HomeMy WebLinkAbout8C - CUP Outdoor Storage in an I-1 Zoning Dist.
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
Maintenance Center
17073 Adelmann Street S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AUGUST 21, 2006
.8C
JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION
TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR
STORAGE IN AN 1-1 (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT.
Introduction
Joe Riordan has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a conditional use permit with conditions to allow outdoor storage on a
site located south of Adelmann Street and west of Revere Way, within the
Deerfield Industrial Park. Currently the site is vacant. The site plan shows a
structure and an outdoor storage area for the parking of construction related
equipment. The 32,100 square foot structure is proposed to contain eight
warehouse suites (ranging in size from 3,732 square feet to 3,916 square
feet). The proposed building is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements. It is the outdoor storage component that triggers the need for a
CUP.
Historv
On June 12, 2006 a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission
to discuss an application request by Master Engineering, Development, and
Construction for a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage on a site
located south of Adelmann Street and west of Revere Way, within the
Deerfield Industrial Park. The topics of concern that were most commonly
referred to at the public hearing included:
· Concerns related to inadequate screening provided by fencing and
trees.
. Concerns related to the storage of fuel tanks in close proximity to
residential properties.
. Concerns of any potential wetland impacts as a result of the proposed
outdoor storage area.
After hearing individual comments, the Planning Commission discussed the
concerns raised during the public hearing and directed the applicant to review
the site plan and consider possible revisions, including the following (meeting
minutes attached):
· Reconfigure the building design that locates the outdoor storage
further from the wetland and rear of the property.
. Consider berming.
. Increase vegetation screening.
. Increase the fence height.
· Limit hours of operation.
www.cityofpriorlake.com
... ,Rllone,952;44(t;96 15 "A,craw952.440. 9678
The application was continued to from the June 12th Planning Commission
meeting to the Commission's July 10, 2006 meeting. At the July 10th meeting
the site plan revisions were considered (meeting minutes attached) and the
Planning Commission approved (3-2) Resolution 06-11 PC with conditions.
This decision has been appealed and according to City Ordinance, the City
Council is required to conduct a public hearing on the appeal request.
Current Circumstances
The site plan shows a structure and an outdoor storage area for the parking of
construction related equipment. The 32,100 square foot structure is proposed
to contain eight warehouse suites (ranging in size from 3,732 square feet to
3,916 square feet).
The property is zoned 1-1 (General Industrial). Outdoor Storage is permitted
with a Conditional Use Permit in the 1-1 District, subject to the following
conditions:
1102.1503(8) Outdoor Storage. Conditions:
a. Storage shall be screened with fencing, landscaping, berming or
some combination thereof from all property lines and abutting
public rights-of-way. A buffer yard shall be required when the
outdoor storage abuts any property in an "R" Use District pursuant
to subsection 1107.2003.
b. Storage shall not be permitted within any required yards or buffer
yards.
c. Storage areas shall be separated from the vehicular parking and
circulation areas. This separation shall be clearly delineated by a
physical separation such as greenway, curb, fence or line of
planters.
d. Stored materials shall not interfere with either on-site or off-site
traffic visibility.
e. Inoperative vehicles or equipment or other items typically stored in
a junkyard or salvage yard shall not be stored on land on which
storage is permitted with conditions under this Section.
f. All areas used for storage shall be paved.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site is approximately 4.2 acres.
Existina Use: The property is currently vacant.
TODoaraDhv: The site is relatively flat. The site was graded previously as
part of the Deerfield Industrial Park development.
Veaetation: The property was previously vacant pasture and no vegetation is
present.
Wetlands: There is a wetland located on the southwest side of the site. The
proposed structure and outdoor storage area will not disturb the existing
wetland.
Access: Access to this property is from Adelmann Street.
Adiacent Existina Uses. land Use. and Zonina:,
Existing Use Land Use Zoning
Desi9nation
North
East Vacant Land I-PI Planned 1-1
(Deerfield Industrial Industrial
Park)
West Vacant land I-PI Planned 1-1
(Deerfield Industrial Industrial
Park)
South South is wetland,
beyond wetland are
town homes
The applicant has advised that these items will generally be located at various
job sites in the area yet there will be times when some if not all items are
stored within the proposed outdoor storage area. The proposed outdoor
storage area will be fully enclosed by a six foot high wood fence and screened
with deciduous and coniferous trees.
Parkina: The Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space be provided for
each 20,000 square feet of land devoted to outdoor storage. In addition, the
applicant must provide one parking space for every 250 square feet of office
space, five spaces plus one for each additional 500 square feet of structure for
manufacturing purposes, and one space for each 1,500 square feet of floor
area. For this site the ordinance requires 54 total parking spaces. The site
plan shows 58 parking spaces.
Storm Water: Storm water infiltration needs were addressed as part of the
approval for the Deerfield Industrial Park.
Sians: All proposed signage will need to meet the ordinance requirements
related to the 1-1 district.
landscaDina:. The ordinance requires industrial development projects to
provide perimeter and entrance landscaping as detailed in Section 1107.1904
of the ordinance. The landscape plan meets, and in some cases, exceeds the
ordinance requirements.
Liahtina: Reflected glare or spill light shall not exceed a 1.0 foot-candle at the
property line when the source of light abuts any commercial or industrial parcel
and a .5 foot-candle abutting a residential use. All fixtures must be downcast.
The applicant has provided a photometric plan that details 16 light fixtures.
ISSUES:
Outdoor Storaae: The outdoor storage area is an approximately 7,000
square foot fenced area located at the rear of the property. Specifically, the
applicant is proposing to store the following items (photos are included in this
report):
~ Two (2) dump trucks each measuring 30 ft by 8 ft in size
~ Two (2) trailers each measuring 30 ft by 8 ft in size
~ Fuel tanks measuring 10ft by 16 ft in total area
~ One (1) low boy trailer measuring 90 ft by 10 ft
~ Pipes measuring 20 ft by 8 ft in total area
~ One (1) pipe trailer measuring 20 ft by 8 ft in total area
~ One (1) bulldozer measuring 30 ft by 32 ft
~ Two (2) skid loaders measuring 8 ft by 12 ft each
~ Two (2) backhoes measuring 20 ft by 8 ft each
At the June 1 ih and July 10th public hearings issues related to screening
provided by fencing and trees, storage of above ground fuel tanks, potential
wetland impacts, and alternative building configurations were discussed.
Details for these specific issues are outlined below:
Screenina: The applicant originally proposed to screen the outdoor storage
area and loading dock areas at the rear of the property with a 6 foot board-on-
board cedar fence, 5 deciduous trees of 2 1/2" caliper inches in diameter, and
sixteen spruce trees measuring 10 feet in height. In response to the concerns
about inadequate screening raised at the June 1 ih public hearing the applicant
revised plans which indicated changes to increase screening with an 8 foot
high fence rather than the initial 6 foot fence and the modification of five
deciduous trees to five coniferous trees, maintaining a total of 21 trees at the
rear of the site. For additional screening purposes staff and the Planning
Commission have attached a condition to the CUP which requires the addition
of a berm at the rear of the property and for the 21 trees to be placed on top of
the berm. Staff believes a 3 foot high berm would appear adequate for the
site.
Storaae of Tanks: The applicant has proposed to include two 1,000 gallon
above ground fuel tanks in the outdoor storage area. It was noted by staff that
these tanks would require registration and notification by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as well as meet all State Fire Code
requirements. These requirements include but are not limited to regulations
for secondary containment, substance transfer areas, tank and piping
standards, overfill protection, corrosion protection, leak detection, labeling,
monitoring, maintenance, record keeping, and decommissioning. Under
conditional use permit condition #4 all necessary permits to allow the
placement of fuel tanks in the outdoor storage area must be obtained by the
applicant prior to site plan approval.
Wetland ImDacts: Initial plans depicted considerable grading within the
established wetland buffer area at the rear of the property. Due to concerns
raised by staff and at the June 1 ih public hearing the applicant revised the
plans to place retaining walls at the rear of the paved outdoor storage and
loading dock areas thereby minimizing the disturbance in the wetland buffer
area. Storm water drainage at the rear of the property will be directed away
from the wetland to an existing drainage pipe.
Alternative Buildina Confiaurations: As advised by the Planning
Commission at the June 1 tn public hearing the applicant met with city staff to
discuss possible alternative building reconfigurations. It was discussed that in
order to address the comments and concerns of the residents and Planning
Commission, major modifications to the site plan would be necessary. Staff
suggested a reduced building size or l-shaped building to allow the outdoor
storage to be placed further to the north on the lot and allow for the possibility
of increased screening, with a berm at the rear of the property. At the
meeting, the applicant shared with staff the previous concepts considered for
the site, but stated that due to financial parameters, the initially proposed
building configurations were not feasible.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS:
Section 1108.200 of the City Code sets forth the general criteria utilized to
review a CUP application.
(1) The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Two of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is to "maintain high
standards in the promotion and development of commerce and industry."
A policy supporting this objective is to "maintain proper physical site
screening and landscaping standards." The outdoor storage is consistent
with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
provided it compiles with the conditions of approval.
(2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community as a whole.
The uses will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare
of the community as a whole provided all conditions of approval are met.
(3) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Use District in which the Conditional Use is
located.
The purpose of the 1-1 use district is "to provide areas of the community
that will allow general industrial uses that, due to their size and nature,
would not conform to the 'C-5' Business Park Use District." Outdoor
storage is appropriate for this district because of aesthetics.
One purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "protect the residential,
business, industrial and public areas of the community and maintain their
stability." The proposed use is consistent with this goal, provided the site
complies with all conditions of approval.
(4) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental
facilities, services, or improvements, which are either existing or
proposed.
So long as all conditions of approval are adhered to the uses will not
burden municipal facilities.
(5) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and
enjoyment of properties in close proximity to the conditional use.
The Zoning Ordinance places conditions on outdoor storage in the 1-1 use
district to screen and protect adjacent uses. Provided all conditions are
met, the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the properties in
close proximity.
(6) The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site and
landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional
landscape architect, or civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota, approved by the Planning Commission and incorporated
as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the Planning
Commission.
A professional engineer prepared the site plan for the application.
(7) The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a
professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota which
illustrate locations of city water, city sewer, fire hydrants, manholes,
power, telephone and cable lines, natural gas mains, and other
service facilities. The plans shall be included as part of the
conditions set forth in the CUP approved by the Planning
Commission.
A registered civil engineer prepared drainage and utility plans for site.
(8) The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the
Planning Commission may find necessary to protect the general
welfare, public safety and neighborhood character. Such additional
conditions may be imposed in those situations where the other
dimensional standards, performance standards, conditions or
requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to achieve the
objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these circumstances,
the Planning Commission may impose restrictions and conditions on
the CUP which are more stringent than those set forth in the
Ordinance and which are consistent with the general conditions
above. The additional conditions shall be set forth in the CUP
approved by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission may revise recommended conditions or attach
additional conditions, as they deem appropriate to protect the general
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
welfare, public safety, and neighborhood character.
The applicant has submitted revised plans which indicate changes to increase
screening with an 8 foot high fence rather than the initial 6 foot fence and the
modification of five deciduous trees to five coniferous trees, maintaining a total
of 21 trees at the rear of the site. Despite the applicant citing financial
considerations for not providing any other site modifications, staff believes the
alterations to the site do not address all of the stated concerns of the Planning
Commission. Therefore, for approval of the conditional use permit staff
recommends the following conditions also be met:
1. Modify or relocate the outdoor storage area to allow for an adequate
area between the wetland butter and the outdoor storage to
accommodate an 8 ft tall fence along the top of a 3 ft berm.
2. Revise the landscaping plan to establish the 10' coniferous trees along
the top of the berm.
3. Limit hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday.
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for the storage of fuel
tanks in the outdoor storage area prior to site plan approval.
5. The applicant shall submit a certificate of survey verifying the proposed
site improvements and proposed structure in relation the to wetland
and easement boundaries.
6. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County
no later than 60 days after City Council approval.
7. A plan must be provided that details the design and materials used for
the construction of the enclosed fenced area.
8. A zoning permit shall be issued prior to the installation of the fence.
9. All vehicles within the outdoor storage area must be operable, licensed,
and registered.
10. Prior to site plan approval, the applicant shall submit revised plans
reflecting plan changes and conditions as indicated.
11. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1503(8) of the Zoning Ordinance
shall be met.
Approval of the CUP will facilitate the development of the Deerfield Industrial
Park.
The City Council has the following alternatives:
1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the CUP
with conditions. The attached City Council Resolution 05-XX is consistent
with this action.
2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and grant the appeal.
3. Under Minnesota Statutes 15.99, the City has 120 days in which to take
action on an application. In this case, the 120 day period expires on
December 17, 2006. If the Council fails to take action before such date,
the application is automatically approved.
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
A motion and second adopting a resolution upholding the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve the conditional use permit with listed
conditions.
Reviewed by:
M PRI~
()..,~ ~~\ Maintenance Center
E...o~ 17073 Adelmann Street S.E.
U r!l Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
\ ~ ) RESOLUTION 06-xx
~
A RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AllOW OUTDOOR
STORAGE IN THE 1-1 (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT
Motion By:
Second By:
WHEREAS, Master Engineering Developemnt and Construction is requesting a conditional use
permit to allow outdoor storage in the 1-1 (General Industrial) Zoning District at the
following location, to wit;
lot 1, Block 1, Deerfield Park th Addition, Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a conditional use permit as
contained in Case File 06-128, and held a public hearing thereon June 12, 2006 and
July 10, 2006; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the Conditional Use Permit was consistent with
the criteria set forth in Section 1108.202 and Section 1102.1503(8) of the Zoning
Ordinance, and approved the Conditional Use Permit subject to eleven conditions; and
WHEREAS, An affected property owner appealed the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 06-128 and Case File 06-157, and held a hearing
thereon on August 21,2006.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The City Council finds that the requested Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the criteria
set forth in Section 1108.202 and Section 1102.1503(8) of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to
eleven (11) conditions.
3. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Conditional Use
Permit subject to eleven (11) conditions:
4. The City Council makes the following findings:
a) The decision of The Planning Commission was properly and timely appealed in accordance
with Section 1108.210 of the City Code.
b) The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 06-128 and Case File 06-157, and held a hearing
thereon on August 21,2006.
c) The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
,..., "WJNY{,<::ity()fRr~Qrlake.com
> ,":. '; '. ~(," '<. ~;'.' : :,:'; .::": :".,::: :...n.: 'c..'" , . L'>~ ~{-',
Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678
. Two of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is to "maintain high standards in the promotion and
development of commerce and industry.>> A policy supporting this objective is to "maintain proper physical
site screening and landscaping standards. >> The outdoor storage is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan provided it compiles with the conditions of approval.
d) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community as a whole.The uses will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general
welfare of the community as a whole provided all conditions of approval are met.
. The uses will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community as a whole
provided all conditions of approval are met.
e) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Use
District in which the Conditional Use is located.
. The purpose of the 1-1 use district is "to provide areas of the community that will allow general industrial
uses that, due to their size and nature, would not conform to the 'e-5' Business Park Use District." Outdoor
storage is appropriate for this district because of aesthetics.
. One purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "protect the residential, business, industrial and public areas of
the community and maintain their stability." The proposed use is consistent with this goal, provided the site
complies with all conditions of approval.
f) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or
improvements, which are either existing or proposed.
. So long as all conditions of approval are adhered to, the use will not over burden municipal facilities.
g) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in
close proximity to the conditional use.
. The Zoning Ordinance places conditions on outdoor storage in the 1-1 use district to protect adjacent uses.
Provided all conditions are met, the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the properties in close
proximity.
h) The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans
prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect, or civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota, approved by the City Council and incorporated as part
of the conditions imposed on the use by the City Council.
. A professional engineer prepared the site plan for the application.
i) The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a professional civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota which illustrate locations of city water, city sewer, fire
hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and cable lines, natural gas mains, and other service
facilities. The plans shall be included as part of the conditions set forth in the CUP
approved by the City Council.
. A registered civil engineer prepared drainage and utility plans for the site.
D The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the City Council may find
necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety and neighborhood character. Such
additional conditions may be imposed in those situations where the other dimensional
standards, performance standards, conditions or requirements in this Ordinance are
insufficient to achieve the objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these
circumstances, the City Council may impose restrictions and conditions on the CUP which
are more stringent than those set forth in the Ordinance and which are consistent with the
L:\06 FILES\06 APPEALS\Master Industrial Condos\uphold resolution.DOC
general conditions above. The additional conditions shall be set forth in the CUP approved
by the City Council.
. The City Council has attached the listed conditions they deem appropriate to protect the
general welfare, public safety, and neighborhood character.
5. The Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved on the property legally described as follows:
lot 1, Block 1, Deerfield Industrial Park ih Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
6. The Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
a) Modify or relocate the outdoor storage area to allow for an adequate area between the wetland buffer and the
outdoor storage fencing for the addition of a berm.
b) Revise the landscaping plan to establish the 10' coniferous trees along the top of the berm.
c) Limit hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
d) The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for the storage of fuel tanks in the outdoor area prior to site plan
approval.
e) The applicant shall submit a certificate of survey verifying the proposed site improvements and proposed
structure in relation the to wetland and easement boundaries.
n The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later than 60 days after City Council
approval.
g) A plan must be provided that details the design and materials used for the construction of the enclosed fenced
area.
h) A zoning permit shall be issued prior to the installation of the fence.
i) All vehicles within the outdoor storage area must be operable, licensed, and registered.
j) Prior to site plan approval, the applicant shall submit revised plans reflecting plan changes and conditions as
indicated.
k) All conditions listed in Section 1102.1503(8) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met.
7. The contents of Planning Case File 06-128 and Planning Case File 06-157 are hereby entered
into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2006.
YES
NO
Haugen
Dornbush
Erickson
LeMair
Millar
Haugen
Dornbush
Erickson
LeMair
Millar
Frank Boyles, City Manager
L:\06 FILES\06 APPEALS\Master Industrial Condos\uphold resolution.DOC
C-
eo
~
c
o
--
+-'
eo
()
o
....J
.+
-
Q)
Q)
u.
o
o
~
o
o
N
o
o
o
N
Sunday, July 16,2006
mfE@fE: W fE~l-
LV JUl I i 2006 I})
,By_
=:::---
J
To: Prior Lake Planning Commission
Sub: Formal Appeal of the Commission's Recommendation for a CPU
With respect to the pwposed Conditional Use Permit for Lot 1 Block 1 Deerfield
Industrial Park, I submit the following for consideration:
While the proposed use of the subject site appears to be within the definition of
proper industrial use as interperted by some members of the Commission, won't the
proposed use detract llV.lU the value, safety and appearance of the first rate industrial
facilities as they now exist, and will it support or enhance the quality growth of the Park
in the future?
In our view, the storage (in reality parking and marshalling) of active heavy
construction machinery, as described in the June 12 meeting, would be a step back from
the Park's Cuu"ut clean and prosperous image, and it would p.lVmote the introduction of
further low quality business in the Park. If this concern becomes reality, accessed
evaluation in both the Park and the adjoining residential P'au}'~rties will not realize the
potential appa,.:.eiation they should experience. In effect, this would cost Prior Lake some
future tax income and would certainly impede the objectives of the City's Vision and
Strategic Plan.
That the land in question must be developed is not the question? How it is
developed is the issue. What is decided now will effect important financial and social
factors in the future.
I specifically request that the cost effect of the }'a'u'}'Osed CPU be quantified,
documented and analyzed before the permit is granted.
Respectfully submitted----Joe Riordan
17482 Deerfield Drive SE
Prior Lake, Mn
l7'~ J- /I,~...J/' fd ,
av~j;~ .dwic1fr1.:Ab ~~ -~
~~
))~ @ ~ /] rtJ ~rl
J/J JUL I 7 2006 J1
,By
July 13, 2006
Prior Lake City Planning Commission.
City of Prior Lake
Prior Lake, MN
Re: Outdoor storage site on Adelman Ave. Lot 1, Block 1, Deerfield Industrial Park, 7th Addition, Scott
County, MN.
Dear Commission members,
I am writing to express my concern about the location and safety of the current plan for adding outdoor
storage to the building site to be located on Lot 1 in the Deerfield Industrial Park. As a resident of the
affected area, I have reason to believe that the storage of2,000 gallons of fuel located adjacent to a
wetlands and a densely populated residential area, represents a potential endangerment to those living in
the area. During the summer season, the lands become very dry at times and easily subject to fire. The
surrounding fences and the homes in the area are all wood structures. Any spillage from the fuel tanks or
careless ignition from a cigarette or sparks from one of the vehicles would be very hazardous. Many of
the people living in the area are senior citizens and several are wheelchair bound and therefore at
increased risk. If a fire were to break out, many of us would be unable to evacuate the area without help.
In making your decision please consider the risk to the lives and safety of the residents and also the
potential liability to the City of Prior Lake if there is damage or loss of life. It is a difficult decision to
make but I hope you will understand our concerns and act in the best interest of all parties concerned.
Sincerely,
(j? iClJ( 4
Bernerd L. O'Neil MD
17488 Deerfield Dr. SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
July 16, 2006
-
[D) fE @ rE 0 IYJ rE ~,
L' JUL 1 7 2006 ,.
.--/ .
Prior Lake Planning Commission
17073 Adelmann St. SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
By
Dear Sirs:
This letter is in response to the Planning Commission's recommendation for a CUP for
outdoor storage on Adelmann Ave., Lot I, Block I, Deemeld Industrial Park, 'fh
Addition, Scott County, MN. I live at 17466 Deerfield Dr. SE and my view would look
over this storage sight.
The proposed outdoor storage includes construction equipment that is both large and tall.
The proposal was for a 6 foot board on board fence to shield the viewing of this outdoor
equipment. It was noted at a recent Planning Commission meeting that the line of sight
from the decks of the Deerfield townhomes would go OVER the 6 foot fence.
I would respectfully request that the Planning Commission require a much higher fence.
This could be done in several ways as follows:
1. Just construct a much taller fence ofappru,)~tely 12 feet.
2. Build a berm of 5 or 6 feet high and put a 6 foot fence on top of that. This may
take away storage space as the berm is fairly wide at the bottom
3. Use concrete landscaping retainer wall blocks to build a base of 5 or 6 feet high
and put a 6 foot fence on top of that.
I would also respectfully request that the Planning Commission require mature
coniferous trees to shield this property site.
Thank you for your consideration.
~./::/;g~
~ .J ~/.;--\
~~
Vem and Sharon Lindholm
17466 Deerfield Drive SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Date: July 16, 2006
From: Steve & Nancy Monaco
Subject: Planning Commission Appeal
'~~@~ow
JUL 1 7 7~O~
)
Attn: Prior Lake Planning Commission
17073 Adelman St. SE
City of Prior Lake
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
By
To whom it may concern,
Please be advised that as residents located at 17512 Deerfield Dr. SE in Prior Lake,
Minnesota, we do hereby declare that we are opposed to any planned above ground fuel
containment of any sort behind our residence in the areas cUu.;.u1:ly being planned for
industrial zoninglbuilding with regard to the CUP permit affecting our community. This
is in regard to the Planning Commission's recommendation for a 'Conditional Use
Permit' for outdoor storage on Adelman Ave, Lot 1, Block 1 Deerfield Industrial Park, 7m
Addition, Scott County, MN. It is our understanding that there is a CUu.;.ul plan to allow
one prospective tenant in the industrial park area behind our homes to be allowed to park
construction-style vehicles which could be a nuisance source of noise and the like. Along
with that p,.."pOsed site, it is our understanding that said tenant would also be allowed to
store above ground fuels which we find to be both offensive in nature and potentially
hazardous without merit given the ';'AL..;.mely close .....".dmity to the residents located all
along Deerfield Dr. SE in particular as well as posing a potential hazard to other nearby
residents in the Deerfield community. We would recommend that these types of potential
tenants be located on the north side of Adelman at the very least and on lots that would
not pose any threat, hazard, danger or nuisance to the heavily populated community of
the Deerfield Coach homes. Along with these concerns, we are also deeply concerned
about the potential negative ..auJfications regarding our future property values! Please do
whatever is necessary to relocate these types of businesses to the north side of Adelman
and only allow those businesses on the south side of Adelman that would not pose any of
the above stated concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen and Nancy Monaco
17512 Deerfield Dr. SE
PriorLake,MN 55372
952-226-2380 (home)
~'.' f.~
~ ' '
LCINZY' V/!&M~
7-/7-D~
I
I O~/OR LA-;;:r::- PL/T,A)AJ~ GJI1tVfl$1D.<J I~~ @ ~ 0 w [r;;-
JUl I '7 iln-:: ;
J7U";3 f1l3>E:Lm~AJAJ ~.bf -.' L)
,
~Iry DFPR.IDk: L4kE By -==~=,-d
Pic/be LA-kt=:/ )./luJe:=-5OT/J -.S"5:37z-
FlCDJ.-f ..
RIchard & Sharon Easler
17468 Deerfield Dr. S.E.
Prior lake, MN 55372
liE:
C. l V JJb IT' () D I} "-. L1. $-E. -Fl;:R/11/ T I-- . ,~ _
Vtl Ll ;"/I/'A 0, '- Dq{bODk.5'~_
N rrl:>FLfl1/1VIV y'E.~ LDt I Bt-o/t. ~.~
p,. / Lk" I J::::u-~ ;f>F /E~ / A.i~
;+R~ 71-6 ,I-.AD/d~AJI -=;-(!P/FeJN,(.0~ ;<-h/ '
~VT1F.1v?6D:;>
ou 12.. @KElrT65T (!jJv~ /V T/I/5#1-4-/ /b,e IS
li{-E? A.gDLfE ~ /.?oqAflJ Fit t:.=.L :5TDR4aE, '~SF~L
7lIE: EXJYIK'D}//LfrorA-( ffl;"CC77oAJ D'=TI$.Wer~L>$ /5
}/jDSr T.A-1F'tJ~T/-M.JT II~R~ 4..c0 77/~~A"uCEOFA~
De QPILL I 1JJ2 / /Ie: PCJ55/..B /L/ty !JF ~F/~E -U-t? ##7T~.c:
J-/-tl ID ~J/YJ4LL la-V 0/ tVokrll T/fE~~7Kd~.T/iJJ 0.7=
;4 PJ?o / c:-L72:::rJ#~cA / /!.4Tt!Oa//) ?;4~ yed-e.s;.
IF G/~R/ /eV /)?=:@t/e:-K. Ak /4/14-r/6K ~v0
~~LL j I/~ nSK; '/ ~ &~q2E,.J/l~S /I-/:e-
'/ tJd ~;:g;7'A- / / iJ /A--/l~ /#~. ;7 &~~b .
$Jhr( -
5?d/U~ &~)
l~ ( ~ III Z/tl~h
~[E@~OW~1l
JUL 1 '7 (005 j
-- LJ
By
~ -'O~~t~ evr1~U~ ;
~:~.~o{-~~
/ 71-70 f)~ fJ4't s,E-;
~-tJ ~/~' 55372-
~: q~;;W.~.1 ~C-t~~~
;-v AV ~pcL~ uzue-~ ~ ~
//f:;ivtUj-i- 4-rV ~~ Ov-e-, /dJdi ~ ~cK I
JY~~~7~~~
kff ~f)~'
CUr- ~j~.-L/f; ~<f 4fr1~-tV :
~ ~/ctir~ ., ~
~~~;du@1cz~~;4Vjw
.~i
I, ~ ~,~:t; /to ~4~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;c/ C/i/C/!e~)
;tf~ ~~;t:~ k,~ '-C~--Y~VvrV diA-/ -p /ilL?
