The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10A - 14180 Commerce Avenue STAFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: lOA JENNITOV~PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER AN APPEAL BY BURDICK PROPERTIES OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A VARIANCE REQUEST BY BURDICK PROPERTIES TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR THE EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE, Case File #97-132 APRIL 6, 1998 DATE: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal by Burdick Properties of the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a setback variance for an existing trash enclosure on property located at 14180 Commerce Avenue. The applicant and neighborhood representative have been sent a copy of this report. BACKGROUND: This appeal is a result of Building Permit #97-274 for a commercial building located at 14162 Commerce Avenue (Burdick #3). During construction of the structure, adjacent residents expressed concern to City staff and the City Council relating to issues such as berm height, parking setbacks, drainage, and landscaping, and referred to minutes of previous City Council meetings (1979 and 1981) relating to the property. Upon further review and consultation with the City Attorney, it became apparent Building #3 and Building #2 (constructed in 1994) were in violation of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building setbacks. In order to correct this situation, Burdick Properties had applied for a variance to allow the encroachment of the 60 foot required rear yard adjacent to residential property for Building #2 and Building #3. Burdick Properties also applied for a variance to allow the existing trash enclosure L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-132\97-132CC.DOC eage 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER to be located within the 60 foot setback and to allow for a higher fence and steeper slope of the berm as part of the proposed landscaping plan to satisfy the concerns of the adj acent residential property owners. Public hearing notices were sent on December 31, 1997, to all property owners within 100 feet, as well as to the residents along Timothy Avenue (see attached notice map) and their legal counsel, Mr. Harry Ray. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 12, 1998, regarding the requested variances. The Planning Commission considered the staff report, heard from the applicant, and took public comments. The public hearing was continued to January 26, 1998, to allow staff to gather specific information including: . Minutes from 1979 and 1981 . History on the zoning or rezoning of the PDQ · Information on the storm sewer beehive and capacity of the pipe. . Verification if the trash enclosure was on an easement. . Existing elevations of the berm. . Conditions on the property prior to construction. · Full size copies of the site, landscape and grading plans. On January 26, 1998, staff provided the Planning Commission with the requested information. After further discussion, the Planning Commission continued the meeting to February 23, 1998, to allow the developer sufficient time to complete a landscape plan as previously requested and to provide field identification of the proposed height of the berm and fence. On February 13, 1998, the applicant submitted a complete landscape plan and placed posts and height markers along the property line adjacent to the residential properties so the Planning Commission and residents could observe, first hand, the effectiveness of the buffering. On February 23, 1998, the Planning Commission continued their discussion and ultimately adopted Resolutions 98- 01PC and 98-02PC which approved setback variances for the principal structures on both lots and a variance to allow 71f2 foot fence as shown on the revised landscape plan. Mr. Burdick withdrew the request for slopes exceeding 3: 1 as L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-1 32\97-1 32CC.DOC Page 2 they are permitted by ordinance upon approval from the City Engineer. The decision to approve the setback variances for both of the buildings and the height variance for the fence was not appealed by the applicant, the neighbors, or Mr. Harry Ray. On February 23, 1998, the Planning Commission also directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the variance request to allow the trash enclosure to be setback 16.3 feet from the rear property line. On March 9, 1998, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 98-05PC denying the variance for the trash enclosure setback. Mr. Burdick appealed this decision on March 12, 1998. The attached minutes of the January 12, 1998, January 26, 1998, February 23, 1998, and March 9, 1998, Planning Commission meeting summarize the discussion of the variance requests. DISCUSSION: Plannin~ Commission Action: The applicant has only appealed the action of the Planning Commission to deny the setback variance for the trash enclosure. In Resolution 98-05PC, denying this variance, the Planning Commission noted several factors, including there ore no topographical or vegetative hardships relating to the property, there are alternatives for the location of the trash enclosure on adjacent properties and the granting of this variance violates the intent of the setback requirements. The attached copy of Resolution 98-05PC lists these factors in more detail. Apnlicant's Anneal: Attached is the appeal letter from Mr. Kelly, legal counsel for Burdick Properties. He contends the four hardship criteria are met for the requested variance. He states that no legal alternatives exist on the site and to deny his client the variance is unreasonable. At the Planning Commission meeting on February 23, 1998, Mr. Kelly stated that the revised landscape plan, referenced in Resolutions 98-01PC and 98-02PC, provides for more landscaping and screening than required by the Zoning Ordinance or than originally approved as part of Building Permit #97-274. One reason for the additional landscaping is to provide for additional buffering of the trash enclosure, of which a variance was not approved by the Planning Commission. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-132\97-132CC.DOC Page 3 ISSUES: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: REPORT ATTACHMENTS: Staff Recommendation: The Planning staff recommended approval of this variance to the Planning Commission on the basis the hardship criteria has been met. Both of the lots are built to maximum capacity, considering building setbacks and parking requirements. Also, there is no open space area on either of these lots to relocate the trash enclosure. The City Council must determine if the variance request to allow the trash enclosure to be setback 16.3 feet from adj acent residential property rather than the required 60 feet meets the four hardship criteria. The setback variances for the principal structures, fence height, and berm slope are not issues. The City Council must determine if it agrees or disagrees with the Planning Commission findings and rationale for denying the variance to the trash enclosure. Whatever decision the City Council makes, it is important that the discussion include the basis for the Council's rationale. The Council must also adopt a set of findings supporting its decision. 1. Deny Burdick Properties' appeal by upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variance for the setback ofthe trash enclosure. As a part of this action, the Council should direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact supporting this decision. 2. Approve Burdick Properties' appeal by overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and approving the requested variance. In this case, the Council should direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact supporting the variance. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Council. Alternative #2. A motion directing staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact supporting the Council's decision. 1. Letter of Appeal from Mark Kelly, dated 3/12/98 2. Map and List of Adjacent Property Owners 3. Planning Commission Resolution 98-05PC, Denying Setback Variance for Trash Enclosure 4. Planning Commission Resolutions 98-01PC and 98- L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -132\97 -132CC.DOC Page 4 02PC Approving Building Setback and Fence Height Variances 5. Planning Report Dated 3/9/98 6. Minutes of 3/9/98 Planning Commission Meeting 7. Planning Report Dated 2/23/98 8. Minutes of 2/23/98 Planning Commission Meeting 9. Planning Report Dated 1/26/98 10. Minutes of 1/26/98 Planning Commission Meeting 11. Planning Report Dated 1/12/98 12. Minutes of 1/12/98 PI 'ng Commission Meeting C:J , Reviewed By: F L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-132\97-132CC.DOC Page 5 KELLY LAW OFFICES ! 8\ ~ (S f2 0 \V7 r==r ~\I ,; i j I .-- ~d .-/ --..: i I ; :! ');1 'Ii: . i i . \' ! " r _ , : j I,I/j\ \\ II :, - ,) f L : ' ! i ;: U \. ,;~::/" Established 1948 March 12. 1998 ) 1m @ rn ow ~~.~ { · I2-G, 351 SECOND STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 MARK W. KELLY WILLIAM F, KELLY (1922-1995) (612) 474-5977 FAX 474-9575 Frank Boyles City Manager City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE Prior Lake. MN 55372-1714 VIA FAX: 447-4245 AND MAIL Notice of Appeal Re: 14180 Commerce Avenue, Prior Lake, Minnesota' (Burdick Buildings No.2) Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Rear Yard Setback Variance Request for Trash Enclosure Behind 14180 Commerce Avenue, Prior Lake, MN Prior Lake Case File No.: 97-132 Dear Mr. Boyles: On March 9. 1998. the Planning Commission of the City of Prior Lake did. by Resolution 98-05PC. deny the variance request of my client B.C. Burdick and Burdick Properties. Inc. for a "43.7' variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3' rather than the required 60' for (per City of Prior Lake Planning Report 2-23-98 case file 97-243) an existing trash enclosure. " Pursuant to Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 7.3A. B.C. Burdick. and Burdick Properties. Inc. does hereby appeal the denial of said variance application to the City Council of the City of Prior Lake. The grounds for this appeal are: 1. As stated in City of Prior Lake Planning Report for agenda item 4A re: case iue no. 97-132 dated January 12, 1998: "[T}he trash enclosure (14180 Commerce Avenue) was constructed on the lot in 1994 and expanded in 1997 to accommodate the recently constructed building at 14162 Commerce Avenue. The City approved the construction cif the trash enclosure addition in error. The trash enclosure is located 16.3'jrom the west property line abutting KELLY LAW OFFICES -2- residential. The required setback is 60', thereJore, a 43.7 variance is being requestedJor the trash enclosure" ... The City staff report further commented: "1. Literal enJorcement oj the ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made oj the property if the ordinance is literally enJorced. In this case, the lots and structures are existing as indicated by the building envelopes and given the minimum parking requirements, there are no reasonable legal alternatives to relocating any oj the structures ... 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because oj the circumstances unique to the property. There are unique circumstances in this case; the structures on the lots are existing; the commercial property is adjacent to residential property and some oj the adjacent residential properties slope down towards the commercial property making effective screening d!ffi.cult to achieve. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions oj the ordinance and is not the result oj actions oj persons presently having an interest in the property. The lots are built to maximum capacity considering building setbacks and parking requirements. There is not open area to relocate the trash enclosure on either lot ... the hardship is caused by the previous applications oj provisions oj the ordinance and existing conditions. It is not the result oj proposed conditions that can be changed by the applicant. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent oJ this ordinance, produces substantialjustice and is not contrary to public interest. 5. The granting oj the combined requested variances to meet the intent oj the ordinance and be in the public interest. The spirit and intent oj the setbackJrom residential properties can be protected with increasedJence. height, and additional landscaping. The granting oj such variance is not contrary to the public interest as the setback variances are small and there will be increased screening." KELLY LAW OFFICES -3- 2. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property in question, to wit: A. An undue hardship is created when the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the City's ordinances (Mn. Statute ~462.357, Subd. 6). Here, the property is required by City code to have a trash enclosure (6.11F). It cannot function without a trash enclosure site and as the City of Prior Lake Planning Report in this matter dated January 12, 1998 observes: "There is not open area to relocate the trash enclosure." B. Given the trash enclosure in question was constructed only after obtaining City review of the proposed plans and building permits for the construction of same at the location in question; and given that . there are no available alternative sites on the property. the finding of the Planning Commission that the variance request is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right of the applicant; and that the variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant. is nonsense. These circumstances define an undue hardship. To say otherwise is to be arbitrary. capricious. unreasonable and intentionally punitive. C. Furthermore, given that the existing trash enclosure can be adequately screened from view. Planning Commission expectations are that the trash enclosure previously authorized by the City should now be abandoned. if not demolished. is arbitrary, capricious. unreasonable and intentionally punitive. Similarly. the Planning Commission desire to force the applicant to be either without a trash enclosure at the site, or otherwise be forced to make use of trash enclosures off-site (a considerable distance away from the buildings to be served for the balance of the life of these otherwise brand new buildings, all at a considerable inconvenience to the owner and tenants) is also arbitrary. capricious. unreasonable and unjustly punitive. These facts and circumstances support a finding that literal enforcement of the ordinance and denial of the variance would create an undue hardship. 3. The plight of the applicant land owner is due to circumstances that are unique to this property, to-wit: A. The plight of the owner is. in part, largely the product of the review process of the City. But, for that review process, the present ).. KELLY LAW OFFICES -4- situation would not have occurred twice. The applicant did not intentionally or knowingly build the trash enclosure in disregard of the zoning code. rather. it is built in the only logical site for such an enclosure. In 1994. the original trash enclosure was erected under City granted permit and. in 1997 again under permit. it was expanded. The trash enclosure sits behind a building completed in 1994 and would not be at issue but for a controversy regarding screening behind a neighboring building. B. The building at issue is in place, built to the edge of the rear setback llne. No alternative site is available in the rear yard of the property for the construction of a trash enclosure whose location conforms to the City code. Side yard placement is also not possible on the south side of the building as there is no side yard. North side yard. placement is not available as it would consume all available side yard, entirely block the space between buildings at 14162 and 14180 Commerce Avenue. Prior Lake. Minnesota. block drainage, prevent proper circulation of motor vehicles, straddle the property line. require zero lot line variances to both properties and create potential safety and security hazards. Similar problems are present on the north and south sides of 14162 Commerce Avenue; the building immediately adjacent the subject property. C. The need for the variance follows directly on the fact that the City of Prior Lake's zoning requirements have effectively eliminated all rear yard locations for the construction of trash enclosures by prohibiting accessory structures within siXty (60) feet of a commercial lot line abutting a residential property. This has unwittingly eliminated all logical locations for trash enclosures to service a commercial property at this site. Given there is no available rear yard site or side yard site and that such accessory structures are entirely unreasonable and inappropriate in the front yard of commercial properties just as they would be unreasonable and inappropriate in the front yard of residential properties. the plight of the owner is unique to the circumstances that exist in the property presently. not knowingly created by the applicant. The plight of the owner in seeking this variance is not elective nor merely a matter of convenience but due to circumstances unique to the property. 4. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. In good faith, the applicant has developed and voluntarily proposed a landscaping plan which is substantially more effective relative to the views KELLY LAW OFFICES -5- of the subject property by neighboring residential properties. The screening will hide the trash enclosure and effectively block the view of the trash enclosure by neighboring property owners. The screening makes the location of the trash enclosure not only insignificant but supports the conclusion that the variance, if granted. will not alter the essential character of the locality. I.e. a pre-existing residential neighborhood abutting a neatly maintained pre-existing commercial zone. 5. The variance, if granted, will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The applicant's voluntary landscaping plan greatly improves the effectiveness of the rear lot line screening required in similar locations under City Code (~6.1 O. ~6.11). therefore, it is in keeping with the spirit and , intent of the code requirements. The landscaping plan submitted to address screening of the trash enclosure along the rear lot line of 14180 Commerce Avenue has been reviewed by the City Planner who has advised the Planning Commission: "The proposed landscaping plan exceeds the City's minimum requirements as stated in the landscape ordinance" (memoranda prepared for agenda item SA for hearing before the Planning Commission, February 23. 1998, regarding Prior Lake Case File No. 97-132). In fact, the new landscaping plan offered by the applicant to be built as a condition to the variance grant requested: A. Accommodates neighboring property owners need for screening; and B. Is a great improvement over City Code screening requirements which only provide for a five foot fence along the lot line. (6.11c) as opposed to a slXfoot fence atop a fuwJoot berm as proposed by the applicant. 6. Variance will resolve conflict and prevent a paradox. The variance appeal, if denied. will create a paradox the applicant cannot readily. economically and reasonably solve alone, I.e. the City Code requires a trash enclosure, the City will not permit the use of a logically located trash enclosure that it authorized built; and there is no other proximate. serviceable, logical location to place a trash enclosure on the property served. The City helped create this situation and it needs to help solve it. Doing nothing is not a solution and will potentially cause harm to all concerned. Granting the variance gives the neighborhood screening the City cannot otherwise provide and thereby ends the conflict. KELLY LAW OFFICES -6- My client requests that the City Council. on review of the Planning Commission action, reverse said denial and grant the variance necessary to permit the trash enclosure as built at 14180 Commerce Avenue, Prior Lake, MN subject to the construction of the landscaping as proposed in the applicant's most recent landscaping plan submitted. This appeal is based on all files. submissions, records, legal opinions. transcripts, minutes herein and reports of or to the City of Prior Lake herein. My client reserves the right to supplement this appeal notice and grounds of appeal. Sincerely, ,~ -=-~f~~ Mark W. Kelly Attorney for Burdick Properties and B. C. Burdick MWK/tas cc: Brian Burdick Suesan Pace )R - - - -)-.... 6,'00 ^' o -:r CD' ~ c.:: z <t ~ ~:I:@) ~ r lP 3 Q _~I ::: L ) :I: ~ r ~4 ~ \j\ ~ ." $ S~ 5 ~ ~7 <T -:r c,( .. ~ I~ ".J 8 ~ CD 0> 7 0 "Z N <D 21S.63 <J"l I'- lJ\ '$ 0 ;)"0 5 0 154 -45 -0 ~ 7 ~ 7- 216.08 - ~ :<0 ~ iO 166249 !g 4 i . \~ 7'- j 212.53 - <i \~ '" <D "T~ -5.... "<0 -''''' .m 165 -489~~ ) q- 2\2.08 52 .'- ((l ':~8. .... ~ 2 ~'''r..; .- - PROPERTY OWNER'S' MAP '~.~' _810 '~-,~ (,19S c;1~1 (,315: j lOll . 12. 13 ~ ~ 14j --- 1368.5--- ..j ~ ~ 200597 ~ -' , "" - I OU TL0T .;<'\ 1'0 ~ ~ '2/' ~~ ~ ..... r- r co 11/ I~ 10/ '7 9 V . ~ tCl :./ f / 8 2 ~ 7 :r :3 s: ::: f 5 ./ ? '>- 1 r gj - D ~ ./'0 1 9 Q - ~ ~ f~ N 6 ,. 7 .j~ ~ /~ 6 ~ ... ..j,c:. 211154 : )~ ~ - .\ \ ~I Ll \da{j-O ' 5 ~ ~ 147777 10 (f11-0 3 (,l", \ tj ~( ;- 3 R~ I \ ~7'18 ~'fC/o I (;~o ___ 6 ~ D-=:.-.le::.SE S-r: I ~. \f I ~781 680<j : , ~ 7 ~ b 4 lJCf&.o \ " . 2\ S "\ G:~ .J ~ OOf-o &-{' \\ ~ 232485 " :: ' ~ ~ :)9~ -'i 1"11> V 7co 219904/~1 r- 1 2 4~ ' _ ''TJ'z -:' 'I' ~ - "~_~_~ ~g7~ (O;golQ \ ~~:30 V 3 ~ fl "1' ;:i 4 ..; 2' t<> J ~ =: 3 f; ./ ('C ~ 2 " \ ... . E:'" V tJ I ?: v I I :: ~. ~155291 ?: "', 150 ,. ~() Li '2 ~ 0- <) ':l-- /0 ~ ~ :I It' 2 I ~ ' !! .... .:t A)D1N o ,.., ,.., /; PRIOR LAKE ASSEMBLY OF GOO 184975 O~ V J 1:0.0_ t ) A '" ." 21ST ,... :, 4.' / ", " I <3- -",- 1...-r""J. . ,.- .r 1~\9~ -/ - ..-.. 