Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4A Public Hearing Amend Section 1108PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2011 Call to Order: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 Acting Chairman Perez called the June 13, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Roszak, Perez, Billington, and Howley, Planner Jeff Matzke, City Engineer Larry Poppler and Development Services Assistant Joe Sortland. Commissioner Fleming was absent. 14016, 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO APPR E THE® AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Billington, Perez and Roszak. The motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of May 9, 2011 Meeting Ates: MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECONDED BY HOWLEY MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Billington, Perez Roszak. 4. Public Hearings: I_1 MEETING THE MAY 9, 2011 MEETING #EP 11-101: Eagle Creek Estates Rezoning.IkEquityoProperties LLC is requesting to amend the Zoning Map designation on approximately 16 acres of property from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to C-2 (General Business). The subject property is commonly known as the Snell property, located northeast of the intersection of CSAH 21 and Fish Point Road. Planner Matzke presented the request for approximately 16 acres within the proposed Eagle Creek Estates subdivision to be rezoned from R-1 Low Density Residential) to C-2 (General Business) Questions aftsXnei None. A MOTIONAS MADE BY INGTO ND SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by i ington, Perez, Roszak and Howley. The motion carried. The Public Hearing began at 6:12 p.m. Comments from the Public: Ray Brandt, 1711 West 143rd Street #331, Burnsville, of Equity Properties, presented himself for questions. He stated that Peter Knaeble, the land owner to the east of Eagle Creek Estates, is in favor of the proposed rezoning. Billington asked Brandt if has met with the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. Brandt said he has not met with the neighborhood yet. C:AUsers\7SORTL—I.PRI\AppData\Local\Temp\ELF20110706_113927VMN06131 Ldoc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 Billington recommended that he meet with the public. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HOWLEY AND SECONDED BY BILLINGTON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Roszak and Howley. The motion carried. The public hearing closed at 6:15 p.m. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Howley stated that he supports the rezoning, as the Comprehens' a e Amendment for Eagle Creek Estates had previously been approved. Billington stated his support for the rezoning. Roszak stated his support for the rezoning. Perez stated his support and noted that the rezoning request is a procedural matter. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO APPROVE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 16 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO C-2 (GENERAL BUSINESS). VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Roszak and Howley. The motion carried. Matzke said that it has not been determined when the rezoning request will go before the City Council, but it may correspond with the plat of Eagle Creek Estates. B. #EP 11-118: SMSC Conditional Use Permit. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community has submitted an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow site grading in excess of 400 cubic yards and allow a public service structure for a sanitary sewer improvement project. The subject property is located at 13901 Canterbury Road NW, on the northeast corner of CSAH 42 and CSAH 83. Matzke presented the Conditional Use Pe it (CUP) request for the SMSC to grade over 400 cubic yards and struct a public service structure for a sanitary sewer improvement project. Questions from Commissioners: None. A MOTION WAS MADEW HOWLEY AND SECONDED BY BILLINGTON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Billington, Perez, Roszak and Howley. The motion carried. The Public Hearing began at 6:22 p.m. Comments from the Public: Ken Adolf, of Bolton & Menk, the engineer for the project, presented himself for questions. C:AUsers\7SORTL—I.PRI\AppData\Local\Temp\ELF20110706_113927VMN061311.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 A MOTION WAS MADE BY HOWLEY AND SECONDED BY BILLINGTON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Roszak and Howley. The motion carried. The public hearing closed at 6:23 p.m. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Billington stated his support for the CUP request. Roszak stated his support based on staff's report and recommendatic Howley stated the request appears appropriate and will supts. ort the rE Perez stated that the CUP appears to meet the requirem A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SITE GRADING I%EX SSOF 400 CUBIC YARDS FOR A SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Roszak an , owley. The motion carried Howley asked if there should be a clarifi written "06-01" in the staff report. Matzke answered that the resolution should be resolutio tuber, as it was erroneously red "11-0 or the CUP request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 11-01, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SITE GRADING IN EXCESS OF 400 CUBIC YARDS FOR A SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. VOTE: Ayes ` y erez, on; illingt&10�ak and Howley. The motion carried. C. #EP 11-117 : Berggren Beach Variance. Beth Berggren has submitted an application for Variances from the side yard setback and lot width on a site consisting of approximately 0.9 acres of land to be subdivided into 2 lots for single family homes. The property is located at 4853 Beach Street NE, between Rosewood Road NE and Bluebird Trail NE. D. #EP 11-117:erggren Beach Combined Preliminary and Final Plat. Beth Berggren has submitted an application for a combined preliminary and final plat consisting of approximately 0.9 acres of land to be subdivided into 2 lots for single family homes. The property is located at 4853 Beach Street NE, between Rosewood Road NE and Bluebird Trail NE. Matzke concurrently presented both items 5-C and 5-D; the variance and the combined preliminary and final plat of Berggren Beach. Questions from the Commissioners: None. C:AUsers\7SORTL—I.PRI\AppData\Local\Temp\ELF20110706_113927VMN06131 Ldoc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Billington, Perez, Roszak and Howley. The motion carried. The Public Hearing began at 6:34 p.m. Comments from the Public: Beth Berggren, the owner of 4853 Beach Street, presented herself for questions. Howley asked if she owns the property both structures sit on. Berggren answered that her parents originally owned the site a Howley asked which lot she intends to sell, should the plat be approved. Berggren answered that the lot with the older structure will be sold. Howley asked Berggren if she thinks the older structure will be torn down. Berggren answered that she thinks it would be although it does have a quaint appeal. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HOWLEY AND SECONDED BY BILLINGTON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC 11 VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Roszak and Howl The public hearing closed`at 6:36 p.m"' Commissioner Comments,,and Qu Roszak stated that due to two s Howley sugested tha re be 4a a new home be constructed. ns: a. carried. site that he will support the requests. added to address setbacks should the lot be replatted and Matzke answered that a lot width variance is still required given that the total lot width of the proposed two lots woulNaome inimum lot width. Howley askeon the lot would have tocomply with the City setbacks. Matzke answhome would have to be in conformance with all City requirements. Howley stated his support for the requests and that the hardship for the variance is demonstrated. Billington stated his support for the plat and the variance given the circumstances. Perez stated that given the current circumstances and the setbacks any new development would have to comply with City standards and he would support requests. C:AUsers\7SORTL—I.PRI\AppData\Local\Temp\ELF20110706_113927VMN06131 Ldoc 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO APPROVE VARIANCE 11-02; A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND LOT WIDTH OF A SITE CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 0.9 ACRES OF LAND TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO TWO LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FOR THE PLAT KNOWN AS BERGGREN BEACH. VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Roszak and Howley. The motion carried. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HOWLEY SECONDED BY BILLINGTON TO APPROVE THE COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF BERGGREN BEACH. VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Roszak and Howley. The motion carrie . E. #EP 11-116: Eastwood Third Addition Combined Preliminary an Fi lat. Cygnus Construction has submitted an application for a combined preliminary and final plat consisting of approximately 1.59 acres to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. This property is located on the south shore of Prior Lake, on the north side of Estate Avenue NE, north of 150th Street SE. Matzke presented the request for a combined preliminary and final plat for the Eastwood Third Addition. The proposed plat has three lots. All of the proposed lots would meet the current minimum standards for lot area and width. The lot with the existing home would provide a portion of land so that the three proposed lots meet the minimum lot standards. The oposed rain garden may be moved slightly to the north so that there will be less tree impact. 16. Questions from the Commissioners: Howley asked if fill is being brought into the flodlkplain Poppler answered that the develowill bring in fill to raise the proposed building pads, not fill in the flood plain. Perez asked if the request # been resented to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Matzke said that the proposed plat` as provided to the DNR and staff has not received any comments to the plat. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HOWLE D SECONDED BY BILLINGTON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Billington, Perez, Roszak and Howley. The motion carried. The Public Hearing egan at 6:47 p.m. Comments from the Public: Stephen Ling, 7300 West 147th Street, Suite 600, Apple Valley, presented himself as the applicant and for questions. The client is working with the engineer to mitigate staff's concern about the location of the rain garden and the trees. Norma Tschida, 14837 Estates Ave, stated that her property is located across the street from the existing home and she opposes the proposed split. Due to the footprint of the house and the setback from the road and the lake, the proposed homes would have to be tall for it to be financially viable. A tall home would be out of character with the neighborhood, and she is concerned about the rain runoff. C:AUsers\7SORTL—I.PRI\AppData\Local\Temp\ELF20110706_113927VMN06131 I .doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 She gets water in her yard when it rains because the sewer system is not functioning properly. In the winter, the wind from the northwest drift snow into the cul-de-sac, and she believes there will be problems with snow drifts. She stated that in 1988, some feet were added to one of the lots, and a document required her signature. She stated that because the road is private, that there may be issues with ownership. Shellie Schmokel-Joscher, 14872 Estates Ave, stated that the raising of the grade is a concern. Water pools to significant levels during the year. She would like to know about the rain garden and the loss of trees. She is wondering how the view from her property would beim acted. She asked who would be responsible if damage occurs as a result of drainage issues. Perez asked about the drainage on the cul-de-sac Poppler answered that the drainage issues sound like a separate issue. Tffe rain garden is planning to be located approximately at the low point of the lot. Poppler said that if the catch basin is overflowing, it will be investigated. Poppler said that it is necessary for new building pads to be raised so they are in compliance with the City Floodplain Ordinance. Perez asked if staff sees any concerns regarding th building pad. Poppler answered that the engineering concerns are what is listed in the Engineering Department's memo. Howley asked if there was a wetland delineation performed; given th a report states the property does not contain a wetland. Poppler said the property is mowed and doesn't appear to be a wetland. Matzke answered that thrope been investigated by the Water Resource Engineer. Billington asked the appli to ad ss the grading and drainage plans. Ling said that the plans presented to the City meet the required standards. The cul-de-sac is not located on the property of the proposed plat, and is a city infrastructure issue. He stated that trees will be removed to grade the building pad, but they will redesign the plans for the drainage pond to preserve more trees, as