review by the City
Council. If and when Franklin Trail becomes a local street, setback requirements
would allow a 6.9 foot front porch addition. The proposal submitted by the
applicant is a 10 foot wide addition and would still require a variance.
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 enfomed. The structure exists as a single family
dwelling and reasonable use of the property has been achieved. The legal
building envelope provides reasonable use for additions to the structure in
the side or rear yards.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are no unique circumstances with respect to the property. The lot is
not a substandard lot and the topography is not unusual or creates a
hardship. Alternatives exist on the property for building expansions and
future changes in the ordinance would allow for a 6.9 foot front porch
addition.
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 hardship is not the result of the homeowner. The centerline setback
ordinance was adopted in 1989, and the house was constructed in 1976.
However, the front yard setback has been in existence since 1963.
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 the front yard setback is to allow for stacking of vehicles in a
driveway and to allow for building separation and open space within front
yards. The adjacent structures are at the same setback or setback further,
than the applicant house, so the proposed porch will be approximately 10 feet
closer to the street than the adjacent structures. It is contrary to the public
interest to grant a front yard setback variance when the building envelope is
L:\98FiLES\98VAR\98-076\98-076PC.DOC
Page 2
large and when the proposed structure will be closer to the street than
adjacent properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded the variance request meets one of the four hardship criteria.
Upon adoption of the revise Zoning Ordinance, the property owner can construct
a 6.9 foot wide front porch without any variances.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. A motion and second
adopting the attached Resolution #98-17PC.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. Direct
staff to prepare a resolution approving variance to front yard setback and
setback from the centerline of a County road.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 98-17PC.
L:\98FILES',98VAR\98-076~98-076PC.DOC Page 3
RESOLUTION 98-17PC
DENYING A 6.6 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN 18.4 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT SETBACK AND A 24.5
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 60.5 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE
CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Michael and Mary Prekker have applied for a variances from Section 5-4-1 of the
City Code on property located in the R-1 (Urban Residential) District at the following
location, to wit;
16511 Franklin Trail, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Borgerdings 2nd
Addition, Scott County MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case #98-076 and held a heating thereon on July 13, 1998.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the requested setback 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 variances is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Reasonable use of the
property currently exists as a single family dwelling and the legal building envelope
allows for expansions to the structure in the side or rear yards. The variances will
serve merely as a convenience to the applicant.
5. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the ordinance cannot be met if
the variance is granted.
6. The Board of Adjustment has concluded reasonable use can be made of the property
without the variances.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
7. The contents of Planning Case 98-076 are hereby entered ihto 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 16511 Franklin Trail, as shown in Exhibit A (survey and legal
description);
1. A 6.6 foot variance to permit a 18.4 foot front yard setback instead of the
required 25 foot setback.
2. A 24.5 foot variance to permit a 60.5 foot setback from the centerline of a
county road (Franklin trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 13, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
L:\98FILES~98VARX.98-076~E9817PC.DOC 2
SURVEY PREPARED FOR;
'MIKE PREKKER
~51[ FRANKLIN TRAIL S.E,
PRIOR LAKE~ MN. 5§372
Volley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE 120-C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRJOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 555?2
EXHIBIT A
0 SO 60
SCALE IN FEET
MIKE PREKKER
~511 FRANKLIN TRAIL S.E.
PRIOR LAKE~ MN. 55372
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE ISO-C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE
NOTES: Benchn~ck 61.vatic~959.49 top of the e;[istingoarmge slab.
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
REV. 6/12/98 TO SHOW SETBACK FROM
R/W TO PROPOSED ADO'N