5 I I I ~I f) I l I \- I ... ~ o " u /'f) - 238':165 . t~_. ~ 148:-31 '" 3'22.67 19 4555- ~~~: IdST DAN I EL J :?, VEf\A to:. BEH YI'IEk 140~6 NATALIE RD NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 RALPH R & CAROL I BOESER 14163 NATALIE RD NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 ROGER N & LU ANN EYE 14438 WATERSEDGE TRL NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 JAMES REFRIGERATION CO PO BOl< 24137 EDINA, MN 55408 DUANE LENNING 14220 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 MICHAEL A MARXEN 14231 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN ,55372 KENNETH & REBECCA MILZ 14077 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 CHRISTOPHER & BARBARA OLSON 14311 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 VINCENT MOLSON 14040 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 DELl~AR R ROGERS 'l. UNITED STEEL PRODUCTS CO 407 HICKORY AVE NE MONTGOMERY, MN 56069 I,., RONALD H & PATRICIA WIESE 6830 BOUDIN ST NE L PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 l. L. TODD M GREENFIELD 14280 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 JOHN A & LOf\RAINE BESSERMIN 142:01 NATALIE RD PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 B C BURDICK 684 EXCELSIOR BLV EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MAUREEN L 3. WILLIAM JR HERMANN 14151 TIMOTHY AV NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 JAMES REFRIGERATION CO PO BO:{ 24137 EDINA, MN 55408 t~ICHAEL LISIC 14181 NATALIE RO NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 DONALD E & GRACE M MCGEE 14111 TIMOTHY AV NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 ALAN R & FREDDIE CAROL 1'11>( 14171 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 RONALD R & SHARON KAY OLSON 14291 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 PEA~~ PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT 13(1){ 24137 MPLS, MN 55424 DIANE H SCHROEDER TRUST 14131 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 MICHAEL D & SANDRA M WRIGHT 14300 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 MINN VALLEY ELEC COOP 125 MINN VALLEY ELEC DR P 0 BO}( 125 JORDAN, MN 55352 NERS----.---. THOMAS E BJOf\NBEf\G 14260 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 ROSA LEE DAGGETT 14113 NATALIE RO PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 JAMES A 3. JEANE E IVERSON 14251 TIMOTHY LN NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 SCOTT M ~::ARLSEN 14191 TIMOTHY AVE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 -- JOHN & KATHERINE MARCHESSAULT 14061 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 DAVID K :3, JANET K MIKKELSON 140';17 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 STEVEN P I'1UELLER 14240 TIMOTHY LN NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 RONALD R & SHARON KAY OLSON 142:91 TIMOTHY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 PRIOR LAKE ASSEMBLY OF GOD 6~380 BOUD I N ST PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 NATHAN ROSS STEWART 14211 TIMOTHY AV NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 RONALD H & PATRICIA WIESE 6830 BOUDIN ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 98-05PC DENYING A 43.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 16.3 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQillRED 60 FEET FOR THE EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Burdick Properties has applied for variances from Section 5-4-1 E of the City Code on property located in the B-1 (Limited Business) District at the following location, to wit; 14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #97-132 and held a hearing thereon on January 12, 1998 and January 26, 1998. The Board of Adjustments closed the hearings on January 26, 1998. 3. The Board of Adjustment discussed the variance request and determined additional information was required. Specifically, the developer was to submit a revised landscape plan and the location and height of the fence and berm were to be located in the field. The Board of Adjustment continued discussion on the variances to February 23, 1998 to obtain this information. 4. The Board of Adjustment reviewed the additional information on February 23, 1998. 5. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed trash enclosure variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The granting of the trash enclosure variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicants. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 7. The Board of Adjustment has stated there are alternative locations for the trash enclosure on Burdick property that meet the setbacks. 8. The Board of Adjustment concludes the developer is responsible for the knowledge of City Ordinances and contends the developer has created their own hardship by locating the trash enclosure in a location violating the City Ordinance. 9. The Board of Adjustment fmds the spirit and intent of the required 60 foot setback from adj acent residential property cannot be met if the variance is granted. 10. The Board of Adjustment has concluded that the cost to relocate the trash enclosure is not a hardship with respect to the property, because reasonable use can be made of the property . 11. The contents of Planning Case 97-132 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following variances for 14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN, as shown in Exhibit D; 1. A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing trash enclosure. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March Ai -4- ____ Anthony Sfamson, Chair ~TEST ~~- Donald R. Rye, L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-132\RE98-05P.DOC 2 0,.1'..10 "'1 ,,'u,: Burdick Properties 684 Excelsior Boulevard EKcelsior, Ifi 55331 11 DELMAR H. SCHWANZ \.AHO IV"'" .0"'. 'He ,.....t.... ~ ... . no. ,....., '4750 SOUTH ROBeRT TRAil Aose...c 1.::iT. MINNeSOTA 5SDe' '12/423-1781 i-ll gO Q;JY1J11 t,U /tven Ue... This drawing shows the west wall (brick face) of the b.Q buildings on Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block 1, JlII1ES 151" AOOITICN, Scott County, Minnesota. Also the location of the trash. enclosure. As located by lie this 26th clay of K~, <-.:'~r, 1997. I he,.by unify ""lllhl. lun..,. p'tn. 0' "port... ""p.,..... by me or und.r my dl,ectluCMrvllton Ind Ihlll "" I duly AOVIIl..ld llnd Su""1o' und.. Ih, I... of 'ho S'.I. oll.llMIIO,", Q.lo<! 12-01-97 SURVEYOR'S ':ERTIFICA TE { { ".~ t/;/J 5"6.01 r/ (' I "., 'q2 "'./0 r,&;~# mc..t.~~15' I I ;) ~ ~ ~ I I "'" " ~ \.) <> ~ 'l- " ~ ~ ~ h. ~ ~ EXHIBIT D '" / '" '" '" / / / ~ ~ q ~ ):! ~ ~ ~ ~ \ " ~ \ <l ;:t' " ~ \ ~ \ \J ScalE": 1 inch 2 40 feet '" ~ ~ , ...." '" ,,/ E- L FT.? d/.7 7'"d dfl<<'H.4AJtt 61.1'171P~ 5'1 64.~'!) _~ 5Vo g ro PIA"; 1iJt \ ':\\\"~\\\t:i'ES""'I~~~.'.,~ ,"~',,\\\...........p r'''-'. j4~' ).:.... ....1. ~\. j *! DEI.MAR H, \* '% ~~:;::~{~ "~"'I'/I(I"~';;i:l;I~':\"\:\~":~'~ I.Z.q 1-' 'c \" ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~".t. I r-- JJtM/t-7/ iha~/ o O.'m., H. Seh...."l ,ulnnftot. AeOII'tltlon No. 8e25 RESOLUTION 98-01PC A 2.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 57.30 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR EXISTING BUILDING AND; A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FENCE HEIGHT OF 7.5 FEET RATHER THAN THE PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 6 FEET ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE FOR BURDICK PROPERTIES. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Burdick Properties has applied for variances from Section 5-4-1, 5-4-1 E, and 5-5-10 H and 5-5-11 E of the City Code on property located in the B-1 (Limited Business) District at the following location, to wit; 14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #97-132 and held a hearing thereon on January 12, 1998 and January 26, 1998. The Board of Adjustments closed the hearings on January 26, 1998. 3. The Board of Adjustment discussed the variance request and determined additional information was required. Specifically, the developer was to submit a revised landscape plan and the location and height of the fence and berm were to be located in the field. The Board of Adjustment continued discussion on the variances to February 23, 1998 to obtain this information. 4. The Board of Adjustment reviewed the additional information on February 23, 1998. 5. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 6. The structure on the lot exists and the lot is built to capacity in terms of building setbacks and parking. 7. The purpose of the additional fence height is to provide screening to the adjacent residential properties. 8. The granting of the variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants and are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as no reasonable alternatives exist. 9. The contents of Planning Case 97-132 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code this variance will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variance has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following variances for 14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN, as shown in Exhibit D; 1. A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building. 2. A 1.5 foot variance to permit a fence height of7.5 feet rather than the maximum allowed of 6 feet. The approval of the variances is contingent upon the following conditions: 1. A continuous 6' high privacy fence be installed on the berm on the west side ofthe property with a 7.5 foot high privacy fence section to be placed as shown on Exhibit G. 2. Landscaping be completed as in attached Exhibit G "Revised Landscape Plan" dated February 9, 1998. The completion date of the proposed landscaping is to be the same date the Letter of Credit expires (6/25/98) for the permit issued at 14162 Commerce Avenue (Burdick Building #3) 3. Screening and grading be completed by June 25, 1998 as in attached Exhibit H "Rear Lot Sections and Elevations" dated February 9, 1998, revised February 20, 1998. 1:\97var\97 -132\98-0 I PCre.doc 2 4. Grading be completed as in attached Exhibit J "Landscape Plan" dated November 4, 1994. The plan indicates a minimum 4 foot high berm (above parking lot elevation) located between parking and adjacent residential property. 5. A certified copy of the variance shall be filed with the County Recorder of Scott County by the applicant within 60 days of granting of this variance or by March 27, 1998. A copy ofthe recorded resolution shall be delivered to the Zoning Officer as evidence of satisfying this requirement. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on February 23, 1998. (AZTEST: _/ () ~~J /W Donald R. Rye, PI . g tirector ,~- :r:J, Anthony Stamson, Chair 1:\97var\97 -132\98-0 IPCre.doc 3 d'H "'.1 l.:Ul: Burdick Properties 684 Excelsior Boulevard Excelsior, It{ 55331 11 EXHIBIT D lAND IU.WI fOAS. IHe ,....".... ..".~ h . no.. "... ., "''--0:01. 1050 SOUTH ROBcAT TRAil ROSEMC L':..r. MINNESOTA 55088 812/42:),118' DELMAR H. SCHWANZ J ii I gO DJ(r11!1 {fa. .4ven Uc.. nus drawing shows the west wall (brick face) of the two buildings on Lot 4 and :tot 5, B1 cek 1, J1IMES 1ST J\OOITICN, Scott County, Minnesota. Also the location of the trash. enclosure. !Is located by me this 26th day of NO\. ~.:...o., 1997. I h"eby cer1lty th.llhl, lurvey. pl.n. 0' ,epor1..1 pr.p.,1d by m. or under my dl'~t IUJMrvj,'on Ind I~" I 1m I duly R'lIllllred Llod Surv.yor uodor Ih. 11.1 01 Ih. SIll. 01 1.110001011. Qllo<I 12-01-97 SURVeYOR'S I :eRTlFICATe r' I ,... ':/'~ n;,'1 /',..: ,~., q2 &0./0 r,fJ9~# m~~/€ I I 1:\ <:) ~ ~ I I '" ~ ~ 'I q ~ l:! ~ ~ \\ \ ~ \) <> ~ \ It ~ \ ~ , ScalE': 1 inch = 40 feet '- ~ \) "" ~ 'II- \-- ~ ~ ~ "- tl; ~ S1.$ FT.., ".1 '1'd 0<1<<11"";: 61.1* '17J p~ - 4Z.9 r 'L' \' ' l ; ~ / / ~4.t. 6<1.-' 7/) c~~ 5V.8 ToP//PI.I1'li1t!- / I t-- \ "\\\\\",11111111/1'1/1/1' .~\\\t\ N E S 0 'i'''~~ ,~'f:.'~\\"""""""" r'~~ i~' ~.:"" ....~ ?\ f*/ DELMAR H. \;*'~ ~I;:~::;'~ "~""'I' c un" ,,~~~\..\.. "lItflllillUIlI11\. iPJtM/t-% fz/~/1-( / Delmar H. Selt"."I' 0 Mfnnnofa Aeoll.r.,lon No. ee2S planting notes ~;~~~~~~~ F.:7~;;;~~ I. ~l~::~==== Ji~~ :~~ f-t..J-"~--;O' landscape schedule "'- trt;iR~ ...n~_"'''' to ",: !f....qo,....# a~~ ~ ..~; ~~ ~ :r.~ I \~~~ !~.;/ J ~~ I ~/I'- ~j "'4.....rJT"C~"UrI.....-J --. lot . -.. " .. ._ ..... _oct 7"C.&,oo(..._""'IJII'.._...... .._I _...., ,__oq..... .:.. 1 ,... EXHIBIT G fH' :lWPlllllo . .,..,. ,'ph..~... I." J' 1C,...,,,..a u,.""'___ ....."'1. '~I.'l "",\lI'lJllWl'A" u.~.u...t" I.S' .. ISo..". ._rUI MA' IOOUWTlll" At, lSO'l'....~I'I.1 An' "".en Ul~"AC O In.,_ ...,.._,.". 'or....," n ~~UO::-:~:-IlO~:1 ,Pit !6l. ... ,nn:/lIOII'" 'I'!IC t' " ~ ..""".ud..... ~ . .ID ,PftJ'IlOII"" "..-.,_...11I to .. I.Lon_ ,......., n UIl ,"'./110..... u...._..tae to " I...... .._..._1 '.......1........ , U :i'w !: :! . ..., I ~ ~ J r . v /OU ~l~::.":~=::..U.h 'U.. J:;.,C="C, Ie JI =:::..~~-:'"!~:~....., e...~::1 e..... tn" IIIJS' _nIVCIlLC U. IDI.....111 l...n_I' en'! IV.II *"'"taCllLI.'....... IDl"nUhl_'hr.1 Ii II IIIU' 'DlIl.II.-W: ",rlAt_ ,...,. "11I"_ ...., > <l: F~~~~~ AU. 11:\\11 UD' TO r- reuor:o .om 1T7.r.:D ....or 'Ion" ""."'\IIT' n:.....LI::.TIQII. ~I t I a:;~:~ ---' - . ~ ~:~ ~ ~:~i :z:~::.: c::;:Io ~;: <=>0 > ~;~i " II 111111 II R ___1.-- . -. __._1_............. ~-- .. _ __ __ _.QI?W .. ... ......- __....... _. _ _......U'O'_. =........:::'".:;.:::'".: .:.==- _i_. ::.1-"-':~" -=::-n":.. ~:=-..=-. ___..... .,..... ..._.'t. - h:ISTIMC lIE..... BErO"! COtlST"UCTI01II or IUltDIlICS ----7 >0:1 .",' -() DISTD<<: ASH TUI '1 '" I ,~ " :",-,' c o a.. c o m ~ -. Q) 0. ""0 0 ,.. Q)~ ,~-o ~ > c:. QJa~; <--10'-;: ~ ~ ~ """~~ --..... {.H6.j OM \ ( \ 7'--... OM \ :f!,--'rt/! !~I I I ~', I ~ I M~.s t. .... ~_ .. n _""' '1::00: >. 0 ,,'/1:\1- :;,::::"n___ Building H2 '~I ~_ ~ </lcV \:? \. '.1 "..,.-. 11__ n..nlt." > I,~l\ I o.cc 2..: ___ "" /1~~~ ~:""..;:: . -1 01-- F ~~r:ooEO-xlD ---j '- S:1:2 !_~lltd.nG.r ,I L-/.. .... ",...."', aJ.-J ~~~~ \~i\~\'~;, ~\ \)~~S :tf~y'~, ~..:~:imCft:~;~:-~~~Ji~!ff/\~}\~ \\'S~.' i ~~ ___~a . 0_ 0 .,5\ U ._~~)'.~Of-.0:..~O -.r}~__ \ .e_.:.~::_~_\~,_,::~__@_._~:-~~@.. ~""',q~__ ,," -- ----<-~ G ~~ "n I \ .~. """ jl..n __ "",_.~,-l .,.' IS ~.:.:.: \....: -. / "'-a,n';:'::'=' .....- I _ _ --D E L o ..... .,.,. """" FE"':> I '. .~ "..::::... _... ... 'FT '""'" FE.'" 101 rn @ ~ U W @ ~ ~.g '.. . ........ n. " _.......11 i ~(o I CD U ll.. (g' <<;;) @ @ <E <!il Qj) CD i!I\, F" ! 3 '"', bz , /"tt,c, '. .~ "'" ,- (~ ;!"::.r::o~ =. [~--- I -S'! iti\ 1\ ,......." """"'''" ... I "..1....."_..lh...,1I." , , " 't, , , "" -( ) rWIICID'U~ Building H1 /"J'j(, /5/}C. ;,Ujc., '~' , , r- .,"/""""',.. '~ """'"It') 'L I I \. , /"""'- Building H3 'lIou...."_r UnltU." w ( uai -> ~<! 00.>0.> u-><= .an;. 'z ~ L 0 U 0.>..J o SL Ii-'..'.:, .~@~Og~(:'V I:: tll W<J I', I .~ ;:,\ I FtB 1"3 ~ I~'~ ...,-...." IUlIl , EXHIBIT H Rear Lot (as S~." from n~ i, ~n~ on ,() ~ 20' 50' r--~-- eUILDING '3 ,..,... DCLOIaAl BUilDING .2 ( ~~-~" / ....err 110OO nliIC'I \ . ,,----- --..\ -- I, ( - __ ._,/ .. .."", . ,.. .,.. .,__ ... \. ( '''Ie'.', ,O'i" ',",lIlll""~:IIIlIIlf~IWl-"l!'llllllllll/lillllOllllUljll~iTI' ';.JlllllllqllJlmIl1Rlll'i~J,I,I,I.I~~1!I:.~=....~'" "I,.....I.,"I.,'.'",.'I,.....,I..."..,.,'''-'IIII::o.J."''''..,;~=_ -----""ill, .--=_' . . -"'11 '1.101 ___ eMlI ILOPI: ~ r ......... .~ADlDlO 'IU.L " CllUI II.OPI en"," CAr "'''"'91'.11 (~ ------, " t\' & (fj) cb 'C\ (~l @ @ o ~r 10' t'1......\.j.....ti 'p- )0' SECTION '.g c f5l.rl(.....s SECT10N@ r ~.. SECTION ~ t:'-.. b'" --- ~.... --- I V -----n:.-:L:L.-~.-. I i~ I... +- .. .~ y-n:_.o;;.......'.... I ." ._ I ." lie I I ' ..y' ~~ ~'::.;t.._...;~ II Il . .......!.&..- ~ ~ il>- /'f."- ~~:.=.~"'*~~... ""'411 e..."rcJI.._... ~ ~~~Tl(")N @ c t::u. c ~"~T10N ~ '!i.~r:TION ~ ~~t.. .. ." ../ ------....... ~ 1Le..............-.........'... '1!1 I I.. I ~-----.....:t".w_.n. ~~ ILea.... '" I I /'" _,,,,,," p..o ... I .~C.- " I ;JJ"--" I........ ....... I~~/ ". h. ' - I 'l~~~"-" r I .-- --!>>- ..L. .'- , C,~:T1~N '1) c ..... ......... { 1K!..!2!L..Bl ~F:C:TION .~ ~ t:tA ~I "&1." ., I.~.- I I'" I'" v~ ~~~ 'u ........ ~.. j-_...... I'" ...... ~:. . '1' t J ~m~ ::z:: ... - :I :z: ~ :; ~...I:: c:::> 0...... . Z"C -<.'" ~........ .... 11l n::; C ::: 0 I... .- .. +-' U 0.> C VlO +-' .- O+-' (..J ~ ~~:! Q.) W ft. 0:: c6 ' ,~ E'.t,D6..z MMO "'" ~+-' >,0 t9 0 V'l Z ~ Q} o..c:C ~ .2'.~ ::::>I2 CD+-' o EXHIBIT J LANDSCAPE PLAN DATED NOVEMBER 4, 1994 NOTE: THIS IS ONLY A PORTION OF ENTIRE PLAN ON FILE. FULL SIZE PLAN WILL BE A PART OF RESOLUTION RECORDED - . THE NEIJ RED PINE PLANTINGS ARE TO BE INSTALLED ON A 4'-0'+ BERM CONTINUOUS FROM THE EXISTING FENCE TO THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY NSTALL 4 PLANT GROUPINGS EACH COMPOSED OF ONE DOGIJOOD ND TIJO LILAC AT THE IJEST SIDE OF THE BERM ALONG THE NORTH 60' OF THE 'JEST PROPERTY . ;.LINE BETIJEEN THE RED PINES INSTALL TIJENTYFIVE (25) 60' '-HIGH PYRAMIDAL ARBORVITAE AS rINDICATED ALONG THE TOP OF THE BERM BETIJEEN EACH RED ~PINE AND ADJACENT TO THE MASONRY TRASH ENCLOSURE. .-J :; SHADED AREA INDICATES AREA THAT HAS BEEN DISTURBED BY ( THE NE'J CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL BE FINISH GRADED 'JITH BLACK DIRT AND SEEDED AS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE A FINISHED , 20'-0'~ PPEARANCE MARK COMtv- IH IMPERIAL H HACKBERR' LL 'W LAUREL LE (/) W W 0::: KMA KOREAN MC I- RP RED PINE ~ --........ ......-- (PA PYRAMIDAL """"'--- \. ^-.. ^ BH BUSH HONE (/) MP MUGHO PIN: OJ ::J 0:::: I A\./S ANTHONY', (/) ~ _ rv--- ( 'f~ \ D\./ RED T'JIGC - ,--J ''--" 0:: CC-.J CALGARY C W I- ?" \2.f35"3200~351N , --:1' "or; f ..j . ~ '0 ., . '. , V SOD NE'J MASONRY TRASH ENCLOSUR~ SEE SHEET L-I, ~' ~ . ..~ . -. ~ -1""'\. · .A - vi. 0;:"" "1-.)~' .'J' - V'" 0:::.':" 0...... , i \ t ~ il II Jij rI . .------==;=t ~. \ I.. 4CCJ 4CCJ 4CCJ 4CCJ .-1,.'1 " ,~/ 4CCJ 2CCJ r II '- . ) .'J 4CCJ 4CCJ ~6AIJS (. .'~ Ii .. \ . . o~ \ .. \ .. "'-"'--. . H PROVIDE ROCK MULC~ 3/4'-1 1/2' 'JASHED RIVER ROCK, AROUND SCHRUBS AND TREES \.. RESOLUTION 98-02PC A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 58.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR EXISTING BUILDING AND; A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FENCE HEIGHT OF 7.5 FEET RATHER THAN THE PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 6 FEET ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE FOR BURDICK PROPERTIES. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Burdick Properties has applied for variances from Section 5-4-1, 5-4-1 E, and 5-5-10 H and 5-5-11 E of the City Code on property located in the B-1 (Limited Business) District at the following location, to wit; 14162 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN; 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #97-132 and held a hearing thereon on January 12, 1998 and January 26, 1998. The Board of Adjustments closed the hearings on January 26, 1998. 3. The Board of Adjustment discussed the variance request and determined additional information was required. Specifically, the developer was to submit a revised landscape plan and the location and height of the fence and berm were to be located in the field. The Board of Adjustment continued discussion on the variances to February 23, 1998 to obtain this information. 4. The Board of Adjustment reviewed the additional information on February 23, 1998. 5. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~ ~ Ala --- values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed vanances on the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The structures on the lot exists and the lot is built to capacity in terms of setbacks and parking. 7. The purpose of the additional fence height is to provide screening to the adjacent residential properties. 8. The granting of the variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants and are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as no reasonable alternatives exist. 9. The contents of Planning Case 97-132 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code this variance will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder ofthe variance has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following variances for 14162 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN, as shown in Exhibit B; 1. A resolution approving a 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building. 2. A 1.5 foot variance to permit a fence height of 7.5 feet rather than the maximum allowed of 6 feet. The approval of the variances are contingent upon the following conditions: 1. A continuous 6' high privacy fence be installed on the berm on the west side of the property with a 7.5 foot high privacy fence section to be placed as shown on Exhibit G. 2. Landscaping be completed by June 25, 1998, as in attached Exhibit G "Revised Landscape Plan" dated February 9, 1998. This is when the Letter of Credit expires for the building permit issued for this property. 3. Screening and grading be completed by June 25, 1998, as in attached Exhibit H "Rear Lot Sections and Elevations" dated February 9, 1998, revised February 20, 1998. L: \97FILES\97V AR \97 - 13 2\RE98-02P .DOC 2 4. Berm height on western portion oflot (adjacent to residential) be completed as in attached Exhibit I "Grading and Drainage Plan" dated June 12, 1997. 5. A certified copy of the variance shall be filed with the County Recorder of Scott County by the applicant within 60 days of granting of this variance or by March 27, 1998. A copy of the recorded resolution shall be delivered to the Zoning Officer as evidence of satisfying this requirement. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on February 23, 1998. 1 .---1~---- J--hV .i Anthorty Stamson, Chair u. TEST: \~/ - "" . Dvnald R. Rye, PI L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-132\98-02PC.DOC 3 Survey For: Burdick Properties 684 EKcelsior Boulevard Exce Isior, ffi 55331 a EXHIBIT B DELMAR H. SCHWANZ l"HO SUfWt1'OJlts. lHe ~"-"~l. .. .,...I'........~. lH50 SOUTH ROBC:RT TRAIL ROSEMOt::.n. p.tINNESOTA 55081 8.:l/423--1 r81 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE l~ ILP~ Wi1rnuce. A( 20 6a,J8 ~o ~( '" J / ~ ~ / \ '/ \" /' / " 2,{,fJ " / '\,;- 14' / \l ~ / t'r) / k "'",- \ () ,,/ --- / '< ~ \-.. ......, \\ ~ /\l .... ~ \ 'I t:: \-... \1) /<;) ~ \!\ ~ ::s;; ~ /~ Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet 'Ibis drawing shows the '\oIeSt wall ~ ~ 0 Denotes an iron pipe rronUlTlO'nt (brick face) of the recently /'-\, at no~st and southwest const.ructed building on Ult 3, \ .... ~ . "l ...~t"'rty corners. " Block I, Jl\MES Isr lIDOITICN, \ ~ /' ~ " 'Scott County, Minnesota. ~ C) ~ ~ ~ lis located by me this 21st day <;:) ~ /\( of ~:"" ~.:.. de, 1997. ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ ~ :J <::\ / \ / 4' / 20 / 60./ / / \ ~ \ . O.'HI 11-24.-97 ~\\"\'\\\t~'ES/t'"r.','t,. ~~0~~~) "'II'II",7';'ltl~:i tll\\~"\' ;\,. &10~,{Y! If){ i~'tt25 aelm., H. Schwenl {. M'n"..o1' AeOI."ltloo No. eelS I hereby Clt1I'Y' th., 'hl, turv.y. pl.". 0' ,.por1 ... prep.,", by me Of' u~., my dlr.ct lupe""t.lon 'nd I".. I 1m I duly A"VI"".d Lind Sut"Ytyor under Ih, ,... or the Stll. of Mlnn.,oll. ' ~~~\~::n~_~?~.::s 5;:-T-~::i=-:::-:-:::-: ~~~~-=.~~:- ;~- f~~i u. ~?J?2~=- II. ~$f;~~*::";''; hJ-"~--1' landscape schedule tH' =-ntA&. . . ,..,..,.,,1_'" I.'" " Icn...1t.t.cln.c..'....UI....I..~h.t "'S1 ..,.,..."n ......,....... J,S" " 110'....._'... ,.,..J~I1I.u. 1.S- ..................1.1 In' UllIGII'T ulOft'nA& to J; fnoIJ' _ie.nU. ..,....,,,., JJll&O,~~...r'[:II. 10 rr__. ""_"1 J lID 'DI~Y ,nt 1.11o?i.........1 ~ I 'IB ,nt/tlOfl.... ".....'