4/9/2025 - Planning Commission - Regular - Agendas
CITY OF SPRING PARK
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 9, 2025 – 6:00 PM
SPRING PARK CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Planning Commission Minutes - March 12, 2025
3. PUBLIC HEARING/VARIANCE REQUEST
a. 3916 Mapleton Ave
4. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
5. MISCELLANEOUS
6. ADJOURNMENT
All meetings of the Spring Park Planning Commission are video recorded and available for viewing online at www.ci.spring-
park.mn.us or Spring Park | Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission (lmcc-tv.org). Meeting minutes are intended to be a general
synopsis of the meetings of the Planning Commission. Additional detail regarding discussions and policy considerations is
provided by watching the recording of the meeting.
CITY OF SPRING PARK
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 12, 2025 – 6:00 PM
SPRING PARK CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:00p.m.
Commissioner’s Present: Chair Hoffman, Commissioners Homan, Terryll, and Stafford were present.
Commissioner Avalos was absent.
Staff Present: City Administrator Anderson
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. April 10, 2024 – Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioner Homan motioned, being seconded by Commissioner Terryll, to approve the meeting minutes from April 10,
2024. On vote being taken, the motion was unanimously approved.
b. November 13, 2024 – Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioner Terryll motioned, being seconded by Commissioner Stafford, to approve the meeting minutes from November 13,
2024. On vote being taken, the motion was unanimously approved.
3. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission discussed the language in the ordinance. They would like the Planner to address
and ensure the following items are covered in the ordinance language such as minimum lot size, parking,
tree removal and replacement (including type of tree), retaining walls, and under-grounding power and
connection points. The Commission directed staff to request review by the Planner and provide a summary
of findings at the next meeting.
4. MISCELLANEOUS: Briefly reviewed variance request from Brett Reid at 3916 Mapleton. City
Administrator Anderson will send the full variance request to the Commissioners for further review.
5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion, Commissioner Stafford motioned, being seconded by Commissioner Terryll, to adjourn the
meeting at 6:34p.m. On vote being taken, the motion was unanimously approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Jamie Hoffman, City Clerk
7
0
1
X
E
N
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
|
S
U
I
T
E
3
0
0
|
M
I
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
,
M
N
|
55
4
1
6
|
7
6
3
.
5
4
1
.
4
8
0
0
|
W
S
B
E
N
G
.
C
O
M
City of Spring Park Memorandum
To: Planning Commission Members
Mike Anderson, City Administrator
From: Lori Johnson, City Planner
Date: March 25, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting April 9, 2025
Request: The applicant is requesting an 8-foot front yard variance to allow for the
extension of the existing garage located at 3916 Mapleton Avenue.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant(s)/Owner(s): Brent Reid
Subject Property: 3916 Mapleton Avenue
Existing Land Use / Zoning: R-1 Single and Two Family Residential
Surrounding Zoning: R-1 Single and Two Family Residential on all sides
Comprehensive Plan: The Spring Park Comprehensive Plan guides this lot for
single-family residential use.
Deadline for Agency Application Complete Date: 02.24.25
Action: 60 Days: 04.25.25 (can extend)
City Council meeting: 04.21.25
Attachments: Location Map
Aerial
Applicant Narrative
Site Photos
Existing Survey
Proposed Survey (Site and Dimension Plan)
Building Plans
Floor Plans
Grading and Drainage Plan
Letter of Support from Neighbors
List of Past Variance Approvals
CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE REQUEST
1. Overview.
March 25, 2025
Page 2
The applicant, Brent Reid, is proposing to construct an addition to his existing garage at
3916 Mapleton Avenue. Mr. Reid is trying to accommodate a full-size vehicle (22-foot-
long truck) in the garage and his proposal includes a request for a variance that would
allow him to construct the garage extension 22 feet from the front property line, where a
30-foot setback is required. The existing front yard setback from the garage to the right-
of-way is approximately 29 feet.
The site is zoned R-1 Single and Two Family Residential, and this zoning district
requires the following setbacks for structures:
Front Yard Setback: 30 feet
Side Yard Setback: 10 feet
Rear Yard Setback: 10 feet
Mr. Reid is also proposing to create a new entryway into the house on the west side of
the site. His narrative indicates he will relocate the main entry door to the house (from
the east side to the west side), raise the garage to be level with the street, add a second
story to the home, and provide significant structural and aesthetic improvements to
modernize the home. The only improvement that will require a variance is the proposed
garage extension. The proposed impervious surface for the site is 27%, where the city
requires no more than 30% on this lot.
The applicant has provided references to other projects where similar variance requests
were approved. Staff reviewed most of the information provided, based on what was
able to be found online, and it appears as though some of these variances were similar
in nature to the one being requested. All variances were approved for the referenced
projects.
2. Ordinance Authority
Chapter 42, Article VIII, Division 2 establishes setbacks for all properties within
the R-1 zoning district.
Chapter 42, Article IV, Division 3 establishes a process through which applicants
can request variances to zoning ordinance requirements.
3. Variance Review Criteria
When reviewing variance applications and requests, it is important to adhere to
ordinance requirements, which are based on current state law, and to determine if a
practical difficulty exists in each case. State law is written as such that a practical
difficulty only exists when three statutory factors are met:
• Will the property owner use the property in a reasonable manner?
March 25, 2025
Page 3
• Is the circumstance unique to the property, and is it caused by the
homeowner?
• Will the essential character of the area be altered by the variance?
Staff’s conclusions on the practical difficulty test, and the ordinance requirements for
the variance are outlined below.
Section 42-166 (d) Conditions governing consideration of variance requests
A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical
difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance without a variance. The answers
to the following questions (taken from ordinance requirements) will help to determine
if a practical difficulty exists with this request.
1. Does the variance requested impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property?
The improvement requiring a variance (front garage setback) will not impair
an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property.
2. Does the variance requested unreasonably increase the congestion in the
public streets?
The variance to the front garage setback does not change the use of the
property or add any congestion to local streets.
3. Does the variance requested increase the danger of fire or endanger the
public safety?
The variance to the front garage setback does not increase the danger of fire
or endanger the public safety.
4. Does the variance requested unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to
the intent of this chapter?
The proposal would not have an effect on property values and it is not
contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance as the subject property will
continue its existing low-density, single-family use. In fact, the improvements
proposed to the property will likely increase the value of the home.
5. Does the requested variance violate the intent and purpose of the city
comprehensive plan?
The use of the property as a single family home is not changing and it is
consistent with the intent of the single family land use designation established
for this property in the City’s comprehensive plan.
March 25, 2025
Page 4
6. Does the property owner propose to use the property in a reasonable
manner?
The use of the property as a single family home is reasonable in that the use
meets zoning standards for permitted uses and the land use designation of the
comprehensive plan.
7. Is the plight of the land owner due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the land owner.
The property owner wishes to use the garage much like most households
today with larger vehicles. The applicant inherited the setbacks of the
existing structure when purchasing the home and the existing setbacks were
not created by the land owner. The improvements to the home will increase
the value of the property, increase the aesthetic of the home and provide
storage for a larger vehicle. Other property owners within the city have been
granted variances in similar situations when the variance will help create
conditions beneficial for the neighborhood. The lots in the neighborhood are
very small and the variance granted will not be out of character.
8. Will the variance, if granted alter the essential character of the locality?
The requested variance will maintain the essential character of the locality.
9. Is the variance requested the minimum variance required to make reasonable
use of the property?
The requested variance is the minimum variance as determined by the
applicant to provide a larger garage on the property.
RECOMMENDATION
The information provided in this staff report concludes that the practical difficulty test is
met for the 8-foot front yard setback variance request for the extension of the garage.
The Planning Commission, based on the information in this report and public testimony,
will need to make a motion to recommend approval or denial of the variance, but staff
would recommend approval of the variances at this time, based on the following
rationale.
1. The improvement requiring a variance (front garage setback) will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property.
2. The variance to the front garage setback does not change the use of the property
or add any congestion to local streets.
March 25, 2025
Page 5
3. The variance to the front garage setback does not increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety.
4. The proposal would not have an effect on property values and it is not contrary to
the intent of the zoning ordinance as the subject property will continue its existing
low-density, single-family use. In fact, the improvements proposed to the property
will likely increase the value of the home.
5. The use of the property as a single family home is not changing and it is
consistent with the intent of the single family land use designation established for
this property in the City’s comprehensive plan.
6. The use of the property as a single family home is reasonable in that the use
meets zoning standards for permitted uses and the land use designation of the
comprehensive plan.
7. The property owner wishes to use the garage much like most households today
with larger vehicles. The applicant inherited the setbacks of the existing structure
when purchasing the home and the existing setbacks were not created by the
land owner. The improvements to the home will increase the value of the
property, increase the aesthetic of the home and provide storage for a larger
vehicle. Other property owners within the city have been granted variances in
similar situations when the variance will help create conditions beneficial for the
neighborhood. The lots in the neighborhood are very small and the variance
granted will not be out of character.
8. The requested variance will maintain the essential character of the locality.
9. The requested variance is the minimum variance as determined by the applicant
to provide a larger garage on the property.
7
0
1
X
E
N
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
|
S
U
I
T
E
3
0
0
|
M
I
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
,
M
N
|
55
4
1
6
|
7
6
3
.
5
4
1
.
4
8
0
0
|
W
S
B
E
N
G
.
C
O
M
Location Map for 3916 Mapleton Avenue
7
0
1
X
E
N
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
|
S
U
I
T
E
3
0
0
|
M
I
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
,
M
N
|
55
4
1
6
|
7
6
3
.
5
4
1
.
4
8
0
0
|
W
S
B
E
N
G
.
C
O
M
Aerial for 3916 Mapleton Avenue
Variance Request Summary
Applicant: Brent Reid
Property Address: 3916 Mapleton Ave, Spring Park, MN 55384
Request: Front Yard Setback Variance
Brent Reid is requesting a variance from the front yard setback requirements for the single-family property
located at 3916 Mapleton Ave. The request seeks to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 24 feet to
allow for the extension of the existing garage and relocation of the main entry door from the side yard to the
front of the house. This adjustment represents the minimum necessary to accommodate a full-size vehicle
(22-foot-long truck), address safety concerns posed by the steep driveway slope, and improve the property’s
functionality and curb appeal. The proposed renovations also include raising the garage to be level with the
street, adding a second story to the home, and undertaking significant structural and aesthetic improvements
as part of a comprehensive modernization effort. The property is located within an R-1, Single-Family and
Two-Family Residential District.
This request adheres to established precedent set by previously approved variances in Spring Park, aligns with
the setbacks and character of the neighborhood, and does not create a new precedent. The proposed variance
is integral to a comprehensive renovation project that includes raising the garage to street level, adding a
second story to the home, and making substantial improvements to the home’s structure and curb appeal.
These renovations support the goals of Spring Park's 2040 Comprehensive Plan by enhancing property value,
supporting private redevelopment, and making the neighborhood more appealing to younger homebuyers. All
nine property owners on Mapleton Ave have reviewed and signed off in support of this project, demonstrating
strong community backing and recognition in the positive impact these improvements will have on the
neighborhood.
Without the variance, neither the current nor future property owners would be able to build a garage large
enough to accommodate a full-size vehicle or relocate the front door to the front of the house, both of which
are essential to addressing the property’s safety, functionality, and accessibility challenges. The property’s
narrow lot and existing home placement make expanding the garage further into the lot impractical, leaving the
front yard as the only feasible solution. Without the variance, the investment in these critical upgrades could
not be justified, and the home would remain in its current state. The larger garage is critical for modern use and
safety, providing adequate space for vehicles and off-street parking. Relocating the main entry door to the front
of the house improves accessibility by creating a safer, well-lit, and visible entry point, aligning with social
norms and modern residential standards. Together, these changes enable a broader investment in the
property, including adding a second story, modernizing the home’s layout, and significantly improving its
aesthetic and functional appeal.
1
Sections and Exhibits
1. Variance Review Criteria
2. Conclusion and Proposed Conditions
3. Additional Variance Request Details With Precedence
Exhibit A – Aerial Image
Exhibit B – Current Building Plan
Exhibit C – Site Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D – Building Plans
Exhibit E – Grading and Drainage Plan
Exhibit F – Neighbor Approval Signatures
Exhibit G – Past Variance Approvals
2
1. Response To Variance Review Criteria: Section 42-165
VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA Section 42-165 of the Spring Park ordinance states that the purpose for
establishing a variance process is to provide:
● Variances from the literal provisions of the chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would
cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration not resulting from the actions of an individual, and where it is demonstrated that such
variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the chapter.
a. In considering any request for a variance and in taking subsequent action, planning commission and
the city council, serving as the board of adjustment and appeals, shall make a finding of fact that the
granting of such variance will not:
1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
Brent Reid Comment: The proposed 6‑foot reduction maintains a significant portion of the
required open space and is consistent with the setback dimensions of neighboring properties.
Detailed analysis—including photographic evidence and neighbor endorsements (Exhibit
F)—demonstrates that the variance will not obstruct natural light or air flow. Both adjacent
property owners have signed off on the revised plans, ensuring that no diminution of light or air
occurs.
2. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets.
Brent Reid Comment: The proposed improvements enhance safety by addressing the steep
driveway slope, which poses a hazard during winter or inclement weather. Raising the garage to
street level eliminates these hazards while also enabling the relocation of the front door to the
front of the house. This relocation creates a safer, more visible, and well-lit entry point that
improves accessibility for residents, visitors, and emergency responders. A front-facing entry
provides clear and direct access to the home, eliminating multiple sets of stairs and elevation
changes currently required to reach the side entry, which are especially unsafe in icy conditions.
Additionally, the larger garage allows for proper off-street parking, reducing the likelihood of
vehicles obstructing the street or the nearby fire hydrant.
The proposed modifications—namely, extending and raising the garage and relocating the main
entry—are engineered to improve vehicular circulation. By providing sufficient off‑street parking
for a full‑size (22‑foot) vehicle and eliminating unsafe parking practices (e.g., vehicles parked in
front of the fire hydrant), the design decreases the potential for street congestion. The design
also minimizes the need for on‑street parking, thereby protecting public right‑of‑way access.
3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety.
Brent Reid Comment: The proposed extension improves public safety by addressing the current
steep driveway slope, which poses hazards during inclement weather. Leveling the garage and
driveway enhances accessibility for emergency services and residents, mitigating potential risks.
3
In addition, by increasing the size of the garage allows for additional off-street parking, this
variance limits the likelihood of parking in front of the fire hydrant across the street.
4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any
other way be contrary to the intent of this chapter.
Brent Reid Comment: The project significantly increases the property’s value and contributes
positively to the overall aesthetic and functional appeal of the neighborhood. These
improvements align with the neighborhood’s character and reinforce the city’s commitment to
maintaining high property values and fostering private redevelopment.