requested by staff. The height of the proposed dwellings will comply with City standards. Billington asked if the developer will design plans to be more acceptable than the minimum City standards. Ling answered that the en ineer of the project will draft plans that will be pleasing. Bruce Moline, 14812 Estate Ave, stated that he lives next to 14832 Estate Ave. He believes that the lot is better suited for one single family home. The grading, drainage and impervious issues would all be better handled with one new home instead of two. David van Lee, 14945 Estate Ave, stated that the lots on Estate Ave are not cabin lots. He does not believe that ramming two lots onto the vacant property will be consistent with the area. Allen Joscher, 14872 Estate Ave, stated his opposition for splitting the lots. He does not believe that the lot split will be a benefit to the neighborhood. He said that many of the residents have been there C:AUsers\7SORTL—I.PRI\AppData\Local\Temp\ELF20110706_113927VMN06131 Ldoc 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 for a long time and he knew the previous owners of the property. He believed that when the storm drain was constructed in the cul-de-sac, he was required to sign a piece of paper stating that the property would remain one lot. He does not believe that Prior Lake needs to have two homes on the vacant property. He stated that the owner of proposed Lot 3 is not a long term resident, is only interested in monetary gain and will not stay in the neighborhood long term. Jim McCarty, 14806 Estate Ave, stated that he has lived on Estate Avenue for 27 years. He believes the feelings the other neighbors have expressed reflect the overall feelings of the neighborhood. Many of them have been neighbors for a significant amount of years. The proposed homes would likely have large homes on small lots. He has seen the lot covered in water for 27 years whenever it rains and that the geese and other waterfowl often stay on the lot when the lot collects water. He requested that the drainage of the lots be designed to go into the lot or into the storm sewer so that the neighborhood is not burdened with potential drainage issues. John Anderson presented himself as the owner of 14832 Estate Ave, the third lot of the proposed Eastwood Third Addition and stated that he moved to Prior Lake in 1999. 14832 Estate Ave is his second home in Prior Lake and he has resided in the City for almost 12 years. He believes that he likely is the newest resident in the neighborhood, having moved in June 2007. He has two children in the Prior Lake school district and he intends to stay long term. The buyers of the vacant lot approached him about purchasing part of his lot and he is selling the strip of land so he can continue to reside on the lake. He reiterated that the proposed lots would comply wit e City minimum standards. Ling stated that the developer is committed to making Eastwood hlyd Addition a nice project. The houses would likely be million dollar homes and they will work with City: to address all drainage issues. m . . Allen Joscher, 14872 Estate Ave, stated that he lives next door to the vacant property. He encouraged staff and plan . g commissioners to visit the site. He asked why the developer wasn't present. David van Lee, 14945 Estate Ave, ouraged staff a Manning commissioners to drive down Estate Avenue to see the style of the hom Norma Tschida, 14837 Estates` ve, spoke on be"aIf of her neighbor, Ruth Mason, who lives across the cul-de-sac from the vacant property and could not be present. She stated that Mason has the same issues with drainage and has had water in her yard. Mason's driveway and garage are directly in line with the drainage path. She stated that if tall homes are constructed on the proposed lots, Mason's view of the lake will be blocked in that direction. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 1W, VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Roszak and Howley. The motion carried. The public hearing closed at 7:16 p.m. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Howley stated he was surprised that so many residents would be present for a subdivision that requires no special approval from the council. He noted that any kind of drainage and grading issues are reviewed by staff. He said that if the applicant meets all the city requirements, that there would be C:AUsers\7SORTL—I.PRI\AppData\Local\Temp\ELF20110706_113927VMN06131 Ldoc 7 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 legal repercussions if the Planning Commission were to deny the request, despite the requests from the surrounding neighbors. Billington asked Poppler if he has been approached by anyone in the neighborhood regarding drainage issues. Poppler answered that he has not, but was uncertain if the Public Works Department had received any complaints. Billington stated that he agrees with Commissioner Howley and if the applicant meets the required standards that they must approve the requested subdivision. Roszak stated that as a long term resident of Prior Lake, and so a as gone thru a similar scenario, he would support the requested subdivision. Perez stated that the request before them meets all City requirements. He reite that the DNR was provided the plans for the review and provided staff with no comments. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HOWLEY SECONDED BYB INGTON TO A PROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT KNOWN EASTWOOD THIRD ADDITION VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Roszak and Howley. The motion carried Perez asked when Eastwood Third Addition would be going before City Council. Matzke answered that it will not go before the City Council until the engineering comments have been addressed. He estimated that it will go before the City Council sometime in July. Perez asked if there would be a public notification and hearing. Matzke answered that the PC* mmission meet' was the public hearing and the opportunity for the public input was tonig 5. Old Bus A. None 401 6. New a iness: A. None 7. Announceme d Co spondence: Matzke said that there will be no meeting for June 27th. There will possibly be a meeting sometime in July. The 2030 Strategic work session will be taking place on June 21St at 5:30 PM, and the Planning Commission is invited to participate. Billington congratulated Larry Poppler on his promotion to City Engineer. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Joe Sortland, Development Services Assistant C:AUsers\7SORTL—I.PRI\AppData\Local\Temp\ELF20110706_113927VMN06131 Ldoc 8 PRIp� ~� CJS � U 4646 Dakota Street SE INNESO""?' Prior Lnke X4N 55377. PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: 4 A SUBJECT: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1108 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATING THE VARIANCE PROVISIONS PREPARED BY: JANE KANSIER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: X YES NO -N/A DATE: JULY 11, 2011 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to Sections 1108.400 to 1008.423 of the City Zoning Ordinance. The amendment changes the criteria for consideration of a variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code. The proposed language is attached. DISCUSSION In June, 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided the case known as Krummenacher vs. City of Minnetonka. In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the city did not have authority to grant the variance if the property owner could put the property to a reasonable use without a variance and noted the State Legislature would be required to provide a more flexible variance standard than provided for in existing municipal law. In essence, this case stopped all variance activity in the State of Minnesota. In 2011, the State Legislature reviewed the existing law, and in May adopted an amendment to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6, and revised the standards for granting a variance. Under the new law, the term "hardship" is now eliminated and now allows the City to issue a variance to the Zoning Ordinance if there are "practical difficulties." "Practical difficulties" are described as follows: • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; • The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finally, a variance may be issued only if it is "in harmony with the general purposes and intent" of the ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. ANALYSIS: The attached amendment revises the criteria in the current ordinance so it is consistent with the State Statute. We also took this opportunity to review the entire section and make some minor language changes clarifying the intent of the Ordinance and ensuring it is consistent with the law. A redlined copy of the ordinance is attached for your review, as well as a clean copy for easier reading. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FINDINGS Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance requires recommendations of the Planning Commission and final determinations of the City Council be supported by findings addressing the relationship of the proposed amendment to the following policies: 1. There is a public need for the amendments. There is a public need for this amendment. As currently written, the City's Zoning Ordinance is inconsistent with Minnesota Law. 2. The amendments will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the City. Goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan include: ♦ Enact and maintain policies and ordinances to ensure the public safety, health and welfare, and ♦ Enact and maintain policies and ordinances to ensure the safety and preservation of property. Purposes of the Zoning Ordinance include: ♦ Provide effective administration of this Ordinance and any future amendments to this Ordinance and prescribe penalties for the violation of its requirements, and ♦ Establish a continuing system of review of this Ordinance to insure it will be amended to meet changing needs of the community and advances in science and technology. The proposed amendment strives to accomplish these goals, objectives and policies by strengthening the effectiveness of the existing ordinance. 3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements. This amendment is consistent with federal and state laws. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommends approval of the amendment. c:\users\jsortl—l.pri\appdata\local\temp\elf20110706_115125\pc report 071111.doc Page 2 ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment as recommended by staff and indicated in the attached draft ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendments. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends Alternative #1. ATTACHMENT: 1. Redlined Section 1108.400-1108.423 2. Draft Ordinance Amendment c:\users\jsortl—l.pri\appdata\local\temp\elf20110706_115125\pc report 071111.doc Page 3 Zoning Ordinance 1108.400: VARIANCES TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. Th -e opportunity to vary the literal provisions of the Qrrl Tno is 1-vided for as Tp�uiredOn Chapter 462.357 (sub. 6) of the Laws of Minnesota by cam'r Heation oft#e��� ia,�Ee--p eEedure—This Section provides authority for Variances to the literal application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Minnesota Statutes 462.357 (subd. 6, subp. 2) states "variances may be granted when the applicant for the Variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance." When practical difficulties or unnorossary hardships unique to an individual property Under Guar^+�r and notme��c�;�eraler , would result from strict enforcement of the literal provisions of this -the Zoning oOrdinance, the owner of the fee title to the property may apply for a Variance annli a inn mom., ho madevary or modify any regulation or to the provisions of the ordonarrceOrdinance. The Board of Adjustment, or City Council upon appeal, may approve a Variance if it finds the Variance meets all of the criteria in ; subjeEt-te the findings in Subsection 1108.406, and is not restricted by the limitations in Subsection 1108.407.so th,�+�spirit of the QrdinanGe obZerved an-arra-substaaTtiRal jUStiro is Anne 4yarianro iv�Ternedy available where the Zoning Administrator has determined that nn �nnino n )FtifiGate nr vcrr cvr� crcnTrrrca�rra-�-rv-cvrTn-r��,cr�Trrvac�-vr permit magi he issued without varying or mndifyinn the regulations o r�rniis inns of the Ordinanno "� The statutory authority to grant a variance is permissive and not mandatory. Even when a Variance application meets all of the criteria in Subsection 1108.406 and is not restricted by the limitations in Subsection 1108.407 the Board of Adjustment, or City Council, as the case may be, is not required to grant a Variance if doing so would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Whenever there is reference to a fee anywhere in this Section, the fee refers to the amount provided for in the Official Fee Schedule adopted annually by the City Council. 1108.401 Applications for Variances. Applications for Variances shall must be filed with the Zoning Administrator and shall must describe the exceptional conditions of the lot and the peculiar and practical difficulties claimed as a basis for the Variance. The City will not accept a Variance application if the Zonina Administrator determines the Variance is restricted by the limitations in Subsection 1108.407. 