_,.. to .. lf~"..~..1 11 'aI '1"1I1/1110II_' ,nra_"'- t' II l'Unl.r_~_1 to'.......,.. ,a I' ~l~:':' ~:~::...ll. ".1_ J:;.,COII'. je" =::~..e:..:-:"!~:~"UT CU":::I e-t. trill 1011 _URCIlU: U. IDhn'U.I..n....1 t:ntl 10111 IIOIInWCIlLl-"h"_ U. IDl.....Uh 1_'"n. Ii" "UIIIDlUUC IS,. h... ....b 'Ill" .'-" AU. '"'-II AIIrA. TO .: ~m :.ra In.r.:lt ~ILOf'I....Il...""rr..UlI".::.TtoIf. _~_I_----- -,-,_.'"'_1''' ---"-- :.=:::.~.::::. ":..:~=_. :;;'-':::i-,=,"__ -,..--=~ _1___"_'.'---' _ L . ....~:'_"": ::'..':"'.. "N':'r.- - '00 ,~. Q) > 4: "..- fr~~ ......_"'.. l.~' !l....0f.;~-.: a~~ ~ .:~~ ~~ \M.' - a..(W'P ~~~~'.:..J. ~~~":.... .:-..- ~[~~ ":j<C~l. -- - ?~~( _ - i '-;-,,- ~~ ....oCDI'I,.,......-,..,"I."'......J -.. K . __ . ~ ._ .... ....on a:ISTtJoC lI:DlIUIIftTlOll .....11I 7...~.,.,_..'..~...... ..._.... _....,_ __ -'I . ernlf1'~~~w;t_~ - txISTING 1l!1UC IlEFORE CONSTRUCTION or IlUItDrNCS ,-J I II I I I 111111111 -e- c o m , ~ ~~ ~ ......... _=ST "" ~ .----... ----- "" ~ ~+~-(-'-\ I ~I- (0/ I ;'~'IIII~i\ nNITID ....~!IIaCXU -I U /4/JC\ " . """ ,- /";c, ~:::.:--= =. /5/tc /4/jC, " "'~W'- . /'""", Building H3 'llro..... rl_f I"aftlt.n noao ............ 1\ .t.\Il'ml ..,,"'....'" AS. I UI " I I '~ ,,,./(;\1- \2\\! ,,~ r: .-- hj, DUTING ASH ntn --J "- " . I ',~ " , ~",{, " , " -c Building H1 rl..i...... rt_. ...~l.u.n I I . '~' I. r" ) EXHIBIT G R .l~ ;jl H~ 1 iJ I ., I 'I J ;'. ;.J .'111 : I t ! ;:5 ~:~ --,_c ~~:~ ~ =:Ie: .... ::&:::=1 :z: ~:: ~u..~ c::::.:; .~ ~;~i c o a.. Q) c Co U 0 .' Q)~ ,~ 1:J c > C ~ ~ 5~~ ::c ~ ~ ~ ::c >< ~ ~,~I:~;~::;:~j j~=;: ~~, f.- ~] - ]1 l/ 1 1 Q - o QJD C~ ..J~ '- .....E 3~ /1_1 ~ 11 : u itl . l' ~ ~ I 1 i I i 1'/ ~ _~ i ~ i \l c L. 0: QJ. a:::~ 9r ID ,.- -tJ ~:I oC Q:) .. z o oJ :> .. ~ i~ ~ I } a " /' @ @I ~ . ;0) POl --1 (Ii} .. I ~ SU UO!l0^;;3J~ OlOSauUIl^J oq::>as 101 Joatj 0 '\OM45!H 10 'a^ a)jol J}t.1 I L ~E , 9NI01108 · .".Wl'" ' "''',' ~ 301.,30 ')10 ~8 j . ~~ ~~-@ - C_ :::~~'~i ; ~~ ;r;~~"I~'(~S!~_" ~Ill"")"" 1:))IIII:lU"'.~ "h 'I:: N~H9nH 'N'oaii ~ ~ ~I ~ @ z '? ~ -- ~ ~. - ,1 ... _ _ . 'I j ~ f. ~: I !\ 1 tl! ... ~l i , !t l t' : ~ l~~ ~ . - T l~s l ,~\:~ ~ ~ ?-- @ z Q u ... '" . i ~i 1 .J r \" ~ ~ z '? ~ ~ . ~ \ .~ r ~! ~\ _~ -~\ n ,. ~) Z ~ ~ ::;, ~-~- - t .- ! . a~ ~ , i I, I , f , t} "'.-f.:~ J~ '\l u \ .. i~ \ '. ~~ , ~ \ ---~ -Y 9 @ z ~ u w . . , . ~i ~- ~ Z ~ . : , , II r :\., __ ;__tI t:HH~ ~ ~ F) / .'~ ill 0, (0) . ~ d : ~ \1 I i \.1 _::y- (I)' ~ ~ ~ : : , ~i I, \:,1.- : z ~ " :::J . 1 :-1 \i -~ EXISTING AREA CATCH BASIN CUT INTO C.S. W1Tl-f 9J2.9 \ 10' PVC STORM SE'ltER P~PE )'~KT.I;:_:_~~.I_~:~~,?_NLY A PORTION ?~ ENTIRE PLAJI/ ON FILE ' \ ..--.---.--.-m~ , Fl LL SIZE PLAN'Wq.L BE A PART OF RESOLUTDN.RECORDRD .----.....- CONSmUCT CURB INLEl -----.-.. .-- CATCH BASIN " 3J4.J , INSTAUA, I~e' : ~~g ", /'~INSTALL ; SILT FENCE / AND INSTALL '2-3 l.F. 01" ,,' 9LT FENCE .... _ _______________\-..----.--- .--___{___ 10' PVC STORM 'PJ.~.E AIID SLOPE 01:: '; a! ~~\~NCRETE UNlr,RmJNi~'~' WALL L r---7; ....../... -- " OF WALL 18 ~()VE BITtJMINOUS " : _-..' . JO.7 -'. -'. N 0-42'56' W /210. .,' I I Co Lo' 9JO.9'--..__ 'kft> -.,' 932 " 933..- ""'--:-_~J-;' I - -935 ''! ",,; _ _JqL.-:;...~... >::""" '!)lE: ,(m-- _::~ '::~::-- "'y..;,;;.'.......,,~;' o~it;~,--:::;_0'''' ---_ '-':,/:"::--f'-~- ~::::::- 932.8';:: -. - ......-'- ~--... - J}.-.. '-935 ~'9~ . ___ l,~___ _~____ -=-:-::. _ .~ ~:~__.. \ '" '\~-:~--..-.-----..:~-...~-9J_;r-.--.--- ~-.. ~.18,2 - -~.::;7--'-h -" ~- ~,--. ~'\.~::P--~--::::~' ~ ~ " , ... ' ~ .,- o', 0~ t ' oD.Do 9 - j:' ',.. << . 9~4 ,', '. ~ ',p. ~ po _ 9.13, '~'-~'-- ----... " ---------.-9Jrl-------_, 1 -______ _, ~ 0 ":.,,_ END CURB __ ~'-.."::-'-:--:-. ---" --,.J;r.1.--n--------nn---______hh':..______lf.!l5- ' ---- --'__.::...___ ----~---'------,..--.j.i:.- ~~\ _~_..______:. -)0 I -'. :::-:-:.--:- ;~~.-~~-_-~~~_._-_-__~~~~EY,-Blrh-h_-- N -------.----------~:::-:.:~-_-_-.._:_..----:--:::.~::,.--~~:~~~:....7,-1;-:---~ _ --~_\.---~--- _________ SAWCUT EXlSTING...... -----.. ---- ---___n____ __________ ____________ ____~----.. I_~ ___________ PAVEMENT " . NEW / ----.------ ----------__.____________ ._______~-_~:~~:::--- 935 _________.:-:::-_-- ._____~---__... ~~___ _.';:: _____________ -- ";:;,~: B/T'_934 29 ..... 9J3~ ---g.l':b ---_____,.,_.._ \' __._ __ _ ~, - -935 g~4 ". ". 9J5' ---~j5.-; .... - 93ll.4' - , "\ :(,/ -II I 9JU NEW SIDEWALK --:-:-' ~. j " Uf.g ~ ~ -/ ..!:L1 ~ i"\. ;' a.""~ i "'-0' ,- ,- -;'..- ..'-<r,:..' \ S \ 0 c / ~) , . , d \ a:;z 9J2,5 9J2,9,' 3.J04 t I ..... a.... -934 I ." 9J5.1 i lli - ~ ~ NEW BUILDiNG :;: ,~ ~~ TOP OF SLA8 ELEv. 936.0 ~ T L-l ;~ :-. ONRY ~ INSTAlL 2' LF'1 OF 10' PVC STORM SE~R I PIPE 0 1.0~ T STORM SE~R MANHOlE nNG 21' STORM SEYtER PIPE .'.5 (MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT)} ~TING PIPE EX/STING WALl< EXHIBIT I GRA.DING PLAN DATED JUNE 12,1997 ) .-l 9J5., ~ \ SITE ELEV, 9~:0 = BLDG. ELEV. 100'-0' -935 .' ./ -\ ~ tID , ..'- : 9~4 . Sl --" ,..- 9J2.9: ~lJ Iwt~~ ~\ ;/ ,-+---,,, ---/ o:9? ,: C------.~;;"_,_:,_.~~, ~'.!l. ~ ...~ NE~. SIDEWALK ~~t m.!. 9J4 2~ . 9.35,9 j/ : ~9J5.J SAWCUT EXISTING _-- PAVEMENT ~ ' r" ~~;!..~RB INLET I / n 1., \i '. ,"A VE.'JEN T ~. AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 5B CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98-05PC DENYING A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE BURDICK PROPERTIES, Case File #97-132 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ,~-P( JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO MARCH 9, 1998 On February 23, 1998 the Planning Commission heard the request for variances on the respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances related to two existing commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. Resolutions 98-01 PC and 98-02PC were adopted approving the setback variances for the principal structures and the variance to fence height. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution with findings denying the 43.7 foot variance request to allow the existing trash enclosure to be setback 16.3 feet for adjacent residential property. The attached Resolution 98-05PC denies the requested variance and lists specific findings as discussed at previous hearings by the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Deny the variance requested by the applicant. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Approve the variance application. In this case the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the variance request. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission feels the hardship criteria are inclusive of previous discussion, the resolution should be adopted. However, if the Planning Commission feels there are should be changes, such changes should be made upon adoption of the resolution. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -132\97132PC4.DOC Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E_, Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolution 98-05PC. L:\97FI LES\97V AR\97 -132\97132PC4.DOC Page 2 MINUTES OF 3/9/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ~ B. Case File #98-132 (Continued) Approved Resolution denying setback variance for Burdick property. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated March 9, 1998 on file with the City Planner. On February 23, 1998 the Planning Commission heard the request for variances on the respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances related to two existing commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. Resolutions 98-01PC and 98- 02PC were adopted approving the setback variances for the principal structures and the variance to fence height. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution with findings denying the 43.7 foot variance request to allow the existing trash enclosure to be setback 16.3 feet for adjacent residential property. Resolution 98-05PC denies the requested variance and lists specific findings as discussed at previous hearings by the Planning Commission. Comments by the Commissioners: Criego, V onhof, Stamson and Kuykendall agreed without further comments. Attorney Mark Kelly representing the applicant asked to speak and stated he felt there appears to be an interest by the City and for the benefit of the neighborhood that the screening is better than what the ordinance would otherwise require. The ordinance only requires a fence on the boundary line, not on top of a berm. Presently the board is assuming his client will voluntarily spend thousands of dollars extra to provide to the neighborhood a better quality screening than they proposed while at the same time being called upon to remove trash enclosures. Burdick is not required to do that. Kelly stated his client, faced with the need to remove the trash enclosure, might just as easily choose not to install the improved landscaping plan. If it is the desire of this Board to be better assured that the landscape plan will be installed for the benefit of the neighbors, the Commissioners should give further consideration to applicant's request. Criego stated the last two variances were granted with the condition the shrubbery and a fence would be put up as indicated at the previous meetings. If in fact, applicant does not put up the fence and shrubbery as proposed, then those variances that were authorized will become null and void. The applicant will have to decide if those approved variances are sufficient to require putting up the fence and shrubs. The alternative is to move the building. Kelly said moving the building is not an alternative. The building at 14180 Commerce Avenue has been there since 1994, and has technically been a non-conforming structure. The applicant could modify the building and modify the landscaping staying within the ordinance requirements and saving thousands of dollars over what the ordinance otherwise requires. They have talked about keeping everyone happy and there is a lot of I :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn030998.doc 8 emotion tied up. Kelly asked Commissions to reconsider, and as a practical matter, what they would want to insure is that the neighborhood is properly screened from the adjacent commercial property. The City is asking the applicant to spend an awful lot of money and on top of that saying take the trash enclosure off indicating you don't care where we put it. It's your problem. Kelly is saying there is still a big problem. There is no guarantee that anybody gets what they want in this kind of situation. V onhof: . No further comments. . Commissioners reviewed hardships and went well and above beyond what is usually done at public hearings getting information from applicant and neighborhood. . Based on all the information received at the public hearings believes the resolution is sound. Kuykendall: . Agreed with V onhof. . Felt the Commissioners were following the process with a good faith effort to try to reach a solution to an awkward situation to all parties. Led to believe the complete package of variances and changes were all tied together. . Stand by what is proposed by staff. . If applicant decides not to comply with intent of what was decided, those actions can be faced by appropriate bodies. Criego: . Difficult situation at best. Believes applicant has done an inordinate amount of time to work on the issues and working with the neighbors with the fence and berm. . Still has the issue with the trash. . The applicant made every effort. . Say nay to the resolution. Stamson: . Agreed with decisions made two weeks ago. . This is the best plan. . Support up to this point. All parties worked very hard. There was great deal of consideration taken. . Supports resolution. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-05 PC DENYING A 43.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 16.3 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR THE EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE. Vote taken indicated ayes by V onhof, Kuykendall and Stamson, nay by Criego. MOTION CARRIED. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn030998.doc 9 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT SA CONSIDER REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, FENCE HEIGHT, AND BERM SLOPE FOR BURDICK PROPERTIES, Case File #97 -132 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE AND 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE JENNITOVAR,PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO FEBRUARY 23, 1998 On January 12, 1998 the Planning Commission heard the request for variances on the respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances relate to two existing commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. 14180 Commerce Avenue was built in 1994 and 14162 Commerce Avenue was built in 1997. The following variances are being applied for at the respective addresses: 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\97132PC3.DOC Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQliAL OPPORTUNITY E:VlPLOYER A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash enclosure; and A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. The Planning Commission continued the hearing and requested staff to supply additional information. On January 26, 1998 the Planning Commission was provided additional information as requested. The item was continued to February 23, 1998 to allow the applicant sufficient time to submit a revised landscape plan and to place posts in the field indicating top of berm and fence location. This has been completed. The applicant has submitted full size copies of a landscape plan and color photographs of the proposed screening. Ordinance Requirement 1 Tree per 40' site perimeter 10% Oversized Max 25% Deciduous Min 25% Coniferous Building #3 18 Trees Required 2 Oversized 5 Max 5 Min Applicant Proposes Total Trees 10% Oversized Max 25% Deciduous Min 25% Coniferous Building #3 31 Trees 4 Oversized 5 Deciduous 26 Coniferous Building #2 27 Trees Required 3 Oversized 7 Max 7 Min Building #2 31 Trees 29 Oversized 3 Deciduous 28 Coniferous The proposed landscape plan includes required irrigation and 151 shrubs. While the ordinance does not require a specific number of shrubs, they must be planted to meet certain criteria such as screening. The City has a letter of credit on file to insure the landscaping plan is complied with and all plantings survive one winter. The proposed landscape plan exceeds the City's minimum requirements as stated in the landscape ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -132\97132PC3.DOC Page 2 - "-"",-'l',,- ..-- 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. RECOMMENDATION: As stated in the staff report dated January 12, 1998. staff has concluded the hardship criteria have been met, considering the structures are existing and both sites are at maximum build out with respect to parking and setbacks. Considering that the trash enclosure is located in the drainage and utility easement, staff recommends a "Use of Public Easement" agreement be signed and recorded by the applicant (as amended in Resolution 98-01 PC). Resolution 98-01 PC and 98-02 PC include the condition that the fence be continuous with no breaks, the landscaping and screening be completed as in revised plans and that grading be completed as previously approved. Due to lack of pertinent information the variance request to berm slope should be denied. The applicant is proposing to construct a 6' high fence. The applicant has verbally stated their intent to withdraw the variance request for an 8' fence, however, staff has not received this request in writing. The Planning Commission should also deny this request based on lack of hardship if a written request for withdrawal is not received. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolutions 98-01 PC and 98-02PC and a separate motion denying the variance request to slope of berm and fence height due to lack of information and lack of hardship respectively. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -132\97132PC3.DOC Page 3 KELLY LAW OFFICES ---- --~- r;:> LiS :~~ :2 (1 'lei i -:.~ ii" I~'- - - --'d iL \\ FER I 3 IS9l _~ ;I Established 1948 351 SECOND STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 MARK W. KELLY WILLIAM F. KELLY (1922-1995) (612) 474-5977 FAX 474-9575 February 12. 1998 Ms. Jenni Tovar City Planner City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake. MN 55372-1714 BY FAX: 447-4245 Re: 14180 Commerce Avenue (Burdick Building No.2) Dear Ms. Tovar: My client's landscape architect, Eldon Hugelen, will be submitting tomorrow a landscape plan, together with photographs as requested. I am enclosing herewith a copy ofa diagram prepared by Jacobson Engineers and Surveyors, 8500 210th Street West. Lakeville, MN 55044 at the request of my client. The illustration of shots and topography behind Building No.2. together with a table of shots is similar to information prepared by the City. We hope this completes the entire picture for the Planning Commission and City Staff. The string line now in place behind Building 2 and 3 illustrates a six-foot fence atop berm as proposed. The berm behind Building No. 2 would be increased to a four-foot berm as originally discussed at the time of the building's construction in 1994. The berm proposed for Building No.3 is projected to be a 2 to 1 ratio and would to be built to the same height as the berm or landscaping that was at that location prior to construction. Photographs taken between the Schroeder and Herman residences and Herman and Mix residences suggest that a fence atop the berm would shield from view all of the brown brick of the building and leave open to view the blonde facia and mansard roof. Given the two-story construction of the Herman and Mix residences, it is not possible to shield their upper levels from a view of the building in the same manner that screening can shield single story residences which are more typical behind Building No.. 2 and 3. KELLY LAW OFFICES -2- We stand open to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely. <........ ~..-~~~ ~--- / Mark W. Kelly MWK/ tas BUHf)ICK BUILDING H 2 BERM INF01HJA liON ACTUAL roP PROPOSED TOP OWL OF HEV. OF BERM OF BERM fROM PROP. TO lOCATION 2-6-98 26-98 EX:ST. F 934.3 937.4 3.1 G 934.6 937.0 3.2 II 9.34.9 937. 7 2.8 935.1 93'/.0 1,9 LOC. or PROP_ BERM EAST OF I OT LINE 15.0' 150' 15.0' 15,0' CD I @ I @ I o I f'fI~[IfTY L_<f . 1'\'t I " ,l .-' .oA[A C~'C>l 80\'311< . '>' . ." . . ( . ". 'C' -'. . :~~. '. . \ fo /,~ ~ . ',L ..~'" - ~ -}_'.. '\.......::::...-:--.--:.>-,,_W.i'!2"--..'J~~.==:::_~--~,. 6, .g, '. :<'<;"" t "'- '-.. -- ,~. . - .~-_. .,--.- ~~,'-" ? ;.~' ;(~:. . \,-;~-. '::--:.- ". ~ ..... ., " w.lJ7'!lJJ' ns..-:~ -:"~_. ... -;: ". _' , . ...~J\.'" .. \1 -.. - .~. __4 --- ..:--o~~...~ - \'..d...:; cr.i:1'=" , .f ~ r- r .~- 9"55 ',m_ _...~!"=>_..:::-=-_~~~ ...--.:..--==_><.:1 '- -.~.~..:...~~':.-' --.-' . 101 ;')~ --,' ~ . ..- '.. "l'-' "I~_Il<OU;:;;_ICINC AIlIA x"" {----.---;q ..~. --. .<)) I ",' "" .-. ~\..,<J" .~.;...'?' -- :~_-:~~~r --,-. \~-.- r-" __1, " IRA~ lHClQ)'VRf _.... x ~~' .~~, >P-- t~~ \rc,'r ,,1 ~.~)"~" Illl'. P~VJ"" N~ <' ,.~.:>. 1)9:, X ~::,,' ~ S1ocll~Li -- .-'-'- 60'-- --' -4-,.- --- .. 60' ... - -.-. .. _ ._..__. ';1)' ~ . Ii ~ t :! " ., :c tl .. ~ a !;! .........:) EXISIING 6Ul1OING I 2 F.r. '" 9.54,0 NORTH~ SCALE IN fEET o .10 ~ I ~ 20 ...'6 :'Jt. )f>- OOtO'[5 l:XI51. :;po, Clf v. I U 0'~2'54i'. 21~;~ , ...~~- ., .-.. - '--'-{ " \ ---'.-'---': ;- .. " " .. ., .. , , .. 011', PA~~Nl JlC(WAI.k EXISTING BUILDING I " r.r. :: 936.0 ./ " L__~ '\...../ :iU(IIIALK S1CCkAU< 91tr~{:, ~;::~ ~,.~r;~l ~:.[;. "''-... 'P I c..;':~... it ~:~~/i ~~:.." '.~ ..,.' J '-;-.-- I' I "7; ;.-~ J-.,t A...,.;-t i'-:"_k... ".._ : t -=-~ --":"l:" ~ L:. E.:::' =:-":::..- .' --.-. ~.. - ~.I'.~._.. ~ ",: ~.t_i-_ .:T.\i ~~,,<'. ::,'~~~~~~~~::~~ - '. ~ - '~!'"~~:~-=-:,.-' ::,:-'f=,:- . - '-,..:. .._;\; ~~\~~. ,~;~'-.. ~.;,7__ ~ '11:~- :;-:-- -....~- .',.', .; , ,,,'- ...~ -..;-. '"i~-:" ,.'''..... _"",i':.->, --.. ,... e', , ';'_~"_:~- ~. -:.~ ':.:...:: ,S...... " '.... . "1IIl"~S . :::-: -. ,- . -' '. -' -~ . . . . '. :'. .::: ...:. : ~-:;-?::~"": ..~ "" .~'- .' - ...._;-\i.,....... . .~. . _CO" '--.OL,.,. a. cl' ~ ~ ~~;~b:i::"S::..~;:.:.::-:~!:: . .--;'!._ ... 'C -,. . r~c"':"':;_~~ ~__,-.(~ :-~ - ' - -:":' ,oJ ~.' off; , "\ ~ ..... ., . '{ ~. ~ -:.." j ,:,:@.;,:-' '~.~_l..'"" ~.__ i._~ S _-: ;..: C ~:<-..I U '~~:l.';.L,~ ( ~ ~_ K-.(~ ;- ;:'~-4"'~"~ "..-" j" ;\-l C'=- f~__.-::" (.) ~ i ~i... (_ "r...i (: i_.f ~ ,,"~:t:~~'-. ~T'4X~" ~',.".""". ,;-,- . '~."U"_-",,,,- ti) .'t-'-, .:'l:'~,:, ,,',', ~ ~i'~:jj"':e. :":~f\\}~::';-:.'~:.:-i5~~{'..-: ~:-~:~;':_'\:,ik'__Ir~:~~.: . :" ..: , .~ 1(7'-t"',.., ,.,:......~ ' ....~_.' ~. .:':. 1 ".,~ ","'_ - -;.', '-\'~!.\.t-,~'~ '~10<! : ~ ... ';~ ~~ - '0$ #~ ~ .~ t-lu .~. ~,- . - -- __C...:~r~i~_..;'(; ...._-~ '--', i ~. ;.:=."':';": :::-'--- )' ~~...;.~>~)~..,,:)~l . . ~JI~W .,;.' , "lv'..1'{/;.. . "::: .l!i',~: Ij . "' Jf:". j"-l--.~l-~~'. I " .''''i ." II -"-I-t'~ ..--.~''''''. " I ~ j ~ i-:; ..1._" r- - ;-,(;..~ .1.-.'.... ,TW 6.10 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: (Ord. 95-05) A. Purpose: 1. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish performance standards and minimum requirements for landscaping, buffering, and screening, that will enhance the visual, environmental, and aesthetic character of property and site development within the City. The City Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council, will utilize these standards in the review and evaluation of subdivision and site plans and development proposals. 2. The objectives of these requirements are to establish and maintain forestation of the City; to provide appropriate ground cover vegetation for controlled soii erosion; to preserve and enhance, when necessary, the natural environment, particularly in instances where the natural environment is disturbed durino the course of development; and to establish standards for utilization of naturai and other materials to achieve desired screening, buffering, and landscaping. 3. This ordinance sets forth minimum requirements for landscaping, and reforestation and technical limitations to assure that the result is consistent with reasonable maintenance requirements on a long-term basis and to assure that the results provide landscape amenities to the urban environment. 