5. Violate the intent and purpose of the city comprehensive plan.
Brent Reid Comment: The variance directly supports the goals outlined in Spring Park's 2040
Comprehensive Plan by encouraging private redevelopment, improving curb appeal, and
making the property more attractive to younger homebuyers. The renovation aligns with the
city's broader vision for sustainable and thoughtful growth.
6. A variance from the requirements of this chapter shall be permitted only when; the requested
variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance
Brent Reid Comment: The variance aligns fully with the intent and purpose of the zoning
ordinance, which includes ensuring adequate spacing between structures and the street to
maintain light and air flow, preserve neighborhood aesthetics, and promote safety for both
residents and pedestrians. While the proposed setback reduces the distance to 24 feet, it
continues to achieve these goals by maintaining significant open space and aligning with
neighboring properties that have similar setbacks.
The improvements address existing safety risks posed by the steep driveway slope and unsafe
side entry, enhancing safety for residents, visitors, and emergency responders. Additionally, the
front-facing, well-lit entry point and raised garage improve visibility and accessibility without
creating any undue impacts on adjacent properties. This thoughtful design balances the
practical needs of modern residential use with the zoning ordinance’s original intent, ensuring
the property integrates seamlessly with the neighborhood.
7. No variance shall be granted that would allow any use that is not permitted in the zoning district
in which the subject property is located.
Brent Reid Comment: The garage extension and associated renovations do not introduce a use
that is not permitted in the R-1 district. The property remains a single-family home, a permitted
and reasonable use in the zoning district.
8. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in
complying with the zoning ordinance without a variance.
4
Brent Reid Comment: The property presents unique challenges that make compliance with the
current zoning ordinance impractical:
● Narrow Lot Width: The unusually narrow lot restricts feasible options for garage
expansion without encroaching on rear setbacks or requiring substantial structural
changes.
● Existing Home Placement: The home’s current placement, established before the
property was purchased in 2016, prevents rearward garage expansion and makes
extending into the front yard the only viable option.
● Steep Driveway Slope: The steep driveway poses safety risks, especially during winter,
making it necessary to raise the garage to street level.
● Access Point: The garage is the sole access point to the property, and its expansion is
critical to accommodate a full-size vehicle while maintaining functional and safe entry.
● Relocation of Front Door: Moving the front door to face the street improves safety and
accessibility but requires raising the garage, which is not possible without the variance.
9. Practical difficulties with this variance request are not solely related to economic considerations.
Brent Reid Comment: The variance is primarily driven by practical difficulties unique to the
property, including the narrow lot width, steep driveway slope, and the home’s existing
placement, which prevents rearward expansion of the garage. These challenges make it
impossible to achieve reasonable and safe use of the property without the variance. The
variance also enables the relocation of the front entryway to the front of the home, significantly
improving safety, accessibility, and curb appeal. The current side-facing front door, combined
with steep elevation changes, creates unsafe access for residents, guests, and emergency
responders.
While financial investment is a factor, it is secondary to these inherent difficulties. Moving the
home’s foundation or undertaking structural alterations to expand the garage deeper into the lot
would impose an unreasonable financial burden on the homeowner. The variance provides the
only practical solution to these challenges, ensuring both safety and functionality while enabling
broader improvements to the property.
5
2. Conclusion and Proposed Conditions
This variance request has been carefully prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Spring
Park's Code of Ordinances (Section 42-165) and Minnesota State Statute 462.357, which govern variance
approval. The proposed variance satisfies all necessary criteria:
1. Reasonable Use: Reducing the front yard setback allows for essential improvements, including a
larger garage to accommodate a full-size vehicle and the relocation of the front door to the front of the
house. These changes address critical safety, accessibility, and functionality concerns, enabling
modern and reasonable use of the property.
2. Practical Difficulties: Unique challenges, including the narrow lot width, steep driveway slope, and
existing home placement, make compliance with current setback requirements impractical. Extending
the garage into the front yard is the only viable solution to address these conditions without requiring
unreasonable structural modifications or financial burdens.
3. Alignment with Ordinances and Plans: The variance aligns with the city’s goals of fostering private
redevelopment, enhancing curb appeal, and increasing property values, as outlined in the Spring Park
2040 Comprehensive Plan. It also maintains neighborhood consistency, respecting established setback
patterns in the area.
4. Alignment with Past Precedence: This request mirrors conditions addressed in previously approved
variances for properties facing similar challenges, including:
○ 2401 Black Lake Road: Approved for a variance due to a steep driveway and safety concerns.
○ 2413 Black Lake Road: Reduced setback approved to mitigate driveway safety issues.
○ 3872 Shoreline Drive: Granted for reduced setbacks to address lot constraints and align with
neighborhood patterns.
5. These precedents reflect the city’s commitment to resolving safety and accessibility issues while
maintaining neighborhood character.
Proposed Conditions for Approval: To ensure the project complies with city standards and minimizes
any potential impacts, the following conditions are proposed:
1. Adherence to Submitted Plans: Construction will conform to the site plan and building plans included
with this application. The front yard setback will not be reduced to less than 24 feet. Any significant
changes to the project design will be subject to additional review.
2. Hard Cover Compliance: The total hard cover on the property will not exceed 30% of the lot area,
maintaining compliance with zoning standards.
Conclusion: This variance request enables the property to be used safely and effectively while
addressing unique practical difficulties. It aligns with city ordinances, the comprehensive plan, and
past precedence, benefiting both the property owner and the surrounding neighborhood. Approval of
this request is critical to achieving the proposed improvements, which will enhance safety,
functionality, and the aesthetic appeal of the property.
6
3. Additional Variance Request Details With Precedence
1. Safety Concerns
Steep Driveway Slope: The property’s current 21-degree driveway slope presents significant safety hazards,
particularly during winter or inclement weather. The steep incline makes it challenging for vehicles to safely
access the garage and creates risks for pedestrians navigating the property. Raising the garage to street level
eliminates this hazard, creating a safer and more functional entryway for residents, visitors, and emergency
services.
Off-Street Parking Necessity: The street lacks sufficient and safe on-street parking options, further
compounding safety concerns. Extending the garage ensures vehicles are parked off the street, reducing
congestion and preventing potential obstructions, such as blocking the nearby fire hydrant. This is particularly
critical during winter, when snowbanks further limit available parking.
Support and Precedence: These safety considerations align with previous variances approved by the city,
including:
● 2401 Black Lake Road (February 12, 2014, Planning Commission Minutes): Approved to address
safety concerns related to a steep driveway and insufficient parking.
● 2413 Black Lake Road (July 15, 2019, Council Agenda Packet): Approved to resolve safety issues
arising from steep slopes and limited on-street parking.
2. Unique Lot Characteristics
Topographical Challenges and Elevation Changes: The property’s unique topography includes a difference
of over 5’ between the street and the current garage. This creates significant challenges for accessibility,
privacy, and safety. The proposed renovation will level the garage and driveway with the street, mitigating
these issues and improving functionality for residents and emergency services.
Existing Home Position Constraints: The placement of the home on the lot, established before the property
was purchased in 2016, prevents the garage from being extended deeper into the lot without encroaching on
required rear setbacks or requiring extensive structural alterations. Expanding the garage toward the front with
a reduced setback is the only feasible option to address these constraints.
Support and Precedence: These challenges reflect conditions addressed in previously approved variances,
including:
● 4425 Shoreline Drive (July 17, 2017, Council Meeting Agenda): Approved due to unique topography
and elevation challenges impacting safety and privacy.
● 3872 Shoreline Drive (January 19, 2021, Council Packet): Approved for reduced setbacks due to lot
constraints and existing home placement.
3. Consistency with Neighborhood Setbacks
7
Alignment with Existing Homes: The proposed front yard setback of 24 feet aligns with the established
character of the neighborhood. On Mapleton Ave and Hazeldell Ave, 5 of 10 homes feature front yard setbacks
of 24 feet or less (1: 22’ for 2242 Mapleton, 2: 10’ for 3901 Mapleton, 3: 18’ for 3940 Mapleton, 4: 24’ for 2241
Hazeldell, 5: 24’ for 2258 Hazeldell). This demonstrates that the request maintains consistency with the area’s
architectural and setback patterns, avoiding any disruption to the neighborhood’s overall character.
Support and Precedence: This alignment with neighboring properties reflects conditions addressed in
previously approved variances, such as:
● 3872 Shoreline Drive (January 19, 2021, Council Packet): Approved for reduced setbacks to align
with neighborhood patterns and existing conditions. This approval was for two side yard variances.
By maintaining neighborhood consistency, this variance ensures that the project integrates seamlessly into the
community.
4. Property Improvement and Neighborhood Enhancement
Modernization Efforts: The proposed renovation involves transformative updates, including raising the
garage to street level, adding a second story to the home, and modernizing the structure. These
enhancements align with Spring Park’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which emphasizes revitalizing and
modernizing housing stock to meet contemporary standards. Such modernization-focused efforts are
consistent with previously approved variances, demonstrating the city’s commitment to fostering private
redevelopment.
Aesthetic Value: The planned upgrades will significantly enhance the property’s curb appeal and overall
value, contributing positively to the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. The focus on improving
neighborhood appeal reflects the city’s dedication to maintaining its character while supporting thoughtful
property improvements.
Support and Precedence: This modernization effort aligns with conditions addressed in previously approved
variances, such as:
● 2401 Black Lake Road (February 12, 2014, Planning Commission Minutes): Approved to support
substantial property modernization and improvement efforts.
● 4000 Sunset Drive (September 9, 2020, Planning Commission Packet): Aesthetic improvements
were central to the approval decision.
● 3822 Northern Ave (January 19,2021, Council Packet): Approved to support goal#3 of the 2040
comprehensive plan, which states “Encourage the private redevelopment of substandard. obsolete, or
blighted properties.”
By supporting modernization and aesthetic enhancements, this variance advances the city’s objectives for
private redevelopment and reinforces neighborhood character.
5. Community Support
8
Neighbor Endorsements: The proposed variance has received unanimous support from all nine property
owners on Mapleton Avenue. Letters of approval and recommendation have been submitted, reflecting broad
community backing for the project. This level of community support demonstrates strong confidence in the
project’s positive impact on the neighborhood.
Support and Precedence: This alignment with neighboring properties reflects conditions addressed in
previously approved variances, such as:
● 2401 Black Lake Road (February 12, 2014, Planning Commission Minutes): Approved despite a
neighbor objection, demonstrating that variances can proceed when broader benefits outweigh isolated
concerns. By maintaining neighborhood consistency and garnering unanimous support, this variance
ensures that the project integrates seamlessly into the community and enhances neighborhood
cohesion.
6. Consistency with City Approvals (Not Setting a New Precedent)
Approval of Similar or More Restrictive Variances: The proposed variance aligns with a consistent history
of city approvals for similar or more restrictive requests. Variances addressing reduced setbacks and steep
driveways have been granted, reflecting the city’s balanced approach to addressing practical difficulties and
supporting private redevelopment. Examples include:
● 2413 Black Lake Road: Approved a reduced setback from 50 feet to 35 feet to address safety issues
related to driveway slope and accessibility concerns.
● 3872 Shoreline Drive: Granted reduced setbacks to accommodate lot constraints, align with
neighborhood patterns, and ensure practical property use.
Addressing Steep Driveways and Safety: Properties facing steep driveway challenges, like 2401 and 2413
Black Lake Road, received variances to mitigate safety risks and enhance functionality, providing a clear
precedent for addressing similar issues.
Enhancing Property Value and Aesthetics: Significant property improvements that align with the city’s goals
for modernization and aesthetic enhancement have been key considerations in past approvals, such as:
● 2401 Black Lake Road: Approved for a variance supporting substantial property modernization.
● 4000 Sunset Drive: Approved with an emphasis on the importance of aesthetic improvements to
neighborhood value.
Maintaining Neighborhood Consistency: The proposed variance maintains alignment with established
neighborhood patterns, as seen in approvals like 3872 Shoreline Drive, ensuring seamless integration into the
community without setting a new precedent.
Support and Precedence
● 2413 Black Lake Road (July 15, 2019, Council Agenda Packet): Approved for a reduced setback
from 50 feet to 35 feet to address driveway slope and safety concerns.
● 2401 Black Lake Road (February 12, 2014, Planning Commission Minutes): Approved to mitigate
safety issues posed by a steep driveway, prioritizing accessibility and public welfare.
9
● 3872 Shoreline Drive (January 19, 2021, Council Packet): Granted reduced setbacks to address lot
constraints, improve usability, and align with neighborhood patterns.
● 4000 Sunset Drive (September 9, 2020, Planning Commission Packet): Approved for aesthetic
improvements that contributed significantly to neighborhood value.
The consistent approval of similar variances demonstrates the city’s commitment to addressing unique
property challenges while supporting safety, modernization, and aesthetic improvements. This request
continues this tradition, integrating thoughtful enhancements that align with the city’s goals and established
precedent.
7. Enhancement of Public Safety and Welfare
Improved Accessibility: The proposed renovation improves accessibility by leveling the garage and driveway
with the street, eliminating the steep slope and hazardous incline that currently pose significant risks during
inclement weather. Relocating the front door to face the street creates a safer, well-lit, and more accessible
entry point for residents, guests, and emergency responders. This change eliminates the need to navigate
elevation changes and icy stairs, ensuring the property meets modern safety standards.
Reduction of Potential Hazards: Addressing the elevation difference and steep driveway slope reduces
hazards for both pedestrians and vehicles. Improved off-street parking ensures vehicles are safely stored away
from public streets and the nearby fire hydrant, decreasing potential risks during emergencies.
Support and Precedence: The enhancement of public safety and welfare through thoughtful design changes
aligns with priorities addressed in previously approved variances, such as:
● 2413 Black Lake Road (July 15, 2019, Council Agenda Packet): A variance was approved to
mitigate safety risks posed by a steep driveway, ensuring improved accessibility and public welfare.
● 2401 Black Lake Road (February 12, 2014, Planning Commission Minutes): Approved a variance
to reduce safety hazards caused by a steep driveway, prioritizing accessibility and hazard reduction.
These precedents highlight the city’s commitment to addressing safety and welfare challenges, reinforcing the
need for the proposed improvements at 3916 Mapleton Ave.
10
Exhibit A: Aerial Image
11
Exhibit B: Current Building
12
13
14
Exhibit C: Site Survey/Site Plan
15
16
Exhibit D: Building Plans
17
18
Proposed Main Level Floor Plan
Proposed 2nd Level Floor Plan
19
Exhibit E: Grading and Drainage Plan
20
Exhibit F: Neighbor Approval Signatures
21
Exhibit G: Past Variance Approvals as Precedence
Below are the full list of residential variance requests identified in Spring Park meeting notes, with a brief
summary of the variance. All available publicly have been approved.