1108.402 Applications. All Variance applications must be signed for Varianroc shall be initiated byr with the Gonsent the fee owners or owners of the property. A complete application shall consists -of: ➢ An application on a form provided by the City, signed by the appliGant and the fee owners of the property as it appears in the records of County Auditor of Scott County. ➢ An -The application foo as determined by the City Counnil City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1108/pt Zoning Ordinance ➢ A survey of the property showing all property lines, required setbacks, easements, existing structures and easements and all proposed structures. ➢ A map or plat showing the lands proposed for vase Variance and all lands within 350 feet of the boundaries of that property and the names and addresses of the owners of the lands in the area as they appear on the records of the County Auditor of Scott County or other appropriate records. ➢ If the Variance application involves a driveway or access to the property, the property owner(s) and applicant must demonstrate that the Variance, if granted, will not impair access to other platted lots. ➢ Any other materials required by the City. ➢ Any other materials or information the property owner and applicant believe support the Variance application and will assist the Board of Adjustment or the City Council, if there is an appeal, to reach a decision_ 1108.403 Board of Adjustment Decides Variances. Before a—All Variance applications are request isapproved,the request for the Va„anGe shall bee considered and decided by the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall consider the effect of the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance on the applicant's property and the impact granting the Variance will have Comprehensive Plan. In addition the Board of Adjustment shall consider the ,and the requirements of all other applicable State Statutes, the information in the application, the information in the Staff Report and the criteria set out in Subsection 1108.406. The Board of Adjustment shall make specific findings relating to each of the criteria in Subsection 1108.406 to support its decision. 1108.404 Notice of Hearing. After receipt of a complete application, the Zoning Administrator shall set a date and publish notice of fe+—a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment. for anyyarianGe reqt est The public hearing must occur within 30 days after receipt of the -a complete application for ayarmanGe The public hearing shall be held only after the notice required by subsection 1109.200 has been given. 1108.405 Public Hearings on Variance Applications. The Board of Adjustment shall hold a public hearing in accordance with subseGtien Subsection 1109.200 ands to hear arguments at the "gig—for and against the proposed Variance. and Ot The Board of Adjustment may continue the hearing from time to time if a continued hearing is reasonably required. Final action on the proposed Variance shall be taken must occur within 60 days after from the date the complete application was received by the City, unless the Citv notifies the applicant in writina that it intends to extend the decision deadline by an additional 60 days. The written notice must state the reason the City is extending the decision deadline. 1108.406 ssua -GeDecision on Variance. The Board of Adjustment, or City Council upon appeal, may grant a Variance from the strict application of the provisions of this --the Zoning Ordinance, if it finds th-atall of the following criteria are satisfied: City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1108/p2 Zoning Ordinance (1) There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.T"ere are ei�tytQ -ria-Fy Geni-�ditio s OF GOFGUmstanGes, S iGh as iiregularity, narrowness or shallowness of the lot er ev^eptienal topegraphi^al er physi^al ^onditions whi^h are pe^i liar to the property and do not apply to the other lands within the neighborhood er the came Use DictFiT The granting of the Variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. ?4(3) The granting of the „ar e Variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved. (4) The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property not resultina from actions of the owners of the Drooerty and is not a mere convenience to the property owner and applicant. The granting of the variance will not urnrreasonably impaGt tralter the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. (6) The granting of the „ar e Variance will not result in allowing any use of the property that is prehibited–not permitted in the zoning district in which where the subject property is located. (7) The granting of the�a�r�,a;Ge Variance �a be is necessary to alleviate inadequate access to direct sunlight for "ards-40 of +he inahili+., +^ ,ice solar energy systems. 1108.407 Limitations. No application for a Variance shall be accepted, and no Variance shall be granted by the City for any of the following: ➢ Land uses not specifically listed within a Use District. Floor elevations lower than the Flood Protection Elevation, or levels of flood protection required in the Flood Plain District. 1108.408 Conditions and Modifications. In granting a variance, the —ze, the Board of Adjustment may impose such reasonable and appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be necessary to accomplish, to the extent possible under the circumstances, the purposes of the regulations or provisions which are to be varied or modified and to re�lec City= of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1108/p3 Zoning Ordinance minimize i!f feGtS of the TGe upon adjeininrr ensure compliance and protect adjacent properties, the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. Any conditions must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the Variance. A vere Variance and any conditions and safeguards which were made a part of the terms under which the varmanGe Variance was granted are binding upon the applicant/property owner and any subsequent purchaser, heir, or assign of the property_ aAny violation of a -the � e�„an Variance or its conditions and safeguards shall be a violation of this ord�nanGe Ordinance, shall nullify the Variance and be subject to prosecution as a misdemeanorand punishable as SUG14. 