Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 March Planning Commission Agenda Packetsr.. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MARCH 1, 1990 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 7:35 P.M. HEARING LAKESHORE VARIANCE 8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION PUD REPORT 8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION ETHICS CODE * Indicates a Public Hearing JOHN BOYLE STAFF STAFF All times stated on the Planning Commission Agenda, with the exception of Public Hearings, are approximate and may start a few minutes later than scheduled. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fa). (612) 4474245 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 1990 The February 1, 19990, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Kedrowski. Those present were Commissioners Loftus, Arnold, Kedrowski, Wells, Roseth, Director of Planning Horst Graser, Assistant City Planner Deb Garross, and Secretary Rita Schewe. ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MINUTES MOTION BY WELLS, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Kedrowksi, Wells, and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Kedrowski wished to have on record a commendation to the Staff on the retreat arrangements at Scanticon. All Commissioners were in agreement. Kay Schmudlach, Assistant City Manager, presented the information on the redevelopment concept and the Tax Increment plan for the Priordale Mall area and on the proposed Super Value site. Mr. Graser explained to the Commissioners that their charge at this hearing is to consider and adopt the Resolution establishing Redevelopment Proiect No. 2. This plan is consistent with the City of Prior Lake's Comprehensive Plan and long range planning. Mr. Graser explained various''` segments of the proposed development and the tax increment benefits. Kathleen Nye, representative for Enivid Corporation, presented information on the Super Value Store that is proposed in the Priordale Mall district. The proposed store is a County Market, 30,000 sq. feet, and the exterior design would be similar to the existing mall. The landscaping plan for the project was discussed and samples of exterior building materials were shown. Construction on the project could start in 60 days and the target date for the store opening is November 1, 1990. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fm(612)447-4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 2, 1990 PAGE 2 Mr. Graser reviewed the site plan and several comments from the Staff on the plan. The Commissioners were advised that their input and conceptual approval of the site plan would be forwarded to the Council. Chairman Kedrowski informed the Commissioners of the three items that they are to consider, the overview of the project, Comprehensive Plan consistency, and site plan approval. Recess called at 8:32 P.M. Meeting recalled to order at 8:45 P.M. Comments from the Commissioners were on landscaping, handicapped parking zone, ring road concept, sidewalks, lighting, cart corral, enhancing gate entrance, Priordale Mall loading zone defined, bus shelter, and the timeline on Toronto and Tower alignment. All were in agreement on the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY WELLS, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION WHEREBY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS, THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN NO. 2 IN CONFORMANCE TO TH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Wells, Kedrowski, Loftus and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY WELLS, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO SUPPORT THE CONCEPT AND OVERVIEW PLAN OF THE PROJECT AS PRESENTED AND THIS APPROVAL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Wells, Kedrowski, Arnold, and Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO SUPPORT THE SUPER VALUE SITE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS. 1. THE ALIGNMENT OF TOWER STREET BE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. 2. THE ALIGNMENT OF TORONTO AVENUE BE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. 3. PARKING ISLANDS AND STRIPING OF PARKING LOT BE INCORPORATED IN THE SITE PLAN. 4. DEFINE SPACE /SITE LINES NEXT TO PRIORDALE MALL. 5. SIDEWALKS ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF BUILDING SHOULD BE WIDENED TO 8 FEET. 6. BUS SHELTER AND CART CORRAL LOCATION BE INDENTIFIED IN SITE PLAN. 7. PARKING ISLANDS BE DEFINED IN THE MIDDLE ROW OF THE SW PARKING LOT. 8. SIDEWALKS BE LOCATED ON TORONTO, TOWER AND DULUTH AVENUE TO CONSOLIDATE THE BUSINESS DISTRICT. 9. PARALLEL PARKING IS RECOMMENDED ON WEST SIDE OF BUILDING TO ENHANCE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC AND TO ALLOW FOR EASY ACCESSIBLE HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 1990 PAGE 3 10. A COORDINATED LIGHTING CONCEPT BE DEVELOPED FOR THE ENTIRE SITE. 11. PRIORDALE MALL LOADING ZONE BE REVIEWED WITH REDESIGN OF TORONTO AVENUE. 12. LANDSCAPING - TREES SHOULD BE 40 FEET APART INSTEAD OF 100 FEET. 13. A SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHOULD BE INSTALLED TO MAINTAIN PLANTINGS. 14. PLANTING MATERIALS SHOULD BE OF LOW MAINTENANCE AND DURABLE. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, wells, Arnold, Loftus and Kedrowski. MOTION CARRIED. A brief discussion on Scanticon and future meetings for Commissioners followed. MOTION BY WELLS, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Wells, Arnold, Loftus and Kedrowski. MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 9:53 P.M. Tapes of meeting are on file at City Hall. Horst Graser Rita M. Schewe Director of Planning Recording Secretary CENSUS •0 Cyr >> "VAOIPC" PLANNING REPORT SUBJECT: Lakeshore Setback Variance APPLICANT: John Boyle SITE: 4277 Grainwood Circle, Lot 13 Grainwood Park DAT ^: March 1, 1990 STAFF ANALYSIS The Planning Department has received a variance application from John Boyle. Mr Boyle is requesting a 57 lakeshore variance in order to add a three car garage, porch, deck, and additional living space to the existing home as per attached survey. The applicant plans to remove the existing garage, lean -to, and covered patio. See attached materials for further reference to this application. The subject site is zoned R -1 /S -D and contains approximately 28,825 square feet in area. The subject lot is within the plat of Grainwood Park which dates back to 1944 and consists predominately of 50 lots. Home styles vary from recently constructed homes to older remodeled cabins. The subject site is by far the largest lot within the subdivision. The existing home is currently located 38' from the 904 contour line and the proposed addition would encroach within 18' of the 904 contour line. The site has several large, mature trees alone the south border of the lot. A few of these trees will most likely be lost during construction and staff would recommend that as many as possible be saved. The topography of the site varies greatly. There is a sharp drop -off along the western side of the lot and a steep incline along the other shoreline areas. The upper portion of the lot near Grainwood Circle is relatively flat. The two lots directly to the south of the subject site both received 50' lakeshore variances within the past two years. The rational discussed for the granting of the variances centered around the fact that the character of the neighborhood has established residential construction extremely close to the lake, and that much of the older construction on the peninsula is at variance from the 904 and that the new construction would be consistent with existing neighborhood development. 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior lake, Minnesota 55372 1 Ph. (612) 4474230 1 Fax (612) 447 -4245 Pat Lynch, the DN2 Area Hydrologist, was informed of the variance request. His comments will be available at the scheduled hearing. The recommendation from staff is to approve up to a 50' lakeshore variance for Lot 11, Grainwond Park. Lot 13 is a large lot in terms of total square footage, however it is of irregular shape and is relatively shallow allowing for a building envelope of only 35 feet. The applicant is somewhat restricted in terms of building options due to the location of the existing structure which was built at variance with current setback standards. In 1988 and 1989, the Planning Commission granted 50' foot lakeshore variances to new construction homes built on adjacent lots 11 and 12, recognizing depth limitations of lots in this neighborhood. The character of this older neighborhood has been established by years of development whereby cabins and homes have been built at various distances from the lake. A 50' lakeshore variance for this lot would not be detrimental to the general health and welfare of the community. M9Y 6 !- (A)Completed application form. (B)Filing fee (C)Certified from abstract firs, names �+ and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of. the \u� subject property. (D)Cosplete legal description i Property Identification Number (PM). (E)Deed restrictions, if applicable. (F)An area map at 1.200' available from the City Engineering Section sharing: existing topography, utilities, lot boundaries, building easements and soil test data if pertinent within 300 feet. (G)A parcel map at 1 20' -50' sharing: The site development plan, buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. ONLY COMMME AMJCATEW SMALL BE REVIBM BY THE PIAMM O"ISSMN. To the beat of my knowledge the information presented an this form is correct. In addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which specifies requirements for variance procedures. I agree to w e rma on and follow the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. is tore Submitted this is of EB 1 9� i F i s �Z_; MIS SPAOE IS TO BE FWM OUT BY WE PLANWZ DIPMM r - � �� • Ty / IX � A p N[ � ry iG �, Q , D � IM ' S � SIQ • i AP � P p % / a � / � � � , � D ,p E � BIIID - ' 4 . : "p Dl1'18 OY /yam TTI/�,S .. � . ' Y •ii _ 9 Signature of the Planning Director-- Y Date Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional use permit on the subject site or arty part of it? - - -Y es —W,-JIo What was requested: When: D isposition: i BOYLE VABIA � E e i J / iwo "VAOIPN" NOTICE OF HEARING FOR LAKESHORE VARIANCE You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held by the Planning Commission in the Prior Lake Council Chambers at 4629 Dakota Street S.E. on: Thursday, March 1, 1990 at 7:35 P.M. PURPOSE OF HEARING To consider a 57' Lakeshore Variance for John Boyle. SUBJECT SITE LOCATION REQUESTED ACTION 4277 Grainwood Circle Lot 13 Grainwood Park Addition The applicant is requesting a 57' Lakeshore Variance in order to add an attached three car garage, a porch, deck, and additional living space to the existing home. The applicant plans to remove the existing garage, lean -to and covered patio. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this meeting. oral and written comments will be accepted by the Planninq Commission. For more information, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447 -4230. Prior Lake Planning Commission (February 20, 1990) 4629 Dakota St. SE., Prior lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 CENSUS .0 (DNR) February 16, 1990 Pat Lynch Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Dear Pat, The enclosed information is in regard to a proposed Lakeshore Variance within the Shoreland District of Prior Lake. The subject site is legally described as: Lot 13 Grainwood Park. A copp of the variance application and area map indicating the sub ect site location are enclosed. The applicant wishes to add an attached three car garage, porch, deck, and additional living space to the existing home and has requested a 57 lakeshore variance. The applicant plans to remove the existing garage, lean -to and covered patio. Please review and comment on the enclosed information. The hearing for this item has been tentatively set for March 1, 1990, at 7:35 p.m. If you have questions or comments regarding this matter, contact the Planning Department at 447 -4230. Sincerely, Gar s hmita Lf Administrative Assistant GS:rms Enclosures 4629 Dakota SL SE, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 1 Fax (612) 4474245 LONLOO TINUANUaTI LlS REGISTERED PROPS RTE ABST A CLOS.Nf- jERVIC ERVILE TITLE SER SERVICE RECORDING INWNCE N65EPCE SCOTT COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE, INC. 223 HOLMES STREET, P.O. BOX 300 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 David MOOnen and Dale WEE, Kerry Meagher. („Rry„I cRVneN TELEPHONE 161214562W FAX 1612145 FEBRUARY 12TH, 1990 John and Marge Boyle 5408 River Bluff Curve Bloomington, MN 55437 To Whom it may concern: According to the 1990 Tax Records in the Scott County Treasurer's Office, the following persons are listed as the present owners of property which lies within 100 feet of the following described property: Lot 13, Grainwood Park Addition, according to :he recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Scott County, Minnesota. Paul C. 6 Susan M. Breckner .� 4� m142 3orte A/ 4267 t, ,. 4267 Grainwood Circle NE 'at ti C,WL;E Prior Lake, MN 55372 54DF3 1�.� Michael 6 Judy Broekeme Ter �1eo.. -�Eo�, ryln• SY457 4280 Grainwood Circle HE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dean R. Flock , 6501 Woodlake Dr. 61015 Richfield, MN 55423 Eileen V. Larson 4253 Grainwood Circle Prior Lake, MN 55372 Ronald A. Seelye 4260 Grainwood Circle NE ` DAVID E. MOOM Prior Lake, MN 55372 Scott Comfy Abstract and Title, Inc. Harold E. Dellwo, Jr. ✓ DEM /ml P.O. Box 178 Prior Lake, MN 55372 Sm � �iRNT ; AND U W=d Alastair m a MiPlam MEMBER MINNESOTA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION AGENT FOR CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY P RcI'aSt�) Fb'^� �Q��14 io -� - sac 0.0 ¢nie; •:v 4 - -t5 :.>�¢y a„ U+� �+Ge; (mpr ktcACrlm) 2 c•�p y , qe9 i1� l _ 1 K '.Qx7i f % � -fi . ' _- .St • i - -' o i �. T p j.o Pttk 1 CENSUS "90 "PUDRPT" 1990 PUD STATUS REPORT PRIOR LAKE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 6, 1990 Chapter 5- 5- 11(D,7 e) of Prior Lake City Code requires the Planning Commission to review all Planned Unit Development Districts within the City at least once each year. The Planning Commission is directed to submit a report to the City Council on the development status of each PUD District in order to monitor progress. In the event that the City Council would find that development has not occurred within a reasonable time after the original approval, the City Council may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district by removing the Planned Unit Development District from the official Zoning Map. The City of Prior Lake currently has five Planned Unit Development Districts which are indicated on the attached PUD INVENTORY MAP. The five districts are identified as follows: PUD 7 -76 The Harbor PUD 82 -12 Priorview PUD 8 -82 and PUD 4 -83 Sand Pointe PUD 12 -16 Tower Hill Apartment East PUD 5 -83 Windsong on the Lake This report will be broken down into five sections which relate to each respective Planned Unit Development. A brief history of the PUD will be outlined, followed by site data, current development status and a recommendation pertinent to the disposition of the PUD. A map of the individual PUD is provided at the end of each section for reference. 4629 Dakota St. SE., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 M a M THE HAR04 i M M M cl AR - j M 'O w WIN _. S" \ wq ra+ru �anr f Y � K i m r, PRIORVI i so.oa..ovl.c. ' T ER APT EAST f PIaOR LIRE ? ZONNG aW : 1 l y THE HARBOR PUD PUD 7 -76 HISTORY The Harbor PUD is located in the northeast quadrant of the City in Section 30. The PUD has been developed in eight phases incorporating eleven single family and forty -four townhome units with recreational amenities such as a sand beach, tennis court, swimming pool, boat slips and lake access. THE HARBOR Preliminary Plat - July 7, 1977 Final Plat - July 25, 1977 THE HARBOR 2ND ADDITION THE HARBOR 3RD ADDITION THE HARBOR 4TH ADDITION THE HARBOR 5TH ADDITION THE HARBOR 6TH ADDITION THE HARBOR 7TH ADDITION THE HARBOR BEACH ADDITION Final Plat - June 2, 1980 Final Plat - August 9, 1982 Final Plat - February 4, 1985 Final Plat - September 23, 1985 Final Plat - June 1, 1987 Final Plat - April 6, 1987 Final Plat - May 2, 1988 SITE DATA Total Acres 15.72 Single Family Lots 11 Townhome Units 44 Number of Boat Slips DEVELOPMENT STATUS The Harbor PUD is fully developed with the exception of 4 single family home lots in the first and second additions, 4 townhome units in the Harbor Beach Addition, and 3 townhome units in The Harbor 7th Addition. RECOMMENDATION Development has occurred at an acceptable rate with over 90% percent of the PUD developed as planned. No change in PUD Zoning or status is recommended. F THE HARBOR PUD PUD 7 -76 r LOTS 0 m Cj W S F C O m C a• =i W � S H a z PRIORVIEW PUD PUD 82 -12 HISTORY: Priorview PUD has a lengthy and complicated history. The complexities are do to the fact that the PUD has been amended or petitioned to be amended several times over its history. in addition, the phases of the PUD are not consecutively numbered so reference is made difficult. The original conceptual plan for Priorview PUD was approved by the City Council on December 6, 1982. The land area was rezoned to PUD 82 -12 and is located in the southwest quadrant of the City adjacent to Five Hawks Avenue. The original conceptual plan was approved for 106 multifamily units to be constructed at the site. Priorview 1st Addition was platted for one 24 unit building and two 12 unit buildings. In the fall of 1984, a lot split was approved to split one lot in Priorview 1st Addition into two equal halves in order to construct two 12 unit buildings instead of the 24 unit building. The second phase of the Priorview PUD Townhomes (Phase 3A)." This phase of twenty townhome units. This phase approval from the Planning Commission upon nineteen items. A Developers A Tom Steffens and the City for c utilities. On July 4, 1985 a build land for development of one four unit 1985, a second building permit was five unit building. At this point in City to issue building permits to tow final plat in order that exact locat could be established. is referenced as "Priorview the development consists of received Preliminary Plat and City Council contingent reement was entered into by nstruction of roads and ng permit was issued to the townhome. On October 30, ssued for construction of a ime, it was a policy of the home developments prior to ons of building foundations Shortly after the first nine units were completed, Mr. Steffens approached the City Council on November 12, 1985 to obtain occupancy permits for the units. The City Council denied occupancy permits for the units until all street improvements for the project were complete. The City Council did not require final plat approval as a condition of issuance of occupancy permits for the units in Phase 3A. Final Plat approval for Priorview Townhomes Phase 3A is still pending. Reasons which complicate this issue are as follows: City Council granted occupancy permits prior to final plat approval. The street right -of -way was dedicated via easement rather than via a platting process. All internal roadways are private. The units were to be rented and deeds for individual units were not an issue. 5. Mr. Steffens acknowledged the platting requirement and he knew that a final plat was required before continuing to the next phase of the PUD. 6. Perhaps the Developer had trouble getting release from the Simpkins who are fee owners of the property. 7. Staff has followed the procedure of issuing permits and then platting townhomes numerous times without incident. Perhaps the developer was given too much latitude. All of the building permits were issued in a four month period but completion of the last units was not until 1988. In March of 1987, Mr. Steffens applied for a major amendment to the PUD involving changing the zoning district of the PUD from R -2 to R -3 in order to increase density of the remaining land. The amendment also involved additional land (Holly Court). There was considerable opposition by the public to the amendment and it was subsequently denied by the Planning Commission on March 19, 1987. Mr. Steffens did not submit the application to the City Council for review. PRIORVIFW CONCEPT PLAN Final Plat - December 6, 1982 PRIORVIEW 1ST ADDN Preliminary Plat - July 18, 1983 Final Plat - August 8, 1983 PRIORVIEW TOWNHOMES PHASE 3A Preliminary Plat - April 1, 1985 SUMMARY OF BUILDING PERMITS q OF UNITS PERMIT N EXPIRED DATE ISSUED REISSUED 4 85 -166 7-8 -85 5 85 -198 8 -6 -85 5 * 85 -294 YES 11 -12 -85 11 -30 -87 6 * 85 -295 YES 11 -12 -85 12 -04 -86 * Conditional Occupancy Permits Issued SITE DATA Total Acres 17.45 Multifamily 106 DEVELOPMENT STATUS: Priory ew PUD is developed with 68 multifamily units which consists of approximately 64% percent of the PUD. Phase 3A is developed with 20 of the 68 units and has yet to receive final plat approval. No further building permit activity or platting activity has taken place since 1985. 4 RECOMMENDATION• The status o this PUD should be reviewed in detail to determine the disposition of the POD. It is not certain whether the original developer, Tom Steffens, maintains control of the land. The Concept Plan should be reviewed in terms of the Comprehensive Plan and adjacent land use. Rezoning or continued existence of the PUD should be determined by the City Council with the assistance of further review by Legal Counsel, Planning Commission and staff. f V a m m Z� 3 � O 1, U i,,.l ' LI L L L'L - , ,. �• _� o . � tea: �I IK7s R 14TSe Ii L le to n � ri N C v Fn"% 14491 ,� 3 ' T e� h N F i 949M 3XV, ry M .4. Fy' PRIORVIEW PUD P UD 8 3 p � 1 1, t( trr t,r VACANT LOTS �� Y��^�� � <�N 4�y� -3- 'BLS °N Y • � r e — o - u F — In � r I do n Z•0 0 N A N h i N C 7v-1e.r3i.