,~Aj- ~ ~ J~ /~ ~~ 4J :tfL:VrfVtoJhb,
fj, e) ~~ ~~~~ ~~t:tw.~
~ ~ ~ /t? A-I~~U ~~~~
P.~~~rF~~~
~,Z, # $ ;fctr~? ~ ~
c~'-~ ~
~~~J :;t/~~~;;t?~
~~~~.,
2-, t2v;t;:- /tV ~) 4/ ~/ t:2rP ~,
IU~~' ~~~
Iu~~~;;tf?o~f ~~~p
~;tf~4VUJ C0 4J-V~/t?~~~
~.4UL~ ~~
~~~~~~4'v~
-~~~
3. av~~~~'(f
~.~~~~&-n/~~
~~~~U)' ~~~
~~/~A~~
q-; /JIJ-u ~ J aVf; ~~ I ~ff.o
~ ~#~~
4 ~
~--&71/~~4 ~~~~
~ .;:W~
~I
~~~ ~(Uw~
~i:a.P, .JI 0(.,. f) 'I//J 0\ G.E
~""); (74<00 .u~ P1VA- I .
~ ;J~J /)-#r>/ S-537 L.
V~@[]~m~~
J U L 1 7 2006 I
.J
By
TO: PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PHIL AND PAT MICKUS
17470 DEERFIELD DR. S.E.
PRIOR LAKE, MN
SUBJECT: APPEAL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE ON
ADELMAN AVE., LOT 1, BLOCK 1 DEERFIELD INDUSTRIAL
PARK, 7lH ADDITION, SCOTI COUNTY, MN
WE WISH TO CONVEY OUR CONCERN OVER THE COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF THE C. U. P. FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPERTY.
WE FEEL THAT THIS TYPE OF OUTDOOR STORAGE WILL ADVERSELY
AFFECT NOT ONLY OUR ENJOYMENT OF OUR HOME BUT ALSO THE
VALUE OF OUR PROPERTY.
~~
1Jcd~
PHIL AND PAT MICKUS
r ;:l\61~8~O~~ ~/1/ d-OO~
--=:;::::::: ,
>~ ay / / 'c/~C?~ ~
~~~~~~ ,
~.cy ~~..~
tnUU ~ rU:: 17'11 ~ ~d -dv. <
(.M..: ~ azx,~j--~//~d
~ jO~/ 7bIL ~:)
u)~~~ cZ ~~
~~~r~~~
~~~ '.tL'l~.r
~~, t'~~A
~~~~<4-.
~~~~~....~
~~fi--e~ 7.~+'~~dJ
~~.~~
~'.. ~..~
~~4;L ~~~;
Jd A J /f-u-- .
~3::-
"
:5,,() P ~ r ~ ~. - ~. 9.' C'( ,:. 0 h.. ~.' r i: c1
o ~ r } r ~ ;; r ~ ~ ~.-; ~. t t
~ c: ~'L ~\---' (' ~ )c (i t. ~ ~ 6 3 ( ~. L
'p T I rJ ~ j ~ \ p '.' 1 ".) ('~ ~ ~ (. r:' f" ~ ~,J
, 1 r, c;.; -' ~. - F r J v' . ; ~ ~ A
~ J7 J J <;., .1/.. , ('\ _
:J IIi \./
~ V ~ ,. ,>- y ~ ~
U r JVr:, . ' , (.) V' '.;
~ ~ S ~ r ~ '2 ( ? j r--)' ~ 1 Jc $ if \' -0
C I;-C>;5 ty-- ~ r-r il1 Jj If ~ 3 } f f (
3 ~. ~ ~ ~ f ~ r ( 0- ~ 4 7 H J t if ~J' J~..
! Y10 I ~ ~~., '~ ,:t y
L!\ ;f t ~ c 3 k r t rr.' ( t ~ (, . " (l
j:. c}. ~. 1 :f r ~ ~ I " 1 t 1') erE ir 3 J-
k: t. J t ~ t. 5: \ 'f f:; ,a- pi t 'r' / 3 t- r
· - 2 . r! " ,r. 3 ~ I ~ -i ? ' t ~
C'b r."< 1" tl -' c-" 5 91 -..../ h, ~ _ \/
-vy/ c'1'~?' ~.' ':' ~ . iVr=' 3 I ~I 'C~,.
if 3 t "'" (, -1 ''/, (>.
) " F r r' 7J T r
5 ~ y?'"
r F ~.~' f' P F ~ ~ & ~ 1-'J,-:;. 5 f / k> \
~ cf<=i: --- c' :J -' l r
9 F") ~::; ~ ~ [ J- C ".?Y C
'~f -. S~' r- 1,
~ 0 ~> ~ F f - f r r s f t~. c; 1
tt ~. ~. ~.'. ~~. ( ~. \ ~L ~.
f ? l' r H &-
~ ~.. ~ ~ r~J'
""0
[.
f
r
r
e
~
t
t
-( ,J
r., r'
3 f OJ r
- '< 1
C"
yJ
o
c
6"
;=j'
L..:nfi]
~sv
_ u=;:;:u
-.! c=J
~ G5
<:::)
Q") v=mJ
l~.
(l.rr,.o~ ~~ LU~ ~t., 4'fJ---
L~ L) '-{ ,B- l,0 .~~ \0 ~~'- un c... R (3.. \ ,-\-c,
OI'<(,()--rt'\oAr~-\" .\L ~"-~ ~~'-O...~ \)Q.\L~
blY-- ~.~~ >
~\'\n(uy-,~ ~ .~ ~V--A- c..DY\~~~
V't-- ~ il"(\ ~
/.
I ) ," ...;/;f'
( .. i G</T) C 0LU- --f." '-JI-C' //r C' .
. - ,1../ / r. \. \.: '--i(.{JX..>c
I 7 L( q &." &..)~.. .j. / /.' A). . <' c
() ;, -ZQ./(// L-~-A...Cl ifY..,~--z v C
r/Lco-/c ));-~ k c~ / ')17 r; ,
).-
Ib7lQJ~~"
~ I ~ ..~r)J)'t
~} ...... ..~.... ... n~ ~~p
K~..~.~
~~. n . .. .t8 ~ W~a.J.
~.~!J-w, WJ. ~~ ct ~
aM-~fM4p fM% 4d. ~ uJtu:r
~~} ~.~.M_
.,.& tV ~ ~4J~
_...~~~.
.. 9;:~.~.~
llE (g1E n 1'll [E ;' 17 </9! ~~ f)...
. JUL 1 7 2006
-./
By
'.;,
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
4. The final plat shall be recorded at Scott County within 90 days of approval by the
City Council.
Comments from the public:
Glen Svoboda, 16769 Creekside Circle, explained why they wanted to split the property.
It was never platted with the City when they moved in 41 years ago. They are hoping to
get it back to two properties.
There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed at 6:58 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Billington:
. This it seems to be a positive endeavor. It will have a favorable affect in the
neighborhood. Given the staffs comments, I will support the request.
Ringtstad:
. Will support. Both lots are well over the minimum lot size requirements. The
drainage plan proposed seems reasonable.
Perez:
. Agreed - it meets all the requirements. Do not see any issues in approving it.
Lemke:
. Will support for the previously stated reasons by Commissioners.
Stamson:
. Will support as well. It is a reasonable use and meets all ordinance criteria.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO BE
KNOWN AS EDIE ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicates ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on June 26,2006.
D. 06-128 Master Development has submitted an application for Conditional Use
Permit to allow outdoor storage on Lot 2, Block 1, Deerfield 7th Addition
(pending plat approval). The site is located south of Adelmann Street/CSAH 21,
west of Granite Court, east of Deerfield Drive in the Deerfield Industrial Park.
Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated June 12,2006, on file in the
office of the City Planning Department.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
Master Engineering and Construction has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
outdoor storage on a site located south of Adelmann Street and west of Revere Way,
within Deerfield Industrial Park. Currently the site is vacant. The site plan shows a
structure and an outdoor storage area for the parking of construction related equipment.
The 32,100 square foot structure is proposed to contain eight warehouse suites (ranging
in size from 3,732 square feet to 3,916 square feet). The property is zoned 1-1 (General
Industrial). Outdoor Storage is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit in the 1-1
district, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant is requesting approval of a CUP to allow outdoor storage for construction
equipment. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to store the following items:
~ Two (2) dump trucks each measuring 30 ft by 8 ft in size
~ Two (2) trailers each measuring 30 ft by 8 ft in size
~ Fuel tanks measuring 10ft by 16 ft in total area
~ One (1) low boy trailer measuring 90 ft by 10ft
~ Pipes measuring 20 ft by 8 ft in total area
~ One (1) pipe trailer measuring 20 ft by 8 ft in total area
~ One (1) bulldozer measuring 30 ft by 32 ft
~ Two (2) skid loaders measuring 8 ft by 12 ft each
~ Two (2) backhoes measuring 20 ft by 8 ft each
The applicant has advised that these items will generally be located a various job sites in
the area yet there will be times when some if not all items are stored within the proposed
outdoor storage area. The proposed outdoor storage area will be fully enclosed by a six
foot high wood fence and screened with deciduous and coniferous trees.
Overall, staff believes the outdoor storage is consistent with the intent of the 1-1 use
district provided conditions of approval are met. However, staff believes the grading
proposed within the wetland buffer may be unnecessary for the development of the site.
The wetland buffer area has been previously established as part of the Deerfield
Industrial Park 2nd Addition. If the applicant proposes to grade within the wetland buffer
area additional topographical lines will be needed for staff to recommend approval of the
CUP for outdoor storage. The best source of information for this is an updated certificate
of survey with proposed site improvements and proposed structure in relation to the
wetland and easement boundaries. Until this has been provided, staff recommended
continuing the hearing for further engineering evaluation.
If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the Conditional Use Permit, staff
recommended the following conditions be attached:
1. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later than
60 days after City Council approval.
2. A plan must be provided that details the design and materials used for the
construction of the enclosed fenced area.
3. A zoning permit shall be issued prior to the installation of the fence.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
7
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
4. All vehicles within the outdoor storage area must be operable, licensed, and
registered.
5. The applicant shall submit a certificate of survey verifying the proposed site
improvements and proposed structure in relation the to wetland and easement
boundaries.
6. Prior to site plan approval, the applicant shall submit revised plans reflecting plan
changes and conditions as indicated.
7. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1503(8) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met.
8. All conditions listed in the May 26,2005 Engineering Department memo shall be
met.
The Planning staff recommended the item be continued to allow the applicant additional
time to modify the site plan and outdoor storage to address engineering concerns.
Questions from Planning Commission:
Stamson questioned if the Planning Commission could specify what types of storage is
permitted. Moore responded they could be specific. There were concerns with
Greystone's landscaping as part of CUP.
Perez questioned the existing trees shown on the plan. Matzke said they will not be
disturbed because they are in wetland and pointed out the buffer area.
Billington questioned if there will be any drainage towards existing residential area.
Poppler responded there was nothing he was aware of. The development was sent up
with two stormwater ponds and storm sewer piping for the businesses coming into the
area.
Lemke asked to see the buffer area and if staff had any concerns. Matzke pointed out the
wetland, trees and where the applicant will landscape. Matzke also spoke on the buffer
area.
Perez questioned if the proposed trees were required on the southern end of the property.
Matzke said they were required as part of their screening plan for the outdoor storage as
well as screening for the loading docks. The applicant is also proposing a 6 foot fence.
Lemke confirmed the trees were not going to be planted in the buffer area.
Comments from the public:
Wayde Johnson, Master Development Services, 125 West Broadway, Minneapolis,
55411, said there is really two pieces of information to add to the staff report. One is
grading in the wetland buffer area. Their engineer talked to Larry (City Engineer) and
they believe there is a way they can do the outdoor storage without grading in the
wetland. It would mean adding a couple of retaining walls to minimize the disturbance in
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
8
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
the area. They believe the recommendation is reasonable and have highlighted it on the
plan.
The second item - At the neighborhood meeting the applicant heard concerns of an II
District abutting a residential area. There was a request made that he survey a deck to
show site lines from the O'Neill property showing site lines from the fence and trees.
Johnson passed the photo around to residents and went on to explain the deck and site
lines just over fence.
Billington asked Johnson ifhe made any progress on the engineering department
concerns. Johnson responded they were, but it was fairly recent and they have not heard
back from staff.
Lemke questioned the fuel tanks measuring lOx 16 feet - do you have a height figure for
those fuel tanks? Johnson said he would like the DeRudders to answer as they will be
using it. DeRudder responded he thought it was about 6 feet.
Stamson asked if the units were condos. Johnson said "Yes, 8 units approximately 4,000
square feet". They will be sold in any combination. One business will be purchasing 2
units.
Stamson questioned the storage area as part of a common area. Johnson said it would
actually be re-platted into the new owner's name. It will go with the unit.
Stamson asked about future storage area. Johnson said they don't know, they have about
2,000 square feet of land that it would fit on. There are no other buyers at this time.
Stamson questioned if they don't use the CUP, how the applicant would prevent others
from just turning it into a storage area? Johnson responded they will have to fence it to
screen the loading docks. The combination of city ordinances and the association
regulations would have to enforce the storage.
Ringstad pointed out staffs report recommendation was to continue but if the applicant
does not need to go into the wetland for the buffer does that affect the recommendation?
Matzke said staff still recommends a continuance because there are still a number of
issues the engineering staff is working on and staff would like to see the site alternations
fit before recommending approval. If something does not work or alters the approval of
the outdoor square footage area staff wants to know.