4. This ordinance is intended to provide standards that allow flexibility in design and individual site needs. Designers are encouraged to utilize a variety of site landscape elements (Le.; trees, shrubs, ground covers. flowers, berms and ground form, fences, walls, existing topography and vegetation, artforms, and other similar items), in creative ways that are aesthetically pleasing yet functional where required. B. Plan Review Standard: Plan review by the City Planning Department will include such items as: choice of materials, especially plantings, to determine if they are functionally appropriate for the intended purpose; hardiness; disease-resistance; compatible choice and mix of materials: do materials complement and/or provide pleasing contrast to on-site and off-site conditions to maintain interest; and other issues as site appropriate. Specific site plans may be required to go beyond the minimum requirements to meet the purpose and objectives of this ordinance due to unique or exceptional circumstances and conditions which are existing or proposed. C. Application: 1. This ordinance applies to all proposed business, industrial, multi-family residential (projects of 3 or more dwelling units per building), public and institutional uses as may be permitted or conditional within their respective zoning districts. This applies to all new construction within all zoning districts. 2. Existing uses shall also comply with this ordinance (except as exempted in Section (E 5) when a building permit is issued for their expansion. Exceptions include additions in which the ground building footprints in total are under 10% of the existing structures gross floor area or 4000 square feet, whichever is less. 3. The Downtown Redevelopment District as defined by City Council Resolution No. 85-07 shall be exempt from this ordinance. D. General Provisions and Landscape Requirements: 1. To help assure the best possible results, plans must be prepared and certified by a Registered Landscape Architect in the State of Minnesota for: a) business, industrial, public anGJ institutional development projects with sites over 20,000 square feer-or gross building area of 4,000 square feet or more, whichever is less; Section 6, Page 6 b) multi-family residential projects of 8 or more dwelling units per building. Projects smaller than those identified above shall be prepared by either a Registered Landscape Architect or a professional site planner with educational training or work experience in site analysis and landscape plan preparation. 2. The quantity of plant materials shown on the landscape plans of proposed developments shall meet or exceed the minimums as defined herein. 3. The City requires landscape treatment of the whole site to include the following elements: a) The site perimeter. b) The "entry" focal area(s) of a development (i.e., major entity drives, corner areas, signage locations, and other similar focal points). c) The parking lot landscape. d) Screening of mechanical equipment, exterior storage, loading docks, trash storage, or visual clutter as identified by the City in the plan review process. 4. The plant materials used must meet or exceed the City standards of size and specie in order to qualify for credit towards the landscape requirement. Additional plant materials smaller than required herein may be appropriate and necessary to achieve the design effect. 5. Preservation of existing vegetation on site, if it can successfully be incorporated into the landscape plan, is encouraged and will be credited toward the landscape requirement. Existing plant material must meet or exceed the City standard in order to qualify for a one to one substitution credit. 6. Plantings at street intersections shall not block visibility within a clear view triangle. 7. Plantings shall not interfere with drainage patterns, create unreasonable conflict with utilities (i.e., frequent pruning near overhead power lines, etc.) or restrict access to any utilities_ 8. Landscape coverage shall be defined as all ground areas surrounding the principal building and accessory buildings which are not garden areas, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks or patios. All ground areas shall be landscaped with grass, shrubs, trees or other approved ornamental landscape material. E. Calculation of Requirements, Credits and Sizes: 1. The planting requirement shall be the sum of the following separate requirements. These formulas are only intended as a method to generate a quantitative performance level and not a design instruction. Creativity of design is encouraged to provide specific solutions. a) Perimeter Tree Calculation: Business/lndustrial/Public/lnstitutional sites shall contain, at a minimum, the greater of: 1. 1 tree required per 40' of site perimeter, or 2. 1 tree per 1000 square feet of gross building area. Multi-residential sites shall contain, at a minimum, the greater of: 1 . 1 tree per dwelling unit, or 2. 1 tree required per 40' of site perimeter. b) Entry Plantings: Each "entry" and focal area. (see Section D 3b), of a development shall be treate<:i with landscape development (trees, shrubs, etc.). No numeri~al 'requirement of plants is provided, but the Section 6, Page 7 - T(~- --- .,. landscape plan shall reflect the proposed treatment. Trees required on the perimeter calculation are not applicable to this design feature. c) Parking Lot Landscape: As identified in Section (F) 1 - 5, parking lot islands and screening shall be provided. No numerical requirement of plants is provided, but use of canopy trees to provide shade and shrubs to soften the internal sight lines and screen small storage areas is required. d) Other Screening: As identified in Section (G) other screening shall be provided. No numerical requirement of plants is provided. The perimeter tree planting requirement may be used to provide trees for this purpose, but their effectiveness shall be as described in Section (F)4.b). 2. Plant Sizes: Plants provided by the developer as credit for meeting the landscape requirement shall meet the following size criteria: a) DeciduDus Canopy Trees: 2 1/2" caliper B & B (at 6" above ground). b) Coniferous Trees: 6' high 8 & 8 c) Others: 1. Ornamental or half trees: 1 3/4" caliper B & B (can substitute for canopy trees at a ratio of 2 ornamental/half trees for 1 canopy tree). 2. Other shrubs: No minimum, except that they must meet the stated purpose (screening, etc.). d) All plantings shall be appropriate to the hardiness zone and physical characteristics of the site. They shall conform to the size and quality standards in the most current edition of the American Standard for Nursery StDck as published by the American Association of Nurserymen. e) All deciduous trees proposed to meet the minimum requirements shall be long-lived, hardwood species. A list of desirable and prohibited plant material species is incorporated in this ordinance and will be maintained and kept on file with the City Planning Department. f) The complement of trees fulfilling the minimum requirements shall typically not be less than 25% deciduous and not less than 25% coniferous to maintain a mix of plant types. Any proposed modification to this requirement will consider the site specific design solution if site conditions are deemed appropriate and other functional requirements (screening, etc.) are met. g) Installation will be in accordance with professional horticultural standards as established in the most current edition of the Landscape Construction Reference Manual as published by the American Nursery and Landscape Association. 3. Credits for Existing Materials: The developer may request credit for plant materials preserved on site provided the developer has demonstrated that the plant material has been accurately identified by specie and location on a survey. The plant materials correct location shall also be shown on the grading plan with appropriate measures to ensure their protection and survival (i.e.; snow fence barrier, appropriate distance to tree base and root structure, pruning, watering, mulching, root protection/pruning, timing, fertilization, tree removal plan/techniques, disease prevention, method to prevent soil compaction over root systems, etc.). This tree protection/preservation plan should be prepared by a qualified forester, Registered Landscape Architect, or arborist. a) Existing trees must conform to the minimum size requirements (identified in 2 above) to be credited. b) Plants must be of approved species as currently recorded by the City as appropriate materials. We~k wooded and disease prone species are not suitable for credit. Section 6, Page 8 c) The extent of credit will be based on staff review of data (plans and narrative) presented by the developer. Criteria will include type of material, size, quality, location and extent of site coverage. 4. Variation of Plant Sizes: a) For all landscape plans, at least 10% of the coniferous and/or deciduous canopy trees must exceed the minimum size (to 8' high and 3 1/2" caliper B & B respectively) to establish some diversity in size. b) For multi-family projects, 20% of the required plants shall be of the larger sizes. These plants shall be used in the areas for strategic screening, softening of buildings, focal point enhancement, adjacent to recreational areas for shade, etc. F. Parking Lot Landscape: 1. To avoid undesirable monotony, heat, and wind associated with large parking lots, such lots shall have lineal and row end internal landscaped island/traffic delineators in addition to any required traffic safety islands. Landscape islands shall be at least 5% of the paved parking lot area in excess of 6000 square feet. A parking island is considered to be g' x 18' or 162 square feet (equivalent of one parking stall), although the shape and location will be a design option of the developer. The minimum width shall be 6 feet. 2. Industrial storage yards, outdoor retail display areas or similar type areas are exempted from the parking lot island requirement. 3. Landscaping of parking lot islands shall include some combination of mulch, lawn, shrubs and/or trees. The intent is to provide shade, focus or promote traffic patterns, (define drive aisles and rows of parking), limit rows of visually uninterrupted parking stalls to a maximum of 180 feet, soften ground level views, yet maintain appropriate visibility for safety. 4. Parking lot screening shall be provided on the perimeter of any new parking lot. a) Screening shall be provided using a combination of shrubs, coniferous trees, fencing, berming, etc., to minimize the effect of headlights and reflected light from bumpers, grills, and headlights. Screening must attempt to address at least 60% of the perimeter where views of the parking lot could originate. b) Effectiveness of the screening shall be 80% opacity year-round. c) Berming must achieve a 30" height to provide 80% opacity on 3' high screening. (Berms cannot be used as the only method of screening. They must be used in combination with other elements.) d) Plant materials must be spaced no more than 30" apart on single rows of deciduous shrubs, 48" apart on double staggered rows of deciduous shrubs, with initial planted height of at least 2' (spacing may vary, subject to species used). e) Coniferous trees must be placed no further than 8' apart, to be counted as screening. 5. All parking lot islands or landscape areas shall be separated from the parking surface by cast in place concrete curbs or an equal or better standard. Bituminous or precast concrete curbs or similar curbs are unacceptable. Curb will not be required for existing uses that are required to comply with this ordinance (Section C-2) unless more than 50% of the existing parking or paved area will be reconstructed to acco,:",modate drainage or general maintenance. Section 6, Page 9 G. Other Screening: Developers shall make design efforts to fully screen service areas, trash storace. loading, mechanical equipment, and other similar areas, from view by the general public or adjacent residential areas. The screening provisions for parking lots shall be followed except that berming heights must be increased to a minimum of 4' with an overall effective screening height of 6'. (Berms cannot be used as the only method of screening. They must be used in combination with other elements.) Each site will be evaluated as to its specific needs and solutions which may exceed these minimum standards. H. Grounds and Lawns: 1. All areas must be finished off with a stable landscape (trees. shrubs, turf, mulch, etc.) or hard constructed surface (concrete, bituminous, pavers, etc.). No site areas can be left unfinished or subject to erosion. Landscape rock or bark/wood chip mulch may be substituted for sod in shrub and flower planting beds and building maintenance strips. 2. All lawn areas and drainage swales shall be sodded. At least a 2-foot width of sod shall be provided between all paved/curbed areas and seeded/natural/native areas to provide a finished edge and control erosion. Seeding or reseeding is allowed for less visible or large and remote portions of a site that are unused or subject to future development. Seed mixes could include prairie grass or other appropriate low-maintenance mixes. Athletic fields may be seeded. 3. Slopes in excess of 3:1 will not be allowed in areas intended for maintained turf. Slopes of up to 1: 1 /2: 1 may be allowed with a slope stabilization plan approved by the City; otherwise terracing and/or retaining walls will be required. * 4. All areas to be lawn and landscaped shall have a built-in irrigationsystem. i"AQ >irri gation: plan:shalt..I;?EM~ql.1ifed~at:-thEf ti me::-6f ~ obtaifiii1g;.tb!3,1:)t~i!dj rjg~perr.nr~ Th is plan shall indicate the overlapping pattern, head type, control type and location, source of water and connection method. The system plan shall be prepared by a qualified designer with experience designing systems for similar uses (project type and size). Permanent underground irrigation is not required for existing, new or re-established natural or native plant communities. 5. Undisturbed areas containing existing viable natural or native vegetation shall be maintained free of foreign or noxious plant materials. Top seeding or enhancement of these areas should occur as needed and appropriate to fill in thin areas and revitalize the existing vegetation. I. Maintenance Standards: 1. All cultivated landscape areas shall be maintained by the property owner to present a healthy, neat and orderly area. This shall include: a) Maintain a healthy, pest-free condition. b) Remove dead, diseased or dangerous trees or shrubs or parts thereof. c) Provide appropriate pruning per National Amorist Association and American Nurserymen Association Standards. d) Mowing and/or removal of noxious weeds and grasses. e) Remove trash and other debris. f) Watering to ensure plant growth and survival. 2. Natural or native plant communities shall be managed in order to maintain the plant community for the purpose that it was preserved or created. This includes trimming as needed of all noxious. vegetation and long grasses, removal of trash Section 6, Page 10 or other debris and other horticulturally appropriate maintenance methods for the specific type of plant community. J. Performance Guarantee: 1. All plants shall be guaranteed by the developer for one year after total project acceptance. 2. The irrigation system shall be guaranteed for one year concurrent with the plant guarantee. This will assure one winter season with a fall shut down and spring start-up. 3. The developer shall notify the City prior to total project acceptance, for City concurrence on the acceptability of the complete landscape and irrigation system installation. The City shall issue a letter accepting the landscape and irrigation system installation and therein fixing the date for guarantee purposes. 4. The developer shall post a letter of credit with the City for the complete landscape and irrigation system installation when the building permit is issued (plants, irrigation, mulch and edgers). The letter of credit shall be held by the City and used, if necessary, to effect satisfactory completion of the project in the event of incomplete or failed work. The value of the letter of credit shall be 125% of the estimated construction costs for plants, irrigation system, mulch and edgers. 5. Release of the letter of credit shall occur on the date that the City has reinstated and accepted the landscape and irrigation system and notified developer in' writing of such acceptance. Such release date shall not be earlier than ten (10) days prior to the expiration of the plant guarantee specified in paragraphs (J) 2 and (J) 3 above. K. Submission Requirements: Landscape plans must be drawn to scale, show all proposed plants, quantities and sizes, seed/sod areas/limits, etc. The plan(s) must include the entire project area. Include project name, developer, Registered Landscape Architect or landscape designer, architect, dates, existing site conditions (topography, vegetation, ponding areas or water bodies, utilities, boundary data, walks, etc.), proposed site conditions, (grading plan, tree preservation/protection plan, etc.), site lighting, off site conditions approximately 100 feet beyond the site, and other site conditions that would be expected to affect landscaping. 2. Calculations to evaluate compliance with the ordinance provisions including: area in square footage and percentage in total area for building, parking lot (including driveways), landscape areas and total area; and quantities of trees and shrubs required and planted or preserved. . 1. 3. Supportive plans, details, written narrative notes, cross-sections or other information as may be required by the Planning Staff that is reasonable and necessary to demonstrate the design intent and general compliance with this ordinance, including, but not limited to, items listed under Section (C) 2. 4. Fifteen copies of all plans shall be submitted. 6.11 SCREENING: (Ord. 95-05) A. Screening shall be required in residential zones where any offstreet parking area contains more than six (6) parking spaces and is within thirty (30) feet of an adjoining residential lot line. B. Where any business or industrial use (structure, parking or storage) is adjacent to property zoned or developed for residential use, that business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of the residential property. Screening shall also be provided where a business or industry is a~ross the street from a residential zone, but not Section 6, Page 11 on that side of a business or industry considered to be the front as determined by the Zoning Officer. C. The screening required herein shall consist of a solid fence or wall not less than five (5) feet nor more than six (6) feet in height but shall not extend within fifteen (15) feet of any street or driveway opening into a street. The screening shall be placed along the property lines or in case of screening along a street, fifteen (15) feet from the street right-of-way with landscaping (trees, shrubs, grass and other plantings) between the screening and the pavement. Planting of a type approved by the Zoning Officer may also be required in addition to or in lieu of fencing. D. Where planting is required a landscape plan shall be prepared including complete specifications for plant materials and other features. The Zoning Officer may issue a temporary Zoning Certificate for the principal building on a project before full completion of planting or fencing, if such items cannDt be furnished at the same time as the building. Temporary Zoning Certificates shall be good for one (1) year and shall not be renewable. As soon as the screening is completed, the temporary certificate may be cancelled and a permanent Zoning Certificate issued. If any portion of the required planting and fencing is not complete within one (1) year, the Zoning Officer shall cause all use of the premises to be stopped. E. In all districts, a fence six (6) feet high or shorter may be erected on the rear lot line. the side lot lines and return to the nearest front corner of the principal building. In residential districts, a fence not exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height and having an opacity of not more than twenty-five percent (25%) may be erected on the front lot line and the side tot lines forward of a line drawn across the front line of the principal building. Fences' shall not be permitted in any right-of-way. -, ; ./ Fences shall be constructed in a professional, aesthetically pleasing manner, be of substantial material and reasonably suited for the intended purpose. Every fence shall be maintained on both sides in a condition of good repair and shall not remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. (Ord. 91-03) F. In all Zoning Districts. waste material, debris. refuse or garbage shall be kept in a container enclosed by a wall which is visually compatible with the principal building it serves. G. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment installed on buildings shall be screened from ground level observation at all points on adjacent streets or property. The screening must be visually compatible with the building it serves. H. In all situations where fences are utilized, either optional or required. that side of the fence considered to be the face (facing as applied to fence posts) shall face abutting property. I. On corner lots in residential districts. no structure or planting in excess of one (1) foot above street centerline grade. except fences that meet the requirements of Section 6.1 OE for front yard fences, shall be permitted within a triangular area defined as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the projected property lines of two intersecting streets. thence forty (40) feet along one property line, thence diagonally to a point forty (40) feet from the point of beginning on the other property line thence to the point of beginning. (Ord. 91-04) Section 6, Page 12 MINUTES OF 2/23/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION BY ~EGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIO~AL USE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING / CONDITIONS: \ // . / 1. Six identificatiO~\SignS will be permitted on the site. The liknage plan must be revised to identify '(he locations of these signs, and to clarify,! the location of each type of sign. If a sign isVocated adjacent to the park access f}P'the east side of Glynwater Trail, no portion of t'he sign or fence is permitted in the-parkland, \ 1/ 2. The plan must provide\f calculation showing th,l},impervious surface, not including road right-of-way, on th(! portion of the site located within the Shoreland District. The impervious surface <<the site in the S)tfreland District may not exceed 30% of the site area, less right-of-~ay. / TT 3. The plan must identify Pha'ie I and Jnase II of the development. The plan must also note that Phase II will not be\q.lloyed to develop until the property is included within the MUSA, and services can bi..6tended. A letter of credit for the lank~'Nng and tree replacement must be submitted prior to 4. / , approval of the final ~,(Jocumenf{ 5. The homeowner's a sociation docu~ents must be revised to include the correct legal descriptions for ch association. T1{ese documents must be recorded with the final plat document . 