�l I- .ayv.o s I � r Y ax 1�. SAND POINTE PUD PUD 8 -82 AND PUD 4 -83 HISTORY Sand Pointe PUD is located in the northeast quadrant of the City, south of County Road 42. The PUD has been developed in five phases incorporating single family lots with recreational park land. The original PUD was proposed in 1975 and incorporated 1044 housing units with commercial and institutional land uses. The PUD was modified in 1978 to include a mixture of single and multifamily units. In 1982, the PUD was modified to delete the multifamily housing concept in order to utilize the PUD for single family homes. In the early 1980's several amendments were approved for the PUD which ultimately changed its original mixed use plan to a single family residential subdivision. SAND POINTE CONCEPT PLAN SAND POINTE 2ND ADDN SAND POINTE 3RD ADDN SAND POINTE 4TH ADDN SAND POINTE 5TH ADDN SITE DATA Total Acres Single Family Lots DEVELOPMENT STATUS Preliminary Plat - July 6, 1978 Final Plat - April 2, 1979 Final Plat - July 22, 1982 Final Plat - April 25, 1983 Final Plat - June 20, 1983 Final Plat - September 23, 1985 110.4 294 Sand Pointe PUD is 888 percent developed with single family homes. Approximately 12 lots remain in the 5th addition, and 24 lots remain in the 4th addition. Sand Pointe 2nd and 3rd additions are fully developed with the exception of one vacant lot. The City has coordinated a tree planting program with Developer, Denny McWilliams. In the spring of 1990, Mr. McWilliams will distribute one tree to homeowner in the PUD that requested one. In addition, trees will be planted along Crest Avenue to provide the appearance of a boulevard. RECOMMENDATION Development has occurred at an acceptable rate with only 128 percent of the PUD vacant. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. 6 a / . —I rn•r t POINTE( • SAND POINTE PUD PUD 8 -82 AND PUD 4 -83 VACANT LOTS r le I •r w f • • w. 4 N TOWER HILL APARTMENT EAST PUD 12 -16 Tower Hill Apartment East PUD quadrant of the City. The consists of a 68 unit, thre, several amenities including: fountain, gazebo, underground dryers in each unit. is located in the southeastern PUD was developed in one phase and story apartment building with swimming pool, sauna, whirlpool, heated garage and washers and SCHEMATIC PLAN APPROVAL PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FINAL PLAT APPROVAL SITE DATA: Total Acres 3.55 # Multifamily Units 68 December 16, 1985 January 27, 1986 September 15, 1986 DEVELOPMENT STATUS The Tower Hill Apartment East PUD is fully developed as proposed. RECOMMENDATION Development of the PUD has occurred as proposed. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. 7 TOWER HILL APARTMENT EAST PUD 12-1 %1 WAV E-onviv Ca ft WINDSONG PUD PUD 5 -83 HISTORY Windsong PUD is located in the center of the City, east of County Road 21. The site originally received preliminary plat approval in 1979 for forty eight single family lots to be known as Prior Highlands. The developer, Visions VIII did not pursue final plat approval. The site was purchased by Sunny Enterprises in 1983 and platted as a PUD with large single family lots and a private equestrian club. In 1986, H & H Land Development requested an amendment to the PUD to add two lots and boat slips and to change the equestrian concept to lakeshore recreation and golf greens. In 1988, the PUD was again amended to convert the area reserved for golf greens to twelve residential lots. The existing PUD is planned for 38 single family lots with a variety of recreational amenities including: tennis court, hiking trail, horse shoe court, volley ball court, picnic shelter, boat access, sand beach and seasonal docks for 20 boat slips. WINDSONG PUD Preliminary Plat - June 13, 1983 Final Plat - March 12, 1984 WINDSONG PUD AMENDMENT Preliminary Plat - April 4, 1988 Final Plat Extension - April 4, 1990 SITE DATA Total Acres 33.36 Single Family Lots 38 DEVELOPMENT STATUS Windsong PUD has been slow to develop primarily due to market interest for larger, more exclusive housing in Prior Lake. Approximately 15 lots or 57% of the PUD is vacant. In addition, the 1986 amendment to change the golf greens to 12 lots has yet to receive final plat approval. The developer was granted a twelve month extension for submission of final plat by the City Council. The extension expires as of April 4, 1990. Staff has contacted H & H Development to inform them of the extension deadline and has been advised that the developer may submit final plat for the remaining twelve lots. RECOMMENDATION The Windsong PUD has developed in a slow but consistent manner. The developer has suggested that final plat of the remaining twelve lots is under consideration. In previous discussions with the developer, staff was informed that this PUD is anticipated to develop over a period of at least eight to ten years. The PUD is an example of quality development in Prior Lake which is consistent with existing ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. WINDSONG ON THE LAKE PUD 5-83 RAIOIO SOW AN A*fiMM -Dow= 11011 momew VACANT LOT rworl r r a FLft Mal "PCMEMI° PLANNING REPORT SUBJECT PLANNING COMMISSION CODE OF ETHICS DATE: MARCH 1, 1990 BACKGROUND: On F aemay 5, 1990 the City Council reviewed and approved the Planning Commission By -Laws with the exception of the Code of Ethics. Please see attached By -Laws. It was the consensus of the City Council that the Planning Commission review and update the Code of Ethics which was originally adopted in 1984. A copy of the Code of Ethics is attached to this report. In addition, please find a copy of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association Code of Ethics for the Professional Planner. The APA Code of Ethics is included for your information to review and use in the update of the existing Planning Commission Code of Ethics. RECOMMENDATION: T e reTi — cation from staff is that each Commissioner review the Code of Ethics and prepare proposed written changes additions or deletions to the Ethics Code. The City Council desires to review the updated Code of Ethics in four to six weeks. 4629 Dakota St. SE., Prior fake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 "ETHICS" PLANNING COMMISSION ETHICS PURPOSE: The purpose of this section is to provide broad guidelines for the conduct of individual Planning Commissioners. Each Planning Commissioner must bear the responsibility of adherence to these guidelines. In the event a problem presents itself, the chairperson shall take the initiative to resolve it in a manner most appropriate. (1) Planning Commissioners who have a current or ongoing business relationship or vested interest with an applicant or other parties with significant interest in the decision WHICH WOULD DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BENEFIT THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER, shall refrain from discussion. Vested interest is to mean any interest(s) or issues that may present a conflict of interest now and in the future. (2) A Planning Commissioner opinion pertaining to a function, organization or specific application shall not be given to the media unless there is a clear qualification that the opinion is that of the Commissioner and not that of the entire Commission. If a Planning Commissioner gives or represents the opinion(s) of the Planning Commission those opinions) must be approved by a consensus of the Planning Commission and recorded it its minutes. (3) Planning Commissioners shall conduct themselves as professionals when representing the Commission. :s (4) a Planning Commissioner shall avoid any appearance of impropriety. (5) A Planning Commissioner shall make every attempt to visit the site prior to discussing site related issues. (6) The chairmember of the Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the Mayor for the removal of any member of the Commission who is absent more than six (6) times throughout the calendar year. 4629 Dakota St. SE., Prior lAw, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax(612)4474245 CODE OF ETHICS for the PROFESSIONAL PLANNER RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC A planner's primary obligation is to serve the public interest. It includes the following sixcial obligations: 1. To have and demonstrate �.oncem for the long range consequences of present actions. 2. To give special attention to the interrelatedness of decisions. 3. To provide complete, clear and accurate informa- tion. 4. To advocate the opportunity for all citizens to have a meaningful impact on plans and programs. 5. To expand the choices and opportunities for all persons, especially the diRadvantaged. 6. To protectthe integrityof the natural environment. RESPONSIBILITY TO EMPLOYERS AND CLIENTS A planner should provide competent, creative and in- dependent performance in the pursuit of the employer's or client's interest. A planner has the following specific obligations: 1. Toexercise independent professional judgment on behalf of employers and clients. 2. To accept the decisions of the employer or client regarding the objectives and nature of the professional services to be performed unless inconsistent with the planner's primary obligation to the public interest. 3. To not use the power of office to seek or obtain special advantage that is not in the public interest and that is no fully known to the public. 4. To not perform work beyond the planner's profes- sional competence. 5. To not accept work which cannot be performed. 6. To riot reveal information gained in a professional relationship which the employer or client has requested be held inviolate. 7. To not perform work if them isan actual. apparent or reasonably foreseeable conflict between the interests of the client and the personal or financial interests of the planner or of another past or present client of the planner, unless there is the expressed consent of the client after Poll disclosure by the planner. g. Tonotsolicitprospectiveclients through the useof false or midleading claims, harassment or duress. 9. To not sell or offer to sell services by stating or implying an ability to influence decisions by improper means. RESPONSIBILITY TO COLLEAGUES 1. To share the results of personal experience and re- search which contribute to the body of planning knowl- edge. 2. To protect and enhance the integrity of the profes- sion and be responsible to criticism of the profession. 3. To accurately represent the qualifications, views and findings of colleagues. 4. To examine the applicability of planning theories, methods and standards to each situation, and not accept a customary solution without first establishing its appropri- ateness to the situation. 5. To contribute time and information to the profes- sional development of students, intcros, beginning profes- sionals and other colleagues. 6. Toreviewt..e vorkofotherprofessionalsina fair, considerate and equitable manner. 