● 2401 Black Lake Road: Variance approved for a detached garage with reduced lake setback, despite
neighbor objection.
● 2413 Black Lake Road: Variance approved for a detached garage with reduced OHW setback due to
steep driveway and safety concerns.
● 4425 Shoreline Drive: Variance approved for a 6-foot fence in the front yard setback due to unique
topography and privacy issues.
● 4000 Sunset Drive: Variance approved for a new home with reduced OHW setback, emphasizing
aesthetic improvements.
● 2259 Lilac Lane: Variance amendment approved for new home construction with minor modifications.
● 4364 West Arm Road East: Variance approved for a home addition with reduced setbacks due to
existing non-conformity.
● 3872 Shoreline Drive: Variance approved for a new home with reduced lake and side yard setbacks
due to substandard lot size.
● 3822 Northern Ave: Variance approved with reduced setbacks to justify subdividing the lot into 2.
22
Variance Request Summary
Applicant: Brent Reid
Property Address: 3916 Mapleton Ave, Spring Park, MN 55384
Request: Front Yard Setback Variance
Brent Reid is requesting a variance from the front yard setback requirements for the single-family property
located at 3916 Mapleton Ave. The request seeks to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 24 feet to
allow for the extension of the existing garage and relocation of the main entry door from the side yard to the
front of the house. This adjustment represents the minimum necessary to accommodate a full-size vehicle
(22-foot-long truck), address safety concerns posed by the steep driveway slope, and improve the property’s
functionality and curb appeal. The proposed renovations also include raising the garage to be level with the
street, adding a second story to the home, and undertaking significant structural and aesthetic improvements
as part of a comprehensive modernization effort. The property is located within an R-1, Single-Family and
Two-Family Residential District.
This request adheres to established precedent set by previously approved variances in Spring Park, aligns with
the setbacks and character of the neighborhood, and does not create a new precedent. The proposed variance
is integral to a comprehensive renovation project that includes raising the garage to street level, adding a
second story to the home, and making substantial improvements to the home’s structure and curb appeal.
These renovations support the goals of Spring Park's 2040 Comprehensive Plan by enhancing property value,
supporting private redevelopment, and making the neighborhood more appealing to younger homebuyers. All
nine property owners on Mapleton Ave have reviewed and signed off in support of this project, demonstrating
strong community backing and recognition in the positive impact these improvements will have on the
neighborhood.
Without the variance, neither the current nor future property owners would be able to build a garage large
enough to accommodate a full-size vehicle or relocate the front door to the front of the house, both of which
are essential to addressing the property’s safety, functionality, and accessibility challenges. The property’s
narrow lot and existing home placement make expanding the garage further into the lot impractical, leaving the
front yard as the only feasible solution. Without the variance, the investment in these critical upgrades could
not be justified, and the home would remain in its current state. The larger garage is critical for modern use and
safety, providing adequate space for vehicles and off-street parking. Relocating the main entry door to the front
of the house improves accessibility by creating a safer, well-lit, and visible entry point, aligning with social
norms and modern residential standards. Together, these changes enable a broader investment in the
property, including adding a second story, modernizing the home’s layout, and significantly improving its
aesthetic and functional appeal.
1
Sections and Exhibits
1. Variance Review Criteria
2. Conclusion and Proposed Conditions
3. Additional Variance Request Details With Precedence
Exhibit A – Aerial Image
Exhibit B – Current Building Plan
Exhibit C – Site Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D – Building Plans
Exhibit E – Grading and Drainage Plan
Exhibit F – Neighbor Approval Signatures
Exhibit G – Past Variance Approvals
2
1. Response To Variance Review Criteria: Section 42-165
VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA Section 42-165 of the Spring Park ordinance states that the purpose for
establishing a variance process is to provide:
● Variances from the literal provisions of the chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would
cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration not resulting from the actions of an individual, and where it is demonstrated that such
variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the chapter.
a. In considering any request for a variance and in taking subsequent action, planning commission and
the city council, serving as the board of adjustment and appeals, shall make a finding of fact that the
granting of such variance will not:
1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
Brent Reid Comment: The proposed 6‑foot reduction maintains a significant portion of the
required open space and is consistent with the setback dimensions of neighboring properties.
Detailed analysis—including photographic evidence and neighbor endorsements (Exhibit
F)—demonstrates that the variance will not obstruct natural light or air flow. Both adjacent
property owners have signed off on the revised plans, ensuring that no diminution of light or air
occurs.
2. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets.
Brent Reid Comment: The proposed improvements enhance safety by addressing the steep
driveway slope, which poses a hazard during winter or inclement weather. Raising the garage to
street level eliminates these hazards while also enabling the relocation of the front door to the
front of the house. This relocation creates a safer, more visible, and well-lit entry point that
improves accessibility for residents, visitors, and emergency responders. A front-facing entry
provides clear and direct access to the home, eliminating multiple sets of stairs and elevation
changes currently required to reach the side entry, which are especially unsafe in icy conditions.
Additionally, the larger garage allows for proper off-street parking, reducing the likelihood of
vehicles obstructing the street or the nearby fire hydrant.
The proposed modifications—namely, extending and raising the garage and relocating the main
entry—are engineered to improve vehicular circulation. By providing sufficient off‑street parking
for a full‑size (22‑foot) vehicle and eliminating unsafe parking practices (e.g., vehicles parked in
front of the fire hydrant), the design decreases the potential for street congestion. The design
also minimizes the need for on‑street parking, thereby protecting public right‑of‑way access.
3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety.
Brent Reid Comment: The proposed extension improves public safety by addressing the current
steep driveway slope, which poses hazards during inclement weather. Leveling the garage and
driveway enhances accessibility for emergency services and residents, mitigating potential risks.
3
In addition, by increasing the size of the garage allows for additional off-street parking, this
variance limits the likelihood of parking in front of the fire hydrant across the street.
4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any
other way be contrary to the intent of this chapter.
Brent Reid Comment: The project significantly increases the property’s value and contributes
positively to the overall aesthetic and functional appeal of the neighborhood. These
improvements align with the neighborhood’s character and reinforce the city’s commitment to
maintaining high property values and fostering private redevelopment.
5. Violate the intent and purpose of the city comprehensive plan.
Brent Reid Comment: The variance directly supports the goals outlined in Spring Park's 2040
Comprehensive Plan by encouraging private redevelopment, improving curb appeal, and
making the property more attractive to younger homebuyers. The renovation aligns with the
city's broader vision for sustainable and thoughtful growth.
6. A variance from the requirements of this chapter shall be permitted only when; the requested
variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance
Brent Reid Comment: The variance aligns fully with the intent and purpose of the zoning
ordinance, which includes ensuring adequate spacing between structures and the street to
maintain light and air flow, preserve neighborhood aesthetics, and promote safety for both
residents and pedestrians. While the proposed setback reduces the distance to 24 feet, it
continues to achieve these goals by maintaining significant open space and aligning with
neighboring properties that have similar setbacks.
The improvements address existing safety risks posed by the steep driveway slope and unsafe
side entry, enhancing safety for residents, visitors, and emergency responders. Additionally, the
front-facing, well-lit entry point and raised garage improve visibility and accessibility without
creating any undue impacts on adjacent properties. This thoughtful design balances the
practical needs of modern residential use with the zoning ordinance’s original intent, ensuring
the property integrates seamlessly with the neighborhood.
7. No variance shall be granted that would allow any use that is not permitted in the zoning district
in which the subject property is located.
Brent Reid Comment: The garage extension and associated renovations do not introduce a use
that is not permitted in the R-1 district. The property remains a single-family home, a permitted
and reasonable use in the zoning district.
8. A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in
complying with the zoning ordinance without a variance.
4
Brent Reid Comment: The property presents unique challenges that make compliance with the
current zoning ordinance impractical:
● Narrow Lot Width: The unusually narrow lot restricts feasible options for garage
expansion without encroaching on rear setbacks or requiring substantial structural
changes.
● Existing Home Placement: The home’s current placement, established before the
property was purchased in 2016, prevents rearward garage expansion and makes
extending into the front yard the only viable option.
● Steep Driveway Slope: The steep driveway poses safety risks, especially during winter,
making it necessary to raise the garage to street level.
● Access Point: The garage is the sole access point to the property, and its expansion is
critical to accommodate a full-size vehicle while maintaining functional and safe entry.
● Relocation of Front Door: Moving the front door to face the street improves safety and
accessibility but requires raising the garage, which is not possible without the variance.
9. Practical difficulties with this variance request are not solely related to economic considerations.
Brent Reid Comment: The variance is primarily driven by practical difficulties unique to the
property, including the narrow lot width, steep driveway slope, and the home’s existing
placement, which prevents rearward expansion of the garage. These challenges make it
impossible to achieve reasonable and safe use of the property without the variance. The
variance also enables the relocation of the front entryway to the front of the home, significantly
improving safety, accessibility, and curb appeal. The current side-facing front door, combined
with steep elevation changes, creates unsafe access for residents, guests, and emergency
responders.
While financial investment is a factor, it is secondary to these inherent difficulties. Moving the
home’s foundation or undertaking structural alterations to expand the garage deeper into the lot
would impose an unreasonable financial burden on the homeowner. The variance provides the
only practical solution to these challenges, ensuring both safety and functionality while enabling
broader improvements to the property.
5
2. Conclusion and Proposed Conditions
This variance request has been carefully prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Spring
Park's Code of Ordinances (Section 42-165) and Minnesota State Statute 462.357, which govern variance
approval. The proposed variance satisfies all necessary criteria:
1. Reasonable Use: Reducing the front yard setback allows for essential improvements, including a
larger garage to accommodate a full-size vehicle and the relocation of the front door to the front of the
house. These changes address critical safety, accessibility, and functionality concerns, enabling
modern and reasonable use of the property.
2. Practical Difficulties: Unique challenges, including the narrow lot width, steep driveway slope, and
existing home placement, make compliance with current setback requirements impractical. Extending
the garage into the front yard is the only viable solution to address these conditions without requiring
unreasonable structural modifications or financial burdens.
3. Alignment with Ordinances and Plans: The variance aligns with the city’s goals of fostering private
redevelopment, enhancing curb appeal, and increasing property values, as outlined in the Spring Park
2040 Comprehensive Plan. It also maintains neighborhood consistency, respecting established setback
patterns in the area.
4. Alignment with Past Precedence: This request mirrors conditions addressed in previously approved
variances for properties facing similar challenges, including:
○ 2401 Black Lake Road: Approved for a variance due to a steep driveway and safety concerns.
○ 2413 Black Lake Road: Reduced setback approved to mitigate driveway safety issues.
○ 3872 Shoreline Drive: Granted for reduced setbacks to address lot constraints and align with
neighborhood patterns.
5. These precedents reflect the city’s commitment to resolving safety and accessibility issues while
maintaining neighborhood character.
Proposed Conditions for Approval: To ensure the project complies with city standards and minimizes
any potential impacts, the following conditions are proposed:
1. Adherence to Submitted Plans: Construction will conform to the site plan and building plans included
with this application. The front yard setback will not be reduced to less than 24 feet. Any significant
changes to the project design will be subject to additional review.
2. Hard Cover Compliance: The total hard cover on the property will not exceed 30% of the lot area,
maintaining compliance with zoning standards.
Conclusion: This variance request enables the property to be used safely and effectively while
addressing unique practical difficulties. It aligns with city ordinances, the comprehensive plan, and
past precedence, benefiting both the property owner and the surrounding neighborhood. Approval of
this request is critical to achieving the proposed improvements, which will enhance safety,
functionality, and the aesthetic appeal of the property.
6
3. Additional Variance Request Details With Precedence
1. Safety Concerns
Steep Driveway Slope: The property’s current 21-degree driveway slope presents significant safety hazards,
particularly during winter or inclement weather. The steep incline makes it challenging for vehicles to safely
access the garage and creates risks for pedestrians navigating the property. Raising the garage to street level
eliminates this hazard, creating a safer and more functional entryway for residents, visitors, and emergency
services.
Off-Street Parking Necessity: The street lacks sufficient and safe on-street parking options, further
compounding safety concerns. Extending the garage ensures vehicles are parked off the street, reducing
congestion and preventing potential obstructions, such as blocking the nearby fire hydrant. This is particularly
critical during winter, when snowbanks further limit available parking.
Support and Precedence: These safety considerations align with previous variances approved by the city,
including:
● 2401 Black Lake Road (February 12, 2014, Planning Commission Minutes): Approved to address
safety concerns related to a steep driveway and insufficient parking.
● 2413 Black Lake Road (July 15, 2019, Council Agenda Packet): Approved to resolve safety issues
arising from steep slopes and limited on-street parking.
2. Unique Lot Characteristics
Topographical Challenges and Elevation Changes: The property’s unique topography includes a difference
of over 5’ between the street and the current garage. This creates significant challenges for accessibility,
privacy, and safety. The proposed renovation will level the garage and driveway with the street, mitigating
these issues and improving functionality for residents and emergency services.
Existing Home Position Constraints: The placement of the home on the lot, established before the property
was purchased in 2016, prevents the garage from being extended deeper into the lot without encroaching on
required rear setbacks or requiring extensive structural alterations. Expanding the garage toward the front with
a reduced setback is the only feasible option to address these constraints.
Support and Precedence: These challenges reflect conditions addressed in previously approved variances,
including:
● 4425 Shoreline Drive (July 17, 2017, Council Meeting Agenda): Approved due to unique topography
and elevation challenges impacting safety and privacy.
● 3872 Shoreline Drive (January 19, 2021, Council Packet): Approved for reduced setbacks due to lot
constraints and existing home placement.
3. Consistency with Neighborhood Setbacks
7
Alignment with Existing Homes: The proposed front yard setback of 24 feet aligns with the established
character of the neighborhood. On Mapleton Ave and Hazeldell Ave, 5 of 10 homes feature front yard setbacks
of 24 feet or less (1: 22’ for 2242 Mapleton, 2: 10’ for 3901 Mapleton, 3: 18’ for 3940 Mapleton, 4: 24’ for 2241
Hazeldell, 5: 24’ for 2258 Hazeldell). This demonstrates that the request maintains consistency with the area’s
architectural and setback patterns, avoiding any disruption to the neighborhood’s overall character.
Support and Precedence: This alignment with neighboring properties reflects conditions addressed in
previously approved variances, such as:
● 3872 Shoreline Drive (January 19, 2021, Council Packet): Approved for reduced setbacks to align
with neighborhood patterns and existing conditions. This approval was for two side yard variances.
By maintaining neighborhood consistency, this variance ensures that the project integrates seamlessly into the
community.