Lemke asked Johnson if four weeks would be enough time. Johnson said it was fine.
Bernie O'Neil, 17488 Deerfield Drive, said they gave permission to the applicant to come
to their house and survey to see the land presented. However, the O'Neils never saw
Johnson and they have questions about it. O'Neil felt the wetlands have been a home for
the wildlife for a number of years. "The idea of storage tanks and dump trucks which
they will have the pleasure of looking at is offensive. The neighborhood realizes the
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
9
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12,2006
Council has every right to allow these things but don't think it is a good decision."
O'Neil said they think of this area as part of their homes and it is not right with the
tractors and trailers in their view. "The applicant may have a legal right, but the
neighbors object to outdoor storage. Make it more acceptable." O'Neil recommended
the Planning Commission reconsider the outdoor storage.
Vern Lindholm, 17466 Deerfield Drive, questioned the 30' buffer area from the edge of
the wetland. Can other trees be planted in the wetland? Matzke explained the buffer area
cannot be disturbed. The buffer area should remain natural and additional trees cannot be
planted for screening. Matzke went on to explain the grading area. Lindholm questioned
the fencing and landscaping plan. Matzke pointed out the fence location. Lindholm said
his concern is the site lines to the bottom of the building. Matzke explained the site line.
Lindholm felt the fence does not block a large portion of building. Everything in the
outdoor storage area is over six feet. He suggested the Commissioners require a higher
fence or berm it and put fence on top of the berm.
JoAnn Swenson, 17490 Deerfield Drive, read a letter she sent to City Council. The
following are some of her comments: She has been a Prior Lake resident for 7 months,
enjoys the wildlife, sunrises and is looking forward to many years ofthis enjoyment.
When she bought her home she was aware the wetland was adjacent to an industrial zone
district. However, she did not think additional storage would be allowed. Swenson went
on to quote the 2030 Vision and Mission Statement regarding preservation of natural
resources. The residents were here before Master Development requested this CUP.
The "use" cannot have undue impacts on adjacent property, and must protect
neighborhood character.
Swenson said she can live with aesthetically pleasing buildings, she cannot live with
construction equipment. In the event the CUP is approved, the landscaping, trees and
fence are inadequate. Look for different location for outdoor storage. Swenson stated she
and "the neighbors realize and value the need for industry within the City boundaries and
in fact, they want to be amicable neighbors. However, it cannot preclude the rights and
expectations of homeowners that by the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the
environment of the neighborhood and ultimately the value of the homes can be forever
altered." She did not feel the neighborhood should have to look, listen or smell heavy
industrial equipment.
Swenson also stated ''with a little forethought and creative planning with the guidelines
set forth in the 2030 Plan and in the City developed procedures for obtaining a
Conditional Use Permit would have prevented the turmoil we now face." She wrapped
up her comments saying they too, would like to continue to call Prior Lake "A wonderful
place to call home."
Judith Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive SE, said in April of2004 the C5 district along
Adelmann Street was changed to C4. At the same time, based on the Planning
Commission's recommendation to the City Council, phase II of the Deerfield residential
park was approved, which is where she lives. The residents did not have any input at that
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
10
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
time. At the 2004 meeting, the other side of Adelmann Street remained C5. "I want to
know why that happened? Why is one side of Adelmann 1-1 and the other side is still C-
5?"
Moore responded the applicant and developer requested the need for additional industrial
area. Largely it had to do with the dimensions of the lot. The lots were deeper and the
applicant felt the need for additional industrial areas. At that time, they didn't feel the
need to change both sides of the street.
Hanson questioned if there was a road at that time. Moore responded there was. Hanson
said she just can't get her head around the fact that one side ofthe road is C5 and the
other side abutting residential is 11 with outdoor storage. Moore said the C4 district is
also included in the industrial park which does not allow outside storage.
Hanson stated there was an error in judgment by the Planning Commission and City
Council. To her knowledge there is no where else in Prior Lake where this condition of
an 11 district butts up to a residential area. Now the residents are seeing a plan for
outside storage containing diesel tanks. Hanson stated "Deerfield residents have
thoughtfully and respectfully addressed this Commission to advocate for reasonable use
of the Industrial site." They are not opposed to the industrial site. They are very happy
with the landscape company as he is a good neighbor. Outside storage does not belong in
this location. Put outside storage in front of the building. It would be better than having
diesel fuel and huge construction equipment that close to a residential development.
Hanson said she understands the Planning Commission may well recommend this venture
and feels the CUP conditions should include the following:
. Hours of operation should be from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm.
. Limit the amount of equipment to be stored on site - one truck cab, two trailers,
one truck, one bulldozer, two skid loaders and two backhoes.
. Disable back-up alarms while equipment is in storage area.
. How does a 6' fence provide security so no one can get to the diesel tanks?
Matzke responded it was presented to one of the detectives in the Police
Department. He did not give an official comment at this time. However a cedar
board-on-board fence is in his mind is adequate. It will be in a locked fenced-in
area. Hanson said the fence should be at least 10' high to keep the vandals out.
. Hanson questioned the tanks size. Matzke responded the applicant said they
would be 1,000 gallon tanks.
. The fence must be stained and maintained every three years on the side facing the
residents.
. Bottom line - this does not belong here. 1 know by the April 2004 decision the
City is legally bound by the 11 criteria.
Hanson said she wanted to know tonight how to get an amendment to rezone the area.
"How is it done? What is the paperwork? Because time after time we have come before
this Board (planning Commission) and we're fighting the same battle every time."
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
11
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
Matzke explained the amendment process.
Keith Dahnert, 17440 Deerfield Drive, said once again, his concerns are revolving around
zoning of the property. At the neighborhood meeting with Wayde and Master
Development, Wayde Johnson said he couldn't believe this property was zoned to allow
this type of stuff right next to residential areas. He said this is more typically in
Minneapolis areas where residential and commercial areas abutted each other. It is
uncommon and has never seen it south of the river. Dahnert said "Many of the residents
wish they could have been here to see what went on and what was going through people's
minds when this was rezoned. Why this would have been approved astounds all of us."
Dahnert said they know this is a commercial area and have no issues with the building.
Concerns are with outside storage. Is there any outdoor storage that will not be allowed
next to homes? If this Conditional Use Permit is approved it will create an eyesore, with
ongoing noise and fumes. Dahnert said it was stated "The neighborhood will never
approve anything." His reply is he did not have problems with other businesses in the
area and went on to say they have a problem with the kind of things the City is allowing
to go into the park because it's zoned that way. "The City has allowed buses, bobcats
and front-end loaders. He's assuming the answer is "no - there is nothing you will not
allow." Therefore Dahnert wants the following conditions: Higher fencing; limited noise
and operating hours; restriction on number of additional pieces; restriction on
maintenance of vehicles -do not allow any maintenance and limit the CUP to this
property owner.
Alice McCauley, 17448 Deerfield, said the building is fine but the buyer's business is in
question. Every time there is a planned business the focus is on how high should the
fences be? How tall should the trees be? What kind of trees should they be? Doesn't that
send a message that the businesses proposed is wrong for the area? She asked the
applicant from Masters ifhe would want this next to his home but he never answered.
Also, his first comment was "Prior Lake allows this type of construction adjacent to
residential." McCauley - "Puts a real positive light on Prior Lake."
Doug Swenson, 17490 Deerfield, said judging by the sensitivity of the local residents,
any unacceptable intrusion into our lives (noise, lights, smell) will lead to repeated calls
to City, developer, etc. Put some teeth into this Conditional Use Permit so these
complaints will not be forthcoming.
Jerry Hanson, 17436 Deerfield, stated he would like to say (to the Commissioners) "It's
nice to see you again, unfortunately you're still all here." Hanson then questioned the
applicant (Wayde Johnson) on the landscape plan. At the neighborhood meeting Johnson
said the trees were coniferous. The plan presented has deciduous trees - which is right?
Johnson replied the trees for screening are a combination of coniferous and deciduous.
There are additional trees on the site. Hanson said it was not clear to him on staffs
drawing. If they were, he missed it. Matzke explained the landscape plan. Hanson
questioned Johnson who will hold CUP? Matzke replied the applicant for CUP is Master
Development. Kansier explained the CUP runs with the property. Hanson questioned if
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN06 I 206.doc
12
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12,2006
other units have been sold? Johnson said there are purchase agreements contingent upon
approval of the CUP.
Hanson questioned where DeRudder's current business is located. JeffDeRudder, 4910
Hickory Hills Trail, said the business is at his home south of Prior Lake.
Hanson said his understanding is there would be two tanks and questioned DeRudder on
the tank size. DeRudder said there are two 1,000 gallon tanks. Hanson questioned
Matzke how many other CUP's for outdoor storage tanks have been granted in Prior
Lake. Matzke said he was not aware of any others. Kansier explained there are other
outdoor storage tanks in town. The most recent was the propane tank at the new Holiday
Station. Some of the other approved propane tanks are at the Dairy Queen, the Holiday
Station by the Dairy Queen, the gas station in town and others in the industrial park.
There are several but she could not give exact dates.
Jerry Hanson talked about storage for ammonium nitrate fuel oil from information he
found on WIKOPEDIA. Hanson then asked ifthe fire chief been involved? Jeff, spoke
with Fire Chief and Building Official and explained the permits required as part of
building permit process. Hanson felt it would not take too many disenfranchised
individuals to round up basic fertilizer and blow up these tanks. What emergency plans
are in place? As far as he knows, the City has never dealt with anything like this, at least
in his conversations.
Hanson asked if the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan were still in vogue. Kansier
explained difference between 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Land
Use Plan.
His other concern was that this CUP does not talk about specific pieces of equipment to
be added or subtracted. Hanson said it does not seem much of a guideline to him. He
has only lived here a couple of years and his observation is that there is a consistent level
of support for the businesses and developers to allow exceptions to the norm. The CUP
process is part of it. He did not feel there was comparable support of the citizens affected
by these decisions.
Hanson then stated "The only way we can get anything changed is have the City Council
do it. A business owner can put whatever he wants and very rarely do we see CUPS not
approved. This seems to be a concern for the citizens themselves. Both Mr. Busse and
Mr. Johnson, and by association Mr. Mesenbrink who started this whole mess completed
a development plan before the CUP's were approved. This suggests to me one of two
things. These are either very risk-taking business men because they were willing to risk
up to seven figures and more of money not knowing if they will be successful in the CUP
process. Or, they had information that it was already a done deal and didn't have
anything to worry about. If that is the case, we are wasting time and a lot of money with
these hearings."
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
13
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
Hanson briefly quoted Abraham Lincoln and then went on to say many ofthe residents
feel it was bad rezoning by the City - storage tanks and their usage are not appropriate.
Judith Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive questioned the size of the outside storage area.
Matzke said it is 7,280 square feet. Hanson wanted the applicant to speak to how this
area will be used. From her point of view, that is a formula for disaster with all the big
equipment moving around. Wayde Johnson said in past circumstances like this, what's
common is safety bollards are placed around the tanks. There is a protection so they
can't be backed into. The DeRudders will be using about 5,000 square feet of the storage
area.
Bill Dillingham, 17459 Deerfield, said he took a drive and believes he located the
DeRudders home. It looks like it is sitting on 10 or more acres of land. He felt
DeRudder's business is further way from their house than what it will be from the
Deerfield residents. Dillingham then stated "They don't want it in their back yard
either."
JeffDeRudder, questioned the Planning Commission - Ifhe is not allowed to move here,
to build a building as an investment for him and his son, where can he do that in the City
of Prior Lake? Matzke explained his commercial use with a Conditional Use Permit and
pointed out the appropriate areas. DeRudder said he thought the other lots in the
Deerfield Industrial Park were full.
Alan Billington asked the applicant to characterize the recent meeting with the neighbors.
Was there a positive tone? Were you able to explain how you would mitigate the
possible obtrusiveness of the operation? Wayde Johnson responded he would
characterize the meeting as similar to tonight - it was more of a learning process. They
went over the plan which is basically what is in front of the Commissioners. There was
some constructive feedback given and they offered to take a survey off one of the
resident's deck. Johnson said it was a good working meeting and said he understood
where they are coming from as well. The neighbors did not like it but it was an amicable
meeting.
The public's verbal response prompted Commissioner Billington said he was asking the
"developer" and went on to ask Johnson ifhe talked about the berming and screening.
Johnson said they did and explained the landscape plan. He cannot move the outdoor
storage any closer to the building because of the narrowness of the lot. Fair to look into
fencing and landscaping. He was not concerned about the engineering issues. Poppler
said the comments are pretty minor but there is a level of detail to be worked out on the
plans. Billington said that was his understanding after reviewing the documents.
Billington asked if there was anything else that would be helpful. Johnson said he was
here to find out what the Planning Commission thinks after the presentation and
discussions.
Bernard O'Neil, 17488 Deerfield Drive, showed the flier (from the applicant) given to
them prior to neighborhood meeting. They did not know about outdoor storage until the
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
14
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
City's notice. He very strongly objects to the change to the industrial park outdoor
storage.
Vem Lindholm, 17466 Deerfield Drive, questioned if the CUP goes with the land or the
owner. Staff (Matzke and Moore) explained the instances in which a new CUP would be
required.
Moore commented on the mailed public notices and the developer's neighborhood
meeting notice. As a courtesy to the residents, the City includes a location map and text
that states "Outdoor Storage on the Site." It hasn't changed. Stamson pointed out the
notices are not the same as what the developer may have mailed.