1108.409 Appeals to the City Council. Any aggrieved person situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the affected property, o -r -any officer or department representative of the City, any agency of the State with an interest in the property, or a Watershed District or Water Management Organization with jurisdiction may appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustment to the City Council pursuant to subsection 1109.400. A decision of the Board of Adjustment shall not become effective until the end of the appeal period has expired. If an timely appeal is filed before the appeal oerinr! the decision of the Board of Adjustment shall not become effective until the City Council has rendered a decision on the appeal. 1108.410 Payment of Fees. No application for a Variance, appeal from the decision of the Board of Adiustment on a Variance decision. or application for an extension of a Variance will from the provisions of thisanGec�l be considered until the applican+ham, s paidthe---1;ca+onapplicable fees have been Paidestablishedbythe Gity (`oi n appeal o�derisi��hallbe heard unto! +�#e-appellant has paid the appeal fee established by the Gity SsunG4. 1108.411 Assent Form. No Variance with imr,es which is approved subject to conditions is valid until the property owner and applicant for the Variance have hassignedan est -Assent and Consent form and the approved exhibits whish aGknewled a agreeing to the terms and conditions applicable to the under whish the Variance is granted and agrees to observe them 1108.412 *ngVariance Must be Recorded. The resolution approving a Variance shall include the legal description of the property for whiGh the VarianGe was issued -and a list of any conditions set forth imposed by the Board of Adjustment as part of the approval of thei��Ge A certified copy of the resolution shall be filed with the Scott County Recorder and evidence of recordina provided to the Zonina Administrator. 1108.413 Revocation and Cancellation of a Variance. A Variance may be revoked and canceled if the Zoning Administrator determines that the holder� of an ex sting Variance has „ielaterl the property has been used in a manner that violates any of the conditions or requirements imposed as a condition to approval of the Variance, or has violated any other applicable laws, City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1108/p4 Zoning Ordinance ordinances, or enforceable regulation. The following procedures shall apply to revocations and cancellations: (1) The Zoning Administrator shall provide written notice of the violation to the property owner and person(s) whose name(s) appeared on the original application for the Variance.notify the holder ritinng oftheviiolatiorn.. The notice shall be given delivered in person or by certified mail, addressed to the address of the annlinant stated on the original annlina+inn a minimum of 10 days prior to the date set for a hearing before the Board of Adjustment. Notice shall also be served upon the occupants of the premises for whish the property subject to the Variance. was If no occupant can be found, notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place upon such premises. Service shall be effective on the date of mailing, personal service or posting. (2) The notice shall advise the property owner and person(s) whose name(s) appear on the Variance application and occupant of the premise (collectively "Noticed Parties") of the nature of the violation and the date set for the Board of Adjustments to conduct a hearing on the violation. The notice must advise the Noticed Parties of their right to address the Board of Adjustments, to ask questions and to present evidence and testimony and to have individuals testify on their behalf at the hearing. The Noticed Parties shall be jointly and severable responsible for reimbursing the City for any City costs incurred, including attorney's fees, pursuant he issued a minimum ten (10) days ' inr to the p bliGh�y��nd UGt� she Planning Commissin�Tc holder of the Conditional I'"'I''c'e Permit shall be s bjent to reimbursement for 1l�i�fGT�TZTR.r �rTllTf�J1T any city nnctc innl,rred p Irsuan+ to Subsection 1109.902. 1108.414 After One Year, Ne—GenstruGtmon Regu `QExpiration of Variance. All Variances shall be revoked null and void and canceled, solely by the passage of time and without any action by the City, if 1 year has elapsed from the date of the adoption of the resolution granting the Variance if there is no evidence that substantial use or progress has occurred on the property or premise subject to the approved Variance.,and the holder of the VarianGe has failed to make substantial 1Ice of premises anGGrdinn to the rr�ra�l-aiT �v�.m arra�r-a��vr— .., cr��c ramc� �rrc r�rniiM anS Gern-rtamned in the Varianne City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1108/p5 Zoning Ordinance 1108.417415 Time for Abandonment of Exmstmng Var+an�G`Expiration of Variances. The 1 year period used in this Ordinance to compute time to determine whether a Variance has been canceled or revoked shall begin with the date of adoption of the resolution granting the Variance. T1T108.4T1Abandonment if Conditions Not Met or Use Difsnnnti"n1fy2g. Any Varianfno granted by the Gity is revoked and nanneled if all nn,nditiions imposed in the Varmaare not satisfied withiny'ear. I�rextension of tiff: time period -is requested by the owner of property on whTG-i a varianGe has been ddiii SGent�aedpri�oteend of the 1 year, crh-re Beard of Adjustment may approve by resolution, si inh requested extension if the Board of Adjustment finds a satisfantnr�i reason exists to grant an extension 1108.4-1-9416 Extension of T�meVariance. The owner of the property subject to a Variance may, by application and payment of the fee set by the City Council aooly for an extension of the 1 vear Variance period. Beard of 4diustmer, Requestsfor-extension of time The application to extend the Variance request must be filed with the Zoning Administrator a minimum of 30 days before the termination expiration date of the Variance, but such request shall not be filed more than 30-60 days before the terminationexpiration date. The Board of Adiustment may. by resolution. extend a Variance for a reasonable period of time not to exceed 1 year. 1108.4-29417 Denial. Variances may be denied by resolution of the Board of Adjustment. A resolution of denial shall constitute a finding by the Board of Adjustment that the conditions required for approval do not exist. City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1108/p6 Zoning Ordinance 1108.424418 Duration and Enforcement. Variances shall remain in effect as long as the conditions stated in the permit are observed. Failure to comply with those conditions results in termination of the Variance. 