6. A new set vf plans, showing all of th revisions, must be submitted prior to final approv of the conditional use permit. Vote en signified ayes by all. MOTION C ED. 5. Old Business: ~ A. Case File #97-132 Continuation of the Burdick Properties variance request. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staffreport dated January 23, 1998 on file with the Planning Department with the City of Prior Lake. On January 12, 1998 the Planning Commission heard the request for variances on the respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances relate to two existing commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. 14180 Commerce Avenue was built in 1994 and 14162 Commerce Avenue was built in 1997. The following variances are being applied for at the respective addresses: 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and I :\98fi1es\98plcomrn\pcmin\rrm022398.doc \3 A 2 foot variance to pennit a fence height of8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash enclosure; and A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.06 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3: 1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. The Planning Commission continued the hearing and requested staff to supply additional information. On January 26, 1998 the Planning Commission was provided additional information as requested. The item was continued to February 23, 1998 to allow the applicant sufficient time to submit a revised landscape plan and to place posts in the field indicating top of berm and fence location. This has been completed. The applicant has submitted full size copies of a landscape plan and color photographs of the proposed screemng. The proposed landscape plan includes required irrigation and 151 shrubs. While the ordinance does not require a specific number of shrubs, they must be planted to meet certain criteria such as screening. The City has a letter of credit on file to insure the landscaping plan is complied with and all plantings survive one winter. The proposed landscape plan exceeds the City's minimum requirements as stated in the landscape ordinance. As stated in the staff report dated January 12, 1998, staffhas concluded the hardship criteria have been met, considering the structures are existing and both sites are at maximum build out with respect to parking and setbacks. Considering that the trash enclosure is located in the drainage and utility easement, staff recommends a "Use of Public Easement" agreement be signed and recorded by the applicant (as amended in Resolution 98-01PC). Resolution 98-01 PC and 98-02 PC include the condition that the fence be continuous with no breaks, the landscaping and screening be completed as in revised plans and that grading be completed as previously approved. I :\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\mn022398.doc 14 Due to lack of pertinent information the variance request to berm slope should be denied. The Planning Commission should deny this request based on lack of hardship if a written request for withdrawal is not received. The applicant has also asked for a 2 foot variance to fence height. The proposed plan indicates a 7.5 foot fence section. Variance to fence height should be approved if landscape plan is a condition of building setback variances to be consistent and clear. Comments from the Commissioners: Cramer: . The applicant has exceed the recommendation of the berm and screening height. Support the two foot variance request. . Opposed to the variance for the trash enclosure - there are other places on the Burdick property to locate the enclosure. The neighbors do not need a dumpster in their back yard. Stamson: . Question for Mr. Kelly regarding the 3 to 1 slope. The intention was to withdraw the 3 to 1 berm height. Kelly stated the berm was in fact 2 to 1. . Tovar explained the landscape codes. She also stated the grading plan of2 to 1 is approved in the ordinance and reflected on approved grading plan. The variance is not needed. Criego: . Went out to the site and observed the berm, string, homes and setting. The best we can do with a 6 foot fence is that you are not going to see much ofthe buildings, only the rooftop. With the berm you won't see the cars or lights. . Agreed with staff on the continuous fence instead of being broken in two parts. . Concern for the trash enclosure. But half ofthat trash container has been there for many years. Not sure the other half will make too much difference. . Regarding the two foot variance - There are only two points that go beyond 2 feet. . Tovar explained the Resolution 98-02PC references Exhibit B which shows the two points, not across the board variance for the building. . With the adjusted berm and fence the variance should be approved. Stamson: . The request for the 2.7 variance setback hardship has been met. . The fence height of 8 feet is not the variance plan. Tovar explained it would have to be added. . Main concern for the trash enclosure. The only reason for leaving it there is that it is somewhat expensive to move. It is not a hardship. Cannot vote to approve the trash enclosure so close to private property. I :\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\mn022398.doc 15 Cramer: . Asked staff if the landscape for Building #3 has to be done within a year. Tovar said there is no deadline but the Planning Commission could make that a condition for both buildings. Criego: . Concern for fencing around the trash enclosures. Tovar pointed out the landscape plan on the overhead. . Eldon Hugelen, the landscape architect, explained the trash enclosure plan starting out planting 8 foot arborvitaes growing to 20 feet. . The buildings are blocked off up to the roof. . Questioned garbage pick up times. Rye said the current ordinance does not regulate times in commercial and industrial areas. . Should be changed near residential areas. The Planning Commissioners discussed the variances required for each building. The Commissioners decided to consider the building setback and fence height variance separately from the trash enclosure setback. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98- 01PC GRANTING A 2.7 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING AND A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 7.5 FOOT FENCE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF A 7 1/2 FOOT CONTINUOUS PRIVACY FENCE ALONG SIDE THE TRASH ENCLOSURE IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT G. CRAMER ADDED AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT LANDSCAPING BE COMPLETED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE LETTER OF CREDIT EXPIRES FOR BUILDING #3. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98- 02PC GRANTING A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR SIDE YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL AND A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FENCE HEIGHT OF 7.5 FEET FOR THE PROPERTY AT 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE A VARIANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW THE TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE LEFT WHERE IT IS WITH THE FENCING AND BERMS AS STATED. 1:\98files\98plcomrn\pcmin\nm022398.doc 16 Discussion by Commissioners: Criego: · We have done as much as we can to fence, berm and cover up. City Council will deal with the garbage pickup. Stamson: · 43 feet is too close. There are other options. The spirit and intent of the ordinance is to keep the enclosure away from the property. It is screened. Vote taken signified 1 aye. 2 nays. MOTION DENIED. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO DIRECT STAFF PREPARE A RESOLUTION DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR THE TRASH ENCLOSURE SETBACKS BASED ON FINDINGS AS DISCUSSED. Vote taken 2 ayes, 1 nay. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained to the public the 5 day appeal process. Harry Ray, 5726 West 98 1/2 Street, Bloomington, stated he was appalled the residents did not have the right to speak. He did not realize the public hearing was closed several weeks ago. He felt there are still many things to be discussed by the neighbors. The City Manager assured them there would be an ordinance relating to the garbage proposed to the Council. The second issue is the drainage runoff. The residents expected the right to be heard and want justice. Mike Marxens, 14231 Timothy Avenue, questioned the city code states parking lots should be 25 feet from residential area. Tovar stated it was 20 feet and the applicant was in compliance. June Phillipp, 14211 Timothy Avenue, asked if there is going to be a retaining wall in her back yard. She is assuming there will be a retaining wall behind building #2. Tovar will give her a copy of the plan. Stamson again explained the applicant or any aggrieved party could appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. 6. ,/ /", /' . fly discussed the following: // · The training sessJon h~~ been duled for March 31, 1998 at the fire hall. · There was a ,short discussion on the s library issue. . The z~""'ordinance final draft target date is 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn022398.doc 17 ~~ \ ~ ~'/ ~NE~ AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT, SA CONSIDER REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, FENCE HEIGHT, AND BERM SLOPE FOR BURDICK PROPERTIES, Case File #97-132 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE AND 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE JENNITOVAR,PLANNER DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES X NO JANUARY 26,1998 On January 12. 1998 the Planning Commission heard the request for variances on the respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances relate to two existing commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. 14180 Commerce Avenue was built in 1994 and 14162 Commerce Avenue was built in 1997. The following variances are being applied for at the respective addresses: 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -132\97132PC2.DOC Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash enclosure; and A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3: 1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. The Planing Commission continued the hearing and requested staff to supply additional information. Specifically, the Planning Commission asked for the following information: . A copy of previous City Council minutes relating to berm and parking setbacks. . Verification of the Zoning of PDQ and changes to the zoning of PDQ. . Verification if the existing trash enclosure located at 14180 Commerce Avenue is on an easement. . Verification of the hook-up of the storm sewer beehive located on the easement of the property located at 14162 Commerce Avenue and information regarding the capacity of the pipe. . Existing elevations of the berm and building located at 14162 Commerce Avenue. . Approved grading plan and topographical survey of 14162 Commerce Avenue prior to construction activity. . Full size copies of the approved site plan for 14162 Commerce Avenue. At the January 12, 1998 hearing, the applicant stated he is not applying for a variance to berm slope or fence height. Staff had asked for this in writing and has yet to receive anything. Therefore, the request should proceed as applied for until further notice. Staff had also asked the applicant to submit a revised completed landscape plan for review and to address the issue of the trash enclosure on the easement. Attached is the correspondence relating to the request. Staff has not received a revised landscape plan for review as of yet. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Kelly (applicant's representative) on January 21, 1998, the submittal of a revised landscape plan is pending specific feedback from the adjacent residential property owners. L:\97FI LES\97V AR\97 -132\97132PC2.DOC Page 2 DISCUSSION: Attached is a copy of a memorandum from City Attorney Suesan Pace, relating to the history of James 1 st Addition and Burdick #3. She specifically discusses the legal issues of what has happened with respect to the Zoning Ordinance. This memorandum has the necessary related minutes and documentation relating to the issues brought up by residents and information as requested by the Planning Commission. The current zoning of PDQ is B-1. The entire James 1 st Addition was rezoned from R-1 to B-1 on October 22, 1979. James Refrigeration had asked that the lots adjacent to HWY. 13 be zoned B-2, a more intense commercial use. The City Council denied this request twice, hence the zoning was and is B-1. There have been no subsequent changes to zoning of any of the lots located in James 1 st Addition. The City Council minutes approving the rezoning are attached (Exhibit D of City Attorney memorandum). Also included in the packet is a copy of the permitted uses in the B-1 zoning district from 1975 and from 1980. When James 1 st Addition was preliminary platted in 1979, retail uses were conditional. Based on the information in micro-fiche records, the zoning ordinance was amended in June 1980 to allow retail uses as permitted in the B-1 zoning district. The plat of James 1 st Addition indicates a 20 foot drainage and utility easement located in the rear of lots (Exhibit E of City Attorney memorandum). Therefore, because the existing setback of the trash enclosure is 16.3 feet from the property line, it encroaches 3.7 feet into the easement. If the Planning Commission grants the variances, a "Use of Public Easement" agreement must be signed and recorded by the developer. On January 20, 1998 the Engineering Department measured the elevation of the constructed berm located at 14162 Commerce Avenue. Attached Exhibit F details the existing elevations of the berm. The elevation at top of sidewalk (located at rear of building) is 935.9 el. as indicated on the approved grading plan. Therefore, it is engineering's conclusion that the elevation of the building is as indicated on the approved grading plan (936.0 el.). The berm, in general, is 1.5 feet shorter than as on approved grading plan. Engineering has provided the necessary information relating to the storm sewer location and use. Attached memorandum dated December 12, 1997 from City Engineer Greg IIkka states that the beehive catch basin is connected to city storm sewer system as indicated on the approved plan (see Burdick Building #3 approved plans). The attached memorandum dated January 16, 1998 from Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator, discusses the size of the pie and overflow. Attached are full-size copies of the approved site plan, grading plan, and landscape plan. These are plans the city approved with respect to the proposed L:\97FI LES\97V AR\97 -132\97132PC2.DOC Page 3 construction at 14162 Commerce Avenue. The Planning Commission also requested a copy of the topographical survey of 14162 Commerce Avenue prior to construction or grading. It is attached as Exhibit F. Because there is no approved grading plan as part of the plat on file, part of engineering approval of the proposed grading plan was that the proposed elevations be consistent with the elevations of the berm that were existing on the site. Attached is the staff report from January 12, 1998 detailing the variance requests and hardship criteria. At the public hearing on January 12, 1998, Maureen Hermann and Marv Mirsch submitted documents for the public record that they specifically requested be returned. The Planning Department made copies of the originals, and returned a copy of the information submitted to each of them via certified mail. Signed cards as proof of receipt of the documents were returned to the City from the Post Office. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. RECOMMENDATION: As stated in the staff report dated January 12, 1998, staff has concluded the hardship criteria have been met, considering the structures are existing and both sites are at maximum build out with respect to parking and setbacks. Due to lack of pertinent information the variance request to berm slope should be continued. Considering that the trash enclosure is located in the drainage and utility easement, staff recommends a "Use of Public Easement" agreement be signed and recorded by the applicant (as amended in Resolution 98-01 PC). ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolutions 98-01 PC and 98-02PC and a separate motion continuing the variance request to slope of berm. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -132\97132PC2.DOC Page 4 MINUTES OF 1/26/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. Old Business: :f A. Case #97-132, Continuation of Burdick Properties variances for rear yard setback and berm slope for 14162 Commerce Avenue and 14180 Commerce Avenue properties. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report. On January 12, 1998, the Planning Commission heard the request for variances on the respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances relate to two existing commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. 14180 Commerce Avenue was built in 1994 and 14162 Commerce Avenue was built in 1997. At that hearing, the applicant stated he is not applying for a variance to berm slope or fence height. The Staff had asked for this in writing and has yet to receive anything. Staff had also asked the applicant to submit a revised completed landscape plan for review and to address the issue of the trash enclosure on the easement. The revised landscape plan is still outstanding. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Kelly (applicant's representative) on January 21, 1998, the submittal of a revised landscape plan is pending specific feedback from the adjacent residential property owners. A memorandum from City Attorney Suesan Pace, relating to the history of James 1st Addition and Burdick #3 discusses the legal issues of what has happened with respect to the Zoning Ordinance. This memorandum has the necessary related minutes and documentation relating to the issues brought up by residents and information as requested by the Planning Commission. As stated in the staff report dated January 12, 1998, staffhas concluded the hardship criteria have been met, considering the structures are existing and both sites are at maximum build out with respect to parking and setbacks. Due to lack of pertinent information the variance request to berm slope should be continued. Considering the trash enclosure is located in the drainage and utility easement, staff recommends a "Use of Public Easement" agreement be signed and recorded by the applicant (as amended in Resolution 98-01PC). Stamson questioned allowable tolerance of grading. Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott explained the elevation allowed is a plus or minus .3 (three-tenths) of a foot. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: . Attorney Mark Kelly (applicant's representative) clarified the intent was to complete the berm as designed. The slope on the berm is a 2 to 1 ratio. Another layer of retaining wall will make up the 1 to 1 1/2 foot difference. . Concerned all the information was not obtained from the developer. . Would like to see the line of site information. The drawings are not drawn to scale. Would like to see the landscape plan. I :\98fi1es\98plcomrn\pcmin\nmO 12698.doc 4 . Feels all action on this matter should be continued. Cramer: . Has enough information to address the variances. There are some separate issues. . The landscape plan is needed. . The trash enclosure is a concern. . With all the mistakes made hopes people learn a lot of lessons from this. . Separate all three variances into separate items. V onhof: . Until the criteria is corrected, the Commissioners cannot make decisions. The property is not in compliance. . The trash enclosures are located where they should not be. . Admittedly the City said "We made a mistake." His opinion is the developer should know where to put things. The developer failed. There is nothing from the developer saying he will comply with the existing grading plan. . The property is not conforming by applicant's own design. Cannot support the requested variances. . The developers have made mistakes as well. Stamson: . Upon reading the brief, felt there was enough information. . Agreed the garbage enclosures should be a separate issue. It is one of the biggest problems. . Supports the 2' fence height. The hardship criteria has been met. . Variance of large berm - Does not favor a slope of 3.1. There are other ways to meet the screening. . Could work on all variances. Kuykendall: . Not favor the location ofthe trash enclosures. . Commissioners should act on individual items. . Reality is the building exists. The building codes should be met. . Would like to see all the information in front ofthe Commissioners. . If this is continued, the 60 day rule will run out on February 21, 1998. . Other issues have to be worked out. V onhof: . Not opposed on acting on the variances tonight. Kuykendall: . Feels the right information has to be available and would like to continue the meeting. . If the developer cannot meet the requirements all variances should be denied. 1:\98files\98p1comm\pcmin\nmO 12698.doc 5 ~ -- 1-----; Mr. Kelly pointed out the grading plan before the Commissioners is 2 to 1. The applicant has been waiting for a response from the neighbors on the proposals. He stated the applicant would like to work out an amicable resolution with the neighbors. To date there has been no comments from the neighbors. Discussions continue on what happened in 1979 when the applicant did not own the property and does not know what happened back then. His client is being held responsible to activities of City Council members, neighbors and prior owners. Mr. Kelly said they will submit a new landscape plan but feels the applicant had been forthcoming with information. They want a consistent landscaping plan across the lot line. Mr. Kelly asked the Commissioners to point out exactly what they want and they will provide the information. V onhof: . The reason for the variances is because of the applicant. . The plans dated 1997 are not complete. Kuykendall: . Plans should be drawn to scale. . Assure the landscape architect has the appropriate information. Direct line of site. Understands it will not be a clear. . The neighbors are most concerned with what the see. . Applicant's screening proposal is reasonable. Cramer: . Asked for a line of sight - possibly tree height. Give an idea of what the blockage would be. Right now people are guessing what the line of site would be. Mr. Kelly asked for the next meeting to extend the 60 day deadline. Maureen Hermann, 14151 Timothy Avenue, commented everyone keeps on talking about building #3. The neighbors want the same thing done on building #2. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 23, 1998, MEETING. Vote taken signified 3 ayes and 1 nay. MOTION CARRIED. PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 23, 1998, THE DEVELOPER SHOULD IDENTIFY THE LOCATION AND HEIGHT OF THE BERM AND FENCE ON THE SITE BY USING POSTS AND STRING OR SOME OTHER SIMILAR MEANS TO GIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THE APPROXIMATE LEVEL OR ELEVATIONS OF THE TOP OF THE FENCE AND THE BERM. A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE FENCE AND BERM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF PRIOR TO THE MEETING. A recess was called at 7:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:04 p.m. 1:\98 files\98plcomrn\pcmin \lIUlO 12698 .doc 6 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 4A CONSIDER REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND BERM SLOPE FOR BURDICK PROPERTIES, Case File #97-132 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE AND 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE JENNITOVAR,PLANNER DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES X NO JANUARY 12, 1998 The requested variances relate to two existing commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. 14180 Commerce Avenue was built in 1994 and 14162 Commerce Avenue was built in 1997. The following variances are being applied for at the respective addresses: 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\97-132PC.DOC Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash enclosure; and A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. DISCUSSION: The lots are located in the subdivision known as James 1 st Addition (1981). The properties are located within the B-1 (Limited Business) district. The following setbacks apply: · 25 feet . 25 feet . 1 0 feet . 60 feet . 20 feet Front Yard (Section 4.2 Zoning Ordinance) Rear Yard (Section 4.2 Zoning Ordinance) Side Yard (Section 4.2 Zoning Ordinance) Structure Abutting Residential (Section 4.1 D Zoning Ordinance) Parking Abutting Residential (Section 4.1 D Zoning Ordinance) 14162 Commerce Avenue is 9,350 square feet with 37 parking stalls required (Exhibit A). The site has 37 stalls. There is no undeveloped land where the trash enclosure can be relocated. Building Permit #97-274 was issued after the site plan was approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC). The approved plans indicate a 60 foot setback to the face of the building. However, the as built survey (Exhibit B) indicates a utility area was constructed on the west side of the building without prior approval from the city. The bump-out on the north end of the building encroaches two feet into the required 60 foot setback from the residential property to the west. Therefore, a 2 foot variance is being requested. 14180 Commerce Avenue (Exhibit C) is 10,400 square feet with 42 parking stalls required if the building is used entirely as office use (1 stall per 250 square feet). With the recently added parking to the west (rear of building), the site has 51 parking stalls. If the use changes to entirely retail, then the parking requirement will be 52 spaces (1 stall per 200 sq. feet of retail space). Current uses are professional offices and a day-care. Considering that retail uses are permitted, the entire building could be used for retail activities and then there would not be enough parking on the lot. The approved plans indicate a 59 foot setback to the face of the building on the west side, adjacent to the residential properties. However, the as built survey (Exhibit D) indicates a utility area was constructed on the west side of the building without prior approval from the city. The 2.5 foot L:\97FI LES\97V AR\97 -132\97 -132PC. DOC Page 2 bump-out on the south end of the building encroaches into the required 60 foot setback from the residential property to the west. Therefore, a 2.7 foot variance for the principal structure is being requested. The trash enclosure (14180 Commerce Avenue) was constructed on the lot in 1994 and expanded in 1997 to accommodate the recently constructed building at 14162 Commerce Avenue. The city approved the construction of the trash enclosure and addition in error. The trash enclosure is located 16.3 feet from the west property line abutting residential. The required setback is 60 feet. Therefore, a 43.7 foot variance is being requested for the trash enclosure. The applicant is also requesting a variance to fence height to allow for increased screening between the commercial uses and the adjacent residential uses. Zoning Ordinance Section 6.11 C and 6.11 E allow for a maximum fence height of 6 feet. The applicant is requesting a fence height of 8 feet. The applicant has also met with the adjacent residential property owners in an attempt to resolve the ongoing screening issue. City Code Section 6.10 H allows for a maximum slope of a berm to be 3: 1. As part of the screening of the adjacent residential areas, the applicant is requesting a variance to the slope of the berm. As of yet, staff has not received the specification on the proposed slope as indicated in the variance application. Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue this specific request until specifics are submitted to the Planning Department. VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance is literally enforced. In this case, the lots and structures are existing. As indicated by the building envelopes and given the minimum parking requirements, there are no reasonable legal alternatives for relocating any of the structures. The applicant contends literal enforcement of the ordinance with respect to the fence height will result in undue hardship to the adjacent residential properties. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. There are unique circumstances in this case. The structures on the lots are existing. The commercial property is adjacent to residential property and some of the adjacent residential properties slope down toward the commercial property making effective screening difficult to achieve. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -132\97 -132PC.DOC Page 3 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. The lots are built to a maximum capacity considering building setbacks and parking requirements. There is not open area to relocate the trash enclosure on either lot. The increased height of the fence is due to the existing grades of the commercial and residential properties and the need to provide additional screening between the two. The hardship is caused by the previous applications of the provisions of the Ordinance and existing conditions. It is not the result of proposed conditions that can be changed by the applicant. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The granting of the combined requested variances can meet the intent of the Ordinance and be in the public interest. The spirit and intent of the setback from residential properties can be protected with the increased fence height and additional landscaping. The granting of such variance is not contrary to the public interest, as the setback variances are small and there will be increased screening. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded the hardship criteria have been met, considering the structures are existing and both sites are at maximum build out with respect to parking and setbacks. Due to lack of pertinent information the variance request to berm slope should be continued. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolutions 98-01 PC and 98-02PC and a separate motion continuing the variance request to slope of berm. L:\97FI LES\97V AR\97 -132\97 -132PC.DOC Page 4 EXHIBIT A J Y , LP~ to t'Y\ Mt rc..e Consfy~+ed /'1'17 S i-k.. r 1 aT) frovYl A- ffrDv41 Av~ J b~ t QL. . a 200 UN. ~ ':T HtV " HlCil CClNl IIQ,\IlD PJtNICY rocx TO ,....TQ4 ~...~ HtV I..IoHmCN'Cl GIlEOI 0llV. sa I..NtD$CN'E PUH Sl€[T 1..-2 210.00' NOO. 42'56'\{ " ~ / HtV 111" ~ICil PlttCAST _......... lJ'<IT lltT"lNlNG .....ou. ..T nc 1MUX SIlX3: ':T T14: HtV PAIlX.ll'tG IoIlEA. sa Sl'EClT1CA TIrICS '- ~. I ;~ ~~~\\\\\\\\ \ \,\\\\\ \\,\<\\ "I\.. - ''Y .. ~ ~. ,_ ""'" ~"" =. _ '""'" / Sl:Ll' $)<ELl' C-I I ':!<OG IIl'TLJ4lMlUS . HtV BnUllNl:Ju3: ;' / HC'W ..'~ _-"",,-,t., ClX'J~ \// A INTt~ 6'xl2' __... CIJRB --... , ..,'f , ..( " ~ c.Jf1-:' ""-. ,!' . 180'-4" ~~. .10"-"" '..10'-/1. ~ VI <I: LW NE\v' BUILDING . g35()~ , Wi ,. ; "--/ ~ . t f ' ~ VI 4: LW ~/~ .. J !'-'YxS'-o' ~ llAIof' 'oITTH .. !' - UoHlllNG r1..USH . ~ ........Y F''lC CRAI/OAGt r - IC'w' .......cLf: .. T nc _....~. - . PaINT ':T 1M: HtV STtlIlM _ UKS 'w'tTW T14: caSTING Zl' ST'CJIM srwo MlK sa SHEET C-I HtV U'-4" CCIClICT'C SIIl('w'IIUt ....1 A / IHTtGaAl.. 6'xl2' __... cuu HtV ~ PI.N(TQ TtI *TOl PUHTtR CIl nc ~.u... JUILmlG ""\ "--/ I "---/ \ ~ '" "" ,/ \. _ . 1 ~ \, , '1 ... Il~ 'J - _..,.. IC'w' ~ . HtV Jm.ootNJJS !lllNl:'w'AY , IS NCl P.waaM:i NU:A. sa $ICE" -'''.' , , . . C-l rtlR IltSlGN r:Jf 1lIl%VE'w'''Y~; . ~ 17 HtV ~,. P""'KlHG Sl'AlXS AND CI€ l4'x1,.' _DteN' Sl'ACt ~ _I I I I I T' r-CATCH Jo\SlN. sa lt / ~ C-IJuu i ( ~-~C-li\1 ~.? "-.-..~ ~ATTD ~ II] 0WCiE ' I --- HtV CO'ClltT<: : sa:: Sl€[T C-I ' A llD"VCt ......... .- . J.... _.'~~~'~ .~ ", - . . TIC !lCSTAl..LJlT::: . .- 1'~; - HtV IlIl:[VC'w'AY , . '. - ._-':. J .. - '. .-v 30'-0" 'w'tDl. I ... ...r-~PCl' -. 7"-: . t / '- TIC em r:Jf >€TAl.. ~ p~ SIOl J Ctl rn. Pan AS REQ'Jl IT ctIDC -1 / 18'-0" /12'-0" / ) . ...., I,' ., 't . . _".:'C . 0 M M .::.;:t...... ':~... " ..~-:.".::::.:.:~~.. ....... . ...,'" --'_ ~...,.:~""t..t,~~""""""'. ,,;:....,,;. , ~..ali\ ~~~~'~~-~: ,;.~. ~ ;.;;-.~~~-:..:..~it.T~;i.:.:...'.;>~:'" --. E R C E A v E N u E )' ~if_ survey For: Burdick .~V~ ties 684 EKcelsior Boulevard Excelsior, m 55331 BS DELMAR H. SCHWANZ VNO SUlllvt'Y0fII1. IfI< .......... ~ u .. ,.... ,,- ..-- ,.750 SOuTH ROBeRT TRAIL ROSEMOl.':.n. lAINNESOTA 5508' "2'''23-178. ) '1\ (jJ~ Cunmer'ce. ,4/ 20 'Ihis drawing shows the '-"!St wall (brick face) of the recently const.ructed bui1di.ng on IDt 3, Block 1, J1\MES 15r /IDOITIQI, 'Scott County, Minnesota_ As located by /II!! this 21st day of NOvember, 1997. I hereby eertlry 'hellhl, .u....Y. Ittan. ot' ,.po" ... ",.".'H by me Of unci" ""., elfrKI IUCMf'Vtlk1n ,nd '''.11 1m . duly ,.......d Lind Sur....yof undet the I... 0' ,he St... 0' Mlnn..ol.. Oleed 11-24-97 ,""\. "- '" \) ~. C'r) }... --...... () "'< ,,/ ~ \-.. .... ~ 'I }... iil ~ \l\ \1i :s: \ ~ -. ~ \ ~ C) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ \ \ . SURVEYOR'S CERTifiCATE :zo 60,.8 118.0 I ~1 ;- / , .7 f / :U,8 / 4' / / / / ...... "\ /\l ~ / <::\ ~ /~ \::- /'-1. ~ . .;) ~ /' \-b"' ~ \l /~ '" ~ /~ ~ :J ( / 4' 60.1 <::. .... . ~\"'\\"\tl.\EIS'~"-'t'~..':o,. ~'/\""""".?.?.~(\ *, ,*.. f DEUvI^R H, '; 'i\ _ ! SCHWMll \ ~ \~l;..~:,~.:..~:,(q;l ~/~/J/'JII,,7~t;I!c1i~~~~':~;":~' / / / / EXHIBIT B / r \. \\ \ , Scale: 1 inch . 20 feet o Oenote-s an iron pipe rronurrent at rorthwe'st and southwest t"'..""t""....--I..............~..... rv/ ~ ;) &k~,(1Il i)t J.?4a,'a2( Oelmer' H. Sc~ In, . c.. "'""not. Aegl..,.lIon Ho. Ml5 ':)- i- ~ \ I9'(T~~- r~~ I Lj J~O COWlrY\t,-U Ave.. (' . \ ~ I 402.00: N 0'42'56''''' I / / &:l""'~. , I') ~;' r~... I (O"'StrVUtd {)>.~q'14 ~__.__ ~ -.1 I I I I ~,-+~.j..:"+'11l~~_~ ( I -? :':.:.:.:': ~...~Jtt /~-\_ I I I 1'iV I I I I I, Q,Ol1JCV:<DOJ< f '-~tW~~~~~[XI~ l~tJt"", .~L - - - rOCUTNi nJlCYAU:: l1J M:J4,Qf~ . 11 I - ~ KV ,..... - -....... nJEVlII..JC.."" ItfTDJUL KV,..... CDC:Mn: fUlEVM..J( VI :;; "'\ ............. ...... - --.. lUIJ ~ · IlTElOI.Ol. ...... - -- - ""'" 1 .. = = i.'" - ~. - ~ " '/;:I/J1\:::::::::::::::::::::::::{7:::}}:::::::::{::::{:::?::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}::::::::::::::::::}}:{:::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::1 ~ i . - . ~ -.- ,'" '" - -- -- .' r'... ,.....L.............................................................._~_._.. . .. ........ - .~ ~ ='=1 ~ iY 'IF. ~'-==J ~L...,_=r ~:a:~..~~ITJ .. .,,----~, ". . ,,=="v / (J ~ l ~ IXISnII ~,)€V .......... lEY .. . ..." CUI> / ~ .- m --' 111 .."" camJII ~ ~ '==1 -( ~V ~ )' ~ ~:~-:rTnfj: f :m-7~~~;~. ,>-~~*' ... = =1 ~ * T i1-,W T 11""- ~, , ,--'- - -v [j r I.-J~m I ..L.1,.l.~ I I I~.., ~,,~~~ ~ !~F:W~~~" T \ "'t" ",W'!.b. ~\ cw'ira~ q..'> . ..'\~ ~ q.. F"' I I,"' i"~,[XIJi I ~ ~" ~" \J' /'1,,-' I I I I I I I I o-~ ~. _______ <::5. I I I I I I I I I ;/ / 1.1. ~ m !..",t arsL,L L.) " 'Il:DUVt 1Ht DfS'11tCI 111\ItnoJS AT T'tttI .c.'.ICOfT ..MIONG D-Aa:S ANI IttP'l.Alt V111f A ~ [ QJtJD I"lNfTDG MV. u:I T'€" L.NfISCN't Pl.Nf flit P\JHTNi IlDMR[J c.' I)C N['W' P'\.JIfrlTD. (1'W su;:M f"l.NrlmtS IlUIOIIr!'1) DISTDCi fI' DltrVrVAT ~ 1D M)UdK tIJ OWCE ' <v -0 ~ <v ~ ''- \0 ~ I ,. l! ~ i I i I .' I ~ ::.. --I'" " I I I I I 111/niT'iii ~."."..,TWAJM_:~I.,.I.""J11l~...,.hl I I I I I I DCLOSlJlE TO KMD4. JG CJWG: 'X' I I I I I~ I 'I ~ , ( w u DIn1NG "nJJrI UJI 10 OWG: ~ , ,..... 11' -0' 402,00' NOO'42'56'1J 1;0 ~ OM: C~I TO ~I1AIN. 1;0 \\\ \ 7 ~ , \ \ \ 'I \) / R I I i d :1" ..- , , --. -" ~ ~ ) ~ ... l" ~ r- .~ ,.. '" ~ ,;h! :,i.l ~:,. I'; << . J.-~.' '/0, ..~ '~.()1 ~~:'~1 t ~ , I 1 , , . : [lUTING 'ITUMINOUS AT T'WO ADJACENT .r.CS 'NV IltPlACt ...".. . CONCIltTC ,"::NG AREA. $[[ r...: LAHDSCAP[ Pt....N "4J It(MRtD [H THE '<\I PLANTER. "_AHTtAS IIt[ClJIIlttD) DAAICD LlreS INDICATt 23 [XISTlNG PARKIHG SPACES I I I I C C~I TO ~[H'!N h I \ ... '/ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ n,~/ .' ~ ). EXHIBIT C PAGE 2 cur JAC)( TI-f[ UISTtNG lAHDSCotPtD .[M TUD TO 20".0" 'R(J4 TM[ vur p'R(JI(Rn LINE ~D INSTAl.L A HE" IS. HIGH I'tItCAsr CD<RtT[ I,.ffIT O[TAINING "'All "'IT" TD' (J' ....ll TO I[ Ir 'IOV[ TN[ 'DJAC[NT l"UMltOJS SlTOACING, INSTALL ADDITIDW. IUl../I'llNCIUS 'itCH T)oI; 01$1 rNG TO TH( r ACt. r:T TJo4I[ '€Y If(TAINtNG lJALL $l.OPE Nt" IJTUMltOJS $\JCH THAT T..: (XISTlNG DlItAlNI\G( '_TWINS ..[ "'!NT'INCD \ 18 N(v ...l9- PAAKtNG SPACES .- ; ", / Po dl1 Y1j odcltd \'" // 24:5 LIH. r[[l or Jo€v ,. HIGH CElWt JOAA11 PRIVACY rO<<:'[ TO ~TCH (JUSTlNG ;rEVISE [)CISTIHG lANDSCAPING AS O[QUlIltD TO 'VAPT TO TN[ H['" "'0 IltIlUC[V GlI[[N '1lE' $[[ LANDSCAPE ..",,~ SH:[T l-! I EXTEND TO Tt4t SOUTH THE I1ASONIlY .......l[V TItAS>l DUNl'STCIl CNClOSUIlt. THE O(SIGN or TN[ Nt... [XTENSION SHAl.l EXACTLY HATCH THE [XISTING [tfCt.OSl.R[ \...'1 ... " " 11'-0'1"'-0" -'" 19'17 q ,t ~ t ;~ [XlSTtHa IJTUCDIO IS "€V 11 '- . ,r- ,--- ~ ., EXISTING BUILDING - d:::lI:.. <..IIl:1, .~..' , "-/ . ) ! \ - _" .iI,_ , ,,\ EXISTING P~ING SJ'AaS '1 /.41 , ' ~ I [XISTING CD'fC t\,lIl TO llE"'IN [XISTlNG P_ING SP~.-,S "l: ) - .... '....' " ' EXISTING PMtCIHG SPACES [XISTlNG 2" DRIV[\J",Y U"JI'ttQACH TO R[14AI1i, he CHANGE / r I I I r[NeO ......YGI!OlJ<D 4 I , :f, <- ,1,'0' I,//..<3 q.. / he., , '\'\ I I/~," ; ,i'i;," . I. '-~ '/.II':)" ~~; \~r'; . ',' :.~I.J..'I,-,~.,.:,::,.;}.:-::!~,'.t::,~,t~l:~.:..~~.';,i~.~~l.~'i .~: " ',~ f::',j '::~~.~~:1,1:.'1 "';~~t."'~j.t'~''''~i~~~f1~lt'Jt~~~j~'\':l~ .." '0' ,,',;(.f';(,., ; I'; n "'li. .'I"i'~~,;di~A~~:if~t'" 'I......"". 'i'~ Il.I....~' 1"~:Y~ I \,,;~.j"t~:"''.tJf..j\o'('':'~r:''''''t~J~J~~..t)'\.l'~''J-:'.. VI ~ .:. . , "', ".. ,I. ....-l- .;?!"',' t' ~. :, o' ""--./ 'I I' ..TCH TN[ exISTING IlTlJNINOJS DRIvt:VAY TO "'TCH THE [XlSTlNG VHlJl[ CUT rllt INST....l.TION or HO\I STllItM 1lIl'1NAGI: LiNtS, sa: SHUT C-t rllt lOC'TIOI<' Ilt~E . I'OIITllIt or TNt [XlSTING n:NC:EV PlAYGIltMID AS ~QUtR[D TQ IIttIHSTAlL nc 1:4'-0' 'lID[ IITUCIJrOJ$ llllIvt....Y. IlCltlCATCD ctlNCIlI:TE CIJIlI~ Cl<AlIUNIC rENCE AND GA TES AS Il(QUlllEo. 'I" I ~- ~;;.- [XlSTING 24'-0' ...1llE DOI'It...AY TD II:tMltIH I I, o EX1STlN; 'n..tJrf .:IUN NO OWG: II~ v I- ~ r-~ W II ~~ _ txI. ,LING ~ II' lIT 'Ml>OJS ':1 ~ ~- '- \-. CCI$TIltG NO c:>w<<; o E CO TYl TYi AL ......., ~'.1 L.VJ: Burdick Properties 684 Excelsior Boulevard Excelsior, MN 55331 11 EXHIBIT D DELMAR H. SCHWANZ lAHO 1UfIY1' ,o-s. INC. ""-". .~n..SI_"__. 1050 SOUTH A09iCFlT TRAIL ROSEMd'::'fT. MINNESOTA 55088 112/42'3-1". i11 gO LtJrnrJ1 trCL ffven t/L This drawing shows the Wll'St wall (brick face) of the b;o buildings on Lot 4 and IDt 5, n1 ock 1, J1II1ES 1Sl' AOOITICN, Scott County, Minnesota. Also the location of the trash enclosure. As located by rre this 26th day of Noventler, 1997. I h.,.by certify Ih.tlhl. lurvey. plln. or report ... pr,p.r" by me or UMIr my dirK! ,u~rY"lon Ind I~" , 1m I duly RI9II'."d llnd Su,...yo, und., Ih, 1",," oil"" Sl.,. 01 Mlnn.,OI., ' allod 12-01-97 SURVeYOR'S I :eRTlFICA Te \\\\\\\\Ulllllll''!!-'''''fl,'t:, .~..~\ \\~':H~~09 7/~' tY ~;:...' ....~ ~\ i*/ DEI.MAR H. \~\ \Ji;;::~~~\~ '~:""I("""'~';ii:,~:P;'~\"""" ('I ,... V/I'6,'1 1.... ('l "0' 1/ f' &cJO r$1~1I- G)/ Q.f.5(/.e'tf I I 'I 0::. ~ ~ I I ~ " ~ '> '" ~ 'l- ).. ~ ~ ~ 1-.. tfl ~ $.:1 / '/ / / " / / / '" ~ <:) ~ 1>/ ~ ~ l~ \ ~ <:l " ~ \ ~ ~ ~ \J ScalE': 1 inch '10 40 feet / " ~ , \0\ / :,/ r" / FT.? 61. 1 ~d Wa'#4Ntt .l.lfF '171 ,~ "Z.q , .'C \" ~ , :. ~ : , <d.t. "',~ "Il o~~ S'?8 roPlAN1"Iitt \ , '- I .-- iPJt,a 71 ~It{/ o D.',".,. H. SChwan, U1lnn..ote Aeo,.t,.lIon No. 3825 City of Prior Lake LAND USE APPLICATION Planning Case File No_ q 1 - I 3 ;;t Property Identification No. ~ ~ ~ I q", -OO"-I-Q '33- 1'14-C03'.0 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E./ Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714/ Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional o Rezoning, from (nre<:ent ~ 51 to (nrnno<:~ 7onin.z} See attached Exhibit" A" . o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance o Subdivision of Land o Administrative Subdivision o Conditional Use Permit KJ Variance Applicable Ordinance :sectlOntS): o Other: Applicant(s): Address: Home Phone: Burdick Properties, Inc. 684 Excelsior Boulevard, Excelsior, MN 55331 Work Phone: 474-5243 Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]: B. C. Burdick Address: 4930 Meadville Street, Excelsior, MN 55331 Home Phone: 474-3796 Work Phone: 474-5243 Type of Ownership: Fee ':t. Contract for Deed Purchase Agreement By Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1, James First Addition, Scott County, Minnesota Commonly Known as 14180 and 14162 Commerce Avenue, Prior Lake, MN 55372 To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that allplications will not be rocessed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee_ BURDICK PR~~-T~ 0,,-< "22 Appli<ant's Signa j} oa;g~ Dat~ 2. _ ~~ _']? Fee Owner's Signature, B. C. Burdick Date I 6J '17 THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL APPROVED APPROVED DENIED 1j,J./"i ~ DENIED DATE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee lu-app2.doc Date EXHIBIT "A" BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Applicant is the owner of 14162 and 14180 Commerce Avenue, Prior Lake, Minnesota, which each are host to one office building. Prior Lake Code requires screening along the rear lot line of the property in favor of neighboring residential properties (Section 6.10G and 6.11B, C, and F). Prior Lake Code Section 4.10 requires a 60-foot setback for any rear yard abutting any R District. In addition, the building trash enclosure must be screened 6.l0G. Variances Reauired: 1. Trash Enclosure. The buildings in question are serviced by a brick trash enclosure built under City building permit in 1994 and expanded under City building permit in 1997. The trash enclosure is 16.5 feet from the rear lot line of 14180 Commerce Avenue. A variance to Section 4.10 is necessary to permit the trash enclosure as a lawful conforming use. 2. Buildina Encroachment 14180 Commerce Avenue. Survey of the building at 14180 Commerce Avenue (Lot 4, Block 1, James First Addition, Scott County, Minnesota) as built, shows that it encroaches on the required 60-foot setback at 1 ~~M -- the building's southwesterly corner 0.2 feet along the rear wall and an additional projection of 2.5 feet (total encroachment 2.7 feet) into the rear yard setback to accommodate brick facing/ screening of electrical utilities. A variance to Section 4.1D of 2.7 feet at the southwesterly corner is necessary to permit the building as lawful confirming use. 3. Buildina Encroachment 14162 Commerce Avenue. A survey of the building at 14162 Commerce Avenue (Lot 3, Block 1, James First Addition, Scott County, Minnesota), as built shows that its rear brick wall is in conformance with the 60-foot rear yard setback, however, the brick facing/screening around the electrical utilities at the northwest building corner encroaches two (2.0) feet into the required 60-foot rear yard setback. A variance to Prior Lake Code Section 4. 1D of 2.0 feet is necessary to permit the building as lawful conforming uses. 4. Screenina. The Prior Lake Code Section 6.10G and 6.11B require screening of adjacent residential properties. The neighbors on Timothy Avenue have requested: a) An 8-foot fence; and b) Increased berm height as part of the required screening. 2 -. Variances will be necessary to Prior Lake Code sections 6.10G, 6.10H and 6.11C to permit an a-foot fence and enlarged berm height and slopes greater than permitted if the landscaping plan is to be implemented. Exact specification will be forthcoming. Aoolicable Ordinance Sections. Section 4.1D; 6.10G; 6.10H; 6.11C. l\BUREXH.A 3 A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 58.00 FEET RA THER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR EXISTING BUILDING; AND A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FENCE HEIGHT OF 8.00 FEET RA THER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED 6 FOOT HEIGHT FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENLARGED BERM HEIGHT AND SLOPES GREA TER THAN 3:1 FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES AT 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 57.30 FEET RA THER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR EXISTING BUILDING; AND A 43.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 16.3 FEET RA THER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR AN EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE. A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FENCE HEIGHT OF 8.