Alice McCauley, 17448 Deerfield, said at the neighborhood meeting the developer was
very polite but the meeting was not that friendly. She asked why they could not put a
fence like they have along freeways which is higher than a 6 foot fence. Johnson said it
would be cost prohibitive. She said she doesn't understand why we have to go back to
"fences and trees". McCauley said she doesn't have a problem with the building; she has
a problem with the business going into the two units. There must be somewhere else this
can go. "We're going to be looking at one hundred buses. Thank you very much. Now
we'll be looking at two 1,000 gallon above ground storage tanks. I don't get it and am
very disappointed in Prior Lake."
Jerry Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive questioned if the meeting is continued, would the
public hearing be closed to public comments. Moore and Kansier explained the hearing
process.
Keith Dahnert, 17440 Deerfield Drive, said back to the last time they were in front of the
Commissioners (Busse CUP) - some of the issues were about distance between homes
and where the buses were going to be. This time, the distance is much less. It is really
hard to talk after the public hearing is closed and the Commissioners make their
comments. Is there any outside storage the Planning Commission would not allow in the
Industrial Park?
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. It is an interesting coincidence; he just read a newspaper article about the need for
a place for businesses with outside storage - similar to this situation. There is a
definite need.
. We are seeing many of these because the County is cracking down on businesses
located on 10 acre home sites. So it's Shakopee, Prior Lake and other cities
where we have industrial sites where this can be done. We're seeing a crunch at
the moment of people who are getting shuffled out of the County and trying to
find a place to go.
. There is a need for this type of industrial and outside storage use. I don't want to
make the impression there's not.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
15
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12,2006
. We need to recognize why we require CUP's for outside uses. It's because we
recognize in the ordinance the impact and the potential for negative impact on
neighboring properties. I believe that is the problem here. The cumulative impact
of putting these businesses along the property line is getting to be too much for
neighbors.
· Judith Hanson suggested putting the outside storage in the front of the property
but no one wants it in front ofthe building so it's pushed to the back. Normally
that wouldn't be a problem.
. The stored items proposed to go in are much higher than 6 feet. Everything stored
is at least 8 to 10 feet higher. It's just too much. If! was trying to get this
building in, I would swap the building the other way and put the storage towards
Adelmann Street.
. Overall, I don't see this as appropriate for this space. The next property is going
to be right next to the neighbors.
. The applicant has a great use and I wish I could find him another place to go but
one has to take into account the impact with the neighbors. I wouldn't have a
problem with this property except with the bus garage - it is too much along the
property line.
. Won't support.
Ringstad:
. Ironically enough, the first thing I have written down is the possibility of a
reconfigured plan. Questioned staff if it was possible to switch building around
and have the outdoor storage off Adelmann Street. Matzke replied the use must
still meet setbacks and screening. It could possibly be altered. Moore noted the
code does not allow loading docks facing the street. Originally when the
applicant came in there was also some discussion about limitations of maximizing
out the site and turning radius for trucks. Staff did look at other alternatives.
. As with variances, cost is not a factor as one of the criteria.
. Discussed types of limitations which can be placed on CUP, including hours of
operation; number and type of equipment; back up alarms; landscaping and
fencing.
. Would like to see some sort of reconfigured plan if possible. Look at outdoor
storage toward front of building, etc.
. There is a lot that can be done here. Master has done a lot of impressive buildings
throughout the Twin Cities.
. Address some of concerns in next 30 days.
Billington:
. Agree with previous Commissioner comments - we do have some issues on the
table. Look for a way to do these to meet everyone expectations. The City needs
the tax base here, we also need good neighborhoods. Somewhere there has to be
some meeting of the minds.
. The building reconfiguration is a good one and needs to be further discussed.
. There are other engineering recommendations by staff that should be discussed -
the berming and fencing.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
16
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
Lemke:
. What is the distance from the property line to outdoor storage? Jeff responded it
would be approximately 100 feet. The wetland area sits around 60 feet from the
area.
. It should be around 190 feet from the storage area - not 25 feet as someone
indicated.
. What is the definition of screening? Matzke responded it is defined in the City
Code.
. Does screening mean you can't see anything? Matzke and Moore explained
staffs interpretation of screening - looking at what is reasonable to minimize
impact.
. Can fences be more than six feet high? Moore responded on County Roads and
major corridors you can go up to 8 feet. Outdoor storage has always been 6 feet.
It is an option for the Commissioners to go higher.
. Was there any concern from the fuel tanks that jumped out? Moore said staff
talked to the Police and Fire Departments and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency about requirements, fire and building codes.
. Would underground storage tanks be allowed at that location? Matzke said it
would be allowed and the same permit rules apply.
. Could a CUP contain such language requiring underground versus above-ground
storage? Moore stated the Commissioners could put whatever conditions and
requirements with respect to that but note as far as safety - there are specific
guidelines. The City has residential areas next to gas stations with underground
tanks which are much larger than this. The MPCA and all agencies are aware of
the requirements.
. Have heard the consternation from neighbors regarding this. I do believe this is
what an industrial area is for.
. We are going to continue this hearing and have not made up my mind but I'm
included to support CUP, perhaps with more conditions than proposed. I am
particularly concerned with the fuel storage.
. I am going to do some research in the next four weeks to find out what is
necessary.
. Would consider limits to hours.
Perez:
. Agree with Lemke - this is the type of business that should be there. Also, agree
with Alice (McCauley) - why do we have to do all this screening? Is it
appropriate?
. Do not agree with Stamson that there are too many things and the area is being
overburdened. I do not look at it as being overburdened, it's more a question of
proximity to residences. Even with some of the screening and suggestions by the
Commissioners it may work.
. In favor of what Commissioner Ringstad proposed as far as reconfiguring the
building.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN061206.doc
17
Planning Commission Meeting
June 12, 2006
. Would be open to keeping the public hearing open until July 10th.
Commissioner Stamson suggested leaving the hearing open to allow comments on a new
proposal. The Commissioners agreed.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY PEREZ, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING UNTIL JULY 10, 2006.
Vote taken indicates ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
There were no announcements.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Jane Kansier &
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretaries
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN06I206.doc
18
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 10,2006
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the July 10, 2006, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, Planner
Jeff Matzke, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Billington
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the June 12,2006, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4.
Consent:
None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. EP 06-128 (continued) Master Development is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit to allow outdoor storage on Lot 2, Block 1, Deerfield 7th Addition (pending
plat approval).
Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated July 10, 2006, on file in the
office of the City Planning Department.
On June 12,2006 a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to discuss
an application request by Master Engineering and Construction for a conditional use
permit to allow outdoor storage on a site located south of Adelmann Street and west of
Revere Way, within the Deerfield Industrial Park. The currently vacant site proposes a
structure and an outdoor storage area for the parking of construction related equipment.
The 32,100 square foot structure is proposed to contain eight warehouse suites (ranging
in size from 3,732 square feet to 3,916 square feet).
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071006,doc
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 10, 2006
The topics of concern that were most commonly referred to at the public hearing
included:
. Concerns related to inadequate screening provided by fencing and trees.
. Concerns related to the storage of fuel tanks in close proximity to residential
properties.
. Concerns of any potential wetland impacts as a result of the proposed outdoor
storage area.
After hearing individual comments, the Planning Commission discussed the concerns
raised during the public hearing and directed the applicant to review the site plan and
consider possible revisions, including the following:
. Reconfigure the building design that locates the outdoor storage further from the
wetland and rear of the property.
. Consider berming.
. Increase vegetation screening.
. Increase the fence height.
. Limit hours of operation.
The request and public hearing were continued to the July 10, 2006, Planning
Commission meeting.
The applicant has submitted revised plans which indicate changes to increase screening
with an 8 foot high fence rather than the initial 6 foot fence and the modification of five
deciduous trees to five coniferous trees, maintaining a total of 21 trees at the rear of the
site. Despite the applicant citing financial considerations for not providing any other site
modifications, staff believes the alterations to the site do not address all ofthe stated
concerns ofthe Planning Commission. Therefore, for approval of the conditional use
permit staff recommends the following conditions also be met:
1. Modify or relocate the outdoor storage area to allow for an adequate area between
the wetland buffer and the outdoor storage fencing for the addition of a berm.
2. Revise the landscaping plan to establish the 10' coniferous trees along the top of
the berm.
3. Limit hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for the storage of fuel tanks in the
outdoor storage area prior to site plan approval.
5. The applicant shall submit a certificate of survey verifying the proposed site
improvements and proposed structure in relation the to wetland and easement
boundaries.
6. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later
than 60 days after City Council approval.
7. A plan must be provided that details the design and materials used for the
construction of the enclosed fenced area.
8. A zoning permit shall be issued prior to the installation of the fence.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN07IO06.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 10, 2006
9. All vehicles within the outdoor storage area must be operable, licensed, and
registered.
10. Conditions in the May 26, 2006 Engineering Department Memo shall be met prior
to building permit issuance.
11. Prior to site plan approval, the applicant shall submit revised plans reflecting plan
changes and conditions as indicated.
12. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1503(8) ofthe Zoning Ordinance shall be
met.
Ringstad asked if staff had any suggestions or alternatives for the applicant regarding
condition #1 (Modify or relocate the outdoor storage area to allow for an adequate area
between the wetland buffer and the outdoor storage fencing for the addition of a berm.)
Matzke responded staff suggested reducing the square footage ofthe building or create an
"L" shaped building. Any of the alternatives would probably reduce the outdoor storage
area or reduce the building area. The applicant felt there would be financial concerns
with the changes. Matzke said Johnson would speak to that. Matzke pointed out the tight
turning radius in the back and the wetland buffer would require setbacks reducing the size
of the building.
Lemke asked how much room would be required for a berm. Matzke responded if you
built a 3 foot berm, one would need about 24 feet. Poppler agreed.
Lemke questioned the condition on the stored vehicles - are bulldozers and vehicles not
driven on roads have to be licensed and registered? Matzke said all vehicles have to be
permitted and licensed.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC:
Wayde Johnson of Master Engineering and Construction said he had nothing to add to the
report and was available for questions.
Perez questioned what kind of demand is there for the units. Johnson said 3 ofthe 8 are
under contract and are in negotiations with a fourth party. They have had several
inquiries of businesses that didn't fit for one reason or another.
Joe Riordan, 17482 Deerfield Drive, said he and his wife have found this community and
neighbors to be very pleasant. It is a comfortable and modem environment. He
appreciates the challenge the Conditional Use Permit brings to everyone and hopes the
Board and staff view his observations and suggestions as constructive and not
adversarial. Riordan was not present at the last meeting however he did submit a written
list of five questions that were promptly and professionally answered by Jeff Matzke.
In addition to his neighbors concerns, Riordan asked the following questions and
concerns: how runoff will be controlled to the wetlands; other outside storage surrounded
by 6 foot fencing; higher fencing requirements; there are at least 30 townhomes affected
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN07I006.doc
3
Planning Commission Meeting
July 10, 2006
by the use ofthis CUP; the townhomes reduced property values; and suggested the Board
visit the offsite excavating company next to the Deerfield Industrial Park.
Riordan felt not all businesses are suitable for the development. Common sense should
enable trumping a one-size fits all zoning code.
Jean Riordan, 17482 Deerfield Drive, said she wanted to thank the neighbors for
expressing her feelings. She asked the Commissioners "If you were living in Deerfield
would you want this eyesore in your back yard?"
Bill Dillingham, 17459 Deerfield Drive, drove back on Welcome Avenue and observed
buses on two lots along with other construction equipment. Dillingham felt there are
three lots not being used other than for storage; and that would be where this type of
business should be.
Judith Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive, said the applicant has planned a nice building for
business however at the last meeting the Commissioners emphasized money was not a
parameter to consider when approving an issue. The applicant has spent a lot oftime and
money to get this plan together but perhaps the plan is just too big for the building.
Hanson felt the applicant could do a better job with a smaller facility including berms to
make it acceptable for the neighborhood.
Keith Dahnert, 17440 Deerfield Drive, said this is the first time he has heard of the
applicant's changes including a three foot berm that would be 24 feet wide. Moore
replied staffwas not talking about a specific berm... one of the Commissioners
questioned how much area was need for a three foot berm. Dahnert said "Regardless, a
three foot berm is not much bang for the buck. The applicant isn't putting up a 12 foot
concrete barrier like the sound walls along the freeways." He felt the applicant's proposal
are all visuals and not adequate. Why bother? Dahnert did not feel the hours were
restrictive enough and their operation will interfere with the neighbors' lifestyle.
Dahnert said he expects to hear from some people on the Commission that they are no
doubt looking to approve this proposal because it is consistent with the zoning. Dahnert
said no one disputes the 11 zoning - outside storage is allowed - end of story. To do
outside storage they have to have Conditional Use Permits. Why? If outside storage is
allowed regardless of what they are doing a CUP wouldn't be necessary. He believes not
all businesses are consistent with 11 zoning and doesn't need or should be allowed. The
only reason Dahnert sees a CUP is to condition for the adjoining properties and residents.
Should it be allowed next to a residential area?
Jerry Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive, said everyone heard all the personal reasons why
they wouldn't want this in their back yard and that's probably the key to this whole
planning process. Most people want businesses to share the property taxes and provide
economic develvpment opportunities. There's a lot of "Not In My Back Yard" as a part
of that. That's what the Planning Commission is for. Hanson said it seems to him "As an
appointed Commission; it's to do the planning that when it's put in someone's back yard,
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071006.doc
4
Planning Commission Meeting
July 10, 2006
it is conducive to what it is for the businesses going in. In this case, the City was forced
to deal with a small area for Industrial properties and trying to build up businesses.
Unfortunately, the property was zoned commercial which is probably not that
incompatible with the housing respects but somehow the developer felt he couldn't sell
the C5 properties. He came back to the City and eventually the Council to change the
zoning."
Hanson felt there are other areas of the City where industrial parks would be a better fit.