4. Property Improvement and Neighborhood Enhancement
Modernization Efforts: The proposed renovation involves transformative updates, including raising the
garage to street level, adding a second story to the home, and modernizing the structure. These
enhancements align with Spring Park’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which emphasizes revitalizing and
modernizing housing stock to meet contemporary standards. Such modernization-focused efforts are
consistent with previously approved variances, demonstrating the city’s commitment to fostering private
redevelopment.
Aesthetic Value: The planned upgrades will significantly enhance the property’s curb appeal and overall
value, contributing positively to the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. The focus on improving
neighborhood appeal reflects the city’s dedication to maintaining its character while supporting thoughtful
property improvements.
Support and Precedence: This modernization effort aligns with conditions addressed in previously approved
variances, such as:
● 2401 Black Lake Road (February 12, 2014, Planning Commission Minutes): Approved to support
substantial property modernization and improvement efforts.
● 4000 Sunset Drive (September 9, 2020, Planning Commission Packet): Aesthetic improvements
were central to the approval decision.
● 3822 Northern Ave (January 19,2021, Council Packet): Approved to support goal#3 of the 2040
comprehensive plan, which states “Encourage the private redevelopment of substandard. obsolete, or
blighted properties.”
By supporting modernization and aesthetic enhancements, this variance advances the city’s objectives for
private redevelopment and reinforces neighborhood character.
5. Community Support
8
Neighbor Endorsements: The proposed variance has received unanimous support from all nine property
owners on Mapleton Avenue. Letters of approval and recommendation have been submitted, reflecting broad
community backing for the project. This level of community support demonstrates strong confidence in the
project’s positive impact on the neighborhood.
Support and Precedence: This alignment with neighboring properties reflects conditions addressed in
previously approved variances, such as:
● 2401 Black Lake Road (February 12, 2014, Planning Commission Minutes): Approved despite a
neighbor objection, demonstrating that variances can proceed when broader benefits outweigh isolated
concerns. By maintaining neighborhood consistency and garnering unanimous support, this variance
ensures that the project integrates seamlessly into the community and enhances neighborhood
cohesion.
6. Consistency with City Approvals (Not Setting a New Precedent)
Approval of Similar or More Restrictive Variances: The proposed variance aligns with a consistent history
of city approvals for similar or more restrictive requests. Variances addressing reduced setbacks and steep
driveways have been granted, reflecting the city’s balanced approach to addressing practical difficulties and
supporting private redevelopment. Examples include:
● 2413 Black Lake Road: Approved a reduced setback from 50 feet to 35 feet to address safety issues
related to driveway slope and accessibility concerns.
● 3872 Shoreline Drive: Granted reduced setbacks to accommodate lot constraints, align with
neighborhood patterns, and ensure practical property use.
Addressing Steep Driveways and Safety: Properties facing steep driveway challenges, like 2401 and 2413
Black Lake Road, received variances to mitigate safety risks and enhance functionality, providing a clear
precedent for addressing similar issues.
Enhancing Property Value and Aesthetics: Significant property improvements that align with the city’s goals
for modernization and aesthetic enhancement have been key considerations in past approvals, such as:
● 2401 Black Lake Road: Approved for a variance supporting substantial property modernization.
● 4000 Sunset Drive: Approved with an emphasis on the importance of aesthetic improvements to
neighborhood value.
Maintaining Neighborhood Consistency: The proposed variance maintains alignment with established
neighborhood patterns, as seen in approvals like 3872 Shoreline Drive, ensuring seamless integration into the
community without setting a new precedent.
Support and Precedence
● 2413 Black Lake Road (July 15, 2019, Council Agenda Packet): Approved for a reduced setback
from 50 feet to 35 feet to address driveway slope and safety concerns.
● 2401 Black Lake Road (February 12, 2014, Planning Commission Minutes): Approved to mitigate
safety issues posed by a steep driveway, prioritizing accessibility and public welfare.
9
● 3872 Shoreline Drive (January 19, 2021, Council Packet): Granted reduced setbacks to address lot
constraints, improve usability, and align with neighborhood patterns.
● 4000 Sunset Drive (September 9, 2020, Planning Commission Packet): Approved for aesthetic
improvements that contributed significantly to neighborhood value.
The consistent approval of similar variances demonstrates the city’s commitment to addressing unique
property challenges while supporting safety, modernization, and aesthetic improvements. This request
continues this tradition, integrating thoughtful enhancements that align with the city’s goals and established
precedent.
7. Enhancement of Public Safety and Welfare
Improved Accessibility: The proposed renovation improves accessibility by leveling the garage and driveway
with the street, eliminating the steep slope and hazardous incline that currently pose significant risks during
inclement weather. Relocating the front door to face the street creates a safer, well-lit, and more accessible
entry point for residents, guests, and emergency responders. This change eliminates the need to navigate
elevation changes and icy stairs, ensuring the property meets modern safety standards.
Reduction of Potential Hazards: Addressing the elevation difference and steep driveway slope reduces
hazards for both pedestrians and vehicles. Improved off-street parking ensures vehicles are safely stored away
from public streets and the nearby fire hydrant, decreasing potential risks during emergencies.
Support and Precedence: The enhancement of public safety and welfare through thoughtful design changes
aligns with priorities addressed in previously approved variances, such as:
● 2413 Black Lake Road (July 15, 2019, Council Agenda Packet): A variance was approved to
mitigate safety risks posed by a steep driveway, ensuring improved accessibility and public welfare.
● 2401 Black Lake Road (February 12, 2014, Planning Commission Minutes): Approved a variance
to reduce safety hazards caused by a steep driveway, prioritizing accessibility and hazard reduction.
These precedents highlight the city’s commitment to addressing safety and welfare challenges, reinforcing the
need for the proposed improvements at 3916 Mapleton Ave.
10
Exhibit A: Aerial Image
11
Exhibit B: Current Building
12
13
14
Exhibit C: Site Survey/Site Plan
15
16
Exhibit D: Building Plans
17
18
Proposed Main Level Floor Plan
Proposed 2nd Level Floor Plan
19
Exhibit E: Grading and Drainage Plan
20
Exhibit F: Neighbor Approval Signatures
21
Exhibit G: Past Variance Approvals as Precedence
Below are the full list of residential variance requests identified in Spring Park meeting notes, with a brief
summary of the variance. All available publicly have been approved.
● 2401 Black Lake Road: Variance approved for a detached garage with reduced lake setback, despite
neighbor objection.
● 2413 Black Lake Road: Variance approved for a detached garage with reduced OHW setback due to
steep driveway and safety concerns.
● 4425 Shoreline Drive: Variance approved for a 6-foot fence in the front yard setback due to unique
topography and privacy issues.
● 4000 Sunset Drive: Variance approved for a new home with reduced OHW setback, emphasizing
aesthetic improvements.
● 2259 Lilac Lane: Variance amendment approved for new home construction with minor modifications.
● 4364 West Arm Road East: Variance approved for a home addition with reduced setbacks due to
existing non-conformity.
● 3872 Shoreline Drive: Variance approved for a new home with reduced lake and side yard setbacks
due to substandard lot size.
● 3822 Northern Ave: Variance approved with reduced setbacks to justify subdividing the lot into 2.
22
CHAPTER X: SUBDIVISIONS will need to be codified Article
111, starting at 42-100
ARTICLE 1: IN GENERAL
Title of Chapter.
This chapter shall be known, cited, and referred to as the "City of Spring Park Subdivision
Ordinance”.
Purpose of chapter.
Developers who seek to subdivide larger tracts of land into smaller parcels for development
and/or sale must follow the city’s subdivision ordinance. Subdivision regulations specify the
standards of the city related to size, location, grading, and improvement of:
➢ Lots.
➢ Structures
➢ Public areas, trails, walkways and parks.
➢ Streets and street lighting.
➢ Installation necessary for water, sewer, electricity, gas, and other utilities.
All subdivisions of land submitted shall fully comply in all respects with the regulations to:
1) Provide for and guide the orderly, economic, and safe development of land, urban services
and facilities.
2) Encourage well-planned, efficient, and attractive subdivisions by establishing adequate and
impartial standards for design and construction.
3) Provide for the health, safety, and welfare of residents by requiring the necessary services
such as properly designed streets and adequate sewage and water service.
4) Place the cost of improvements against those benefiting from their construction.
5) Secure the rights of the public with respect to public lands and waters.
6) Preserve natural features, such as topography, trees, water courses, scenic points,
prehistoric and historical locations or districts.
7) Protect community assets, which if preserved will add attractiveness, retain the character
of the community, and provide stability to the proposed development of the property and
surrounding area.
Commented [LJ1]: Excelsior’s code was drafted in 1982,
likely out of compliance with requirements of today.
Commented [LJ2]: Lot sizes are not spelled out in the
subdivision ordinance. They are spelled out in each zoning
district chapter. Structures should also be taken out
because they are goverened by zoning districts. I don’t even
think this first paragraph is necessary.
Commented [LJ3]: This should be the first sentence of
the purpose section.
8) Set the minimum requirements necessary to protect the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience, and general welfare.
Need to add statement about relationship to the comp plan such as:
The enforcement, amendment, and administration of this chapter shall be
accomplished consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, as may be amended from
time to time. The council recognizes the comprehensive plan as the official policy for the
regulation of land use and development in accordance with the policies and purpose
herein set forth. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 473, the city will not
approve any changes in these regulations that are not consistent with the city's
comprehensive plan.
Scope of legal authority.
The rules and regulations governing plats and subdivisions of land contained in this chapter
shall apply within the boundaries of the city. It is the intent that this chapter shall apply to all
lots or parcels, platted or not platted, if it is the intent to develop the lots in a manner that
uses two or more lots for development or resub divides any lots of record. This chapter is not
intended to repeal, annul, or in any way impair or interfere with existing provisions of other
laws or ordinances or with restrictive covenants running with the land except those
specifically repealed by or in conflict with this chapter.
Where this chapter imposes a greater restriction upon land than is imposed or required by
existing provisions of law, ordinance, contract, or deed, the provisions of this chapter shall
control.
The city shall have the power and authority to review, amend, and approve subdivisions of
land already recorded and on file with the county if such plats are entirely or partially
undeveloped.
Administration.
This chapter shall be administered by the city administrator or their designee.
Amendments.
The provisions of this chapter shall be amended by the city following a legally advertised
public hearing before the planning commission. The city council shall amend the chapter by a
Commented [LJ4]: Cross reference
Commented [LJ5]: Need the following statement
somewhere here: This chapter is enacted pursuant to the
authority granted by the Municipal Planning Act, Minnesota
Statutes, §§ 462.351 to 462.365.
Commented [LJ6]: Should be new subtitle More
restrictive provision to apply.
majority vote of the full city council in accordance with the law, including the rules and
regulations of any applicable state or federal agency.
Approvals necessary for acceptance of subdivision plats.
Before any plat, (including condominiums), or subdivision of land shall be recorded or be of
any validity, it shall be referred to the planning commission and approved by the city council
as having fulfilled the requirements of this chapter.
Conditions for recording.
No plat or subdivision shall be entitled to be recorded in the county recorder's office or have
any validity until the plat has been prepared, approved, and acknowledged in the manner
prescribed by this chapter.
Building permits.
No building permits shall be issued by the city for the construction of any building, structure,
or improvement to the land or to any lot in a subdivision until all requirements of this chapter
have been fully complied with.
Separability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter is for any reason found
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
chapter.
Suggested language : It is hereby declared to be the intention of the city that the
several provisions of this chapter are separable in accordance with the following:
(a) If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of this chapter
to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provisions of this chapter
not specifically included in said judgment.
(b) If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge invalid the application of any
provision of this chapter to a particular property, such judgment shall not affect
the application of said provision to any other property not specifically included
in said judgment.
Commented [LJ7]: There should be a definitions section
somewhere to lay out what specific things mean.
Interpretations.
Floodprone lands
(a) Subdivision flooding and flood control. No land shall be subdivided if the council finds the
land unsuitable for subdividing due to flooding, inadequate drainage, water supply, or
sewage treatment facilities in accordance with this chapter and the zoning ordinance. Any
building sites on lots within the floodplain district shall be at or above the regulatory flood
protection elevation in accordance with this chapter and the zoning ordinance. All
subdivisions shall have water supply and sewer disposal facilities that comply with the
provisions of this chapter, and any applicable building, health, or safety codes, including the
Minnesota State Building Code. All subdivisions shall have road access both to the subdivision
and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet below the regulatory flood
protection elevation. Each of the requirements set forth in this subsection shall take into
consideration the 100-year flood profile and other supporting technical data in the Flood
Insurance Study and the flood insurance rate map.
(b) Public utilities. All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, telephone, sewer, and
water supply systems to be located in the floodplain shall be elevated or floodproofed in
accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code to an elevation no lower than the
regulatory flood protection elevation, in accordance with state and federal agency regulations
and the city's zoning ordinance floodplain district.
(c) Public transportation facilities. Railroad tracks, roads, and bridges to be located within the
floodway district shall comply with this chapter and the zoning ordinance. Elevation to the
regulatory flood protection elevation shall be provided where failure and interruption of
these transportation facilities would result in danger to the public health or safety or where
such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or auxiliary railroad
tracks, roads, or bridges may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or
interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public health or safety and as
long as such construction is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the state
department of natural resources, the state, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and
the city zoning ordinance floodplain district.
Article II: ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT[2]
DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY
Nonplatted subdivisions
Commented [LJ8]: I don’t know what this is for?
Commented [LJ9R8]: Would suggest this: Rules of
word construction.
The terms and words used in this chapter shall be
interpreted as follows:
(a)The singular number includes the plural and plural
the singular.
(b)The present tense includes the past and future
tense and the future, the present.
(c)The word "shall" is mandatory and the word "may"
is permissive.
(d)The masculine gender shall include the feminine and
neuter genders.
(e)Whenever a word or term defined hereinafter
appears in the text of this chapter, its meaning shall be
construed as set forth in such definition thereof.
(f)All measured distances expressed in feet shall be
rounded to the nearest tenth of a foot.
(g)The word "building" shall include the word
"structure."
(h)The word "person" shall include any firm,
association, organization, partnership, trust, company or
corporation, as well as an individual.
(i)The phrase "used for" shall include the phrases
"arranged for," "designed for," "intended for,"
maintained for," and "occupied for."
Commented [LJ10]: This is not needed. You already have
a floodplain district that says the same thing.
Registered land surveys. All registered land surveys shall be filed subject to the same
procedures as required for the filing of a preliminary plat for platting purposes. The
standards and requirements set forth in this chapter shall apply to all registered land surveys.
Metes and bounds. Except in highly unique situations, as may be allowed by the city council,
conveyances by metes and bounds shall be prohibited.
Variances; city council approval; standards.