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED 6 FOOT HEIGHT FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES; AND A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENLARGED BERM HEIGHT AND SLOPES GREA TER THAN 3:1 FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BETWEEN THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE B-1 (LIMITED BUSINESS) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE AND 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE. You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, January 12, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: Burdick Properties 684 Excelsior Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 PROPERTY OWNERS: B.C. Burdick 4930 Meadville St. Excelsior, MN 55331 SUBJECT SITE: 14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, James 1 st Addition AND 14162 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, James 1 st Addition, Scott County, MN. L:\97FI LES\97V AR\97 -132\97132PN. DOC 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQL.:AL OPPORTUNITY E:vIPLOYER REQUEST: The applicants are requesting the variances to make the existing buildings conforming and to permit additional screening from the adjacent residential properties. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 1. LIteral enforcement of the Ordinance would result In undue hardship with respect to the property. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and Is not contrary to the public interest. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written. comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria. Prior lake Planning Commission Date Mailed: December 31, 1997 L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -132\97132PN.DOC 2 ......H ~. J ,,'Ul : Burdick Properties 684 Excelsior Boulevard Excelsior. MN 55331 a 183/55 o..:}.9709 B9722 DELMAR H. SCHWANZ lA"O IUfIl.... lOftS. INC. ~.I_" ~ L. .' n... SI_"'-'-. 1.7SO SOUTH ROBeRT TRAIL ROSE,,",C l':.n, MINNESOTA 5Sues 11l2142~t7l' ! I gO Ct;rnr11 t,U hen LIe... 'l1ri.s drawing shows the west wall (brick face) of the two buildings on Lot 4 and Lot 5. Block 1. .J1IMES Isr l'.DOITICN. Scot t County, Minnesota. Also the location of the trash, enclosure. /'Is located by ne this 26th day of Noveriler, 1997. I h.,etty eet1lty Ih.. Ihls lurvey. pl.n. or r,porl." p"per" by m. 0' UM.' ",., direct lu~rvt.lon .nd Iho' I om I duly RtlJl"".d llnd Su,uyo, undtt 1". I... 0' the Stl" 0' Ulnn..ol.. Oiled 12-01:-97 SURVEYOR'S I :ERTlFICATE I I -,... //1 ~..1 "., ./fti &<>.10 r,e;!?/I- G}./ c.t. o*/,t'E I I ;:) <:> ~ ~ I I "'" '- ~ " <::J ~ ';j. "- ~ ~ ~ FT.' ~/. 7 "'d df/RJlII.-.I!I "'.I"'T11,P'~ h.. ~ ~ '4,to 64.~ 'D o~~ $"-8 rop/.4N17&Jf! \ .....,~\~~\\t:lIIEIS'."'"..,..,.'I. ,~""'",\' ~............9 r'~'~ i~' ~.:..., ....1 ?t.;, I*/ DEI.MAR H, .....~\ ~ ~ SCH~VANZ j ~ \~f'l;..~_~,:~.,~:(~! ":"""'IIII'~';ii:I~I;:\"\;\;\\~"" ,Z.q $7.' / '/ / / " / / / \' ~ <l ~ '>! ~ ~ \\ \ ~ <> .. ~ \\ ~ ~ \ \ ~ \ \ 'J Scal(', 1 inch s 40 feet / " ... ~ , . ... / :,/ f.,. ....L [' \" ~ ~ " ~ " " " jjt~d~71h~~/ o Oelm.' H. !Ct'!"nnl Mlnnnct. A.O'I.,.llon No. 1825 Survey For: Burdick h............i.es 684 Excelsior Boulevard Elccelsior, ffi 55331 a 183/55 1).;<1- 9709 B9722 DELMAR H. SCHWANZ lJlMO ,tHWtyo"s. INC ~l.""""'I_"~. 1""50 SOUTH ROBeRT TRAIL. AOSEMOL':'n. I-fINNESOTA 55081 . 112/42~1'" SURVEYOR'S CERTlFICA TE } ~ II.P~ Chnmerce Av(' 20 ~.j8 ~" r' j / / ~ / " \" /" / "- 2.(,$ .... / ~ 4' / \l ~ / c-n / k ""'- \ Cl \/ - / '< ~ ~ ", \ \ /\J \ ..., ~ \ ~ ~ " ~ /<1 ~ ~ \ ~ /~ Scale: 1 inch . 20 feet 'Il1is drawing shows the west wall ~ ~ 0 Denotes an iron pipe rroml.rent (brick face! of the recently /'-\, at northwest and sou~st const.ructed builc:ting on IDt 3, I .... ~ ' "l t"'.......t""'"'......... .....................~. '-J Block I, JlIMES 15r AOOITICN, \ ~ .... /' ~ ., 'Scott County, Minnesota_ ~ C) \'! As located by ne this 21st clay ~ ~ ~ /~ of~, 1997. ~ <:) ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ ~ :J ~ ( / 4' / ;20 / 60./ / / \ ~ \ 01'''' 11-21\-97 ~.\\\\~\'~,lErS""'/'"'''' ,,$',~~t.........O r'~," ...!"'~~..."" ......:.l.~~ !-tt:/ D~l "AA H '\*b =:: r: .''11 '. ~~ j ~ SCHWANZ j ~ ~~tI r'\/ J ;) ; &kll~!/lI)t l1kay O.f",., H. Sch...n, ( Mln"..ot. A.of,'rlllon No. Ml5 I hi"'" ew1U, Ihe' nu, IU"",,. plln. or '.00" ... prl"I'" by m. or und., "'Y direct .upet'lf.to" .nd ,,,.,1 .m . duty "~'IIIf.d Lind SU".yor undef I". I... of ,.... S'.'I of MInMIOII. -----r---- 'J~ CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVENUE SE, PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 \~ .w _. ~~" ~~ . ;J.I- ... _ . _ Date: ~/ IS-Iff Number of pages including cover sheet: / J To: From: Brian Burdick Jenni Tovar Burdick Properties City of Prior Lake Phone: 474-5243 Phone: (612)447-4230 Fax phone: 474-7543 Fax phone: (612)447-4245 CC: REMARKS: [8J Urgent o For yourreview o Reply ASAP o Please comment Brian, Please submit the following information prior to Tuesday January 20, 1998. This information is needed for the continuation of the variance requests: · Landscape plan (10 full size and one II x 17 inch reduction) indicating changes to the landscape plan already submitted and approved as part of your initial site plan review. Indicate the size of the plantings as planted. The display Eldon submitted indicates 12' Red Pines. This appears to be the size at maturity or at least 5 years out. 6' trees are the minimum requirement for coniferous. Also need actual elevations shown on plan. The cross-section of the berm submitted is not reflective of the approved berm as per the approved grading plan. · Submit a revised grading plan if you are not intending to grade as on approved grading plan. Last time engineering inspected the berm, it was lower than the approved grading plan. · Show easements on as-built survey for 14180 Commerce. The 20 foot drainage and utility easement is shown on the plat and should be shown on the survey. Address the use of the trash enclosure on the easement. Let me know if you have any questions. 01/15/1998 13:51 5124749575 KELLY LAW BUILDING PAGE 01 KELLY LAW OFFICES EstabliJhea 1948 361 SECOND STREET EXCEL.SIOI'l. MINNESOTA 5533' M...RK W. KEllV WilLIAM F, KELL'f (1922-19Se;) (B12) 474..5977 F...X 474-9575 January 16, 1998 Ms. Jenni Tovar City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake. MN 55372 BY FAX: 447-4245 Re: Response to Faxed Communication Sent January 15. 1998. 5:23 P.M. to the Attention of Brian Burdiek Dear Ms. Tovar: We are presently requesting our architect to prepare an updated landscaping plan. It Is news to us that the grading performed to date ostensibly does not conform with the grading plan earlier submitted. If your Engineering Department has details, we would be most interested in reviewing that information. Please fax it to our attention. While the trees Indicated on the proposed landscaping illustration show a 12-foot height. we are mindful that the Code requires 6-foot coniferous trees. It should be noted that. as yet. no one has discussed the merits of any of our landscaping proposals Intended to benefit both our property and the neighboring property owners. The neighbors have not replied to the merits of the proposal. The Planning Commission has not commented on the merits of the proposal. All discussion by the neighbors and the Planning Conunlss10n appears to dwell exclusively on Minutes of City Council Meetings from 1979 of which we were never a party. It is our hope that at some juncture In the near future, all interested parties Will begin to discuss the merits of the landscaping proposal. As regards the question of the presence of a trash enclosure on the utll1ty and drainage easement. It 15 a matter of estabI1shed case law that an easement holder has only those rights which are spec1fically enumerated to the easement holder in the easement grant. The grant of an easement does not strip the owner of the fee title of the right to use the property. The use Is l1mited only by a proscription against unreasonable interference with the narrow use provided to the holder of the easement. It should be observed that drainage and ut1l1ty easements . 01/16/1998 13:51 6124749575 KELLY LAW BUILDING PAGE 02 KELLY LAW OFFICES -2- frequently have lmpro'\.;........ents -- driveways. fences, sheds. etc. There are presently gas and electric lines burted In the drainage and utUity easement. But for an emergency which would require excavation immediately adjacent the trash enclosure there Is little likel1hood of the trash enclosure needing to be disturbed. However. to the extent that the trash enclosure would need to be disturbed at a future date, the property owner Is the party that assumes all risk of injury or harm to the structure. The presence of the structure on the drainage and utility easement is regulated exclusively by the City Zoning Code, consequently. we submitted a variance request to conform the trash enclosure to the Zoning Code. We will request Gopher One State identify locations of gas and electric Hnes relative to the trash enclosure. If I can provide further Information. please call. Sincerely. ~~./~/ Mark W. Kelly MWK/tAa ~ PERMIITED 15A80 AMENDED ZONING ORQW~~i~5n R-2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL cont. 8. Funeral Homes 9. Townhouses 10. Multiple Family Dwellings 11. Planned Unit Development 12. Mobile Home Parks 13. Charitable Institutions 14. Boarding Houses R-3 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL 1. Townhouses 2. Multiple Family Dwellings 3. Public & Parochial Schools 4.. Public Parks & Playgrounds 5. Churches 6. Funeral Homes 1. Single Family Dwellings 2. Two Family Dwellings 3. Nursing Homes 4. Hospitals & Clinics 5. Public Utility Buildings 6. Public Buildings 7. Private Clubs & Schools 8. Planned Unit Development 9. Charitable Institutions 10. Boarding Houses B-1 LIMITED BUSINESS 1. Retail Business 2. Personal Services 3. Funeral Homes 4. Clinics 5. Offices & Banks 6. Business & Professional Office 1. Eating & Drinking Places 2. Motor Fuel Stations 3. Public Buildings 4. Public Utility Buildings 5. Fast Food 6. Private Club - Health Club B-2 CO~~ITY BUSINESS 1. Retail Business 2. Eating & Drinking Places 3. Offices & Banks 4. Personal & Professional Services 5. Business Service 6. Public Buildings 7. Parking Lots 8. Wholesale Business 9. Commercial Schools 10. Hospitals & Clinics 11. Auto Sales, Service & Repair 12. Motor Fuel Station 13. Funeral Homes 14. Private Club-Health Club 1. Research Laboratories 2. Public Utility Buildings 3. Multiple Family Dwellings 4. Home & Trailer Sales & Display 5. Farm Implement Sales Service & Repair 6. Supply Yards 7. Commercial Recreation 8. Hotels & Motels 9. Animal Clinics 10. Recreation Equipment, Sales & Repair 11. Fast Food 12. Theaters & Assembly 13. Newspaper Publishing 14. Blueprinting Photostating 4 1975 ZONING ORDINANCE P:::REITTED USES CONDITIONAL USES R-2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL cont. 8. Funeral Homes 9. Townhouses 10. Multiple Family Dwellings 11. Planned Unit Development 12. Mobile Home Parks 13. Charitable Institutions 14. Boarding Houses R-3 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL 1. 2. 3. 4. Townhouses Multiple Family Dwellings Public & Parochial Schools Public Parks & Playgrounds Churches Funeral Homes ". 6. 1. Single Family Dwellings 2. Two Family' Dwellings 3. Nursing Homes 4. Hospitals & Clinics 5. Public Utility Buildings 6. Public Buildings 7. Private Clubs & Schools 8. Planned Unit Development 9. Charitable Institutions 10. Boarding Houses B-1 LIMITED BUSINESS 1. Personal & Professional Services 2. Funeral Homes 3. Clinics 4. Offices & Banks 1. Eating & Drinking Places 2. Retail Business 3. Motor Fuel Stations B-2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS 1. Retail Business 2. Eating & Drinking Places 3. Offices & Banks 4. Personal & Professional Services 5. Public Buildings 6. Parking Lots 7. Wholesale Business 8. Commercial Schools 9. Hospitals & Clinics 10. Auto Sales, Service & Repair 11. Motor Fuel Station 1. Research Laboratories 2. Public UtilHy Buildings 3. Multiple Family Dwellings 4. Home & Trailer Sales & Display 5. Farm Implement Sales Service & Repair 6. Supply Yards 7. Commercial Recreation 8. Hotels & Motels 9. Animal Clinics 10. Recreation Equipment, Sales Service and Repair -4- Memo DATE: TO: January 16, 1997 Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator cc: Sue McDermott, Assistant City Engineer FROM: ~Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator RE: Project 97-44, Burdick office building #3 storm sewer review This memo is in regards to the capacity of the existing 21" storm sewer that runs west to east along the south property line of Burdick office building #3. I have reviewed the existing drainage area which consists of properties on the east side of Timothy Avenue. The backyards of these properties drain to the existing catch basin located on Lot 6, Block 4 Boudin's Manor 4th Addition. This catch basin is the end structure on the 21" storm sewer pipe that flows to the east through the Burdick property. This line was originally oversized to handle the increased flow due to additional commercial property that is being and will be developed in this area. After reviewing the submitted hydraulic calculations for building #3, I have determined that the existing storm sewer network that serves this area is sized correctly to handle the 10 year frequency storm as required in the City's Public Works Design Manual. If you have any other questions regarding this matter, please let me know. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~1. Memo DATE: December 12, 1997 TO: Frank Boyles, City Manager CC: Greg Ilkka, City Engineer FROM: Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator RE: Drainage issue at Burdick Building rear berm This memo is in regards to the catchbasin in the southwest comer of the Burdick Office Building #3 property. This catchbasin is inside of the west property line of the Burdick property by approximately nine (9) feet. On Friday afternoon of December 12, 1997, I confirmed that this catchbasin is indeed connected to the City storm sewer system as indicated on the construction plans. Attached is a letter I wrote dated November 21, 1997, to Mr. Alan Mix regarding his rear yard drainage to this catchbasin. Per my field observation and survey of the area as shown on the map, this area should drain properly. An as-built grading plan is a requirement as part of the Burdick Office Building #3 project. When this is received we can verify that the swale along the west side of the berm is graded properly. If not, we will have an opportunity to require the developer to make any corrections prior to issuing the final certificate of occupancy. 16200 Eagle Creek Mgil@@.~qtlrior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Alan Mix 14171 Timothy Ave. N.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mr. Mix: On Friday, November 21, 1997 I received a copy of a letter from you indicating the potential f9r drainage problems on your lot due to the relocation of the berm on Commerce Avenue. That same morning I surveyed the area and found that your back yard has a positive grade toward the catchbasin, except for one area along the east property line (see attached map). At this particular low point water would have to pond less than 0.1' (1.2") before it would drain to the catchbasin. The month of July 1997 was the wettest recorded historically for that month, which resulted in many Prior Lake citizens experiencing water problems on their property. The City was virtually "swamped" with phone calls from people saying that they had drainage problems in their yards. Many of them that had never had problems in the past. Again, from the. survey that was taken, it appears that some minor ponding would occur before it reached the catchbasin. There is an existing 10 foot drainage and utility easement along the rear property line which is for this very purpose. If you notice this problem continuing in the future, where the water is ponding beyond the 10 foot drainage easement, please let me know and I can look into this issue further. If you have any other questions regarding this matter please give me a call at 447-4230. Sincerely, ~~ Water Resources Coordinator cc: Greg IIkka, Public Works Director 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER __----------. !--J-?~ POWT ___--4 030 '~-7;-.,1 '131 44 -----930.6/1 93Q.7/ , ,:.<P ;.(' '.-----;< .~, 930.9 - __53 ___ 930'54-~.. . .~___ 93~!i_~: :_~_--'_ ~__-~ t?\ ~ -_I"~ ,_,_ _ _ __ . ;;g. 'U. ' . -, ~----!~ -~__--= - .,,_--:ztj EX'-~1]~ CA~~~ BAS," -:- - l~____,. - . -. ~~"_:- - ~;_ L ~:___- ._ .. ---- ~- _ t U).... _ __-. ""\'" _ -=-~ .~ 932.8'\-' - ..:-::. ---, u~.. ~~--=_ .. - ~_~.~- --93"5.' -, tm.....:.....~-,l', '. _-----J.-..-:.,?~----"---. '. ' , " \I'~ u : ~61--~:-'---~~"'-' ,-.;-_:'~g;'J~'" "~ ' > <'.:,,,;., ", ':~ <:::>-"~" . ..." . ' 9~A"',,: .' 93J '-~Q:->..-__ ---.:-,.....; __ . +,.'. ' '. '. ~.---'~~~-,-,' -- -- - -- ~~~:~=~----: :~-~ ----~~~:_-_. /. ~." --'-<.:~-.:. 935 -'-----.:..-~-----tiE..W ..,,/,i ...._. f! .' ________________ __ NEW.."". .--- '--- : BIT 2.9 . ~~ 1/:--934 / 935.4', ~ /'-:1 '. 9358 w W (I)' Z <( :J W )-' ~ l- e:: '::i \ . w i= ,. . ~ ; \ a.. <( ..--934 ,! / \ e::: 0933 ~ !::l \ Z .: -,' - ;.'-:: .-. ~- , O'~". :.:'" -. '. " - . ' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT 1- i " \ \ ~/:.,~- ".> ..~;?f..~:;;.. ~~~'2..~"~ . . " - .,~ .;r. .. -; . ,;, ~ . ~ " :. .:...: .' .... .~ :,~'::,,:,. 'J:"'_. -. ..' . '. . -'." 't., ,-. ';." / t('::::20' L---" 'HO:U5E #=-/4/7J" I' , +. 932.9 - - - - . - - - - - '- - . --- '... '..:_-----932:1..... . - - --- ~ '131.37 ~ 93\:~2.. " "", " -'::"",- , ~ '13/.42. ~ 931.35 --. IRY END CURB ....,"'"/...... "/ INSTAlL 21 LF. OF 10. PVC ' STORM SEWER PIPE 0 1.0~ STORM SEWER MANHOlE NG 21. STORM SE'M:R PIPE 5 (MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT) TING PIPE ' SAWCUT EXISnNG~ PAVEMENT ----- " '\ ...... / , 46' -0. " ,. "l' ,. , , . . " f I .. 932.8 I . I I I I I . NEW \ I , , - TOP Of ~ I , I , \ SITF F'I FV. BURDICK BUILDING #3 BERM INFORMATION BERM ELEVATION AT PROPOSED TOP OF 30' EAST OF LOT BERM ELEVATION AT LINE PRIOR TO 11' EAST OF LOT LINE CONSTRUCTION FROM 6/12/97 PLAN ACTUAL TOP OF BERM ELEVATION ON 1/20/98 LOCATION OF DIFFERENCE OF TOP OF ELEVATION FROM BERM,EAST PROPOSEDTO OF LOT LINE 1/20/98 ~ o t:: ~ ABC 0 LUOO: · 1 I'I I EXISTINl AREA CATCH IBASIN !:: ~ + CUT INf C.B. WITH 9Jt..---- I 'D ::::: 9J2,9 10' PV STORM SEWE~ PIPE .--- -.-.---.------,__.._._ 9JJ.7 I __ . _---.In:~, ..... ~ ,.--.------ 10NS.T~UCT CURB INLET I' I 19J4i ....>< O~ ....-' I ATCH BASIN I' , IIiSTAll ....9350 I.C. = 933.0 " 1 ... Silt fENCE .... LU -- INSTAlll 1'flV. .. 930.0, I" b ... I /., I- SilT fEN HE NO INSTAll 23 lof. Of ... ... 9J'r---";'l ..... ..,. I o' PVC STORM 'P.IPE AIIO SLOPE 0 101 \ f NEW CONCR TE UNIT RETJlNING WAll I I ..' ~ .__ ---.----.--. ..-._. "". 'I J WI TOP Of All 18' ~a( VE BITUMINOUS: L-.... LIJ . .-.-.--.---- JO,7, -.-.t-.. .... N 0-12'56" W,-21O.O ... 9JI ~_ "'~,c. ~JO~-'-"" ~(. .,. -.' !lP~.'J' 933 -'-.- -- l . 9~ . /.936'"' , 937 ~ ~_.__----------~~~~ -'-" .' .--:~. i:;P-- -' .--- I -m-t--- ~, _ -~- 93l--" ~..............~~ _----------- -. -- '. ~3O.Lt ~.[p&~ _ .: - ~. i : ~_-.-. .: _ _- '20' EXI?_TJNG-t>FM~I'!.GE- AND 'OlfCllYj'rAsrDENT- ---Un 9~-. -. -- _______gjg- __ __' _.-~ - ."- _~ _ ~~ __ _..' __ __,_ 9~~,~'~~' :r~-~: ~. ~f ...:~.~ ;:.~~. -~~;f ---g3C .1'-937:-_~3! ._...-- ~'2.--.~:--~ ~',~~'__ .L~ ~~~___-_____~ ___-.-_-_._-_~~~~ \ " . \~tm---- --:,=-,,1'-':-::'-- ---..---.----~,. . _ ..-., ~3Ii,2 ,19389/:,. 5.0~-~\.\.~ 940) \ . "'1 ?M:I ' J ..,--' 9J7.J .', :.', I '/ . , '. ',I '.p' ~ ~ _-.' ,'." . /-. " 9~4' '.; .,.,.', ___.____ '. ", .", -~ ~ "--gU,j ~- '-9Ji," ". 1'---------9387-----. ,I --.--h___,.. 'I ~-- ._~________ 9J.J - '_:-"...::"'_, -,,+- -.'f-.}.?i.-::---,--.--___:..._h.~~_____..:..____.:......,5_ r.--.-- " ----, ----...._____,..~~,.- "'.:-'."', h_ ~49' . _. h__ -_h ---- END CURB -- ".---.:: -.---.------.+------. ," 'lJ -..----.-.----J.-----'-----:.... ',---.....;-...-1'.--. ___. . ___ ------. sA~~.~~inNG ~ ~ ,~~; :' ! ~: :.9J:. ~:;,,'~:'::'~ :~r:~: ~f.":,: ::~~~i::"":"':::~::::":::':':::::::!~ .:..:::::: :::'.::.':.:: ::::':4;,~ ~_..: .-' _::.:::: :"~~~ -- ~...-93 m.t. mi.; rnJ . :' l"....g '\ ~ /-/ ~ NEW SIOF:WAlK U~.9 : '\. " ~ ~ [ 46' -0' : -:. ". t ;' 46' -0' ( / \ > ~ '. 1 , '.' 8 ~ ~ ' I d \ lr::l I. '.1 , I r-- \ ~ ~ ' 9J2.5 9329': 9~1 I q'5" PI n _ , ~ ~ LOCATION A B C D E 934.0 937.0 938.0 939.0 939.3 937.0 937.0 938.0 939.0 939.0 935.8 936.0 936.5 937.3 937.6 18.5' 18.0' 18.5' 17.0' 15.5' 1.2' LOW 1.0' LOW 1.5' LOW 1.7' LOW 1.4' LOW E I I I I 7l ~ LL 21 loF., " PVC A SEWER I o 1.0~ + 9J5.7 ~ 22L68 SC;/~B' BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR: ~ ~ Ii ~ SCAlE: I JNCM . ~ FElT o DENClJU JJlON 1IlOfUIlf:H1 IUICH MARl(: 1., ,u,t ..,.rl"t It '" a...,.,"t ,,,t,,....:tll" I' MIt"-., Na. n ,,," C_"U ....._ nE_U1tJt_ 11Z.Z1 ~X~ ---- -,--.- ;!:=~~l~t~..i~~ ,'.".-1 -. ,".".,' BURDICK PROPERTIES 684 EXCELSIOR 130ULEVARD , EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 "'"-. ,/;, 11 , ~~4.' "" \ 1111 r \11' I " .. \ 1'"'1 "r1 \ I \ \ \ \ I I: : :: ~'U^<.E PlllVel-11 \ I1111 11"1 A"'DpMtI....~ U:i:J^lLT) ~\\l-~~I- - - -r- - ~.- rtl I, I, I I.: .-~:~' ~ I un 170." . ~!. . _.J L-~, 1 , , I ; .".,,- __. _,J~; II! ~ , ,+ - ,~ - "1"...'nr:::, _-=-- - - '- \\11 ::U' ------. / (.'-, \ \ \ : : :I U 1 ----'''r' t::: UIII '~' II \ I I J : I '. l' .'_ 1 r I r ~III u}.iJJ,~--__ . ,;11 ",,' ..........---. II11 I' I' I II " I 'I" "I' ,I' I' _~ ,,: :',:' J: I ~-- ",: kl \~, i': I , :' ,'itl ,II 'I ,.... i ' ill I' \;1 ,'I 'I .J I ~ ,I \ I r 'J, .., .. I I '\ ' : t. ," 1 I I I I I ", ,,~ : / -..J....---."m,11 ,I I I ,1/ \\!~\J~ .: , (. .:. , \ f.'iJ'''''.f Sl'nlt ... / -" \'\..~, I: -, ',_, _----"'""', / 1 \ \" \1' I ,,1/ ---- I .( {,.,&,.t \\ ' \}I!.' I -i I "" 1 , I \ \ ' '~+ I 11/ I , -r I, \ _'I I \ I II, 1'~"7.' I \ I """ ,[", ' ...' \ \ "'I........l'lOR.....C[ e UHll'" [I'" n'_,' ,__Of' , , 'II - \ lID' t12.u \ \'" i-:":-. :: . " 1 II ..( I I' - --~~-..J,/ I r:-.... I.... " I I I I , , " , ", ,------..... "I"""~ ;~. ..:./;" ---_/ ! ! j ~. --- , " I I 1 I , , , \ I I I I I I" I ..:.:~,;".:::: J I ~ . I 1-', 1 ".. ,:~~ll l - ) \. ,..... \ - \.;lir.'.-~-..._.. --;;:r h.. ."..-- .."'"~;~; w ~ <l: --- -, -:,.,1 I t j, , u a: 1J .n.1 ;, !: .. E E o '.J )- EXHIBIT F TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION (IISTI... U"GAC" Of.!CRIPTlON: LOT J. .u~cx I. oI'~S 1ST .oonl~. .etCH'.lnt t. tl'l. ,..tore.e "I.t tl'l'I".', SCott t~t,. .,nn.lOtI. ~ '{', . ~...'\z., ,~ " .... 'i' r:- P- ~ f5 n 'YJ7 r.:; f'" ! :,f\'\D G ~ G CJ -, IE .r.I;' :!'~I '. ., ", i ,r i' t ~' '._ 'I . I' , , !:I\.il \- DELMAR H. SCIlWAHZ l.uoD SlIlVEYORS. INC. \.,50 $OUTII ROllERT TRAil ROSEMOOHT. ... 55068 612-423-\769 .. ,. 22L68 ~~/"81 EXHIBIT F TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY" PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR: -~~,. BURDICK PROPERTIES 684 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD I EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 .... ,l; III I L: lo~.' " I " \ ., , 11'" "I" " of \ 11111\ 11,1 \ I \ \ \ \ I : : :: Q(.IIU^<.