This park was put into place without the people (future residents) really knowing what
was going to happen. So now, the City has to look at the long run and manage
development in the future. Hanson said he appreciates the man working hard and making
an honest living. "But it is the Commissioners job to look at the businesses and see if
that business fits where it is being suggested. If it doesn't fit you have to say it. Short
term you can make it work. There is an opportunity to make a statement tonight and
straighten out this situation for the long term."
The public hearing was closed at 6:33 p.m.
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS:
Ringstad:
. Regarding the meeting a month ago, there were concerns from a few neighbors
with respect to security with the fuel tanks. Ringstad talked to Police Chief
O'Rourke to see ifhe had any security concerns with the above ground fuel tanks
allowed in this development. He did not feel there were any more security
concerns than a filling station that would have combustible fuels. I felt
comfortable with the Chiefs assessment.
. It was also pointed out the Commissioners changed the designations from C5 to
II - we did in September '04. What was also pointed out is that notices were sent
out to property owners within 350 feet. It was also published in the newspaper.
. Tonight we have a room full of people but two years ago no one commented.
Thus, we discussed it and approved it.
. Would like to hear comments from fellow Commissioners.
. With the improvements from the applicant I am inclined to support the CUP.
Billington:
. This is a quality applicant who made an exemplary attempt to deal with the
concerns of the neighbors within reason.
. The area is zoned Industrial and is appropriate. We have to expect this site to be
developed within those parameters. It is an industrial sector of the city.
. As a result, I will support the applicant.
Lemke:
. About 4 weeks ago, I had concerns with the fuel storage. I went to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency and discovered there are over 20,000 above-ground
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN07I006.doc
5
Planning Commission Meeting
July 10, 2006
storage tanks in the State of Minnesota. Apparently it is not a big problem. I feel
comfortable with the fuel storage from a safety aspect.
. I was on the Planning Commission two years ago when that change took place.
This is the type of use we wanted in the Industrial Park.
. It was suggested by the neighbors at the last meeting that this was bad zoning.
. I have been out to the site several times. The sign out on the entrance says
"Deerfield Industrial Park". Again, this is the type of business I envisioned for an
industrial park.
. If it were located adjacent or abutting the property line of a residential area it
might be inappropriate or bad zoning. But it's not. This area is separated by a
large wetland that will not be developed. It is 190 to 200 feet away.
. I understand some people will not like it but I will support.
Perez:
. It is obvious there is a need for industrial areas. It is confirmed by the McComb
Study and that is why we made the change to industrial.
. Outdoor storage is needed. I do agree with some of the neighbors that not all
businesses are appropriate.
. I do not feel the applicant has gone far enough with this piece of land to put that
type of business in that area.
. It sounds like there is a need for businesses and some of the suites have been sold.
. Talked to Paul Snook, the Economic Director for Prior Lake and he did not see
any issues with selling the suites. Ifit's a case where we're pushing businesses
away I would think differently. However, I do not feel that is the case.
. The applicant has come further, but I do not feel the screening or the limited hours
of operation is enough.
. There are other businesses that may be a better fit for the neighborhood.
Stamson:
. We are losing site ofthe issues. This is still an II industrial site. When we
decided 11 would work here, it was appropriate and it still is. This issue is not 11.
. The building was designed not for this use in mind, but as a rental site for
industrial use. There are still many uses for that building.
. The issue is the CUP. Within the 11 rules we said you can have outdoor storage
but it had to be through a CUP. The reason we asked for a CUP is because ofthe
impacts that go beyond industrial uses. Ifwe just thought any time there is
outside storage there would be a fence and few trees we would have written that
into the ordinance and done away with this whole process. We said we want to
reVIew.
. We want to hold to a higher standard. Not just throw up a six foot fence and a
few coniferous trees anywhere on the lot.
. The real issue is the storage. It is nice building and will be an asset to the City.
The trouble is a business wants to come in with outside storage. I'm not against
outside storage next to a residential area.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN07I006.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
July 10, 2006
. The fencing will not cover the site. It is just a poor use for this design and
property.
. The site is too small to support the outside storage under its current configuration.
. I feel the site will sell out irregardless if it has outside storage or not. I think it
was very clearly designed not to have outside storage. If you want to use this site
for outside storage then throw out this plan and start over.
. This band-aid approach of slapping up a fence and throwing a few tractors along
the property line because someone asked for it is inappropriate.
. The idea behind the CUP is to hold to a higher standard than what is written in the
manual. What is here is not appropriate and does not fit with the neighborhood.
. It should be denied or redesigned to support an appropriate outside storage area.
. Our intent for writing in a CUP for industrial was not to slap up a six foot fence
around whatever you want and then come here and ask us for it. Why waste our
time with these meetings if we're just going to slap an approval on every time
someone asks.
. Will not support.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
Perez:
. I agree with the CUP. It is zoned industrial and the CUP is there for a reason. To
make sure it is appropriate and limits are there.
. I do not feel the limits have been met. The neighbors' concerns have not been
fully addressed.
. The applicant said this is the only design that is financially suitable for them.
Stamson:
. That is fine, that is a (financial) decision you make as a business owner.
. My way of looking at it is that it was not initially designed for outside storage.
. The applicant said he had quite a bit of interest.
. I don't think this outside storage is a "live-or-die" for the project.
. It is up to the applicant to come up with another design to support the storage.
Perez:
. Agreed it is up to the applicant to redesign or find another business.
. Financial should not weigh on the decision.
Ringstad:
. It is not weighing in on my decision at all.
. What it is - he is going to pay the same amount of money for the land whether
there is 10,000 or 50,000 square feet and that is not going to affect any of us if
we're going to support this or not.
. The one thing I think is dangerous for any of us is to go down the thinking that we
think something will sell that way. Weare not developers, we are not building
nor are we selling these things. Weare looking at these things at face value.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071006.doc
7
Planning Commission Meeting
July 10, 2006
. It is dangerous to go outside that box.
. To talk about some of our concerns is legitimate.
. Again we are going beyond if we think something will sell there as office rental
or outdoor storage - we don't know.
. We have to deal with what is before us.
Stamson:
. I just brought it up because of the financial considerations, it was mentioned that
the development wasn't feasible by making large scale changes to it.
Ringstad:
. For those of us who voted "yes" for the buses a few months ago. What is the
difference between this and the buses?
Perez:
. The proximity.
Matzke stated the distance is about 150 to 200 feet from the properties. It depends where
you measure.
Lemke:
. This is a permitted use with conditions.
Stamson disagreed.
Kansier explained the conditions of a Conditional Use Permit. Certain uses may have a
greater impact on the site or the adjacent site than an outright permitted use. The
objective ofa Conditional Use Permit is to look at what, if any, types of mitigated
measures to alleviate any potential impact.
Kansier went on to say if the Commissioners find there are no mitigating measures then it
should be denied and make very specific Findings on why those measures cannot be
made. If there are mitigative measures than can be made and place on as conditions then
apply them as conditions and approve the Conditional Use Permit. It is not to deny it
outright. You make the assumption the underlying use is appropriate with conditions.
Stamson:
. The building can still be redesign and not have the impact to the neighbors. The
design is the problem. The staff report says the developer came back and said
some of the conditions do not work for him. So that's why I am saying "Deny it"
based on the developers decision not to use the mitigating factors that we
recommended at the last meeting.
. I would still be more than willing to look at it ifhe could flip the building
sideways and move the storage. I would be totally comfortable with it. Or a "u"
shaped building and hide the storage in the center of the building. There are a lot
of ways to design this without impacting the neighbors.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN07 I006.doc
8
Planning Commission Meeting
July 10, 2006
. My argument for denying it was because of the design. The design didn't change.
. I also think coniferous trees are worse than deciduous. An eight foot fence will
not shield anything but the fence. You are better offwith a deciduous tree where
most of the shielding would be above the fence line.
. I don't disagree that outside storage is appropriate in the industrial zone. I don't
even disagree that you can store this equipment on this site; it is just the proposed
design for the CUP.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH STAFF'S CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Billington, Ringstad and Lemke. Nay by Perez and
Stamson. MOTION CARRIED.
Matzke explained the appeal process and read the conditions of the Conditional Use
Permit. The applicant must own property within 350 feet ofthe site to appeal.
Joanne Swenson, 17490 Deerfield Drive, questioned how the public would know if the
applicant met the conditions.
Matzke read the conditions.
Kansier explained the Conditional Use Permit process. The applicant has a year to begin
construction.
B. EP 06-131 through 136; Donnay Homes, Manley Development and Cardinal
Development are requesting Final PUD Plan approval for Northwood Meadows.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report on file in the office of the
City Planning Department.
Manley Land Development, Cardinal Development Group, and Donnay Homes have
applied for approval of a development to be known as Northwood Meadows on the
property located on the west side of North wood Road, directly west of the Northwood
Oaks development and east of Spring Lake Regional Park. The proposal calls for a
residential development consisting of 136 single family homes along with parks and trail
on a total of 79 acres.
On March 20,2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance #106-05 amending the Zoning
Ordinance to designate the 79 acres as a Planned Unit Development. The ordinance
listed the elements of the PUD as follows:
a. The PUD is a single family development consisting of lots from 7,150 square feet
to over 30,000 square feet in area. The PUD plan provides a minimum of34.74
acres of park, including a 5.75 acre active neighborhood park.
b. The total number of units on the site will not exceed 136.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN071 006.doc
9
~.
~~.
~':-.wJ.
~~~-
61LT f'I!Nc.e tn'PJ
LM1e or GON5"flU::,'J1QH
Eft!!. war J .
11#1''''"
-"..'
..........
0';,"':::'
/
__~COCW1YROKJJ2
~'>,>t:=
~Jj-:::
i~1J master
,..'.1..',;,:,'..". .DIl\'BLDfIIIBNT. ...1".''','...,," _.if
I
I
~ '<<R.
m", "'"
Vicinity Map
Section 12. Township 114, Range 22
No Scale
~
...-------
,_,,____."_.tt.._
.~~"....~,--~
:Di..i!,:7a.jjn,.,.;..-.
._w_____
-.,.,- :;:=-.:::::.
r.:r..~"~-_._.'
~r.=.;.':=-...;"&.-
...... r--;:::
L r '--
~~;~\I~.!lnotlfl.:.otl~:' ~1~.~;2
~'iiI~~i:I~~~N~~vt~'W,~!I
.:.dn be Iot.at.d b::I CI GOrltrcx.l loXator or "VIer w\tc:t1lcr.
1l'M'Ql!;. c.cntroe.tCr I!; r.~Ib!e for IO.:.c:lthg all vtlllty
11l'Ie$ priOr' to o:.orWUGlIon.
NOres
I. ~~ik~7r~~~$~~=::?k'r
C:OFl'Ipen=ootlOl'l for ItCMl'l!> that o:.OlIIc:l have bH.n clarified prIOr to i;)Id
5Ubmlta~.
2, ~f':::rf~~: t;:.~I~~J~t~~~; ~'Cf!og-~Ing.
.rte"lOrl<:.
~: ~~!I~,.~t ~~=:~dtouJ~~~ t6 GOITplsted ond
~ vegetollOn ald ~faG~ Is .!I~~
5 PIbIk:. s!i'eel:& cr. 10 be t;.lBan of debrl6 ond drt on "doll!! bo$ltl
~: E~~af~~t~~:v~iot~orotMr
:rg~~~oi~. ~I~~~~'~
OVQlIable '\e.ld ~ Q'ld r.v.... of Glty of Prior l...ok6
06-~!llhlCJl"'!'llDtlon.
2O'MIN."'"
,.~c;ure.~
. ,,'~~: '\ ' "'-"
'; ,:,<.) (,
<?i~' ,~'J{-,'~\
.,^ ,.::", I{;R
'''?.~;J'
'",
""""""'"
TOP M1T OF H'T"D~ AT Ni'l GC:lRIER 01' 6RAT~lONE C. T
AI.a:> ..-.vEL~foT. a...EV_<e5.11
.._:;:r.'.=.:,'::r::'(!lO.-:e==,,:."=F..!'.=-'---;
-:. .. ---'~'''~A?;~~;;=c.~.!!~
~......,._...;r::;...___._
~'-_.~~~~iE
r . . -. :: C'ii~:aef=-r-
..____~~II'~_... '7~
..--
Drainoge and utility [ollementl on
sllllwn lhus:
()
8
.. .
-~_--_-_hmr T----h-~.
_~---n_----_yo IOL__n__ ____~
IlIUPHIC SCALE
S."3O'
&ing 10 feel in widlh end odjoining
/01 lines, ond being 10 '.el in wjdth
and adjoining rj.;hI or way linn unless
otherwise 6he"n.
.-..-
.
3. 60
9.
I2SW.IIIlllADWAY Ava.
1IINIlBAfWS,!IN 55411
B\JB:(612)m-9lOO
P.Ill:(612)m-ml
""D~~"
_,.,"',~
cm'___
&.OF', -.oar,
" D7JJf_
PRIOR LAKE, MN
0600<1.000 l
DAVE A!iI+EAD
""AM IJW+1
~
"',1 Q.#>1I:
~....~.~- . ~
I.......
1-
CERTIFIGATION
~
ClMmRUC110N
---
'CIVIL SHEET INDEX
SHEET TITLE
itl~~"\~
-'1:::1 ~RAN
,
DRAWING TITLE:
GRADING
PLAN
DRAWING NUMBER:
C1
"
~-U_UR
~-:.,;;:x*~
Nunn . _:_
c=J ~:;:=-
1;'..'.'.Il5..~
-\~~.,
11- j J_
L ~ .
-.. -~~'"
!!:w-......-- - ,.f
wurl'. ~__
~- .--.-
. --
-
tit .. ~
I "'IJ._N"'U____.._
_.
'='~~~F
HaE~_~"'~lO
=-7~..::.am:
~-':.';'-';...''''::~-
~~~_T__
~~_....~--.....