Findings. The city council may approve a variance from the minimum standards of this chapter
(not procedural provisions) and from the subdivision design criteria when, in its opinion,
exceptional and undue hardship may result from strict compliance. In approving any
variance, the city council shall prescribe any conditions that it deems necessary to or
desirable to the public interest. In making its approval, the city council shall take into account
the nature of the proposed use of land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number
of persons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision the subdivision design standards,
and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity.
A variance shall only be approved when the city council finds that each and every one of the
following apply unless one or more of the criteria are not applicable to the particular
situation:
• There are special circumstances or highly unique conditions affecting the
property such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would
deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of the land.
• The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is
situated.
• The variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical
hardship such as topography or to prevent removal of significant or desirable
vegetation.
• Hardships relating to economic difficulties shall not be considered for the
purpose of granting a variance.
• The hardship is not a result of an action by the owner, applicant, or any agent.
• The variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of the zoning ordinance
or official zoning map.
Procedures.
(1) Pursuant to Minn. Stats. § 15.99, an application for a variance shall be approved or
denied by the city council within 60 days from the date of its official and complete
submission unless notice of extension is provided by the city or a time waiver is
granted by the applicant. The city may extend the review and decision-making period
an additional 60 days to the extent allowed by state law.
(2) Request for variances, as provided within this section, shall be filed with the city
manager on an official application form. Such an application shall be accompanied by
a fee as provided for by city council resolution.
(3) The procedures for filing of preliminary plats, including planning commission public
hearing and city council review and consideration as found in article III of this chapter,
shall be used for processing variances.
(4) Approvals of a variance request by the city council shall be by two-thirds vote of the
full city council.
(5) A copy of all decisions granting variances for properties in the shoreland district or
100-year floodplain shall be forwarded to the commissioner of natural resources
within ten days of such action.
(6) Whenever a variance has been considered and denied by the city council, a similar
application and proposal for the variance affecting the same property shall not be
considered again by the planning commission or city council for at least six months
from the date of its denial, except as follows:
a. If the applicant or property owner can clearly demonstrate that the circumstances
surrounding the previous variance application have changed significantly.
b. The city council may reconsider such matter by a majority vote of the entire city
council.
(7) If a request for a variance receives approval of the city council, the applicant shall
record such with the county recorder within 60 days of the city council approval date.
The applicant, immediately upon recording such, or as soon as is reasonably possible,
shall furnish the city proof of recording. No building permits for the property in
question will be granted until such proof of recording is furnished to the city.
• Violations and penalty.
(a) Sale or advertisement of lots from unrecorded plats. It shall be a misdemeanor to sell,
trade, advertise for sale, or otherwise convey any lot or parcel of land as a part of, or
in conformity with, any plan, plat, or replat of any subdivision or area located within
the jurisdiction of this chapter unless such plan, plat, or replat shall have first been
recorded in the county recorder's office.
(b) Receiving or recording unapproved plats. It shall be unlawful for a private individual
to receive or record in any public office any plans, plats of land laid out in building lots
and streets or other portions of the same intended to be dedicated to public or private
use, or for the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting on or adjacent thereto, and
Commented [LJ11]: City administrator
Commented [LJ12]: City attorney needs to comment
here, and likely on the whole thing since he will be the one
defending the city if there is a lawsuit.
located within the jurisdiction of this chapter, unless the same shall bear thereon, by
endorsement or otherwise, the approval of the city council.
(c) Misrepresentations. It shall be a misdemeanor as set forth in Minn. Stats. § 609.02
for any person owning an addition or subdivision of land within the city to represent
that any improvement upon any of the streets or avenues of such addition or
subdivision or any sewer or utility in such addition or subdivision has been
constructed according to the plans and specifications approved by the city council, or
has been supervised or inspected by the city, when such improvements have not been
so constructed, supervised, or inspected.
(d) Penalty. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished in accordance with all
applicable laws.
• Schedules of administrative fees, charges, and expenses.
(a) Fees and charges, as well as expenses incurred by the city for engineering,
planning, attorney, and other services related to the processing of applications under
this chapter shall be paid for by the applicant and collected by the city administrator
for deposit in the city's accounts. Fees for the processing of requests for platting,
major and minor subdivisions, review of plans, and such other subdivision-related
procedures may from time to time be established by city council resolution. The city
council may also establish fees by resolution for public hearings, special meetings, or
other such city council or planning commission actions as are necessary to process
applications.
(b) Such fees and charges (as well as a deposit/escrow) shall be collected prior to city
action on any application. All such applications shall be accompanied by a written
statement from the applicant/owner (when the applicant is not the same person or
entity as the landowner, both the owner and the applicant must sign the statement)
whereby the applicant/owner agrees to pay all applicable fees, charges, and expenses
as set by city resolution as provided above, and which allows the city to assess the
fees, charges, and expenses described in this section against the landowner if such
monies are not paid within 30 days after a bill is sent to the applicant/landowner.
(c) These fees shall be in addition to building permit fees, inspection fees, trunk
stormwater facility costs, sewer and water availability charges, zoning fees, charges,
expenses, and other such fees, charges, and expenses currently required by the city or
which may be established by city council resolution in the future.
• ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISIONS
• Qualification.
This division shall apply to the following applications:
(1) In the case of a request to divide a portion of a lot where the division is to permit
the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot so that no additional lots are created,
and both new lots conform to zoning ordinance lot size minimum standards.
(2) In the case of a request to divide a lot from a larger tract of land and thereby
creating no more than two lots, both of which conform to zoning ordinance minimum
standards. To qualify, the parcel of land shall not have been part of an administrative
subdivision within the previous five years.
• Content and data requirements.
(a) Certificate of survey. The requested administrative subdivision shall be prepared by
a registered land surveyor in the form of a certificate of survey.
(b) Property description and submission information. The data and supportive
information detailing the proposed subdivision shall be the same as required for a
preliminary plat as described in article III of this chapter. Exceptions may be granted
by the city manager.
Subdivision design standards.
The administrative subdivision shall conform to all applicable subdivision design
standards as specified for this chapter. Any proposed deviation from such standards
shall require the processing of a variance request.
• Sec. XX. - Processing.
If the land division complies with the applicable provisions of this section, this chapter,
the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan, the city administrator may approve
the subdivision.
• Secs. XXXX. - Reserved.
There should be a section here on premature subdivisions:
] Any proposed subdivision deemed premature for development shall not be
approved by the council. A subdivision shall be deemed premature if the council
determines that any of the following conditions exist. The burden of proof shall be upon
the subdivider to show that the proposed subdivision is not premature.
(a) Inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. A proposed subdivision may be
deemed premature if it is inconsistent with the purposes, objectives,
development staging plan, or recommendations of the city's comprehensive
plan, as may be amended. Application for reguiding and/or rezoning may be
made simultaneously with an application for subdivision approval, however, a
subdivision application will not be considered for approval by the council until
and unless any necessary reguiding and/or rezoning application is approved by
the council.
(b) Inconsistent with the capital improvements program . A proposed subdivision
may be deemed premature if it is inconsistent with the capital improvements
program because public improvements, facilities, or services necessary to
accommodate the proposed subdivision would not be completed within two
years of the date of approval of final plat.
(c) Lack of adequate water supply. A proposed subdivision may be deemed
premature if public water is not available to serve the proposed subdivision. All
new lots shall be served by public water.
(d) Lack of adequate waste disposal systems. A proposed subdivision may be
deemed premature if:
(1) Sanitary sewer is neither available nor proposed.
(2) Available or proposed sanitary sewer is inadequate to support the subdivision
if developed to its maximum permissible density after reasonable sewer
capacity is reserved for schools, public facilities, and other developments
planned within five years of the date of application.
(e) Lack of adequate streets to serve the subdivision. A proposed subdivision may
be deemed premature if:
(1) Streets which serve the proposed subdivision are of such a width, grade,
stability, vertical and horizontal alignment, site distance or surface condition
that the traffic volume generated by the proposed subdivision would create a
hazard to public safety and general welfare, or would seriously aggravate an
existing hazardous condition; or
(2) The traffic volume generated by the proposed subdivision would create
congestion or unsafe conditions on existing or proposed streets.
(f) Lack of adequate drainage. A proposed subdivision may be deemed premature
if:
(1) Surface or subsurface water retention and runoff is such that it constitutes a
hazard to the stability of proposed or existing structures; or
(2) The proposed subdivision would cause pollution of water resources or would
cause damage from erosion or siltation on downstream property; or
(3) Factors including, but not limited to, the presence of floodplain, wetlands,
poor soils or subsoils, or steep slopes exist in such a manner as to preclude
adequate site drainage or treatment of runoff.
(g) Inconsistent with environmental requirements. A proposed subdivision may be
deemed premature if the proposed development requires completion of
environmental review under Minnesota Statute, chapter 4410 and the
appropriate responsible government unit has not issued a negative declaration
on the need for an environmental impact statement or determined that an
environmental impact statement is adequate.
• ARTICLE III. - PROCEDURES FOR FILING AND REVIEW
• Sec. XX. - Sketch plan.
(a) Procedure. In order to ensure that all applicants are informed of the procedural
requirements and minimum standards of this chapter, and the requirements and
limitations imposed by other city ordinances, plans, and/or policies prior to the
preparation of a preliminary plat, all applicants shall present a sketch plan to the city
administrator prior to filing a preliminary plat. Submission of a sketch plan shall not
start the 60-day review period, as required by state law, for consideration of a
preliminary plat. The city administrator shall review the sketch plan and schedule a
meeting with the applicant to discuss the subdivision and the application process.
Approval of a sketch plan shall not be considered binding regarding subsequent plat
review. The city administrator may, with agreement of the applicant, refer the sketch
plan to the planning commission and/or city council for review and comment.
(b) Submission requirements. The following are required for the submission of a sketch
plan for review:
(1) Written request for sketch plan review.
(2) Five copies at a readable scale of the plat sketch including the following
minimum information:
a. Plat boundary.
b. North arrow.
c. Scale.
d. General location of proposed streets, easements, pedestrian paths,
ponds, water detention areas, etc.
e. Designation of land use and current and proposed zoning.
f. Significant topographical or physical features.
Commented [LJ13]: Do you really want hard copies?
Most cities want only electronic submittals.
g. General lot locations and layout.
(3) Escrow deposit, as determined necessary by the city manager, to pay review
costs of city staff and consultants.
• Sec. XX. - Preliminary plat.
(a) Procedure.
➢ Pursuant to Minn. Stats. § 15.99, an application for a preliminary plat shall be
approved or denied by the city council within 60 days from the date of its
official and complete submission, unless notice of extension is provided by the
city or a time waiver is granted by the applicant. The city may extend the review
and decision-making period an additional 60 days to the extent allowed by
state law.
➢ After the pre-application meeting and following city review of the sketch plan,
the applicant may prepare a request for subdivision, as provided within this
chapter, that shall be filed with the city on an official application form. Such an
application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for by city council
resolution. Such application shall also be accompanied by five large scale (22
inches by 34 inches) copies, and one reduced scale (11 inches by 17 inches)
copy of the preliminary plat, and supportive information in conformity with
requirements of this chapter. The scale of such materials shall be at the
graphic scale of one inch to 20 feet, except as specifically approved by the city
administrator. The request shall be considered officially submitted and the
application approval timeline commences only when all the informational
requirements, as required, are complied with and the required fees are paid.
➢ The applicant shall supply an up-to-date certified abstract of title, registered
property report, or such other evidence as the city attorney may require
showing title or control of the applicant, and the legal description of the
property for which the subdivision is requested.
➢ The applicant shall submit any necessary applications for variances from the
provisions of this chapter, as set out in article II of this chapter.
➢ Upon receipt of the completed application, the city administrator shall set a
public hearing for public review of the preliminary plat by the planning
commission. The notice of the hearing may be a legal or display advertisement
and shall include a description or depiction that is sufficient to fulfill statutory
requirements that shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10)
days prior to the hearing. Written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at
least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to all owners of land within 350 feet of
the boundary of the property in question. A copy of the notice and a list of the
property owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested
and made a part of the records of the proceedings. The city shall post a sign on
Commented [LJ14]: administrator
Commented [LJ15]: Again, I don’t need hard copies
unless you do? They mostly end up in the trash.
the property to notify the public that the land in question is the subject of a
hearing by the planning commission or city council.
➢ Failure of a property owner to receive such notice shall not invalidate any such
proceedings as set forth within this section, provided that a bona fide attempt
has been made to comply with the notice requirements of this section.
➢ The city administrator shall instruct the staff as appropriate to prepare
technical reports and provide general assistance in preparing a
recommendation on the action to the planning commission and city council.
This may include the city planner, city engineer, city building official, the fire
marshal, the city attorney, the city forester, or public or private utility
departments, among others.
➢ The applicant shall refer copies of the preliminary plat to county, state, or other
public jurisdictions for their review and comment, where appropriate and when
required.
➢ The city administrator, the city council, and/or planning commission shall have
the authority to request, in writing, additional information from the applicant
concerning the proposed subdivision and its operational factors or impact, or
to retain expert testimony with the consent and at the expense of the applicant
concerning operational factors or impacts, when such information is to be
declared necessary to comply with performance conditions in relation to all
pertinent sections of this chapter. Failure on the part of the applicant to supply
all necessary supportive information shall be grounds for denial of the request.
➢ The applicant or a designated representative shall appear before the planning
commission at the public hearing to answer questions concerning the
proposed request.
➢ The planning commission shall make its report to the city council after the
close of public hearing, or soon thereafter, as described above.
(b) City council action.
➢ Upon completion of the report of the planning commission, the request shall
be placed on the agenda of the city council. Such report shall be entered in and
made part of the permanent written record of the city council meeting.
➢ Upon receiving the report of the planning commission, the city council shall
have the option to set and hold a public hearing if deemed necessary and shall
make a recorded finding of fact and may impose any condition it considers
necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
➢ The city council may refer the matter back to the planning commission for
further consideration. The city council shall provide the planning commission
with a written statement detailing the specific reasons for referral.
➢ Approval of the preliminary plat by the city council shall require passage by a
majority vote of the entire city council. If the preliminary plat is approved, such
approval shall not constitute final acceptance of the design and layout.
Subsequent approval will be required of the engineering proposals and other
features and requirements as specified by this chapter to be indicated on the
final plat. The city council may impose such conditions and restrictions as it
deems appropriate or require such revisions or modifications in the
preliminary plat or final plat as it deems necessary to protect the health, safety,
comfort, general welfare, and convenience of the city.
➢ If the preliminary plat is not approved by the city council, the reasons for such
action shall be recorded in the proceedings of the city council and shall be
transmitted to the applicant as a finding of fact.