7. To increase the opportunities for minorities and women to become professional plarmers. RESPONSIBILITY TO SELF The planner should strive for the highest standards of professional integrity, proficiency and knowledge. This includes the following obligations: 1. To continue one's professional education. 2. To accurately represent professional qualifica- tions, education and affiliations. 3. To respect the rights of others and not improperly discriminate against others. 4. To no deliberately commit an act which reflects adversely of the planner's professional fimess. y. To systematically and critically analyze ethical is. sues in the practice of planning. 6. To contribute time and effort to groups lacking in adequate planning resources and to voluntary professional activities. MINNESOTA CHAPTER, AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 1989 is PhWin{ Ortaber 1989 P L A N N I N G P R A C T I C E Above Reproach A review of the professions codes of ethics. By Sandra Olivetti Martin S o far al least, the planning profession has largely avoided any monumental breach of ethics that might ulectrifv public atten. tion and draw immediate new regulation. In other words. it has been spared a disaster on the order of the Watergate fiasco. But as the stakes of planning decisions rise and the process goes increas- ingly public. the subject of ethics has taken on a new urgency for the profession. 'Professional planners and planning officials must Ie above re- proach. Weve got to come to the table with clean hands: says Stuart Muck, president of the American Planning Association and past chair of the American Institute of Certified Planners ethics comminee.The cununiuee was instrumental in writing the two axles of ethics that now govern the profession —onc adopted in 1997 by APA, another adopted in 1981 by AICP AICPs code is binding on certified planners, while the APA advisory tale hopes to guide students and nuneertified planners. Now the question is how well planners are guided by these codes. Are they sufficiently comprehensive? relevant? timely. And what is being done to help planners apply abstract ethical principles to individual actions? In committees. in print. and in professional meetings, planners are examining those issues. 'We want to get planners thinking abut how ethics should affect their everyday decisions. We want to educate people now rather than slap their hands later: says Carol Barrett, a planning consultant in Austin, Texas. and an eight - year member of AICPs ethics committee. Rising stakes Conflict of interest is perhaps the thorniest issue for all the pro - fcssions that represent the public interest, planning among them. The temptation to convert the public interest to profit —for ones self. ones allies, or ones ideals —is nothing near. But as We stakes rise, so do the temptations. In a charged environment where space is shrinking and land values skyrocketing, sweetheart deals and outright bribes are commonly rumored and sometimes documented. No player— not the professional planner, the citizen planner, nor the influen- tial politician —is, ex officio, above reproach. 'We work in a fishbowl of politics and public policy making'says Martin Wachs. head of the urban planning program at the University of Califor- nia, Los Angeles. Tvo recent cases illustrate the scope of the issue. In Enfield. Connecticut. a former town plamninrwasconvicted lash December on extortion and bribery charges (ordenomling Thal a real eslate broker split a commission in return for zoning approval of a re- P L A N N P R A C T development project. In Prince Georges County, Maryland, at least one county coun- cil member is alleged to have urged decisions that benefited a part- ner. In response, the Maryland general assembly in April passed a landmark law forbidding county council members from deciding zoning cases of applicants who have contributed to their political campaigns. In the ensuing furor, the Prince Georges council suspended all zoning decisions for a month. The under - the -table offering is a temptation more common to elected officials involved in the planning process than to practic- ing planners, Barrett and others say. But professionals have their own vulnerabilities. particularly in the gray area between the "public good" and private interest. "Ethics is not simply whether or not you take a bribe," says Bar- tell. "Ethics extends to every decision we make about using the resources we manage —now and in the future" Today's activist climate complicates the issue. Instead of remaining behind the scenes as they used to, planners are often asked to become out - front advocates of a cause. The dilemma then is how to balance personal integrity with a planner's professional role. Last January, for example, a former Fairfax County, Virginia, planning director wrote to an "alumni group' of former county planners now employed in the private sector urging them to "bring their expertise and institutional memory" to the county's review of its comprehensive master plan. Since some of the recipients of that letter are now involved with development projects in the county, it is fair to ask whether their participation in the master plan review is entirely in the public interest. It's not surprising, then, that distinguishing private interest from the public good is a dominant theme of both of the APA and AICP codes. Guidelines The twocodes have other features in common, as well. Both place planners under an ethical obligation to expand choice and oppor tunity for all persons:' Both identify a special responsibility to the disadvantaged. And both cite the planner's responsibilities to the profession. But while APAs "Ethical Principles for Planning" are advisory, AICP 's "Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct" lays a series of obligations on certified planners and enforces its stan- dards with sanctions. The 13 ethical principles adopted by the APA in 1987 fall into three general categories: respect for equal access and the public interest, commitment to personal:.) professional integrity. and awareness of planning s relationship to larger processes and pat- terns. Some of the items are quite specific. Principle six, for in- stance, ovoid conflict ofinterest. establishes guidelines that could be followed to the letter. Other slandardsare broad statemenlsof lofty intent. Principle one, for example, identifies serving the public interest as lhe'primary obligation of planners but adds no direction or discussion. The principles were drafted by AICP's ethics committee in re. spmse to'lhe many requests for guidance made by APA mcndx•rs N G C E who were not licensed' according to then - chairman Meck. They went through public hearing and revision before APAs board of directors adopted them. Intended to be"useful and applicable; the principles have no in- trinsic binding power. However, the APA encourages' their adop- tion "by legislatures .. . public planning bodies . . . and by employers of planners" AICP's 1981 Code of Ethicsand Professional Conduct is the pro. fessions ethical foundation. It is also the model for APA's newer principles. many of which follow AICP's word forword. The code is made up of 28 principles divided into four categories of respon- sibility: to the public, to clients and employers. to the profession and colleagues. and self - responsibility. The AICP code is a "guide to ethical conduct" in both personal and professional actions. It "sets aspirational standards that re- quire conscious striving to attain "Thus it advises planners that "an elhicaljudgme: >fien also requires a conscientious balanc. ing, based on the L. nd context of a particular sit ualion and nil the precepts of thr -,re code.' The document c.' °''z?is more responsibilities than APAs prin- ciples and makes some lrmnslnlion from abstraction to action. For example, its statement that a planner has a "primary obligation' tothe public interest recognizes the conscientious balancing that obligation requires. Israel Stollman, executivedirector of both APA and AICP, recalls the motives that shaped the AICP code: As we wrote it, weasked ourselves, Should we be prohibitive, dealing only with what is out - and -out bad? We opted foraspimtion. But we knew we might not be able to enforce that standard. How do you say Ina planner, 'You did not aspire high enough? At the professional level. AICP's tale carries the weight of bind. ing aulharih•. It obligescertif ictl planters loahidc by its provisions 20 Planning October 1989 P L P R and enforces that responsibility with formal procedures and wnc- tions. In its words, it provides'a basis for adjudicating any charge that a member has acted unethically' AICP receives requests both far guidance and complaints. For mal complaints initiate a painstaking and often lengthy process. Made in writing to Slollnan, they are substantiated, argued. and adjudicated in a several - tiered process that may culminate in a planner'slo . of certification. But such drastic consequencesare the excep! o: more common are reprimands or advice. Com- plaints a -. nfrequent, amounting to no more than half a dozen a year, according to Stollman, and loss of certification is very rare. Besidesjudging what a planner has already done both the APA and AICP codes help professionals decide what they will or will Pill do. Requests for advice areas common as formal complaints are uncommon, says Stollman. 