..........-...--"....,.-
-
~~__I'W'I!..._-.!_
...._ItW.L__a"...
g:~':::;=.iF-
~_-.:J1Jl: ~..
flLI. ._ 10
. ,.;. :.
-- .
~~d=w:r--ma.:'""
BIIu::t\~-
-le~ M
;EIUE~~~ w
~~
'-""'!;.w:.~~a
_~~lue
~~~~fU~S not~~\~_~.t ~or:~~~=<
~ .:t~~~,,~~~o;;f ~~~v~ ~~ ~s
G(lI'\ t>e l.x.oted by " Goot.rOl<t IOGi:ltcr or other WIWbIe
1TIUIf"I&. Gofttl"ClCt.Or' \I r.~on"lbIe for toGatJng 011 ullllt~
line.. prior to constrodJon.
L !i::~i~::=~~~~~~~~~~~
~~llO1'1 '01'" It_ UlGlt c.oulcl hove been l:.krlfl8d prtor to bid
;l ~~,:;r~t ~ ~~I~~:-r:l~~t~~q-::fW:J
~. ~s~~;;t~I~~~r:oto~l~~~ I'" ~leted ald
_11 v8:9"tGIUon c:rld eo.rfCl(.1ng '" es~lshed.
Pvblk. etreel!; ere W ~ Gle"" of d6l::lr1& aid dirt 011 " di:ll~ ~Is.
!f:iat~~~~~~~~~~crta~or o~
~~;r'Mc:.-~locf~~, ~lll~:~~~~ ~"lO
~~18J=~lng aod ro!lvle... of City cf PrIOr' La.:.
lMP!:RYIOl6#MfAGALCll.j/"TIOt6
TOT,lIL LOT IIREA . 1&4....'150. FT. 0!1i. 042SS ~
I'E'n.AAP 10HP tiU'Pffl. ~;.. . ~,104l SG. FT. OR O.b2 ,l,C.RE5
ElllILPlNeo IoH:J f'AAKfHeo ~A ~ 120,b'" ~. FT. OR .2.1tA K~
~~ Io.HD 6R!!:H AAJ;A. 2bJS8 SGI. FT. OR Ob46 i<IGRES
~A6e CA' 1I1"fRV1CV5 ~A s 6!>...j;l;
L_- _~ .
TOP N.1T (A< KYDARHT AT I+i GCJI:iIER OF 6fV,l'STOlE C,T
NlP AtlaKllHH ST. Ei.LV = <I5!S.t1
.,
.'
.0
s
lIIW'HIC &CAU '".30'
---
o
30
60
~~
a~1J master
.. . 1IMI.DI'YIlNI'. ~
125 W. BlOAIlWAY Ava
IIINNIlArCUUIN 55411
BU:I:(612)_
PAX: (612) I7MlOI
J.-.___'
-..,. ,-
t:trf~_..
un-.._.
,D""_ Ill'"
PRIOR LAKE, UN
(f'RO.l;C.T NO. Gl6()tIq.ooo I
I """'" DAVE ASIfo1EAD I
I""""'" 1<1"...._1
I ::,..... t\l3V06 I
-..- "".ID^"'I
rr'~'~ · lj
c..eRTlFlc..A Tl0N
~
ciiamrucmOii
---
(C.IVIL SHEET INDEX
I SHEET TITLE
~I-""
._. UfLIT'fPL.MI.
~~
,
DRAWING TITLE:
'"
unUTY .. PAVING
PLAN
DRAWING NUMBER:
C2
90
r-
/&m~1li!l'
~~~'Q-
I
B~1t.Y&~~~VALVE
,r"-~
VAl.'o'EIOJl.~
. DII.I.......r G 11_"'10"
! D1U,.......G-V...,'-2.
....
lO-
I
::_,}t\ I.
-~~
GA~t
GATE VPoLVE BOX INSTALLATION
APPROVED
1.22~2
G
PlATH
303
VALVE-BOX
INSTALLATION FOR
WA TERMAlN
_____~~~y~wmlGAOUHO
,,'-:S=', _
,. ..
,cr.'TDUP
"PW::ISCHEIIU..E...oIRI8ER
OR lOR ..
PAYMEfftFOAQ.EAKOJTWU I
~~~M;~~
r"''''''
~~:
\ __J
L:,......
. .
........,........,
....hJlatO~PSl
MlH. GlIItHmY.., cv
API'ROVEll
'.22-<<1
.
SANITARY
SEWER CLEAN-OUT
. 7. 7 J ;::~$'"..:i""'"
i~l~ <q
~ ._' I
IrI01l:AI.l.lOlNTS1NCI.1DE
~l.G"RETMERGl.NClI.
NC~~~~~.
Al,l,.AT JrIOADClITlOIW.COlIFINIA1lON.
~J$~IYClTYENGItEEIl
APPROVED
'-22-D2
1_ TYPICAL HYDRANT 1
'W' INSTALlATION
e~VE BOX IN BOULEVARD
PV.TE #
304
u_.......
---
~~.
N01'l\":roo~StUoJ."OI\(II;ItEDlMTl-
"",OK_.oc.o.1lON15~...n
- ----..
~....~..
" "
:/ -= :~~
!:" =~
". ,"
--_.--
W.__WolI.O'.
---.....
_l4ItIRD.~
=:::D-:::
1
....
~~
~nI"'lltw.a...
_Il.-_"'_
MW:*lwoc.OII
---
__w
-~
"
_c-<,.104AS;II1
~--
V.TliIT~
UIllIW~_
~.......-
=.-- '.:,1 llif'&.1I"O.C. ;~
-..cu:I"__' _____: &uOETAll.ADO\IE-=.
~t.- ~ !r1=~
_."U_~ ~i I -1'::-
II ~ ,q
~ ::,JVM'1!lE
~ - \'Ml.Wl.f; 20'-'. J
="'-=~::.:::..... '; ,,;>,; .,.:; i
=--=::-'10_ l-;.:i;.,",:~'~;'~':J.;r~~~:;~,,$"<1 ruit
- .~.)
I;~"
)
I'
"ClII._'._._'~__ 1
===:.c:;:::.-..a..UMll
PLATE tI
206
10
STANDARD MANHOlE
fOR
SANITARY SEWER
APPROVED
1.22-02
REVISED
....,
--;..
PI.AN VIRf Of !tAMP
~
----
.~:~I-.'- I ---::~.1
IUYATIOIf 0fl1lAllP'
=~G~~ .___~_______'~_~~___~ .'-c..~". .:
::r.:r_:'<~
---".,.._...----...__.._.........-.._...-......._~
..._...._.__..__,CI'~.....__......__...
a)~n;;~7.i~=~=7ff=~=:-=~~
APPROVEO I~ PEDESTRlAN CURB RAMP
1-22.{)2 'W' FOR THE HANDICAP
PV.TE #
705
I I
Ulr.~
hbr
I 3ur "
_"'"'o""'~_._.. PLAN. ~.
1 NO"
6' . _,,~,.__-. ...".lOCONII81
~tRNOS .<:':-.. ~~;:.' h' ~~=l\ll'lJIC
'WRoSMElD' -+-"-. Pl.J\TE..03'~
~ _'_") . ,',,' . HOTUONCONCRETE.
~=OR j"::; ". :'~~"~
L
CATCl1M&lNCA6T1NO
NEEIWt II.-rv QR
-""'"
_ ~...~ ,...6: . SEEHOTE
5.iC'""" ~': :'."......J
--.... ..c, n ...
:( ;'....
....:: ':-."
;"':,... .i,'.'-;
," ". ~. -<':' ....:::... . ", .
PLATE #
200
SECTlONA.A
APPROVED ~
1.22..02 STANDARDCA.TCHBASIN
REVISED FOR STORM SEWER
.....
PLATE #
402
NOTE: r WlN.THlClQoIESSREQI.llREtI
""......--
[ t~u,.~~~r.
C"Tf-"d:;:;JJ
!>-A
TYPICAL ENTRANCE FOR MULTI.fAMILY.
COMMERCIAl. AND INDUSTRIAl.' PROPERTIES
AND RESIDENT PoL.. AREAS WITH SIDEWPoLK.
1. WHERE NEWDAI\/EWA'I'li AAl. TOIlEIoDDEDACROlII EXI8'TlMGClG,
IlEMCME E*TtIG CUM NIID 0l.ITJEft /H) A&I"OUR 1NTEGlfW. Wfl'H
THECOHCIlETEI9{lllANCE
2. CONCAE1EIoPIION ItW.l. BE AEQlJlIE) FOAmCOMMEN:W.NIO
INX.I8'nWoL EHTRANCU /IH) N'ARTMENTa OF WORI! TI1o\N" t.NTB
3 CONCREllAPllOH SHoW. &Ii AEQl.IlIlmfOA ROIDENTALlHllWCU
AD.IotoCI!HTTOIlOEWl\l.K
"REQUIREOMlXDESlGlMllONI$JI\32.
APPROVED I~ COMMERCIAl & INDUSTRIAL \ PLATE #
1-22'()2 'W" CONCRETE ENTRANCES 508
.,......,-
. Sl-W.L 1lS. wNICIPALCASTINGS. INC. NO. 301A
WITH 'TWO CONC,EAl.J;D PICK UP IO..ES. LABELED
"STORM aeYNt. 0flEQUAL.
CATCH 8A&lM WIHHOLE
. ~. CASTING SHAU. Bf: NEENAH NO. R3061V0fl EQUAL
. .!t!..ItlBQi _ CA5T101O 6HAI..l. IE NEENNl R4~2. STOOl TYPE OR EQUAl..
r==-
~\d" j 1 ~
~~'" 'j'."rl""~ ''l' , ~ ,
7~i _..~~;
.. IF ~~'. TOPNlDIOTTOMO#IlWIltCUJ
'~D- Jr...>. ~l
\('::4,~:~ .~\: "",,-.,~,.~ .-'<; i,!
t
APPROVED IA
=~
STANDARD STORM
SEWER MANHOLE
PLATE #
409
~
125 W.1IIOAJJWAY AVI!.
1IINNIWlIJli,IIN 55411
BUS: (612l172-9llO
PAX: (612l172o-9201
'--..~I'NfIC"""'"
~.... j.
CIIT "._..
-..-.-,
, I I I ~ , D "" AIlIIIfIOII
PRIOR LAKE, MN
f'RO.E'-l IiO O6QeIq.ooo
DAVE ASlM:AD
GfE~ R'f AN Bl.J.H'1
DATE 313l106
Rf:VlS4ON "IQ.10A're
~~~~.,~ 'rJ
C.ERT1FICATION
--.. --!!!!!.--
'CIViL SHEET INDEX
SHEET TITLE
tj ~L~
(A ~TNL ~
lJ~"",
DRAWING TITLE:
DETAIL SHEET
DRAWING NUMBER:
C3
"'"
""
"'"
\
\
\
~""""'...
TOile .-.eNlN5TAU.a:l '
I<U*It MeM.1"'Dt:e Ute
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\.
\
\
\
~~_.~.-o
_ll._~nTH_
'lIOIHO_
..UNTou-COIT5....R'.l>R
f"\.JII;an'IIlli_IIIUIIJU
_1"E_T~ot:
ftClfIHlI'L....'UtfilllJ.
..._'1_'0
_Al~lIUKIiT5
!'''''Ni" 1lEW1.t:D
TREE PLANTING
"'"
SHRUB PLANTING
RBlMOtO LJIIlDeN tTYPJ
PLANT SCHEDULE
BROADLEAF DEc..ID\JClU5
lauANTITY 5YH60L
I 5
I .
~
5GIENT1FIG NAME I cOHMON NAt-E
FRAXINV5 AMARICANA 'JEFFNOR' NORTHERH BLAZE ASH
TILlA AMARICANA 'REDMOND' REDHOND LINDEN
CONIFER EVER6REEN
IGlJANTITY I 5YHBOL
I 1 I ~
I ~ I g
SGIENTIFIG NAME
PINUS NI6RA
PIGEA 6LAlJC.A DEN5A T A
PICEA 6LAlJC.A DENSATA
WMf'1ON NAHC:
.Al.J5TRIAN PINE
BLAC-K HILLS SPRUGE
BLACK HILLS 5PRLJC.E
PERENNIAL
lauANTtTl' 5YHBoL
I"' *
I 2e *
PLANiiN6 SIZE
2 1/2" GAL.
:2 In" GAL
I PLANTiNG SIZE
6' a'B
lb' 648
10' BIB
SC,IENTIFIG NAME I COMMON NAf-E I PLANTIl46 SIZE
t-EMEROC.ALLlS 'STELLA DE ORa' STELLA DE ORO DAYLlL'( I' 6AL.
SEDUH 'AlJTlJMN .JOY 5eDUM AlITVMN ..JOY I 6AL
l. rtl~~at~~~~;
~.~
~
TOF tfJT ()f= th'PAANT "'T 1+'1 c.oRtER Of 6RA'T"&TOI-f' G1
AND ~ 5T. ELl'V 2 065.11
...........
o
-e
s
IAAPHIC sew
30
60
,
j~lI master
,.DBVIILQf'IGIHI'.~
121W.IIIllADWAY AVE.
MIIlNI!AIWS, IIN 55411
IVI: (612)172-ml
PAX: (612) 8'n4lO1
"",D__'
~,.,.I,
t:nY-.-r__
un.., &IICIC f
~ ,,"" ADDI'JJCW
PRIOR LAKE, UN
( F'RO.J:GT KO. (;)6OOq.ooo I
I ".,.... DAVE A5f*'EAD I
I OE<<W ~AN BWlM I
I P.....lE 8131I06
I..."..,. ""~ 1""1
~~~Y'I"UM. ~ ~
,
,
/
c.eFiTIFICATION
~
:;...x:'-A
ct:UIII1RutmOII
--~
(CIViL SHEET INDEX .[
I SHEET TITLE I
ft'! 'tVlf'P~NA~
C. UTlUTT PLAN
'U ~~F\-,o.H
DRAWING TITLE:
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
DRAWING NUMBER:
1'''30'
L1
o.