➢ The city council reserves the right to decline approval of a preliminary plat if
due regard is not shown for the following considerations. Review of the
preliminary plat shall also be subject to the criteria for denial of plats found in
other sections of this code:
a. Preservation, to the extent possible, of the existing topography as
specified in this chapter.
b. Preservation of trees and vegetative growth.
c. Preservation of natural water courses as specified in the general
floodplain ordinance.
d. Preservation of historic locations and districts as specified in this
Code.
e. Integration with existing neighborhoods and districts which, if
preserved, will add attractiveness, retain character of the community,
and provide stability to the proposed development of the property and
surrounding area. Residential area integration shall include factors such
as housing density, building pad layout, lot size, and design as it relates
to the surrounding lots and neighborhood character. Commercial area
integration shall include factors such as lot size and width and site
issues as specified in this chapter.
➢ Following city council approval of a preliminary plat, the applicant must submit
a final plat to the city within 120 days of preliminary approval. If this procedure
is not followed, then approval of the preliminary plat shall be considered void,
unless a request for time extension is submitted in writing by the applicant 30
days prior to the lapse of approval and subsequently approved by the city
administrator.
➢ Should the applicant desire to amend a preliminary plat as approved, an
amended preliminary plat may be submitted. The city may require the
applicant to follow the same procedure as a new preliminary plat. No public
hearing will be required unless the amendment, in the opinion of the city, is of
such scope as to constitute a new preliminary plat. A filing fee as established
by the city council shall be charged for the amendment processing.
(c) Submission requirements. The applicant shall prepare and submit a preliminary plat,
together with any necessary supplementary information. The preliminary plat shall
contain the information set forth in the subsections that follow (upon specific request,
the city manager may exempt an applicant from the submission of data that are not
considered relevant to the application).
(d) General requirements. The proposed name of the subdivision; names shall not
duplicate or be alike in pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore recorded in
the city.
Location of boundary lines in relation to a known section, quarter section, or quarter-
quarter section lines comprising a legal description of the property.
Name, address, and phone number of the record owners, any agent having control of
the land, the applicant, land surveyor, engineer, and designer of the plan.
Graphic scale of one inch to 20 feet, except as specifically approved by the city
administrator.
North point and key map of the area, showing well-known geographical points for
orientation within a one-half-mile radius.
Date of preparation.
Applications, statements, and supporting documentation and plans for rezoning,
variances, or conditional use permits approvals being sought for the subdivision.
A tree preservation and protection plan, that shows those trees proposed to be
removed, those to remain, and the types and locations of trees and other vegetation
that are to be planted in conformance with city requirements.
(e) Existing conditions. Boundary lines to include bearings, distances, curve data, and
total acreage of proposed plat, clearly indicated.
Existing zoning classifications for land in and abutting the subdivision.
Total area of the proposed plat.
Location, right-of-way width, and names of existing or platted streets or other public
ways, other rights-of-way, parks and other public lands, permanent buildings and
structures, easements and section, corporate lines within the plan, to a distance 150
feet beyond the plat.
Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land, within 150 feet of the
plat, identified by name and ownership, including all contiguous land owned or
controlled by the applicant.
Any reports on the environmental condition of the site conducted prior to the time of
application submission for the proposed subdivision.
Where the applicant owns property adjacent to that which is being proposed for the
subdivision, it shall be required that the applicant submit a sketch plan of the
remainder of the property so as to show the possible relationships between the
proposed subdivision and the future subdivision. In any event, all subdivisions shall be
required to integrate well with existing or potential adjacent subdivisions and land
uses and the provisions of the city's adopted comprehensive plan.
Topography in two-foot contour intervals with existing contours shown as dashed
lines and proposed contours as solid lines. Existing topography shall extend 100 feet
outside of the tract or a distance necessary to demonstrate the impact of surface
drainage upon surrounding properties.
Location, size, and elevation of all existing natural features including, but not limited
to, wooded and vegetated areas, marshes, watercourses, water bodies, areas of steep
slope, and other significant features.
Location of all existing storm drainage facilities including, but not limited to, pipes,
manholes, catch basins, ponding areas, swales, and drainage channels within 100 feet
of the parcel. Existing pipe grades, rim and invert elevations, and ordinary high water
mark shall be shown. Also, spot elevations at drainage break points and direction
arrows indicating site, swale, and lot drainage.
The delineation of all wetlands in accordance with criteria established by the Army
Corps of Engineers and/or state department of natural resources. Such wetland
delineations shall be performed by a registered land surveyor or engineer recognized
as qualified by the Army Corps of Engineers and/or state department of natural
resources.
100-year floodplain elevations and the regulatory flood protection elevation taking
into consideration the flood insurance study and flood insurance rate map.
Location and size of existing sewers, water mains, culverts, or other underground
facilities within and extending 100 feet beyond the proposed subdivision boundary.
Such data as grades, invert elevations, and location of catch basins, manholes, and
hydrants shall also be shown.
(f) Proposed design features.
1. Layout of proposed streets showing the right-of-way widths, centerline
gradients, roadway widths, typical cross sections, and proposed names of
streets in conformance with city street identification policies. The name of any
street heretofore used in the city or its environment shall not be used unless
the proposed street is a logical extension of an already named street, in which
event the same name shall be used.
2. Complete curve data, including radii, internal angles, points and curvatures,
tangent bearings, and lengths of all arcs.
3. Locations and widths of proposed pedestrian ways.
4. Location, dimension, and purpose of all easements.
5. Layout, numbers, lot areas, and preliminary dimensions of lots and blocks,
and out lots.
6. Minimum front and side street building setback line.
7. When lots are located on a curve, the width of the lot at the building setback
line, as defined by the city zoning ordinance, as amended.
8. Building pads intended for construction.
9. A parking plan and lighting plan for the development.
10. A security plan for the development.
11. Areas, other than streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways, and utility easements,
intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use, including the size of such
areas in acres.
(g) Supplementary information. Any or all of the supplementary information
requirements set forth in this subsection shall be submitted when deemed necessary
by the city manager, or by a majority vote of the planning commission and/or city
council to adequately address the application and site in question.
1. Proposed protective covenants or private restrictions.
2. A traffic study to include trip generation data and an analysis of the impact
to the city's roadways and intersections. The information to be included in the
study and the analysis methods shall be subject to approval of the city
engineer.
Commented [LJ16]: City administrator
3. Statement revealing the effect of the development on fire hazards and
population density. The applicant may be required to have formal studies
performed to the city's satisfaction which show the effect of the proposed
development on fire hazards or other matters of public concern.
4. If any zoning changes are contemplated, the proposed zoning plan for the
areas, including dimensions, shall be shown. Such proposed zoning plan shall
be for information only and shall not vest any rights in the applicant.
5. Where structures are to be placed, lots that exceed the area required by the
zoning ordinance, the preliminary plat shall indicate a logical way in which the
lots could possibly be re-subdivided in the future.
6. An environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) shall be submitted if
required by the city council, or if requested by Minnesota Environmental
Quality Board. Whenever a project that does not require an environmental
assessment worksheet is suspected to have the potential for environmental
effects, the state, county, or city may require the preparation of a discretionary
environmental assessment worksheet in order to determine whether an
environmental impact statement is needed.
7. Where irregular shaped lots have been proposed, house pads shall be
depicted which demonstrate such lots to be buildable.
8. Soil tests as required by the city engineer.
9. Such other applicable information as may be required by the city.
(h) Preliminary grading plan. The applicant shall submit a preliminary grading, drainage,
and erosion control plan which shall include the following information:
1. North arrow.
2. Graphic scale of one inch to 20 feet, except as specifically approved by the
city administrastor.
3. Lot and block numbers.
4. Building pad locations, proposed building types, and proposed elevations.
5. Location and elevations of all street high and low points.
6. All street design grades and typical street sections.
7. Phasing of grading.
Commented [LJ17]: This should be vetted by John and
Joe
8. The location, dimensions, and purpose of all drainage and utility easements.
9. A plan for soil erosion and sediment control both during construction and
after development has been completed. The plan shall include gradients of
waterways, design of velocity and erosion control measures, design of
sediment control measures, and landscaping of the erosion and sediment
control system. Locations and standard detail plates for each measure shall be
included on the plan.
10. All revegetation measures proposed for the subdivision, including seed and
mulch types and application rates, shall be included on the plan.
11. All existing conditions shall be included on the grading plan, as required by
the city engineer.
(i) Preliminary utility plan.
1. Location, dimension, and purpose of all drainage and utility easements.
2. Water mains shall be provided to serve the subdivision by extension of an
existing community system. Service connections shall be stubbed into the
property line and all necessary fire hydrants shall also be provided. All water
systems shall be looped in accordance with the subdivision design standards of
the city and as required by the city engineer. Extensions of the public water
supply system shall be designed to provide service in accordance with design
standards approved by the city engineer.
3. Sanitary sewer mains and service connections shall be planned in
accordance with the subdivision design standards of the city and as approved
by the city engineer.
4. Locations, grades, rim and inverted elevations, and sizes of all storm and
sanitary sewers and opportunities to serve the proposed subdivision.
5. Location and size of all proposed water mains and appurtenances.
6. All existing conditions shall be included in the grading plan, as required by
the city engineer.
• Sec. XX. - Final plat.
(a) Procedure.
(1) After the preliminary plat has been approved, a final plat shall be submitted for
review as set forth in the subsections which follow. The city may agree to review the
preliminary and final plat simultaneously. The final plat shall incorporate the changes,
modifications, and revisions required by the city as part of the conditions for
preliminary plat approval.
(2) All final plats shall comply with the provisions of state statutes and requirements of
this chapter.
(3) Review of a final plat.
a. Pursuant to Minn. Stats. § 15.99, an application for a final plat shall be
approved or denied by the city council within 60 days from the date of its
official and complete submission, unless notice of extension is provided by the
city or a time waiver is granted by the applicant. The city may extend the review
and decision-making period an additional 60 days to the extent allowed by
state law.
b. Five large scale (22 inches by 34 inches) copies, and one reduced scale (11
inches by 17 inches) copy of the final plat, and supportive information in
conformity with the requirements of this chapter shall be submitted by the
applicant. The scale of such materials shall be at a graphic scale of one inch to
20 feet, except as specifically approved by the city manager. If the final plat is
referred to the planning commission for recommendation, additional large
scale copies of the plat may be required. Upon receipt of a final plat, copies
shall be referred to the city council and city manager, and to all applicable
utility companies and county and state agencies. The applicant shall provide an
up-to-date certified abstract of title, registered property report, or such other
evidence as the city attorney may require showing title or control of the
applicant.
c. The city council may refer the final plat to the planning commission for
recommendation if it is found that the proposed final plat is substantially
different from the approved preliminary plat or the requirements of the
preliminary plat are not resolved. In such cases, the planning commission shall
submit a report thereon to the city council within 45 days.
d. The city administrator shall, as appropriate, submit reports and
recommendations to the city council.
e. Prior to city council approval of a final plat, the applicant shall have executed
a subdivision agreement with the city, which controls the installation of all
required improvements and ensures compliance with all conditions of
approval. The agreement shall specify whether public or private financing of
improvements or a combination of both shall be used for the development
improvements. Such agreement shall also require all improvements and
approval conditions to comply with approved engineering standards and
applicable regulations.
f. Approval of a final plat by the city council shall be by a majority vote of the
entire city council.
g. Upon receiving an approved final plat in conformance with the requirements
of the city, the designated representatives of the city shall sign the plat, and the
applicant, as a condition of approval, shall record the approved and signed
final plat with the county registrar of deeds within 60 days, or the approved
final plat shall be considered void.
h. The applicant shall, within 30 days of recording, furnish the city with three
blue or black line prints, two mylars (22 inches by 34 inches) of the final plat
showing evidence of the recording, one reduced scale (11 inches by 17 inches)
copy of the plat, and a digital copy in a format acceptable to the city engineer.
Failure to furnish such copies shall be grounds for refusal to issue building
permits for lots within a plat.
(b) Submission requirements. The applicant shall submit a final plat together with any
necessary supplementary information. The final plat, prepared for recording
purposes, shall be prepared in accordance with provisions of state statutes and
county regulations, and such final plat or accompanying submittals shall contain the
following information:
(1) Name of the subdivision which shall not duplicate or too closely
approximate the name of any existing plat theretofore recorded in the city and
which shall be subject to city council approval.
(2) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant/developer.
(3) Location by section, city, range, county, and state, and including descriptive
boundaries of the subdivision based on an accurate traverse, giving angular
and linear dimensions.
(4) The location of monuments shall be shown and described on the final plat.
Locations of such monuments shall be shown in reference to existing official
monuments on the nearest established street lines, including true angles and
distances to such reference points or monuments. The applicant shall provide
coordinating data on all subdivision monumentation in a format approved by
the city engineer.
(5) Location of lots, out lots, streets, public highways, and parks and other
features, with accurate dimensions in feet and decimals of feet, with the length
of radii and/or arcs of all curves, and with all other information necessary to
reproduce the plat on the ground shall be shown. Dimensions shall be shown
from all angle points of curve to lot lines.
(6) Lots and out lots shall be numbered clearly, blocks are to be numbered,
with numbers shown clearly in the center of the block.
(7) A drawing or listing of total square footage per lot, acreage per block, and
total acres in the plat.
(8) The exact locations, widths, and names of all streets to be dedicated.
(9) Location, purpose, and width of all easements to be dedicated.
(10) Name, registration, address, and phone number of surveyor making the
plat.
(11) The scale of the plat to be one inch to 20 feet to be shown graphically on a
bar scale, date, and north arrow.
(12) The applicant shall submit with the final plat certification to the city that
there are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, interest, or utility
fees due upon the parcel of land to which the subdivision application relates.
(13) Deed restrictions and protective covenants which involve a matter of
public concern.
(14) Statement dedicating all easements as follows: Easements for installation
and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are reserved over, under,
and along the designated areas marked "drainage and utility easements."
(15) Statement dedicating all streets and other public areas not previously
dedicated as follows: Streets and other public areas shown on this plat and not
heretofore dedicated to public use hereby so dedicated.
(16) A statement certifying the environmental condition of the site including the
presence of any hazardous substance as defined by Minn. Stats. § 115B.02.
Such a statement may be required to be based upon an environmental
assessment of the site by an environmental engineering firm acceptable to the
city.
(17) Final grading, utility, and development plans shall be prepared in
accordance with current federal, state, county, and city specifications.
(18) Such other information that may be required by the city.
• Certification required.
(a) Certification by registered surveyor in the form required by Minn. Stats. § 505.03.
(b) Execution by all owners of any interest in the land and holders of a mortgage
thereon of the certificates required by Minn. Stats. § 505.03, and which certificate shall
include a dedication of the utility easements and other public areas in such form as
approved by the city council.