( Dlt'V~"'1 \ I 1 I I II I' '" ~"'" p^~tI",~ 1<'\:}AIl.'j \ ~\\.l-~.:-:-:'- - - -, rtl\' 1I."~:.I' I: WT 17.... . .... L.-; i i i r" ;;; ji"'- __ . ... -~~, I!:Y 1\4- - ,~ - ?':.'nr= _- - III: ::::/ ------_., / /-.", \~~~; ::::' , III' ""/ ----'r"" 1'1 "" 't"' I r \ 1"" '. II.'. II., ~III ,..,},I.~ If" r--___ . ,;11 I' I ~_. tPr____. II" "'I' I II "" '1'1 " , II ," " , 3 1/: :.,. J: II _---;: I 111\ "'1 " "..- ~" tl ,1\ "!. "':_... . f . ~, I ~, ,I \ I I ,_.. I.... '. I I I .: I ;1 " \ I I I I " .I I ~ i 1 \ I ~ 'J I,' / ': ... I I I \ ' : I I z,-, I i I I I' I , \ I I ~ : I / -...1..----C\11111 I 1'1 I J 1\ . III 1,1 I ,// '\. ~ \. ., ' I ,/ \ ~". '....-f ,,'nil,:.. / '-li"l~ I .:,": '-,_____-- J '1 I I I \'11 " , .J {...~III\',!., -\' I ~'" I ~ " \ I 11rl4- I 11/ I I . II I "I \ I II I I"l.-, \ { \\\I'''-~ \ \ '11"/1'~QlII.I""'G[" U"l.I1'T [,~",'..""c. ,...... \ c_I.'" war In... \ \ ,., ii.;, I::: . I 11." _.( . \ I I' -- ... I 'i I I - - - - --1.' -----::;/- I I i I ,. lIJS1'1'''' UG~ DUCIlIPTlOrf: lOr 1 Il.OCX I. ...~s ISf AOOITIDN, ICcordln, tl trt. I Jt-. - nerd" ,..t en.,..... Intt Count,. "''''''IOU. I ,I I I I M~,: : t , I . ~ J.. \ ; I 'i I . I ~ I I ~ I I '3 I I I I \ .....a "<<.111.- - "1-" ..."....- .'I~ . I L ),~ 1 "i::~~" I .. Ii '- "'" \21.21 \ "-1";l!,~-~ - _ __I .,_.._a ..~!~_1~.'" w ~ <( --- -- -- NU " " , ',------.... -, ~~ --"\ \ I I \ \ \ \ . sc.u.l: I IHOt . 20 '((T o DENOTES IRON MQMHN1' I(HCH iii"".: "1 ftut ..,lIr.ftt .t S. ,..lI,..nt Int,,.,,eUlft Ir "1,,,,_,, Hill. U "'" Ca-,"u ....1f'Ue [L("AUOM . 132.21 ')- I;""" r,; '2 rs p~f1~ If ;i'D'\\)-= ~ '-= -1 - L::" ) 'I i), ' I' \ ' 1,,\, , , " . tl, II I- ~ I ~'., '~ ~ .~~ " "". :i.' [:;=~~~ l~f:..z.-~ ~~ ~Xfd ---- --- - ,.... ... - DELMAR H. SCHWAHZ lAIC! SUAV(YOAS. INC. 14750 SOU1ll ROllERT TRAil '.".. .JlT. ... 55068 512-423-17&9 "...., ... ","," 1/12/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1998 1. Ca~Order: The January 12~8, Planning Commission meeting wa;~ed to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:33 p.m. hose present were Commissioyefs Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, PI . g Coordinator Jane K~sier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDclll ~ and Recording ;/~etary Connie Carlson. '\. / 2. Roll Call: '" / V onhof " / Absent " / Kuykendall //~" Present Criego // ", Present Cramer // ~resent Stamson // Present / 3. Approval of Minfues: / / The Minutes from tne December 8, 1998 Planning Commi . on meeting were approved as presented. / Commiss~ Vonhofarrived at 7:36 p.m. 4. Public Hearings: JI> A. Case #97-132, Burdick Properties request variances for rear yard setback and berm slope for 14162 Commerce Avenue and 14180 Commerce Avenue properties. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated January 12, 1998. 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE: · A 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and · A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and · A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3: 1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE: · A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and 1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\rrmOl1298.doc . A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash enclosure; and . A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and . A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3: 1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. The lots are located in the subdivision known as James 1st Addition (1981). The properties are located within the B-1 (Limited Business) district. 14162 Commerce Avenue is 9,350 square feet with 37 parking stalls required The site has 37 stalls. There is no undeveloped land where the trash enclosure can be relocated. Building Permit #97-274 was issued after the site plan was approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC). The approved plans indicate a 60 foot setback to the face of the building. The as-built survey indicates a utility area was constructed on the west side ofthe building without prior approval from the city. The bump-out on the north end of the building encroaches two feet into the required 60 foot setback from the residential property to the west. Therefore, a 2 foot variance is being requested. 14180 Commerce Avenue is 10,400 square feet with 42 parking stalls required if the building is used entirely as office use (1 stall per 250 square feet). With the recently added parking to the west (rear of building), the site has 51 parking stalls. If the use changes to entirely retail, then the parking requirement will be 52 spaces (1 stall per 200 sq. feet of retail space). Current uses are professional offices and a day-care. Considering retail uses are permitted, the entire building could be used for retail activities and then there would not be enough parking on the lot. The approved plans indicate a 59 foot setback to the face ofthe building on the west side, adjacent to the residential properties. The as built survey indicates a utility area was constructed on the west side of the building without prior approval from the city. The 2.5 foot bump-out on the south end of the building encroaches into the required 60 foot setback from the residential property to the west. Therefore, a 2.7 foot variance for the principal structure is being requested. The trash enclosure (14180 Commerce Avenue) was constructed on the lot in 1994 and expanded in 1997 to accommodate the recently constructed building at 14162 Commerce Avenue. The city approved the construction of the trash enclosure and addition in error. The trash enclosure is located 16.3 feet from the west property line abutting residential. The required setback is 60 feet. Therefore, a 43.7 foot variance is being requested for the trash enclosure. The applicant is also requesting a variance to fence height to allow for increased screening between the commercial uses and the adjacent residential uses. Zoning Ordinance Section 6.11 C and 6.11 E allow for a maximum fence height of 6 feet. The 1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\nmO I 1298.doc 2 . f applicant is requesting a fence height of 8 feet. The applicant has also met with the adjacent residential property owners in an attempt to resolve the ongoing screening issue. City Code Section 6.10 H allows for a maximum slope of a berm to be 3: 1. As part of the screening of the adjacent residential areas, the applicant is requesting a variance to the slope of the berm. As of yet, staffhas not received the specification on the proposed slope as indicated in the variance application. Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue this specific request until specifications are submitted to the Planning Department. Staff concluded the hardship criteria have been met, considering the structures are existing and both sites are at maximum build out with respect to parking and setbacks. Due to lack of pertinent information the variance request to berm slope should be continued. Comments from the public: Mark Kelly, attorney for the applicant, B. C. Burdick and Burdick Properties, submitted official written comments for the record. Mr. Kelly felt the requested variances are good housekeeping matters. His client did not plat the property and was not present for any discussions prior to the sale which included the neighbors and previous developer. Other than the signed plat, there are no records in the Scott County Recorder's Office. The applicant met with the Timothy Avenue neighbors and City Staff on December 4, 1997 to discuss screening. The meeting resulted in proposals outlined in Exhibit A. Mr. Kelly explained the housekeeping variance on the 2 foot setback. They do not feel it encroaches into the setback. The setback was measured from the building foundation not the overhang. Mr. Kelly went on to point out the trash enclosure and the effective screening which would meet code. The proposal is intended to exceed the City's Code requirement for screening for a maximum height of 10 feet. The neighbors are requesting a 4 foot retaining wall with additional fencing. This request would triple the cost of the landscape plan. There was also a question of neighbors maintaining their side of the fence. The neighbors have no ownership in this project. Applicant is trying to make the property attractive, not high maintenance. Eldon Hugelen, 7473 West 142nd Street, Apple Valley, the landscape architect for the applicant presented the landscape proposal which included the grading and plant screening. He feels this will solve the screening element and meet the landscape requirements. Harry Ray, 5726 West 98 1/2 Cir., Bloomington, stated he was representing the neighbors on Timothy Avenue. Mr. Ray explained his interpretation of an agreement from 1979 with the residents and developer. The berm has been changed for the last building. Mr. Ray mentioned Timothy Avenue resident, Maureen Hermann inquired at the City as to how the berm was going to be changed and was assured there would be no changes. He 1:\98fi1es\98plcomrn\pcmin\nmOI1298.doc 3 went on to say there was a comedy of errors with this building because this building was in the master plan in 1979 and did not have to go before the Planning Commission. The neighborhood does not like the lights shining in the back of the building nor the garbage pickup in early morning. In summary, the neighborhood would like to see higher screening. Maureen Hermann, 14151 Timothy Avenue, felt the zoning was different in 1979 with no retail and perceives the City is violating Minnesota State Statutes. Kansier explained the City Attorney pointed out the discussions back in 1979 in the minutes are not enforceable. Harry Ray stated the City has not been able to come up with the original plan. Therefore, this plan should have gone before the Planning Commission. There is also a question of a large pipe that stops at the end of the development. One of the main concerns of the neighbors is the removal of the trash enclosures. The developer knew the setbacks and went ahead and built on the line and then come back to the City and ask for a variance. The neighborhood would like to resolve the matter before a variance is granted. Maureen Hermann, 14151 Timothy Avenue, said she is really thrown by this whole rezoning issue. She revealed they found the approved plans from the Assembly of God archives. Mrs. Hermann felt this issue should be before a judge. She felt the berm has been there since 1981. Now there is parking behind the building and she is just finding out there might be retail in the building. She questioned how the City can just change the zoning and asked if a nuclear waste dump would be put in. The foreman on-site told the neighbors the bef!TI was going to stay and concluded the matter is a mess. Mr. Ray displayed a berm article from a magazine and remarked the neighbors are entitled to have the berm the way it was intended to be. Stamson questioned staff on the discussion referenced in the Minutes. Tovar said there was reference but they did not state any specifics. The issue was sent to the City Attorney for review and the City Attorney responded that the minutes are not enforceable. Ross Stewart, 14122 Timothy Avenue, feels the enclosure is in an easement. He has a document at home indicating the restrictions in a B2 Zone. Mr. Stewart spoke on landscape and trash enclosure encroaching on the neighbors. He was told this summer Burdick was going to put a fence 18 inches from his property. He questioned how can this be allowed. Another main concern is a parking lot. Mr. Stewart said if the Planning Commission grants the variances the City is taking away the neighbor's legal rights. Sandy Wright, 14300 Timothy Avenue, stated she does not own property next to the Burdick property but her neighborhood is affected and she was concerned. She felt the City's errors or oversights should not be paid by the neighbor's tax dollars. The City has 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nmO 11298.doc 4 back tracked. The neighborhood remembers the issues. Ms. Wright also stated the City is afraid of being sued and is buckling under the City Attorney's advice. The Planning Commission is the only hope for the neighborhood for mistakes made by the staff and developer. ' Maureen Hermann, presented the document she obtained from the Assembly of God archives. She feels the neighborhood is suffering from lower property values. Additionally she now sees cars, snowplows and can even see in the windows of the building. The existing trees are too small. There is no privacy. She talked to the people planting the trees who told her they had to be planted the way they were because of the utility lines running through the area. A 4 foot wall and 8 foot fence is not asking too much. Mrs. Hermann pointed out the two zoning ordinances at City Hall. Ron Olson 14291 Timothy Avenue, stated he lived in the 27 years and remembers James Refrigeration said they would give until the neighbors would agree. He assumed there would be records kept. Now the garbage and snowplows run all night long. He contacted the garbage hauler and told him not to pick up the trash during the night. He also does not like the snowplowing during the night as well. He feels this is a white wash and hopes it all works out. Mr. Ray is seeking some uniformity with the undeveloped property to the north. The public hearing was closed at 7:54 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: V onhof: · Clarification from staff regarding setbacks. Tovar recited the zoning ordinance and side note relating to overhangs. · Kansier explained the policy and the differences. · Maureen Hermann, presented an ordinance dated 5/25/96. Staffwill make a copy and return the document. · Mark Kelly said they do not know the exact height of the original berm. It was removed to accommodate the original plat submitted in 1997. · Tovar presented the grading plan with the existing grades. The existing grading does match the approved plan. · Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott stated the developer is not in compliance with the approved grading plan. Stamson asked developer to explain the proposed elevation height. Eldon Hugelen asked the architect for the original grading plans and never received them. Criego showed the original grading plan with the elevations in 1981. I:\98fi1es\98plcomrn\pcmin\nmO 11298.doc 5 V onhof: . Questioned engineering staff on the drainage issue brought by the neighbors. McDermott stated to her knowledge, the catch basin was connected to the storm sewer. Kuykendall: . Appreciates the neighbors being present. . Concern the documents were drawn to scale. . Eldon Hugelen explained the vertical elevations change as you go east. His drawings are a concept as opposed to an engineer's drawing. . Mark Kelly stated it is not the intent to misrepresent anything. The drawings are to reflect the discussions from the neighborhood meeting on December 11, 1997. . Needs a drawing to scale showing existing conditions and then overlays with proposed concepts. . This is beyond the level of detail the Planning Commission gets involved with. . Empathize the sound issue with the maintenance. . Concern a parking lot was built without a final grade. . Stamson questioned the variances before the Planning Commission. . Tovar said the applicant has stated their intent to withdrawn the 8' fence and berm request. She also explained the ordinance allows for a 30 inch berm. . Criego said it seems the developer has proposed something beyond what is the ordinance and now add a 6 foot fence. . Tovar explained the variances . Mark Kelly explained the proposal is a combination of satisfying the neighbors and meeting the City Codes. The display is a visual affect. Criego: . Questioned the master plan of 1979. . Tovar stated the City does not have copy of what the neighborhood has presented tonight. . The application did not have to go before the Planning Commission because what the applicant is asking is a permitted use. . The building was not on the approved plans. . Tovar said the berm is 20 feet wide adjacent to building #3. The berm was taken down on building #2 for more parking. The old berm was wider than 20 feet. . Would like to see the Minutes of this covenant in 1979. . City Minutes are not enforceable. . What are the ordinances relating to evening garbage pickup? Kansier explained there are no hours for garbage pickup in a commercial districts. . Highly recommend the neighbors to contact the garbage collector. . Harry Ray said Mr. Boyles was going to propose to the city an ordinance that the garbage not be taken before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Mr. Ray feels neighboring cities have requirements. . Questioned the restrictions on the utility easement across the property. Kansier said you can build anything that is not permanent. 1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\nmO 11298.doc 6 · Questioned trash container. Tovar said one trash enclosure was put in 1994. The expansion was 1997. Tovar pointed out the enclosure is on the plans. Cramer: · Trash enclosures - Has the City recommended anything different? Tovar said the City Attorney recommended the applicant apply for a variance. · Questioned ordinance requiring trash enclosures in the back of a building. Tovar said setbacks would still have to be met. · Question to developer regarding the parking plan? Kelly said they did respond to the concerns expressed by the neighbors at the December 4, meeting. · Question to developer regarding feeling they are at an impasse with the neighbors. Kelly said the neighbors have many suggestions. They all vary. The application is to the City not the neighbors. But they are trying to come to some solutions with those issues. They are trying to accommodate the neighbors and City Code. The City has a $20,000 Letter of Credit on the landscaping. The landscaping may take a year after the issuance of occupancy. The City is the legal authority on the issues not the neighbors. · Questioned the neighbors regarding drainage with the old berm and how it has changed with the new berm. Maureen Hermann said they did not have problem with the old berm. The concern with the new berm is that all the drainage from buildings 1 and 2 come to the middle and a pipe to the hexagon drainage. They are also concerned the additional hard surface (parking lot) would drain up to the homes. She went on to say no one has given them any information regarding capping the end of the catch basin. Kuykendall said they need to determine the drainage issue. Is it capped? At who's expense? Also the Commissioners would like to see overlays. The meeting needs to be continued. He would like to see the Minutes. V onhof agreed with Kuykendall and would like to see elevation maps. If the elevations are not in compliance with the grading plan. The zoning has not changed. When there is a change it is published in the newspaper and nobody comes to the hearings. Also, a commercial district is next to a residential use. The Planning Commission does look at those issues a little bit different trying to make those zones compatible. There are solutions to make this matter compliable. Recommend to continue. Would like to see full size maps on the elevation and approved plan. There was no requirement to have this matter before the Planning Commission because it is a permitted use in the district. Criego added it is important the City Engineer determine the capacity of the drainage issue. Sue McDermott said the developer has submitted that information. The trash containment should be properly shield and/or moved by developer. Possibly give up a couple of parking spots. Cramer commented on the proposal submitted by the neighboring residents and the developer. Encouraged neighbors and developer to work together. 1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\rrmOI1298,doc 7 " '\ MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO THE JANUARY 26, 1998, MEETING TO CONSIDER THIS MATTER FURTHER AND OBTAIN INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED RELATIVE TO THIS MATTER. AMENDMENT BY KUYKENDALL, ADD A NOTE THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FIND OUT WHAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DID THAT TOOK PLACE. HAVE THE SAME STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE NEXT MEETING. VONHOF AGREED TO AMEND, SECOND BY CRIEGO. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 9:01 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:11 p.m. B. Case #9 26, Kelvin Retterath requesting a side yard variance for tV property at 16520 guadona Beach Circle. / / Planner Jenni Tovar pre / / " On October 28, 1996 the PI . g Commission approved a 7 foot froIl"r'yard setback variance for Dave Yearling and arlynn Benson, to allow a front y~d setback of 18 feet f rather than the required 25 feet fo proposed garage and residentjal addition. The time period to obtain necessary permits e R!red on October 28, 199. 7/Upon request of the applicant, on December 15, 1997 the City Council granted a 9tl day extension to allow the .applicant until January 28, 1998 to obt~n the necessaIJ:'jti~ilding permits for the proJect. " ,/ The ground level of the proposed addition will ~{l,g'~ge and the upper level will be living space consisting of a bedroom and bathrooIl1~\ The living area of the addition will be attached to the existing structure over the fro)1t enh:y. On November 11, 1997 the City received a building permit application for the/proposed\~ddition. The survey indicated a 24 foot wide garage with an 8 foot side yard" setback. Th1s is different from Resolution 96-35PC which indicates a 22 foot wide"g~age with a 10 f~?t side yard setback. The applicant contends the change ~bronght np at the Pl~g Commission meeting on October 28, 1996 and was gIv,fi approval to make the change..pIscussIon by the Planning C?mmission speci.fi'1n~ rai~ed. the question ofthe necessity ~or a sid~ yar~ . setback vanance. Fur:ther d~cu~sIOn mdIcates ~at staff ,:as under th~ ImpreSSIOn t~s IS a substandard lot. This CO,IiclUSIOn was made usmg the WIdth at the front property lIne of 80.6 feet. The required/front lot width for R-l SD riparian lots is 90 feet:.\, The actual10t width is determined a(the front yard setback. Due to the pie shaped lot, t~ scales out to be 104.5 feet. Thertffore, the lot is not substandard as originally thought andl.the required side yard se7s 10 reet on both sides. \ . The ap~li~t is requesting a 2 foot side yard setback variance to allow the proje~ procee~ planned. Based on the outcome of the October 28, 1996 Planning 1:\98fi1es\98p1comrn\pcrnin\rrmO 11298.doc 8