~
: 'I d~;
11f ~:s! ~
!1~ ~ 8
l i'
~~
~~
~i
<J-~ '\
~ ~ As ~ '-
I II 1m ~ ~ g < Ii
~ ~ 6 6 ~!~~ .. ,S C'oJ i ,f
pu ~~~. ~ :=
5 J 6 6 Ill! a llo ~ ......
~ ;!! IIII1 ~ )5 @ ~ ~ ~l" I
I.n... ~ i==
~~~"" dd~ ~ I I = ~ _ j ~;I 1
i
i
I
I
a u~~.u~
IQ _ Ii 181~ I ! I
i .
51. 511 i
__ dnn
1...- I
L.!" 1...-.
~ . ,~
Ii!. ; ·
I ~~~ f.!
~ ~ .~~. ~I~
~ ~ i.1 ii~1
Illtl lilh ~
~
~
~~
. BUILDING
. LANDSCAPED SITE
.~:
IlfuJ PAVED SITE
D WETLAND
. WETLAND BUFFER
/
/
/
/
I
OULDING
LANDSCAPED SITE
ClU11lOOR ""'""'"
PAVED SITE
WETUHD
1WEll,AN) BlFFER
(
7
-....
/
/
SITE AREA SCHEDLU
..... 1 ....
132073 SF
.....SF
_SF
n1asSF
_SF
17.08 SF
116Oll6SF
.9\Wlbect dahlber2 associMes. inc.
....,1--
-........
"J.t)t.IIU'"
-,
....,l-IIJ'I-I..J
DEERFIELD
INDUS1RlAL PARK
WAREHOUSE
CONDOMINIUMS
ADElMANN S11lEET
PRIOR LAKE. MN
&....'._Cffv....nIlLAEvIllK>>CI
& IMY7." an-.-rT1IL
&. MIIlCNn._ ONGIWlEOMOOORI.YIIC
.&. WItCH!l,_ ONGIWll!OlIlOOlll,IolIIC
liBElY("amfT......TnP"""""SfE('lftl:ADOI'f
m~T...AI_AIlE/)IY/lC~1NJIJlNY
~swa.V\II(I';AMITM1lTI_ADll.Y
~~';;:;(jr
D><D.~ ~
sfi'F. AREA'i. __
~~@~orn~
R JUN 1 2006.J
--
L.a.o;.;;--------8lUD- .
W.1E~
DM......IY-----AlIIIoI
CIIEOWI,y~
AI-A
~aa;~-.___
CD~:~\..()"
&
~
w....... .
CD
,,,,SF
quanbcd dablbeQ associMCS. inC.
.,1__
-...-
m-'n'.IIU....
-,
"'''l..,..lnJ
DEERFIELD
INDUSTRIAL PARK
WAREHOUSE
CONDOMINIUMS
J- '~- ~
- ~ ~--~- -~-- ~'
. .,;;,;- 4 5 6 7 8.8 9 '
~ ~__~.~_I~I~ _' -,,~I..,_I ~ ~. kl.. .....I.d ~~ _ .-.l-d ~.__ ,.1 (11 W~~
w_
ct:J
391& SF
w........
CD
""SF
............-
CD
3916-SF
w..........
CD
3916 Sf
I
I
I
~U
@h-j--~-~~--~-~
"I
-$.Jl~
E I '" '- I ~ -+~
I
w_
IT]
391fisF
. EO
~16SF
..,..Ii-
c.<
.. ;,----1----<; r:::+-~ :r7--:,;:,=,.r:::+~ M
I III
!-7~-
C~_)
II
w___
o:::J
3821-SF.
i
.------,-
i
,
1
j
\
,
l
L
----0- l4-
ADElMANN STREET
PRIOR LAKE, MN
& ""'1._ CIrf!ilANTT.....IIE'IIS1ON5
&.....l1,_CfTl~.....
&. IMI'lCHII._ Cl'!QIWlE.OHDOORS,tdC
&_11,_OIlGlWlf'OHDODIl8,IoQC
I UEUIl WTIfY m.\TllIlS 1'\.Al'<I. WU'\tJ('"ADOI'I
~1t1l'''.nl'AlI .. .... ME"'~MV
~~=~~.r
::_~~id"
2006 1~
I~ [E @ ~
m JUN 1
-
~u-"'"'"
llIlA_n-Aolllllll
otEn:liDll~
A2
o-;.r."~~--'
e.;j
",-------------.ii-.J=-mPOFP L
lo! .~,~ iDol oj . ....001 · .lo~i~IDfD:;li.~;I~' ..: ~D..!i;:-'"''
~rrj~,.Q~~J~~~1!'~i~,~!1~~~"t~"_~~;~"'~rJ~~13";fitrti~~c".;;:
CD ~r:' l~~VATION
rn:(r.~~
~_~J-}1~n
.--. .--
t~':::
~~~
-.=T" ,_.
" ,
~ nL~!5"w,'~~; ~
@-~~AT1ON
- W:~.~~
cI' 'i::~~:-T'CW
~ dahl~ assoc1Mes. iDe.
..,,--
--
,,;1.'>'_'''''''
~,
""n"~'MJ
DEERFIELD
INDUS1RIAL PARK
WAREHOUSE
CONDOMINIUMS
ADIllolANN STREET
PRIOR u.KE. MN
&.aMl,_ClTY_n....IIIf\lllllClN5
~ W.V7.'" an.-n....
&. 1IWOla.1ODI QNGIWlEOHOOCI'IS,IMC
& .-:tI11._ ONQJlAOl!OHDOOIIS,MlSC
~r==1r==~
~~~I~IU~~~
:'~~d
EIEVATIONS
10 ~ @ ~ 0 ill ~ 'I
W JUN 1 2006 .J
B~
D"Tl';~
DaA_n~
A3
~...~~_.-
~A
-i1- - - -""'"" & "
- - ......:.......:; ~I
- h
~; ~
,J /) ~""'"
I": ~"'/~ ~ ~ "%
I L-.~~~:~ ( , jt """Iill{~~\\\/{~
-----I,r.~ ~ ~Zilll\ /L t I
I ....~: 'l - ~ J _ "11111
Ir-'~ l~ 8 III\~ '. ._ _ __.=.:.......::...
1- \ ~.'_._.-
I .L,~,~
- - =m=I;I~m~ ]~mm~~~~~j
1l-=rE11 ~=W-111==IIi=1
=J!!=l:::m= 111=lll=lJ.l=ill-Effi'
J)m!Mm=lJ.l=lll=ill=illm!km=l
TT=I I l=lllrrilll=1 I lillmillm=1 I Fill-
=IIFIIHlr
! .
. II
WAlL SECTION AT ENTRY
@lW..".Q"
TYPIC""". FNTRV
@11"".1'.o"
T~.t~~
@ ~~~vepJ"'TDl
--I,...T.
/"------
/'
" 0
o
..,...;......:
--
'm.ot.,,,,,,
DEERFIELD
INDUS1RIAL PARK
WAREHOUSE
CONOOMINIUMS
AOEIMANN STIlEET
PRIOR LAKE. MN
ClTY.....n....AE\IISICtIS
~ ::7:'= aTY=~~~
&t.WtOl21JDCll _OItDOClfll.MIllC
&lIIIIIlCHl1._CIN
llIATnufLAPO.~~
~4~ .::~. ':'.."'"'~~~~.
DAlE_ ~\JVd
- . .
...... ,-
~'l
] JUN 1 10"'-,
,l,
COIIGl,NU-----IIWII
DATE--AUWIll
PllA_.v--6lllloJ;
OEOtIDIY----OIdIl
~-~~--
A4
.
~--..~
Minnesota
Pollution
Control
Agency
Regional
Environmental
Management
Division,
Above-ground
Storage Tanks
Helpful Note:
Some tanks may
be excluded from
notification, but
still need to
follow AST
requirements
(for example,
temporary tanks).
While others
may be excluded
from AST
requirements but
still require
notification (for
example, indoor
tanks) .
Make sure that
your tanks are
meeting the
necessary
requirements.
General Requirements for
Above-ground Storage Tanks
Tanks/Above-ground Storage Tanks/t-a1-02/ApriI2004
This fact sheet outlines the requirements for
regulated above-ground storage tanks
(ASTs) found in Minn. R. ch. 7001 and
7151. These rules apply to all ASTs storing
a liquid substance that is not gaseous or
solid at ambient temperature and pressure.
Notification
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) must be notified about all ASTs
within 30 days of installation or change in
tank status (Minn. Stat. ch. 116.48).
The AST rules and notification statute don't
indicate a minimum tank size, but the
MPCA considers the smallest AST requiring
registration to be a tank that is 500 gallons
or greater in capacity. This size is consistent
with underground storage tank notification
requirements.
Owners and operators must complete and
submit the AST Notification Form to the
MPCA. To get a copy of this form, call
MPCA at (651) 297-8664 or toll-free at
(800) 657-3864 or on the MPCA Web site at
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanup/ast.
Exemptions from Notification
Tanks not required to be registered include:
. farm or residential tanks 1,100 gallons
or less storing motor fuel for
noncommercial purposes;
. heating oil tanks 1,100 gallons or less;
. agricultural chemical tanks;
. tanks storing liquids that are a gas at
atmospheric temperature and pressure;
. tote tanks;
. temporary tanks; and
. tanks that are less than 500 gallons.
AST Requirements
Owners and operators must comply with AST
requirements in Minn. R. ch. 7151, unless
exempted as outlined below.
Exemptions from Requirements
Many ASTs are exempt from Minn. R. ch.
7151. They are:
. tanks containing 500 gallons or less;
. farm tanks;
. residential tanks 1,100 gallons or less
used for noncommercial purposes;
. equipment or machinery containing
substances for operational purposes like
hydraulic lift tanks, heating and cooling
equipment, and electrical equipment;
. vehicles designed and used to transport
substances that don't remain at the same
location for more than 30 consecutive
days or refill at the same site after
dispensing the tank's contents;
. heating oil tanks 1,100 gallons or less;
. wastewater treatment facility equipment;
. indoor tanks;
. tote tanks;
. tanks greater than 500 gallons capacity,
but less than or equal to 1,100 gallons
capacity that are more than 500 feet
from surface water;
. septic tanks;
. a surface impoundment, pit, pond, or
lagoon;
. stormwater collection systems;
. temporary tanks (tanks at a site less than
30 days); and
. storage tanks with drinking water,
filtered-surface water, demineralized
water, noncontact cooling water, or
water stored for emergency purposes.
t-a1-02
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
(651) 296-6300, toll-free (800) 657-3864, TTY (651) 282-5332 or (800) 657-3864
This material can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities.
. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Above-ground Storage Tanks
Requirements for regulated tanks greater
than 1,100 gallons
All regulated tanks with a capacity greater than I, I 00
gallons must:
. be registered with the MPCA;
. be labeled;
. be constructed using appropriate industry standards;
. have secondary containment;
. have a facility sign posted;
. have substance transfer area safeguards;
. have internal and/or external corrosion protection;
. have overfill protection;
. be monitored for leaks and regularly inspected;
. be properly maintained;
. have monitoring and inspection records on site;
. assess releases during operations or at tank removal
and report them to the State Duty Officer at
(800) 422-0798;
. label lines so connections can be identified during
substance transfer;
. have underground piping safeguards if utilized;
. be properly closed if no longer used; and
. be sampled for contamination when tank is removed.
More information about these requirements and their
effective dates can be found in fact sheets listed at the end
of this document in the "For more information" section.
Requirements for AST facilities with a
capacity greater than one million gallons
Facilities with greater than one million gallons total
capacity for all liquid storage tanks must apply to the
MPCA for a major facility permit. Requirements for tanks
at these facilities are based on the individual site and tank
characteristics (Minn. R. ch. 7001.4200).
Requirements for small tanks near
surface water
Regulated tanks with a capacity of greater than 500
gallons, but less than or equal to 1,100 gallons that are
within 500 feet of a class 2 surface water (water that can
be used for recreational purposes) are required to:
. be registered with the MPCA;
. be labeled;
General Requirements for Above-ground Storage Tanks
Tanks/Above-ground Storage Tanks/t-a1-02/ApriI2004
. provide secondary containment;
. have a sign at the facility; and
. be constructed using appropriate industry standards.
Requirements for temporary tanks
Tanks larger than 1,100 gallons that store product for
longer than 30 days, but less than one year are defined as
temporary tanks and must:
. be labeled;
. have a posted facility sign;
. have secondary containment; and
. be maintained.
Temporary tanks with a capacity of greater than 500
gallons within 500 feet of a class 2 surface water must also
meet the temporary tank requirements listed above.
The MPCA will not require temporary tanks to be
registered, however the rule requirements still apply.
Compliance with other regulations
Other regulations that tank owners need to be in
compliance with include:
. the federal Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures Plan;
. the Minnesota "Spill Bill" requirements;
. hazardous waste regulations;
. state and local fire code; and
. other state and local regulations.
Also, petroleum products that are stored for resale in ASTs
greater than 2,000 gallons must comply with the petroleum
product delivery law (see Petroleum Product Delivery Law
fact sheet for more information).
For more information
To get your copy of AST fact sheets with additional
information regarding corrosion protection, indoor tanks,
major facilities, monitoring, notification, out-of-service
tanks, overfill protection, permeability testing
requirements, record-keeping requirements, secondary
containment, product types, substance transfer areas, tanks
near surface water, temporary tanks, tote tanks or to get
more information about the AST rules, call the MPCA at
(651) 297-2274 or (800) 646-6247 or go to the MPCA
AST Web site at:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanup/ast.html.
PAGE 2