(c) Space for certificates of approval and review to be filled in by the signatures of the
mayor and city manager in the following form:
For Approval of the City:
This plat of (name of plat) was approved and accepted by the City of Spring Park,
Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this _____ day of ___________, A.D. ___.
CITY COUNCIL OF SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA
• Sec. XX. - Denial of plat.
The city council may deny the subdivision if it makes any one or more of the following
findings:
(1) The proposed subdivision is in direct conflict with adopted applicable general and
specific comprehensive plans of the city, county, or state.
(2) The physical characteristics of this site and surrounding properties, including, but
not limited to, topography, percolation rate, soil conditions, susceptibility to erosion
and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such
that the site or surrounding property is not suitable for the type of development,
design, or use contemplated.
(3) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
(4) The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause
serious public health or safety problems.
(5) The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements of record or with easements established by judgment of a court.
(6) The proposed subdivision will not conform to the comprehensive plan, related
policies adopted by the city, and to the official zoning ordinance of the city.
Commented [LJ18]: See my comments on premature
subdivision. These could be meshed together.
(7) A proposed lot consolidation would eliminate a legal buildable lot in the R-1 or R-2
zoning districts.
(8) The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the rules and requirements of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the policies and standards of the state
defined shoreland districts and wetland districts.
(9) The proposed subdivision has an undue adverse effect on the flood carrying
capacity of the floodway, increases flood stages and velocities, or increases flood
hazards within the city.
(10) Any lot or block in the proposed subdivision is exceptionally narrow or shallow, or
is otherwise of any irregular or unusual shape.
(11) The subdivision is inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.
(12) The design of the subdivision does not integrate with existing or potential
adjacent subdivisions or land uses.
(13) The criteria for denial of preliminary plats have been considered.
• Sec. XX. - Resubmission of a final plat.
Whenever a final plat has been considered and denied by the city council, a similar
application and proposal affecting the same property shall not be considered again by
the planning commission or city council for at least six months from the date of its
denial, except as follows:
(1) If the applicant or property owner can clearly demonstrate that the
circumstances surrounding the previous application have changed significantly.
(2) The city council may reconsider such matter by a majority vote of the full
city council.
• Secs. XX. - Reserved.
• ARTICLE IV. - GENERAL STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
• Sec. XX. - Conformity with the comprehensive plan.
A proposed subdivision shall conform to the comprehensive plan and to all related
policies adopted by the city. Commented [LJ19]: This should be at the front of the
chapter
• Sec. XX. - Conformity with the zoning ordinance and city Code
requirements.
A proposed subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the zoning
ordinance and city Code requirements.
• Sec. XX. - Land requirements.
(a) Land shall be suited to the purpose for which it is to be subdivided. No plan shall
be approved if the site or surrounding area is not suitable for the purposes proposed
by reason of potential flooding, topography, or adverse soils.
(b) Land subject to hazards to life, health, or property shall not be subdivided until all
such hazards have been eliminated or unless adequate safeguards against such
hazards are provided by the subdivision plan.
(c) Proposed subdivisions shall be coordinated, if necessary, with surrounding
jurisdictions and/or neighborhoods, so that the city as a whole may develop efficiently
and harmoniously.
• Subdivision design standards and construction.
Subdivision design and construction standards, as they relate to grading, street, and
utility improvements for subdivisions under this chapter, shall be adopted by
ordinance of the city council and found as an appendix to these regulations. These
design standards may be amended from time-to-time by resolution. The subdivision
design features as adopted by the city are minimum requirements. The city may
impose additional or more stringent requirements concerning lot size, streets, and
overall subdivision design, as deemed appropriate based upon site considerations and
the comprehensive plan. Subdivision design standards, as they relate to lot design and
layout are as follows:
(1) Area. The minimum lot area, width, and depth shall not be less than that
established by the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of adoption of the
final plat.
(2) Corner lots. Corner lots for residential use shall have additional width to
permit appropriate building setback from both streets as required in the
zoning ordinance. When lots are located on a curve or when side lot lines are at
angles other than at 90 degrees, the width of the building setback lines shall be
shown.
Commented [LJ20]: Move to front of chapter
(3) Side lot lines. Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles to street
lines or radial to curved street lines.
(4) Frontage. Every lot shall have the minimum frontage on a city approved
public street, as required in the zoning ordinance.
(5) Setback lines. Setback lines shall be shown on the preliminary plat for all lots
and shall not be less than the setbacks required by the zoning ordinance, as
may be amended.
(6) Watercourses. Lots abutting a lake, watercourse, wetland, ponding area, or
stream shall have additional depth and width, as required under the provisions
of the zoning ordinance.
(7) Features. In the subdividing of any land, due regard shall be shown for all
natural features, such as tree growth, watercourses, historic locations, or
similar conditions which if preserved will add attractiveness and stability to the
proposed development.
(8) Lot remnants. All remnants of lots below minimum size, except out lots
created for specific public or private recreational use, must be added to
adjacent lots, rather than allowed to remain as unusable parcels.
(9) Political boundaries. No singular plat shall extend over a political boundary
without document notification to the affected units of government.
(10) Private streets. No new private streets shall be approved.
(11) Frontage on two streets. Double-frontage, or lots with frontage on two
parallel streets, shall not be permitted except: where lots back on arterial
streets or highways, on East or West Drive as they relate to Water Street, or
where topographic or other conditions render subdividing otherwise
unreasonable. Such double frontage lots shall have an additional depth of at
least 20 feet in order to allow space for screen planting along the back lot line.
(12) Access to arterial streets. In the case where a proposed plat is adjacent to a
limited access highway, other major highway, or other arterial street, there
shall be no direct vehicular access from individual lots to such streets and
roads.
(13) Alleys. No new residential alleys shall be permitted.
(14) Length. Block lengths shall not exceed 1,400 feet, and if possible, should
not be less than 500 feet in length.
(15) Arrangement. A block shall be so designated as to provide two tiers of lots,
unless it adjoins a railroad or limited access highway and unless topographical
conditions necessitate a single tier of lots.
(16) Pedestrian ways. In blocks over 500 feet long, a pedestrian way or easement
may be required in locations deemed necessary to public health, convenience,
and necessity. Such an easement shall not be less than 15 feet in width.
(17) Lots along thoroughfares. Residential lots shall be separated from major
thoroughfares and railroad rights-of-way by a minimum of a 15-foot buffer
strip, which may be in the form of added depth or width of lots backing on or
siding on a thoroughfare or railroad right-of-way. A screen planting easement
shall be granted to the city and shown upon the plat for the 15-foot buffer
strip, if it adjoins a major thoroughfare.
(18) Out lots. The creation of out lots is to be discouraged. In such cases where
out lots are created or exist, their area shall not be utilized in calculating
minimums for buildable lot area requirements. Such out lots are also
prohibited from qualifying for building permits except for public uses and
private recreational uses accessory to allowable uses within the respective
zoning district and which are properties under common ownership.
(19) Flag lots. Flag lots shall be prohibited unless the lot frontage conforms with
the minimum specifications within the city zoning district standards. In
addition, under those instances where future subdivision of lots is feasible, a
minimum public right-of-way pursuant to standards in this chapter shall be
provided and dedicated to the city.
• Sec. XX. - Planned unit developments and condominium subdivisions.
Planned unit development (PUD) and condominium subdivisions designed as a PUD
shall comply with all applicable minimum requirements of the city zoning ordinance
relating to construction of roadways, setbacks, and other matters as specified in a
development agreement, as approved by the city council.
• Sec. XX. - Sidewalks, trails, and pedestrian ways.
Adequate provisions for pedestrian and bicycle movement within the subdivision
along the subdivision, and to adjoining property shall be provided in compliance with
the comprehensive plan and policies established by the city council. All sidewalks,
trails, and pedestrian paths shall be designed and constructed according to
established city standards.
Cross reference— Streets, sidewalks, and other public places
Commented [LJ21]: Not sure why outlots are
discouraged? They may be needed for storm water
ponding, open space, etc.
Commented [LJ22]: Where are all these standards
located? Should be cited.
• Sec. XX. - Public utilities.
(a) All extensions of public utilities, including water and sanitary sewer systems, shall
be approved by the city engineer.
(b) Extensions of the water supply system shall be designed so as to provide public
water service to each lot. All water systems located in flood prone areas, whether
public or private, shall be floodproofed to a point at or above the regulatory flood
protection elevation. Water systems shall be in accordance with the subdivision design
standards and the requirements of the city engineer.
(c) Extension of the sanitary sewer system shall be designed so as to provide public
sewer service to each lot.
Cross reference— Utilities,
• Sec. XX. - Drainage.
All subdivisions shall be in compliance with the rules and requirements of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A complete and adequate drainage system
design shall be required for the subdivision and may include a storm sewer system or
system of open ditches, culverts, pipes, catch basins, ponding areas, and treatment or
a combination thereof. Diversion of stormwater to marshlands or swamps shall be
considered for existing or planned surface drainage and be pretreated prior to being
discharged. Pretreatment shall be considered satisfactory if the project meets the
water quality requirements of the City of Spring Parks Engineering Design Standards,
as well as Article 36 of the Zoning Code.
• Sec. XX. - Easements.
(a) All easements shall be dedicated by appropriate language on the final plat as
required by law and provisions of this chapter.
(b) Easements of not less than ten feet for drainage and public and private utilities
shall be provided on front lot lines and centered on rear, side, and other lot lines as
approved by the city council. When it is not practical to center easements, the fully
required easement width may be required along one property line. Such easements
shall have continuity of alignment from block to block. The easements, when
approved, shall not thereafter be changed without the approval of the city council
pursuant to established city regulations, as may be amended.
(c) Easements shall be provided along each side of the centerline of any natural
watercourse or drainage channel to a width sufficient to provide proper maintenance
and protection and to provide for stormwater runoff. Where necessary, drainage
easements corresponding with lot lines shall be provided. Such easements for
drainage purposes shall not be less than 20 feet in width or a width equal to the
required side yard setback established by the respective zoning district in which the
property is located, whichever is least.
(d) Easements established over wetlands and major gas pipelines, or major electrical
transmission easement areas shall be excluded from the calculation of minimum lot
area as defined by this chapter.
(e) The city may at its discretion choose to require out lots rather than easements for
wetlands, drainageways, and other natural features.
(f) Sightline easements beyond required zoning setback regulations may be required
by the city, county, and state highway department to protect major intersections on
the street and highway system.
• Sec. XX. - Erosion and sediment control.
(a) The development shall conform to the natural limitations presented by topography
and soil to create the least potential for soil erosion. All erosion sediment control
measures and land disturbing activities shall comply with the subdivision design
standards, the City's Engineering Design Standards of the Zoning Code, and as
required by the city engineer.
(b) Erosion and siltation control measures shall be coordinated with the different
stages of construction. Appropriate control measures shall be installed prior to
development when necessary to control erosion.
(c) Land shall be developed in increments of workable size such that adequate erosion
and siltation controls can be provided as construction progresses. The smallest
practical area of land shall be exposed at any one period of time.
(d) In the event that permanent stabilization cannot be feasibly obtained within 14
days after construction activity in that portion of the site has temporarily or
permanently ceased, and seven days if discharge points are located within one -mile of
an impaired or special waterbody, temporary soil stabilization BMPs must be
implemented within the timeframe.
(e) Where the topsoil is removed, sufficient arable soil shall be set aside for
respreading over the developed area. The soil shall be restored to a depth of four
inches and shall be of a quality at least equal to the soil quality prior to development.
Cross reference— Environment.
• Sec. XX. - Protected areas.
Where land proposed for subdivision is deemed environmentally sensitive by the city
due to the existence of water bodies, wetlands, drainageways, watercourses, floodable
areas, vegetation, steep slopes, or historic sites, the design of such subdivision shall
clearly reflect all necessary measures of protection to ensure against adverse
environmental impacts. Such measures, when deemed appropriate by the city, may
include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
(1) The establishment of easements and/or outlots over wetlands,
drainageways, watercourses, and water bodies.
(2) The implementation of flood control measures.
(3) The enlargement of lots or redesign of the subdivision.
(4) The submission of a tree preservation and replacement plans and subject to
the review of the city engineer and approval of the city council.
(5) The utilization of appropriate erosion control measures, subject to approval
by the city engineer.
(6) Soil testing to determine the ability of the proposed subdivision to support
development.
(7) Structure conformance to the natural limitations presented by the
topography and soil so as to create the least potential of soil erosion.
• Sec. XX. - Tree preservation and replacement.
All subdivisions shall comply with any provisions of the city Code relating to the
management, protection, and care of significant trees and other vegetative growth in
the city.
Cross reference— Vegetation,
• Sec. XX. - Public sites and open spaces (park land or cash dedication).
(a) As a prerequisite to final plat approval, and at the sole determination by the city,
applicants and/or developers shall dedicate land for parks, playgrounds, public open
spaces, or trails, and/or shall make a cash contribution to the city's park improvemen t
fund. The dedication shall be proportioned to the anticipated effect of the plat on the
Commented [LJ23]: This is not a tree preservation
chapter and there are no requirements for mitigation.
Commented [LJ24R23]: You do not have a tree
preservation ordinance. But would suggest one.
park and trail system. The requirement may be met with a combination of land and
cash if approved by the city council.
(b) Land to be dedicated shall be reasonably suitable for its intended use as
determined by the city and shall be at a location convenient to the public to be served.
Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed park and recreation areas shall
include size, shape, topography, geology, hydrology, tree cover, access, and location.
(c) The applicant shall confer with city staff and the advisory commissions of the city
council at the time the preliminary plat is under consideration, to secure a
recommendation as to the location of any property or a cash amount that should be
dedicated to the public. The preliminary plat shall show the location and dimensions
of all areas to be dedicated in this manner. Such contribution requirement
recommendations shall be sent to the park and recreation commission and planning
commission for review and comment and subsequently to the city council for its
approval.
(d) When a proposed park, playground, recreational area, or other public ground has
been indicated in the comprehensive plan or the park and open space plan and is
located, in whole or in part, within a proposed plat, it shall be dedicated to the
appropriate governmental unit. If the applicant elects not to dedicate an area in
excess of the land required under this section for a proposed public site that the city
determines is in the public interest to acquire, the city may consider acquiring the
excess land through purchase or condemnation.
(e) Where private open space for park and recreation purposes is provided in a
proposed subdivision, such areas shall not be used for credit against the requirement
of dedication for park and recreation purposes, unless the city council finds it is in the
public interest to do so.
(f) The city, upon consideration of the particular type of development, may require
that a smaller parcel of land should be dedicated due to particular features of the
development. In such cases, a cash contribution shall be required above the land
dedication to ensure that compensation is received for the full amount of the impact
on the city's park and trail system.