1108.42419 Reimbursement of City Costs. No Variance shall become valid until the applicant has paid to the City all fees due according to subsection 1109.900. 1108.42-8420 Building Permits. No building permit shall be issued for any property for which the Board of Adjustment has approved a Variance until the applicant has paid to the City all required fees, has signed an assent form, and has filed any required letter of credit. City= of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1108/p7 ORDINANCE NO. 111-xx AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1108.400 THROUGH 1108.423 OF THE CITY CODE TO UPDATE THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO VARIANCES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH MINNESOTA STATUTES The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: Sections 605.700 through 605.900 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to delete the sections in their entirety and to add the following language: 1108.400: VARIANCES TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. This Section provides authority for Variances to the literal application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Minnesota Statutes 462.357 (subd. 6, subp. 2) states "variances may be granted when the applicant for the Variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance." When practical difficulties unique to an individual property would result from strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, the owner of the fee title to the property may apply for a Variance to the provisions of the Ordinance. The Board of Adjustment, or City Council upon appeal, may approve a Variance if it finds the Variance meets all of the criteria in Subsection 1108.406, and is not restricted by the limitations in Subsection 1108.407. The statutory authority to grant a variance is permissive and not mandatory. Even when a Variance application meets all of the criteria in Subsection 1108.406 and is not restricted by the limitations in Subsection 1108.407 the Board of Adjustment, or City Council, as the case may be, is not required to grant a Variance if doing so would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Whenever there is reference to a fee anywhere in this Section, the fee refers to the amount provided for in the Official Fee Schedule adopted annually by the City Council. 1108.401 Applications for Variances. Applications for Variances must be filed with the Zoning Administrator and must describe the exceptional conditions of the lot and the peculiar and practical difficulties claimed as a basis for the Variance. The City will not accept a Variance application if the Zoning Administrator determines the Variance is restricted by the limitations in Subsection 1108.407. 1108.402 Applications. All Variance applications must be signed by the fee owner(s) of the property. A complete application consists: An application on a form provided by the City, signed by the fee owner(s) of the property as it appears in the records of County Auditor of Scott County. ➢ The application. ➢ A survey of the property showing all property lines, required setbacks, easements, existing structures, and all proposed structures. ➢ A map or plat showing the lands proposed for Variance and all lands within 350 feet of the boundaries of that property and the names and addresses of the owners of the lands in the area as they appear on the records of the County Auditor of Scott County or other appropriate records. ➢ If the Variance application involves a driveway or access to the property, the property owner(s) and applicant must demonstrate that the Variance, if granted, will not impair access to other platted lots. ➢ Any other materials required by the City. ➢ Any other materials or information the property owner and applicant believe support the Variance application and will assist the Board of Adjustment or the City Council, if there is an appeal, to reach a decision. 1108.403 Board of Adjustment Decides Variances. All Variance applications are considered and decided by the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall consider the effect of the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance on the applicant's property and the impact granting the Variance will have Comprehensive Plan. In addition the Board of Adjustment shall consider the requirements of all other applicable State Statutes, the information in the application, the information in the Staff Report and the criteria set out in Subsection 1108.406. The Board of Adjustment shall make specific findings relating to each of the criteria in Subsection 1108.406 to support its decision. 1108.404 Notice of Hearing. After receipt of a complete application, the Zoning Administrator shall set a date and publish notice of a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment. The public hearing must occur within 30 days after receipt of a complete application. The public hearing shall be held only after the notice required by subsection 1109.200 has been given. 1108.405 Public Hearings on Variance Applications. The Board of Adjustment shall hold a public hearing in accordance with Subsection 1109.200 to hear arguments for and against the proposed Variance. The Board of Adjustment may continue the hearing from time to time if a continued hearing is reasonably required. Final action on the proposed Variance must occur within 60 days from the date the complete application was received by the City, unless the City notifies the applicant in writing that it intends to extend the decision deadline by an additional 60 days. The written notice must state the reason the City is extending the decision deadline. 1108.406 Decision on Variance. The Board of Adjustment, or City Council upon appeal, may grant a Variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, if it finds all of the following criteria are satisfied: (1) There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (2) The granting of the Variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. (3) The granting of the Variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved. (4) The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property not resulting from actions of the owners of the property and is not a mere convenience to the property owner and applicant. (5) The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. (6) The granting of the Variance will not result in allowing any use of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located. (7) The granting of the Variance is necessary to alleviate an inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 1108.407 Limitations. No application for a Variance shall be accepted, and no Variance shall be granted by the City for any of the following: ➢ Land uses not specifically listed within a Use District. Floor elevations lower than the Flood Protection Elevation, or levels of flood protection required in the Flood Plain District. 