'People typically call, seldom write, asking informally foradvice. They say,1 find myself in such and such a situation, potentially. What pitfalls should 1 expect, or should 1 avoid the situation entirely ?" When a question turns up repeatedly, Stollman issuesan AICP'hdvisory ruling.' Three advisory rulings were completed last year as a result of AICP's first across - the - profession effort to apply the code to cur rent, common problems. The rulings encompass the areas of sex- ual harassment, conflict of interest, and outside employment (moonlighting). A key function of the advisories is to elucidate murky territory so that planners can avoid slips. In style and content they arc what their name describes: advisory. They confront the problem, define the standard. and tell planters chat they may and must not do. A N N I N G A C T I C E Planners considering moonlighting, for example, are reminded that a "full -time member of a planning agency staff owes loyalty, energy, and powers of mind primarily to its service' Sexual harass- ment is described as not only professionally unethical but also against the law. Problem behavior, however, is distinguished from 'behavior occasioned when a genuinely mutual affection springs up between co- workers' In the conflict -of- interest ruling, which is addressed to public planners who have a stake in private development, a lively give - and -take sets the course and dismisses excuses: 'I have an oppor- tunity to invest in a small development, but the proposal will come before my agency for approval. What do you advise?' The answer: 'Dont do it. There are other investment opportunities' Scenarios The profession reachesout to practitioners in other ways as well. Since 1983, APAs "Guide to Ethical Awareness for Planners' (revised in 1986) has helped the profession applyethical principles in practice. (See - Ethics in Planning," November 1984.1 Written by Carol Barrett, the practical guide complements the abstract code. It supplies scenarios meant to provoke discussion on how to bal- ance competing values. The scenarios dramatize recurrent issues suggested by planners around the country. Since their initial publication, they have often been used in chapter workshops on ethics. Additionally, planning directors use the guide in meetings with staff members to clarify organizational values. (It is available for S6 prepaid from Michael Jones at APAs Washington office.) The guide provokes but does not prescribe. "Most often. says Barrett, 'there is no absolute right answer' Ethics at Large What Mark 1%vain said about the weather is half true of professional ethics. Everybody talks about it. what but they do about it varies widely. The most stringent standards arc those applied to lawyers. The American Bar Associatinfs Code of Professional Responsibility and Model Rules of Pro- fessional Conduct is near- 100 -page document that includes a discussion of the minimum standards of loyalty owed by attorney to client. Various states have adopted the code and rules. making them legally binding on practitioners. To deal with press- ing quandaries. the ABA staffs an ethics hotline. The ethics code provided by the American fn- stitule of Architects is closer to AICP's. It too is brief and includes a three - tiered enforcement process. moving from mediation through quasi-judicial proceedings. 2: P L A N N P R A C T The ethics code is a start, but to several observers within the pro- fession, more is needed. For example, Martin Wachs, head of the urban planning program at UCLA. urges that the principles be matched to our rapidly changing times. What the profession needs most in these times, he says. is guidelines for gathering and inter- preting data. Noting how easy —and tempting —it is to manipulate or misrepresent data to satisfy a goal, Wachs argues that planners codes should explicitly "address the ethical dimensions of technical information within our profession' University of Virginia planning professor William Lucy fears that APA's ethics code does not focus attention on the planners need to balance competing objectives. "Expanding choice and op- portunity for all. for example, is good, but not if the dynamic thereby unleashed withdraws resources from the poor as richer people move away to avoid the higher taus that go with more ser- vices, he says. Instead of encouraging discussion of such ques [ions. he adds, APRs code discourages debate. 'In some instances (the code( reduces complex subjects to a single sentence and thus runs the risk of trivializing the profession," Lucy wrote in the Spring 1988 issue of the Journal of the American Planning Association. Private - public partnerships worry both Arnold Cogan and Carol Barrett, who calls them "today.s slipperiest slope' Federal, state. and local governments place great [tack in such partnerships, counting on them to stimulate economic development and. even- tually, increase government revenues. But if corporate interests come to dominate local government policy, "planners can indeed face ethical dilemmas, warns Cogan, a Portland, Oregon, planning consultant who writes aLout ethics for APRs Oregon chapter newsletter. APA's Ethical Principles for Planning 1. Serve the puetic interest. 2. Support citizen participation in planning. 1 Recognize the comprehensive and long -range nature of planning decisions. d. Expand choice and opportunity for all persons. S. Facilitate coordination through the planning process. 6. Avoid conflict of interest. - 7. Render thorough and diligent planning service. 8. Do not seek or offer favors. 9. Do not disclose or improperly use confidential in formation for financial gain. 10. Ensure access to public planning reportsand studieson an equal basis. 11. Ensure full disclosure at public hearings. 12. Maintain public confidence. 11 Respect professional codes of ethics and conduct. N G C E Israel Slollman notes that planners ethical responsibilities cover the waterfront. Like practitioners in other fields, planners have responsibility to their clients, to fellow professionals, to themselves, and to the public.'But a planner'says Stoilman,'also contemplates an ethical duty to a public that cannot yet vote because it is not yet here' How, then, do planners balance present and future benefit? How. for example. do they balance the competition between developing today and holding open space in reserve for future generations? ft's a question Slollman halt ready to resolve in a two. page advisory and is thus an issue ripe for exploration and debate. This year, debate will extend even to the AICP code itself, as the code is reviewed by the ethics committee, the AICP Commission, and then by APA chapters and individual planners. The weight public commnnl carries is indicated by the fate of a pair of pro- posed amendments to the code published in Planning in January for members comments. The amendments were intended to clarify planners relationships with clients and employers. But members complained to the committee that they instead placed planners in jeopardy for innocent actions. In consequence, the amendments were scrapped. "We got so seriousand provocative a response that we decided the time was ripe to reconsider the whole tale. says new ethics committee chair Perry Norton. Tventy years go'says Stuart Meck, "you could run a commis - sionor hearing by thegarage- saleschool of land regulation.'Who cares? and . Nobody will ever know' were the bywords of that school. Now youean't. Today there are consequences for unethical behavior. bad faith, violation of due process. It'sa whole new era' 5.,nd. Alanin is a writer who lives in Dunkirk. Maryland. Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct This Code is a guide to the ethical conduct required of members of the American Institute of Certified Planners. The Code also aims at informing the public of the principles to which professional planners are committed. Systematic discussion of the application of these principles. among planners and with the public, is itself essential behavior to bring the Code into daily use. The Code's standards of behavior provide a basis for adjudicating any charge that a member has acted unethi- cally, However, the Code also provides more than the min- imum threshold of enforceable acceptability. It sets aspi- rational standards that require conscious Striving to attain. The principles of the Code derive both from the general values of society and from the planning profession's spe- cial responsibility to some the public interest. As the basic values of society are often in competition with each other, so also do the principles of this Code sometimes compete. For example, the need to provide full public information may compete with the need to respect confidences. Plans and programs often result from a balancing among diver- gent interests. An ethical judgment often also requires a conscientious balancing. based on the facts and context of a particular situation and on the precepts of the entire Code. Formal procedures for filing of complaints. investi- gation and resolution of alleged violations and the issuance of advisory rulings are part of the Code. The Planner's Responsibility to the Public A. A planners primary obligation is to serve the public interest. While the definition of the public interest is for- mulated through continuous debate, a planner owes alle- giance to a conscientiously attained concept of the public interest, which requires these special obligations: 1) A planner must have special concern for the long range consequences of present actions. 2) A planner must pay special attention to the interrelat- edness of decisions. 3) A planner must strive to provide full, clear and accurate information on planning issues to citizens and governmen- tal decision- makers. q A planner must strive to give citizens the opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the development of plans and programs. Participation should be broad enough to include people who lack formal organization or Influence. 5) A planner must strive to expand choice and opportu- nity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of disadvantaged groups and persons. and must urge the alteration of policies, institutions and decisions which oppose such needs. 6) A planner must strive to protect the integrity of the natural environment. 7) A planner must strive for excellence of environmental design and endeavor to conserve the heritage of the built environment. The Planner's Responsibility to Clients and Employers B. A planner owes diligent, creative, independent and competent performance of work in pursuit of the client's or employer's interest. Such performance should be con- sistent with the planner's faithful service to the public inter- est. 1) A planner must exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of clients and employers. 2) A planner must accept the decisions of a client or employer concerning the objectives and nature of the professional services to be performed unless the courts of action to be pursued involves conduct which is illegal or inconsistent with the planner's primary obligation to the public interest. 3) A planner must not. without the consent of the client or employer, and only after full disclosure. accept or con- tinue to perform work it there is an actual, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable conflict between the interests of the client or employer and the personal or financial interest of the plannercrof anotherpast or present client oremployer of the planner. a) A planner must not solicit prospective clients or employment through use of false or misleading claims. harassment or duress. 5) A planner must not sell or offer to sell services by stating or implying an ability to influence decisions by improper means. 6) A planner must not use the power Of any Office to seek or obtain a special advantage that is not in the public inter- est nor any special advantage that is not a matter of public knowledge. 7) A planner must not accept or continue to perform work beyond the planners professional competence or accept work which cannot be performed with the promptness required by the prospective: client or employer. Or which is required by the circumstances of the assignment. 