(g) In all new subdivisions, ten percent of the gross area subdivided, or a different
percentage as the city council shall determine to be reasonably necessary as a result
of the subdivision approval, shall be dedicated for public recreation space or other
public use as established by the city council. The dedicated percentage of the gross
area subdivided shall be in addition to property dedicated for streets, easements, or
other public ways. No areas may be dedicated for public use until such areas have
been approved by the city council. Land to be dedicated shall be of suitable quality for
the purpose intended and necessary for the health, safety, convenience, and general
welfare of the city.
Commented [LJ25]: Do you have a park and rec
commission?
Commented [LJ26]: Has this been discussed?
(h) If a cash dedication is required, the developer shall pay a fee based upon the land
use classification of the property (residential, commercial, or institutional) as
established by city council resolution. Such amount is the city's best estimate of the
effect of the subdivision on the city's park system.
(i) All land proposed for trail and/or bikeway dedication shall be subject to the
recommendations of the parks and recreation commission, and planning
commission, and the approval of the city council.
(j) When a subdivision is proposed, the developer shall make a dedication of
land for public trail and/or sidewalk use, as provided for in this chapter, or shall
pay a fee in lieu of such land dedication as established by city council
resolution. Such amount shall be the city's best estimate of the effect of the
subdivision on the city's trail system.
(k) The city may elect at its sole discretion to receive a combination of cash,
land, and development of the land for park and/or trail and/or sidewalk use in
accordance with city policy established by the city council.
(l) Park cash contributions are to be calculated and determined at the time of
final plat approval. The city council shall require the payment at the time of
final plat approval.
(m) Cash contributions for parks and trails shall be deposited in the city's park
improvement fund and shall only be used for park improvements and
trail/sidewalk development, as determined by the city. Additionally, such funds
may be utilized anywhere within the city park and trail systems.
(n) Wetlands, ponding areas, and drainageways accepted by the city may not be
considered in the park land and/or cash contribution to the city.
(o) Property being replatted with the same number of lots or the same number
of dwelling units shall be exempt from all park land dedication requirements. If
the number of lots or the number of dwelling units is increased, or if land
outside the previously recorded plat is added, then the park land dedication
and/or park cash contributions shall be based on the additional lots and on the
additional land being added to the plat.
(p) When land is dedicated and deeded to and accepted by the city for park
purposes, it shall be the responsibility of the city to maintain such dedicated
property.
(q) Land dedication to the city shall be in the form of lots or outlots with
approved lot and block numbers.
Commented [LJ27]: See above question
(r) If the applicant or developer does not believe that the estimates, as
determined by this chapter, fairly and accurately represent the effect of the
subdivision on the park or trail system of the city, the applicant or developer
may request that the city prepare an in-depth study of the effect of the
subdivision on the park and trail system and an estimate of that effect in
money and/or land. All costs of such study shall be borne by the developer or
applicant. If the developer or applicant requests the preparation of such a
study, no application for development shall be deemed complete until the
study has been completed, and a determination is made as to the appropriate
amount of land or money necessary to offset the effects of the subdivision.
• Sec. XX. - Dedication of stormwater holding areas or ponds.
The applicant may be required to dedicate to the public land for stormwater holding
areas or ponds. The stormwater holding area dedication shall not be considered part
of the dedication for parks and recreation purposes or trail/bikeway purposes.
Maintenance of stormwater holding ponds or other water retention areas is the
responsibility of the applicant for the first five years, and cash shall be held by the city
for pond maintenance under the provisions of the subdivision agreement.
• Sec. XX. - Maintenance of private open space.
If certain land areas or structures are provided within the subdivision for private
recreational use or as service facilities, the owner of such land and buildings shall
enter into an agreement with the city to ensure the continued operation and
maintenance to a predetermined reasonable standard. These common areas may be
placed under the ownership of one of the following depending upon which the city
shall determine is most appropriate:
(1) Dedicated to public where community-wide use would be anticipated;
(2) Applicant's ownership and control; or
(3) Property owners' association ownership and control, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
a. The property owners' association must be established prior to the
sale of any lot;
b. Membership must be mandatory for each owner and any successor
in interest;
c. The open space restrictions must be in perpetuity, not for a given
period of years;
Commented [LJ28]: I think it would be better here to say
something about the developer doing an independent
study of fair market value. I can give you examples.
d. The association must be responsible for liability insurance, local
taxes, and the maintenance of the recreational area and facilities;
e. Landowners must pay their prorated share of the cost and any
assessment levied by the association that can become a lien on the
property in accordance with law; and
f. The association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet
changed needs.
• REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT
• Sec. XX. - Improvements required.
Prior to the approval of a final plat by the city council, the applicant shall have agreed,
in the manner set forth in this section, to install the following improvements on the
site when required by the city council, in conformity with approved construction plans
and in conformity with all applicable standards and ordinances:
(1) Monuments shall be placed at all block corners, angle points, points of
curves, in streets, and at intermediate points as shown on the final plat and as
required by the city engineer. Pipes or steel rods shall be placed at the corners
of each lot and at each intersection of street center lines. All United States,
state, county, or other official benchmarks, monuments, or triangulation
stations in or adjacent to the property shall be preserved in precise position. All
monuments shall be set in accordance with Minn. Stats. ch. 505.
(2) The full width of the right-of-way of each street dedicated in the plat shall be
cleared and graded as outlined in the subdivisions design standards of this
chapter.
(3) All streets shall be improved with concrete or bituminous surface, except as
may be approved by action of the city council as part of a subdivision agreement.
Pavement standards are outlined in the subdivision design standards of this
chapter.
(4) Public water facilities shall be installed in accordance with the standards
and specifications as outlined in the subdivision design standards of this
chapter and subject to the approval of the city engineer, at the expense of the
applicant.
(5) Public sanitary waste disposal systems shall be installed in accordance with
the standards and specifications as outlined in the subdivision design
standards of this chapter and subject to the approval of the city engineer, at
the expense of the applicant.
(6) Concrete curb and gutter, as recommended by the city engineer and
approved by the city council, shall be installed along both sides of all streets to
the standards listed in the subdivision design standards of this chapter.
(7) Such facilities and easements shall be installed at the expense of the
applicant under city approval and will adequately provide for the drainage of
surface waters, and a storm sewer system may be required. Drainageway
easements or land dedication may be required when such easements or land is
needed in the public interest for purposes of floodplain management, proper
drainage, wetland protection, prevention of erosion, pedestrian access to water
bodies, or other public purpose.
(8) All utilities including, but not limited to, telecommunications, electric and/or
gas lines, shall be placed as outlined in the subdivision design standards of this
chapter.
(9) Where a larger size water main, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, storm drain, or
similar facility is required to serve areas outside the subdivision than would be
required by the subdivision design standards, the incremental cost for the
larger facility shall be at the city's expense, unless provided for as outlined in
the subdivision agreement.
(10) Street name signs, traffic control signs, pavement marking, and other
improvements as required by the city engineer shall be installed and paid for
by the applicant.
• Sec. XX. - Construction plans, inspection, and warranty.
(a) Construction plans for the required improvements conforming in all respects with
the standards and ordinances of the city shall be prepared at the applicant's expense
by a professional engineer who is registered in the state, and such plans shall contain
professional certification. Such plans, together with the quantities of construction
items, shall be submitted to the city engineer for an estimate of the total costs of the
required improvements and recommendations to the city council. Upon city council
approval, such plans shall become a part of the required written agreement. The
mylar copies of the plans approved by the engineer, plus four prints, shall be
furnished to the city to be filed as a public record.
(b) All required improvements on the site that are to be installed under the provisions
of this chapter shall be constructed under the periodic observation of the city, at the
applicant's expense, and acceptance by the city shall be subject to the city engineer's
certificate of substantial compliance with the contract.
(c) The applicant and/or developer shall provide to the city a written warranty of a
minimum of two years that all required improvements on the site meet or exceed all
city standards, that such improvements have been inspected and tested in regards to
the city standards, and a warranty bond for 150 percent of the city engineer's estimate
of the cost of the improvements. The applicant and/or developer shall be responsible
for having all such inspections and testing completed at their expense.
(d) Any work which, in the opinion of the city engineer, does not meet the
specifications set forth in this section shall, upon written order from the city engineer,
be removed immediately and replaced, or corrected and paid for by the applicant. The
cost of all inspection and supervision required to ensure correction of the
unacceptable work and all tests necessary to ensure that such faulty work has been
corrected shall be paid for by the applicant. The city will not accept any street for
permanent maintenance until after correction of faulty or unacceptable construction.
• Sec. XX. - Installation of improvements.
(a) The required improvements as listed are to be furnished and installed at the sole
expense of the applicant. If any improvement installed within the subdivision will be of
substantial benefit to lands beyond the boundaries of the subdivision, provision may
be made for causing a portion of the cost of the improvement, representing the
benefit to such lands, to be allocated in accordance with city policies.
(b) The city reserves the right to elect to install all or any portion of the improvements
required under this section pursuant to state statutes, as may be amended. The city
may require the applicant to post a financial guarantee, as outlined to ensure paymen t
of assessments for the costs of installing the required improvements.
• Sec. XX. – Subdivision agreement.
(a) Private installation of improvements.
(1) Prior to approval of the plat and the installation of any required
improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement in writing with the
city requiring the applicant/developer to furnish and construct such
improvements at their sole cost and in accordance with plans and
specifications and usual contract conditions. This shall include provision for
observation of details of construction by the city. The agreement shall require
all public and private utility material standards and installation requirements
be met and shall be approved by the city engineer.
(2) The agreement shall require the applicant to make a financial guarantee as
determined by the city. The amount of the deposit or penalty amount of the
security is to be based on the city engineer's estimate of the total cost of the
Commented [LJ29]: I would call this a development
agreement
Commented [LJ30]: The developer will be required to
provide cost estimates of all improvements and the financial
guarantee/escrow would be based off of that. Most DA’s
have worksheets for this.
improvements to be furnished under the contract, including the cost of
inspection. The deposit or penalty amount shall equal 150 percent of the city
engineer's estimate.
(3) On request of the applicant, but at the sole discretion of the city, the
agreement may provide for completion of part or all of the improvements
covered thereby prior to acceptance of the plat. In such event, and if evidence
is presented that the described work and improvements have been paid for,
the amount of the deposit or bond may be reduced in a sum equal to the
estimated cost of the improvements so completed prior to the acceptance of
the plat.
(4) The time for completion of the work and the several parts of such work shall
be determined by the city council, upon recommendation of the city engineer
after consultation with the applicant. It shall be reasonable with relation to the
work to be done, the seasons of the year, and proper coordination with
construction activities in the plat and subdivision.
(b) City installation of improvements.
(1) Any person desiring to have utility and street improvements installed may
request the city to install them, subject to the conditions set out in subsection
(b)(2) of this section and to the approval and authorization thereof by the city
council and as authorized by state law.
(2) If approved by the city council, the person requesting the installation of
such utility and street improvements shall supply a security amount approved
by the city guaranteeing payment for the installation of the improvements in
an amount based on the city engineer's estimate of the total cost of the
improvements to be installed. The deposit or penalty amount shall equal 150
percent of the city engineer's estimate of the cost of installation of the
improvements. The security to be supplied to the city shall be payable on such
terms and conditions as found by the city council to be reasonable and
necessary to ensure that the costs of the improvements are properly secured
and paid. The terms of the subdivision agreement shall provide that the city
shall install the on-site public utility improvements within three years from the
date of the plat and within such period the subdivider shall pay for all costs of
such improvements. Any balance remaining after such im provements have
been made and paid for shall be returned to the applicant. If insufficient cash is
held in escrow to pay for the improvements, special assessments shall be
levied for the purpose of paying for the same. The city council shall have the
privilege of extending the three-year period available for construction of
improvements.
Commented [LJ31]: Please have John look at
Commented [LJ32]: This should be something the
developer provides. This language might be ok, but it
should be spelled out how the city engineer is making the
determination so there is no ambiguity.
• Sec. XX. - Financial guarantee.
(a) Generally. The agreement provided for in section 30-184 shall require the applicant
to make a financial guarantee as determined by the city. The escrow deposit, certified
check, irrevocable letter of credit, or other guarantee shall conform to the
requirements of this section.
(b) Escrow deposit; certified check.
(1) If an escrow deposit or certified check is required, the escrow deposit or
certified check shall be made out to the city in a sum equal to 150 percent of
the total costs calculated by the city for all the improvements to be furnished
and installed by the applicant pursuant to the contract, which have not been
completed prior to approval of the plat. An additional cash deposit shall be
furnished for costs of city inspections, and any necessary review by the city
engineer and city attorney. Such deposit shall be equal to a sum determined by
the city engineer.
(2) The city shall be entitled to reimburse itself out of such deposit or check for
any cost and expense incurred by the city for completion of the work in case of
default of the applicant under such agreement, and for any damage sustained
on account of any breach of such agreement.
(3) Upon completion of the work and termination of any liability, the balance
remaining in such deposit or check from this subsection (b) shall be refunded
to the applicant upon approval by the city attorney.
(c) Irrevocable letter of credit.
(1) If the applicant is required to furnish an irrevocable letter of credit, the
penal sum shall be payable to the order of the city and delivered to the city in
an amount calculated by the city engineer, of all the improvements to be
furnished and installed by the applicant pursuant to the contract, which have
not been completed prior to the approval of the plat. An additional cash
deposit shall be furnished for costs of city inspections. Such deposit shall be
equal to a sum determined by the city engineer.
(2) The irrevocable letter of credit shall be approved as to form by the city
attorney and filed with the city administrator.
(3) The city shall be entitled to reimburse itself out of such letter of credit for
any cost and expense incurred by the city for completion of the work in case of
default of the applicant under such contract, and for any damages sustained
on account of any breach of contract.
Commented [LJ33]: This should be more clear so as not
to give the developer the option. It should be at LOC with a
percentage of the deposit in cash, usually 10 percent. I
would not allow bonds—to hard to draw on if things go
south.
Commented [LJ34]: This could be city engineer
(4) Upon completion of the work and termination of any liability, the letter of
credit shall be released or returned to the applicant upon approval by the city
attorney.
(d) Other financial guarantees. Other methods of financial guarantee may be accepted
by the city pursuant to the approval of the city manager and city attorney.
• Sec. XX. - Improvements completed prior to approval of the final plat.
Improvements within a subdivision which have been completed prior to application
for approval of the final plat, or execution of the contract for installation of the
required improvements, shall be accepted as equivalent improvements in compliance
with the requirements of this chapter only if the city engineer certifies that the existing
improvements conform to applicable standards and if evidence of payment for the
work that has been completed is presented in such form as the city reasonably
requires.
Note: It would be worthwhile to consult the League of Mn cities subdivision
regulations guidance on several items.