1108.408 Conditions and Modifications. In granting a variance, the Board of Adjustment may impose such reasonable and appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be necessary to accomplish, to the extent possible under the circumstances, the purposes of the regulations or provisions which are to be varied or modified and to ensure compliance and protect adjacent properties, the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. Any conditions must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the Variance. A Variance and any conditions and safeguards which were made a part of the terms under which the Variance was granted are binding upon the applicant/property owner and any subsequent purchaser, heir, or assign of the property. Any violation of the Variance or its conditions and safeguards shall be a violation of this Ordinance, shall nullify the Variance and be subject to prosecution as a misdemeanor. 1108.409 Appeals to the City Council. Any aggrieved person situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the affected property, any officer or department representative of the City, any agency of the State with an interest in the property, or a Watershed District or Water Management Organization with jurisdiction may appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustment to the City Council pursuant to subsection 1109.400. A decision of the Board of Adjustment shall not become effective until the end of the appeal period has expired. If a timely appeal is filed, the decision of the Board of Adjustment shall not become effective until the City Council has rendered a decision on the appeal. 1108.410 Payment of Fees. No application for a Variance, appeal from the decision of the Board of Adjustment on a Variance decision, or application for an extension of a Variance will be considered until the applicable fees have been paid. 1108.411 Assent Form. No Variance which is approved subject to conditions is valid until the property owner and applicant for the Variance have signed an Assent and Consent form and the approved exhibits agreeing to the terms and conditions applicable to the Variance. 1108.412 Variance Must be Recorded. The resolution approving a Variance shall include the legal description of the property and a list of any conditions imposed by the Board of Adjustment. A certified copy of the resolution shall be filed with the Scott County Recorder and evidence of recording provided to the Zoning Administrator. 1108.413 Revocation and Cancellation of a Variance. A Variance may be revoked and canceled if the Zoning Administrator determines the property has been used in a manner that violates any of the conditions or requirements imposed as a condition to approval of the Variance, or has violated any other applicable laws, ordinances, or enforceable regulation. The following procedures shall apply to revocations and cancellations: (1) The Zoning Administrator shall provide written notice of the violation to the property owner and person(s) whose name(s) appeared on the original application for the Variance. The notice shall be delivered in person or by certified mail, a minimum of 10 days prior to the date set for a hearing before the Board of Adjustment. Notice shall also be served upon the occupants of the property subject to the Variance. If no occupant can be found, notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place upon such premises. Service shall be effective on the date of mailing, personal service or posting. (2) The notice shall advise the property owner and person(s) whose name(s) appear on the Variance application and occupant of the premise (collectively "Noticed Parties") of the nature of the violation and the date set for the Board of Adjustments to conduct a hearing on the violation. The notice must advise the Noticed Parties of their right to address the Board of Adjustments, to ask questions and to present evidence and testimony and to have individuals testify on their behalf at the hearing. The Noticed Parties shall be jointly and severable responsible for reimbursing the City for any City costs incurred, including attorney's fees, pursuant to Subsection 1109.902. 1108.414 Expiration of Variance. All Variances shall be null and void and canceled, solely by the passage of time and without any action by the City, if 1 year has elapsed from the date of the adoption of the resolution granting the Variance if there is no evidence that substantial use or progress has occurred on the property or premise subject to the approved Variance. 1108.415 Expiration of Variances. The 1 year period used in this Ordinance to compute time to determine whether a Variance has been canceled or revoked shall begin with the date of adoption of the resolution granting the Variance. 1108.416 Extension of Variance. The owner of the property subject to a Variance may, by application and payment of the fee set by the City Council, apply for an extension of the 1 year Variance period. The application to extend the Variance request must be filed with the Zoning Administrator a minimum of 30 days before the expiration date of the Variance, but such request shall not be filed more than 60 days before the expiration date. The Board of Adjustment may, by resolution, extend a Variance for a reasonable period of time not to exceed 1 year. 1108.417 Denial. Variances may be denied by resolution of the Board of Adjustment. A resolution of denial shall constitute a finding by the Board of Adjustment that the conditions required for approval do not exist. 1108.418 Duration and Enforcement. Variances shall remain in effect as long as the conditions stated in the permit are observed. Failure to comply with those conditions results in termination of the Variance. 1108.419 Reimbursement of City Costs. No Variance shall become valid until the applicant has paid to the City all fees due according to subsection 1109.900. 1108.420 Building Permits. No building permit shall be issued for any property for which the Board of Adjustment has approved a Variance until the applicant has paid to the City all required fees, has signed an assent form, and has filed any required letter of credit. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this day of July, 2011. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the day of July, 2011. Drafted By: City of Prior Lake 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372