8) A planner must not reveal information gained in a professional relationship which the client or employer has requested be held invictate. Exceptions to this requirement of ow-disclosure may be made only when (a) required by the process of law, or (b) required to prevent a clear vio- lation of law, or (c) required to prevent a substantial injury to the public. Disclosure pursuant to (b) and (c) must not be made until after the planner has verified the facts and issues involved and, when practicable, has exhausted efforts to obtain reconsideration of the matter and has sought separate opinions on the issue from other qualified profes- sionals employed by the client Or employer. The Planner's Responsllsllry to the Profession and to C. A planner should contribute to the development of the profession by improving knowledge and techniques, mak- ing work relevant to solutions of community problems. and increasing public understanding of planning activities. A planner should treat fairly the professional views of quali- fied colleagues and members of other professions. t) A planner must protect and enhance the integrity of the profession and must be responsible in criticism of the profession. 2) A planner must accurately represent the qualifications. views and findings of colleagues. 3) A planner, who has responsibility for reviewing the work of other professionals. must fulfill this responsibility in a fair, considerate, profeesianal and equitable manner. ♦) A planner must share the results of experience and research which contribute to the body of planning MOM - edge- AA planner must extenow do applicability of planning theories, methods and standards to the facts and analysis of each particular situation and must not accept the appli- cability of a customary solution without first establishing its appropriateness to the siWeuon. 6) A planner must contribute time and information to the professional development at students. interns, beginning professionals and other="us& IV 7) A planner must strive to increase the opportunities for women and members of recognized minorities to become professional planners. The Planner's Self-Responsibility D. A planner should strive for high standards of profes- sional integrity, proficiency and knowledge. 1) A planner must not commit a deliberately wrongful act which reflects adversely on the planner's professional fit- ness. 2) A planner must respect the rights of others and, in particular, must not improperly discriminate against per- sons. 3) A planner must strive to continue professional edu- cation. 4) A planner must accurately represent professional qual- ifications. education and affiliations. 5) A planner must systematically and critically analyze ethical issues in the practice of planning. 6) A planner must strive to contribute time and effort to groups lacking in adequate planning resources and to vol- untary professional activities. Procedures Under the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct 1. Informal Advice and Formal Advisory Rulings: Any person may seek informal advice on ethics from the Exec- utive Director of the AICP or from the Chair of a Chapter Professional Development Committee. Such advice shall not be binding upon the AICP. Any person may file a written request with the Executive Director of the AICP for a formal advisory ruling on the propriety of any professional planner conduct. The request should contain sufficient facts, real or hypothetical, to per- mit a definitive opinion. If appropriate, the Executive Direc- tor shall then prepare and furnish a written formal advisory ruling to the inquiring parry. This ruling may be published if endorsed by the AICP Ethics Committee. Published rul. ings, however, shall not include any actual names and places without the written consent of all persons to be named. A ruling may be relied upon by the person who requested it whether or not published. Published rulings shall be bind- ing on all members of the AICP. 2. Charges Alleging Misconduct by an AICP Member: Any person may file in writing with the Executive Director of the AICP a charge of misconduct against an AICP member. The charge shall state the facts upon which it is based. The Executive Director shall furnish a copy of the charge to the respondent member. The Executive Director shall determine whether the charge warrants an investigation. In trio event a field investigation is deemed appropriate, the Executive Director will seek the assistance of the Chair of the Professional Development Committee of the appropriate APA Chapter. The Executive Director with or without an investigation may dismiss the charge or issue a complaint against the respondent. In either event, notice shall be sent to the charging party and to the respondent advising of the deter- mination and of the charging party's right to appeal the dismissal of the charge. The Executive Director's decision to dismiss a charge may be appealed by the charging party within thirty days of receipt of written notification. The Executive Director shall promptly forward copies of the appeal to the members of the AICP Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee may remand the charge to the Executive Director for further investigation and/or reconsideration, or the Committee may reverse the Executive Director's decision if it is contrary to the provisions of the Code or to prior Committee opinions. If the Executive Director issues a complaint against a member, the latter shall have thirty days from receipt of the complaint to respond. In the absence of extraordinary cir- cumstances.which, in the opinion of the Ethics Committee, warrant a special exception, the failure of a respondent to deny any fact alleged in the complaint within the thirty day period will be deemed an admission of such fact. If the response to the complaint reveals any disputed material fact. the respondent shall be granted a hearing before the Ethics Committee of the AICP or before any member or members of the Ethics Committee designated by the Committee's Chair to conduct the hearing. The hear- ing shall proceed without application of formal rules of evidence; however, the substantive rights of the respon- dent shall at all times be protected. If a hearing is held, those conducting it shall promptly issue findings of fact which shall be transmitted to the full Committee, the respondent and the charging party. If no material fact was in dispute and no hearing held, the Ethics Committee need not issue findings of fact. On the basis of the findings of fact and admissions, the Ethics Committee shall determine whether the Code has been violated and issue an opinion. A copy of the opinion shall be transmitted to the respondent, the charging party and the Commission. The Ethics Committee may Concur- rently submit a recommendation to the Commission that the respondent be expelled, suspended, publicly censured, or privately reprimanded. The respondent shall be sent a copy of the recommendation and shall be given no less than thirty days notice to respond, in person and/or in writing before it is voted on by the Commission, which vote shall be within one year of the issuance of the complaint. Disciplinary action against a member and the official pub- lication of an expulsion, suspension or public censure shall require the affirmative vote of six members (two - thirds) of this commission. The Executive Director shall publish all written opinions endorsed by the Commission or by the Ethics Committee, but shall omit actual names and places unless authorized by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Commission or in writing by the respondent. CENSUS 9 94: REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MARCH 15, 1990 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 7:35 P.M. HEARING LAKESHORE VARIANCE ROGER BREISCH 7:45 P.M. HEARING LOT AREA VARIANCE MARVIN DEUTSCH 8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION ETHICS CODE STAFF 8:15 P.M. DISCUSSION CENSUS UPDATE STAFF • Indicates a Public Hearing All times stated on the Planning Commission Agenda, with the exception of Public Hearings, are approximate and may start a few minutes later than scheduled. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245 CENSUS "94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1, 1990 The March 1, 1990, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Kedrowski. Those present were Commissioners Roseth, Wells, Kedrowski, Arnold, Loftus, Director of Planning Horst Graser, Associate Planner Gary Schmitz, and Secretary Rita Schewe. ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING MOTION BY WELLS, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN. Vote taken signified ayes by Kedrowski, Wells, Arnold, Roseth and Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM II - LAKESHORE VARIANCE - JOHN BOYLE John Boyle, 5408 Riverbluff Curve, Bloomington, MN, presented his application for a 57' lakeshore variance for Lot 13, Grainwood Park. He has a purchase agreement with a variance contingency for the property located at 4277 Grainwood Circle. The applicant wishes to add a three car garage, porch, deck, and additional living area to an existing home and will remove a garage, lean -to and covered patio on the property. Mr. Boyle felt there is a hardship present due to the size of lot and the variance would not have a negative impact to the neighborhood. Gary Schmitz.presented the information as per memo of March 1, 1990. The site would be improved with the removal of dilapidated buildings. DNR was notified but no reply has been returned. Staff received a call from Harold Dellwo, owner of the adjoining lot stating that he had no objections to the variance. Slides were shown of the property. Staff recommends a maximum 50 foot variance for Lot 13, Grainwood Park, as it would be in character with the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the health and welfare to the community. Comments from the Commissioners were, on design of home, concern on trees lost in construction, and they should not grant beyond a 50 foot variance. 4629 Dakota St. SE., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 1 Ph. (612) 4474230 1 Fax (612) 447 -4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 1, 1990 PAGE 2 MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WELLS, TO GRANT A 50 FOOT LAKESHORE VARIANCE TO 4277 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE, LOT 13, GRAINWOOD PARK, RATIONALE BEING THAT THERE IS A PRECEDENT FOR GRANTING 50 FOOT VARIANCES IN THE GRAINWOOD AREA AND IT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO GENERAL HEALTH AND WELFARE TO THE COMMUNITY. Vote taker signified ayes by Wells, Kedrowski, Arnold, Roseth and Loftus. = )TION CARRIED. ITEM III.:.. 1990 PUD STATUS REPORT - STAFF Mr. Grase- presented the status report on five PUD's in Prior Lake. 1. "The trarbor" platted in 1977 to 1978 and developed in eight phases is now 90% developed. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. 2. "Priorview " is a more complex PUD and is not yet completed. Mr. Graser suggested a meeting with the developer and Mr. Steffens for a progress report and completion date. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO DIRECT STAFF TO CONTACT THE FEE OWNERS AND MR. STEFFENS AND SCHEDULE A MEETING WITHIN 30 DAYS FOR A PROGRESS REPORT AND COMPLETION DATE ON THE PRIORVIEW PUD. Vote taken signified ayes by Kedrowski, Wells, Arnold, Roseth and Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. 3. "Sand Pointe" was started in 1978 and is 88% developed. This is a high density single family resident area. A boulevard tree program has been started through Denny McWilliams for the residents in Sand Pointe. No changes in PUD zoning or status is recommended. 4. "Tower Hill" is in financial difficulties. These units were overbuilt for the market in this area. Some have never been occupied. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. 5. "Windsong" platted in 1983 was slow in developing. The lots were larger and covenants required exclusive housing. A change in the theme has been initiated and is now beginning to develop at a faster pace. No change in PUD zoning or status is recommended. Mr. Graser stated that in future PUD's, a contract or a motion to the minutes would be the procedure followed. ITEM IV - ETHICS CODE DISCUSSION - STAFF Council has requested the Planning Commission make changes in PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 1, 1990 PAGE 3 the Ethic Codes. The Commissioners consensus was to remove points # 5 & 6, combine points # 3 & 4, and direct Mr. Graser to rewrite point #1. A brief discussion followed on status of Savage Comprehensive Plan, planning on Highway 13 intersections and Prior Lake's Comprehensive Plan. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO ADJOURN MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold, Kedrowski, wells, and Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 P.M City Hall. Tape of meeting is on file at Horst Graser Director of Planning Rita M. Schewe Recording Secretary � � � . . � �� ® � � � <) . � . � . �. z��� ��_��� � \� �� \ � }�« f� %« .. y � \ � � � � / \� � «\ � . � ������. _ � � \� z \ y � , 7 _��» >� y � .�� © e :r� � � . . ... . � \ y . y � �f� { � � ^� .. �2 . f�� � `� ^� ' �d� � ( � >��� w 2 .� }�.� � . : "VA02PC" PLANNING REPORT SUBJECT: Lakeshore Variance APPLICANT: Roger Breisch SITE: 14330 Rutgers St. DATE: March 15, 1990 STAFF ANALYSIS The Planning Department has received a variance application from Roger Breisch. Mr. Breisch is requesting a 42' lakeshore variance in order to construct an attached two tier deck. See attached materials for further reference to this application. The subject site is zoned R -1 /S -D and contains approximately 19,340 square feet in area. The existing home was built in 1962 within Eagle Creek Township and is currently located 52.7' from the 904 contour line. The topography of the site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the lake. The applicant had received a 4' west side yard variance in 1988 in order to construct a attached two car garage. According to the survey the adjacent home to the west is located 42' from the 904 contour line. This home also contains a large deck which extends approximately 10' - 12' from the principal structure. The specific proposal is to add a two tier deck with the upper half measuring 17.75' x 14' and the lower half measuring 11' x 8.75 Both the upper and lower half will be connected by a 4' stairway system. The deck is proposed to extend a total of 26.75' from the existing home and will be located 33' from the 904 contour line. Pat Lynch, the Department of Natural Resources Area Hydrologist, was informed of the variance request. His comments will be available at the scheduled hearing. The recommendation from staff is to approve up to a 36' lakeshore variance for 14330 Rutgers Street. Staff does see hardship in the applicants need to have a deck to receive full enjoyment from the lake. However, the need for a two tier deck is questioned by staff. A 36' lakeshore variance would allow the applicant the opportunity to construct the upper portion of the deck along with the stairway system leading to natural ground level. When 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245 reviewing a variance application it is staff's responsibility to ensure that every effort is made to minimize the amount of variance which is actually needed. in this situation it is staff's opinion that a 17.5' x 14' deck is more than sufficient to adequately meet the applicant's need for a deck. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a 36' lakeshore variance since the proposal would be consistent for the neighborhood, which has allowed construction close to the 904, and would not be detrimental to the general health and welfare of the community. VA—D2---30— PI# .3.3-9a0-2fiU -0 C):Ty OF PRYOR M APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE canti S. 13yE ►$� � � + Home Phone: 4.96-2:49 887 14Z 3 0 Ra�T�FZ.s 5 }, 1� -its02 ace. N_.__Work Phones 927 -4675 rty RQee Phones as: Mb rk Phone: of Ownerships Fee -- Contract Purchase Agreement Existing Use Of Property: resent Zoning: k i S-Q Proposed Use t of Property: r Legal Description of Variance Sites Variance Requested: 94 -5 / k e � Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance :r conditional use permit on the subject site or airy r of it? — j ,y es � b W en was r 1 4 S 8 D ispositions_ Describe the type of lnprwements proposed: SUBMAKON s (A)Completed application form. (B)Filing fee (C)Certified from abstrac<..,firm, names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. (D)Owplete legal description i Property Identificatioi. Number (PID). (E)Deed restrictions, if applicable. (F)An area map at 1'200' available from the City Engineering Section showing: existing topography, utilities, lot boundaries, building easements and soil test data if pertinent within 300 feet. (G)A parcel map at 1 20' -50' showing: The site development plan, buildings% parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. ONLY COMM APPLICATIONS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this form is correct. In addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which specifies requirem for variance proced I agree reside information olla the procedures as as outlined in the ordinance. e � Appli a Sig this aiaft of Fen3 I ,g Fee Owners Signature THIS SPACE IS TO BE FILLED OVP BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNING COMMISSION _ APPWM _ DENIED DATE OF HEARING; CITY COUNM APPEAL _ APPROVED _ DENIED DATE OF HEARING COEDITIONSi Signature of the Planning Director Date SOME REASONS FOR PROPOSED VARIANCE - Neighbor next door has deck approximately 24' beyond my house towards the lake (see photo). -The area is older and most of the homes on Conroy Bay as well as Boudins Bav have homes b close to the lake with decks obviously closer than the preferr 75' setback (see survey). -No other place on house to attach a deck (see photos). - Previous building permit was granted showing sliding glass doors going to future deck with header bolted to house (see plan of prior permit). -No present deck on house, no other means to exit home on lakeside from mail level of house. -All neighbors support deck plans because proposed deck and land- scaping will enhance natural beauty of area using cedar and natural coloring. "VA02RN" NOTICE OF HEARING FOR LAKESHORE VARIANCE You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held by the Planning Commission in the Prior Lake Council Chambers at 4629 Dakota Street S.E. on: THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1990 at 7:35 P.M. PURPOSE OF HEARING To consider a 42' Lakeshore variance for Roger Breisch. SUBJECT SITE LOCATION 14330 Rutgers St. .35 Acres in Gov't Lot 3 REQUESTED ACTION The applicant is requesting a 42' lakeshore variance in order to add a two tier deck with the upper half measuring 17.75' x 14' and the lower half measuring 11' x 8.75'. Both the upper and lower half will be connected by a 4' stairway system. The deck will extend a total of 26.75' from the existing home and will be located 33' from the 904 contour line. If you desire to 1`e heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this meeting. Oral and written comments will be accepted by the PIP-;fining Commission. For more information, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447 -4230. Prior Lake Planning Commission (March 5, 1990) 4629 Dakota St. SE., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 1 Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 Scat£ yq = p" EXISTING HOUSE -TOP VIEW ' +� v P 4z V� s .., -a6 I NOM All property line locations in relation to the existing homestead an shown on this sketch was taken from s drawing prepared by James Boerhave, Land Surveyor. The location of the 904.0 contour elevation was surveyed in respect to the location of the existing homestead. As agreed to by the client and city staff, no actual property boundary survey has been proviJ94- ,, j onald A. Swanson Lend AUrll [msrme ease 1 1,10 0 E eA Reee STREE Ft JTGERS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AS PROVIDED' All that pert of Government Lot ). Seethe 30. Townabtp 115. Rant@ 21. CENSUS "90 February 27, 1990 Pat Lynch Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Dear Pat, The enclosed information is in regard to a proposed 42' lakeshore variance within the Shoreland District of Prior Lake. The subject site is legally described as: 35 acres in Government Lot 3, Section 30 Township 115 Range 21. A copy of the variance application and area map indicating the subject site location are enclosed. The applicant wishes to construct a two tier deck with the upper half measuring 17.75 x 14 and the lower half measuring 11' x 8.75 Both the lower and upper half of the deck will be connected by a 4 wide stairway system. The deck will extend a total of 26.75 from the existing home and will be located 33 from the 904 contour line. Please review and comment on the enclosed information. The hearing for this item has been tentatively set for March 15, 1990, at 7:35 p.m. If you have questions or comments regarding tnas matter, contact the Planning Department at 447 -4230. Sincerely, 1 Gary Schmitz Associate Planner GS:rms Enclosures 4629 Dakota St. SE., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 1 Fax (612) 4474245 rr STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106✓ PHONE NO. 296 -7523 FlLE NO. March 5, 1990 Mr. Gary Schmitz City of Prior Lake -- 4629 Dakota St. SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mr. Schmitz: RE: VARIANCE REQUEST, ROBERT BREISCH, LOWER PRIOR LAKE (70 -26), CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, SCOTT COUNTY In reference to the above subject, the DNR believes that the proposed decks have not been well planned, and we recommend that the variance not be granted as requested for the following reasons: 1) Two decks are unacceptable. I would challenge the applicant to show hardship if only one deck and a stairway were permitted. We recommend that the deck be 12 -feet toward the lake, 17.5 -feet wide, and placed toward the east side of the existing structure, so as to minimize the setback variance. 2) The proposed decks would be difficult to screen from view on Prior Lake because of their proximity to the OHW. This would be aesthetically displeasing to the users of Prior Lake. I don't feel that any effort was made to design a deck which minimizes the need for a setback variance. This should _not be granted as requested. The applicant should be required to pursue various options with the intent to minimize the need for setback variance. I believe your ordinance requires the same. Please provide me notice of the outcome of this hearing as soon as a decision is made. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me should you have questions regarding these comments. Si / n nL cerely, t Lync Area / Hydrolog PL243:kap AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Title Insurance Company of Minnesota Scott and Caner Counties 8imsmn MINNESOTA 281 South Marschall Road PO 13e.251 TITLE ^� Shakopee, Minnesota 5 5379 612/445 3196 3196 FAX 612/445 9522 Home Office Minneapolis Minnesota 55401 According to the records in the Office of the County Treasurer, Scott County, Minnesota, the following 1s a list of owners lying within 100 feet of the following described property: All that part of Government Lot No, Three (3), Section Thirty (30), Township One Hundred Fifteen (115), Range Twenty -One (21), Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Starting at the Northwest corner of Boudins Manor according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County and State; thence Northeasterly along the North line of said Boudins Manor a distance of 85.0 feet; thence at a delta angle of 20 degrees 04 minutes left a distance of 105.0 feet to point of beginning of land herein described; thence at a delta angle of 74 degrees 45 minutes to the left a distance of 89.5 feet; thence at a delta angle of 14 degrees 03 minutes to the left a distance of 87.0 feet to the shore of Prior Lake; thence Northeasterly at a delta angle of 87 degrees 21 minutes to the right along the -pore of said Prior Lake a distance of 75.0 feet; thence Southeasterly at a delta angle of 92 degrees 39 minutes to the right a distance of 88.8 feet; thence Southeasterly at a delta angle of 13 degrees 48 minutes to the right a distance of 90.1 feet; thence Southwesterly at a delta angle of 75 degrees 00 minutes to the right a distance of 75.0 feet to point of beginning. Cont. 0.30 acres. Also an easement for use as a roadway over a 40 foot strip of land lying Southerly of the above described land, described as follows: Starting at the Southeast corner of the above described tract; thence running parallel with and adjacent to the said tract in a Southwesterly direction to the intersection of the 33 foot road as shown on the plat of Boudins Manor on file in Office of Register of Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota. Wayne C. Lundgren 14349 Watersedge Trail NE. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Lee H. 6 Patricia Schoenfeld 14321 Watersedge Trail NE. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Paul F. Ambrose 14313 Watersedge Trail NE. Prior Lake, Mn 55372 Richard 6 Jacquie Underferth 14369 Rutgers St. ME. Prior Lake, MN 55372 John W. 6 Jerilynn R. Trulson 14296 Rutgers St. NE. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Jasper H. Wells 41318 Rutgers St. NE. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Laurie Fried Carol Elaine Schulz 14304 Rutgers St. 14346 Rutgers St. NE. Prior Lake, Mn 55372 Prior Lake, MN 55372 Roger S. d Laurie J. Breisch John A. Teilborg 14330 Rutgers St. NE. 14358 Rutgers St. NE. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dated this 20th day of February, 1990 at 8:00 A.M. �bara Marschall — authorized signatory m W mf a I - 106F 0 RIN WE Iy I 7f C ',� .METTERLIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1BIT52 2 o ws. lp L OT ov ONROY" )UTLOT A 2224 - 2 6 1 _ 8 Es, ttstl T. I72 e �A p \ THE c �� 9� , 1 • n N z ° 14- 21 B T B 3 R 4 e -O p - 15 10 Ni 6 y4 n 16114 11 23 41 3 1s %&to5O OS It J— 4T 14 .•° „ Z03.0, aT 2x \AC a 2,p6T a 22ev26 5 I� I9A�5 0� 6 =0 0 161.160 IM A r, 174570 ° 11Te66 t- 6 0i: -L 125 194 1 ' 15 16 s ^. y 'Ke 11eT 09 ! b 200.51 � ` 10 ✓ 1 SO-16 16M40 n i i 200.51 7 0 140 3'r M 41 gy p. 42164 80t 4 . 11 I e FZ A S CENSUS 1 94: 40 "VA04PC" PLANNING REPORT SUBJECT LOT AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT MARVIN DEUTSCH SITE: LOT 31, BOUDIN'S MANOR DATE: MARCH 15, 1990 INTRODUCTION: To consl er a 1,950.2 square foot minimum lot area variance for Lot 31, Boudin's Manor. The applicant wishes to build a single family home within a building envelope as per attached survey. BACKGROUND: The subject site is a vacant lot located between 14419 and 14433 Watersedge Trail N.E. The lot is zoned R1 Urban Residential and is located within the SO Shoreland District. The minimum lot area requirement for this district is 10,000 square feet. The survey indicates that Lot 31 consists of 8049.8 square feet. Boudin's Manor is virtually fully developed with single family homes and cabins. The area was platted in 1950 into predominantly 50 foot wide lots. The subject site has been a lot of record since 1950 and has municipal services available to it. STAFF ANALYSIS The four standards necessary to grant variances to the stipulations of the Zoning Ordinance can, in Staff's opinion be satisfied. Boudin's Manor is nearly fully developed with homes existing on similarly sized lots. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would preclude development of this lot which would result in undue hardship to the property owner. The hardship is caused by the ordinance, not the property owner. The owner has tried to comply with the intent of the ordinance in that the proposed structure meets all current setback requirements. Staff is of the opinion that the variance requested observes the spirit of the ordinance and is not contrary to the public interest. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPACT: T e Compre ensive P an Indicates that this area should develop as low density residential. This application has no impact on the comprehensive Plan. S TAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the 1,950.2 square foot minimum lot variance as requested. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 Of Existing Use Phones Ys :;e -/- a7 Krone: Phone: Phones of Property: L o 7 K P resent Zoning:_ Proposed Use of Property: 144Ew sl". c Legal Description ' of Variance Site: `n r /11.w4)aeP C /4-M.5 LUAIP/SOd Variance 0 �GeslFS Bas the applicant previously sought to plat. rezone, obtain as v or aonditiorxJ O use permit on the subject site or any part of it? _Yes What was requested: When: D isposition: Describe the type of inprovements proposed: T g& A g Q A. lt6.0 C SUBMISSION s (A)Completed application form. (Wiling fee (C)Certified from abstract firms names and addresses of property owneSS within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. (D)Complete legal description i Property Identification !lumber (PM). (E)Deed restrictions, if applicable. (F)An area map at 1'200' available from the City Engineering Section showings existing topography# utilities, lot boundaries, building easements and soil test data if pertinent within 300 feet. (G)A parcel map at 1 20' -50' showings The sits development plan, buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING OON@ISSION. To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this form is correct. In addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordina�oee��((hickspecifies requirements for variance procedures. I agree to provide informapion aid 75� he n procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. /fy Submitted this may of FE, 9$w 1. THIS SPACE IS TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE PLANING DIR=CR PLANNING OM MISSION APPROVED _ DENIED DATE OF BEARD G CITY COUNCIL APPEAL _ APPROVED _ DENIED DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS• Signature of the Planning Director Date VRVEY ►RE►tREO FOR: 1EUTSCH CONST. OUTS 4 91011 249 IEw PRWAE. MR. 9(077 I I y IW� �414L4 % I ' b. J P66L4IP1'IO�. Lot ll, tlYUA'6 MWO6, 8tort 6YICT. 114wwta. 0 20• 40 SCALE M PORT 0 0.ww Row RwnPEIt r. • o01M00 Yw MYIAII ti9L Valley Erglnewlnq Co.,vc. 9186E go. C. 104To musc.0 Tt.9L FRAMILRI TIItL dnCE✓r fR 1110Rf t! 3 E M� M70 n 44f -lE46 T 34 3! T n.a. a. VMS, L,6 N • 0040.0 So R B.S. 91. 901.43 TOP nut at 694r4at 0 9,06Ln 6[Ltet L 9Ybt6,09, WSLI 906.4 6 . exiting 9r, ,Imti40 ' go Z M go Survey IRIS /�9ilr w or PI14,y atn ww LO ISI 890 t +:L+ OR 11100 r r som r �� /6il 1ER _Oaft . � Ne K f� CENSUS '9Q I 's "VA04PN" NOTICE OF HEARING FOR MINIMUM LOT AREA VARIANCE You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held by the Planning Commission in the Prior Lake Council Chambers at 4629 Dakota Street S.E. on: THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1990 at PURPOSE OF HEARING P.M. To consider a minimum lot area variance for Marvin Deutsch. SUBJECT SITE LOCATION REQUESTED ACTION Lot 31, Boudins Manor - vacant lot located south of 14419 and north of 14433 Watersedge Trail NE in Prior Lake. The applicant wishes to build a single family home on vacant Lot 31 as per attached survey. Lot 31 consists of 8049.8 square feet. The maximum lot area required in a single family district is 10,000 square feet. Mr. Deutsch has requested the City Planning Commission to consider granting a 1950.2 square foot minimum lot area variance. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this meeting. Oral and written comments will be accepted by the Planning Commission. For more information, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447 -4230. Prior Lake Planning Commission MARCH 6 1990 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesom 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 r '1 6 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION CODE OF ETHICS The purpose of these guidelines are to provide a framework for ethical conduct. 1. Serve the public interest. 2. Support citizen participation in planning. 3. Recognize the comprehensive and long range nature of planning decisions. 4. Expand choice and opportunity for all people. 5. Facilitate coordination through the planning process. 6. Avoid conflict of interest. 7. Render thorough and diligent planning service. 8. Not seek or offer favors. 9. Not disclose or improperly use confidential information for financial gain. 10. Ensure access to public planning reports and studies on an equal basis. 11. Ensure full disclosure at public hearings. 12. Maintain public confidence. 13. Respect professional code of ethics and conduct. 14. Qualify the origin of opinions or statements on matters before the commission. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prim Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245