The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About97-028 Variance " " Planning Case File No. q 1- f)'J ~ Property Identification No. rior Lake APPLICATION 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional o Rezoning, from (present zonin~ sheets/narrative if desired) to (proposed zonin~) Con s t ruct a new home on o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance the propert y . o Subdivision of Land o Administrative Subdivision o Conditional Use Permit UI Variance o Other: Applicable Ordinance Section(s): Applicant(s): Pi nna~' e Partners. Ltd. Address: P.O. Box 24038 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Home Phone: N/A Work Phone: 432-7900 Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]: Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Type of Ownership: Fee ~ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): 1.:. "f :J ';). . R If rI tp a .. S' ..> c.... ~ Ctn,Ao..... -I-v ~ / jut. d $ 0 >'-q PI D : 2504'2 - 0 1 30" ./ , . To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that appli at" ns w' I no be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee. INNA E P N S, LTD. ~ 4-2-97 Applican hn Ryan, Pres. Date I E P John Ryan, res. 4-2-97 Date THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL APPROVED APPROVED DENIED DENIED DATE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee lu-app2.doc Date ----------- ---.. .:-r. """i''''g~''~. .,,..,..>.~,..,.. """"~".'~,,,...,~" :"or: ",.....:.~:"R'."".(:. "~.l t.' ,,,-, 7~!': .l!~l' .",,~' ""'~'~"'~""'~:""'"",",,:".~. ,"Vpp;~. "., -: "{':'~~,:,,:~~\'~n: '.",<-:,.. r,'" ~:'j'r:'."<i'Cr ,7",.. . '. I'r'" RECEIPT N~ 29944 ~/L/-q7 DATE CITY OF PRIQR LAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE. S,E.. PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372 Rece hed of -D. vJcUYld whose address and/or legal description iS~~lrd~ t2ed iht~ t?d the sum of 60-u~~ f!j ,~ for the purpos; of ',.' ; ~S2- lars $ I )"f) 00 Invoice No. /;71 .. /). I Receip~ lerk for the City of Prior Lake Staff Reports L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC - t. STAFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: 7A JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #97-XX APPROVING AN APPEAL BY PINNACLE PARTNERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCES TO THE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHW), THE SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF A BLUFF, AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE BLUFF IMP ACT ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15408 RED OAKS ROAD, Case File #97-028 JUNE 16, 1997 DATE: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal by Pinnacle Partners of the decision of the Planning Commission to deny several variances for the construction of a dwelling on the property located at 15408 Red Oaks Road. BACKGROUND: Pinnacle Partners submitted an application for several variances to allow the construction of a single family dwelling with an attached garage and deck on an existing substandard lot. The application included a variance to allow a lot width of 49.53' instead of the required 50', and to allow a lot area of 7,374 square feet instead of the required 7,500 square feet. The applicant also requested the following setback variances: L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-028\97-028CC.DOC Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Proposed Setback Setback Requirement (substandard lot) 25 feet 5 feet (one side) 10 feet (other side) 75 feet 30 feet 20 feet from top of bluff Variance Requested Front Yard Side Yards OHW Setback op of Bluff Bluff Impact 70ne (20 feet rom top of bluff) 25 feet 5 feet (on south side) 10 feet (on north side) 52 feet 4 feet 4 feet from top of bluff None None 23 feet 26 feet 16 feet A more detailed explanation of these variances is included in the attached Planning Report, dated April 28, 1997. On April 28, 1997 the Planning Commission heard variance requests from Pinnacle Partners. The Planning Commission concurred with the staff recommendation and approved the variances to lot width at the front yard setback and lot area. The Planning Commission cited as a hardship the fact that this is an existing lot and the width and lot area are not under control of the developer as rationale for approving these two variances. Upon review of the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission denied the setback variances on the basis of lack of hardship. The Planning Commission felt that the design of the house is within the total control of the applicant and the variances can be eliminated upon redesign of the structure. A smaller structure, maximizing the legal building envelope, and utilizing a more appropriate design is a viable alternative to the variance requests. The attached minutes of the April 28, 1997, Planning Commission meeting summarize the discussion of this variance request. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission based the denial of this variance request on the following factors: 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance is literally enforced. In this case, there is a legal alternative for the L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-028\97-028CC.DOC Page 2 applicant, and that is to build the proposed structure smaller to meet the setbacks as not to encroach upon the required setbacks. The building envelope can accommodate alternative layouts. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstances are the lot area and width and topography ofthe lot. However, the applicant can reduce the size and design of the proposed dwelling to meet the required setbacks. Thus, the hardship is not a result of unique circumstances to the property, but rather the result of the chosen design of the structure. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. The setback variance requests due to the size and shape of the proposed structure are controlled by the applicant. If the applicant reduces the size of the proposed structure and maximizes the area of the legal building envelope, the setbacks can be met and variances will not be necessary. The applicant has control over the proposed structure of which their size and location are not hardships. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The size and location of the proposed structure on the lot are not greatly inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The property to the north is setback 25 feet from the front property line and 54 feet from the OHW and is located within the Bluff Impact Zone. However, the property to the south (and several others in the Red Oaks addition) are older cabins and small vacant lots. Staff anticipates the future development of these lots into year round single family dwellings requesting similar variances. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution 97-XX denying the appeal by Pinnacle Partners and upholding the decision of the L\97FILES\97V AR\97 -028\97 -028CC.DOC Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: Planning Commission. 2. Approve Pinnacle Partners' appeal by overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and approving the requested variance. In this case, the Council should direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact supporting the variance. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Council. Alternative # 1. Motion and second adopting the attached Resolution #97-XX, denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-028\97-028CC.DOC Page 4 RESOLUTION 97-XX DENYING (1) A 26 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, AND (2) A 16 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS DRAWN IN EXHIBIT A, CASE NO. 97-028, FOR PINNACLE PARTNERS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15408 RED OAKS ROAD MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the 28th day of April, 1997, to act on setback variance requests by Pinnacle Partners for property legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has denied the setback variance requests based on lack of hardship as determined upon review of the hardship criteria set forth in City Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decisions to the City Council; and the City Council heard the appeal on June 16, 1997; and the City Council, upon hearing the facts, concurs with the decision made by the Planning Commission to deny the setback variance requests. WHEREAS, WHEREAS, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. The Planning Commission held a hearing on April 28, 1997 to review (1) a 23 foot variance request to permit a 52 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark of prior lake (904 el.) rather than the minimum requirement of 75 feet, and (2) a 26 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback from the top of bluff rather than the minimum requirement of 30 feet, and (3) a 16 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback within the bluff impact zone rather than the required 20 feet for a proposed single family dwelling as drawn in Exhibit A, for Pinnacle Partners in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property 16200 Ek\~fif~~~cl<'~\8J~~~~r~Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~8f47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks Road 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the variance requests as contained in Case File #97-028, and denied the setback variance requests based on the lack of hardship determined upon review of the hardship criteria set forth in the City Code. 3. The Prior Lake City Council reviewed this appeal on June 16, 1997. 4. The City Council has considered the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning Commission upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The City Council has reviewed the hardship criteria in relation to the setback variance requests for the proposed structure as shown in Exhibit A. 6. The City Council has determined that there are no unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property that are not the fault or cause of the applicants. 7. 8. The City Council has determined that literal enforcement of the ordinance will not result in undue hardship, as the applicant's can build a structure on the property within the legal building envelope. 9. The contents of Planning Case File #97-028 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. CONCLUSION Since the application was received and reviewed by the Planning Commission, the City Council has amended the OHW setback on General Development Lakes to be 50 feet, rather than the previous setback of 75 feet. Therefore, the 23 foot variance request to allow a OHW setback of 52 feet rather than the required 75 foot OHW setback is irrelevant. Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby denies the setback variance requests and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny (1) a 26 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback from the top of bluff rather than the minimum requirement of 30 feet, and (2) a 16 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback within the bluff impact zone rather than the required 20 feet for a proposed single family dwelling as drawn in Exhibit A, Case No. 97-028, for Pinnacle Partners on property located at 15408 Red Oaks Road Passed and adopted this 16th day of June, 1997. 1:\97files\97var\97 -028\ccres.doc Page 2 Andren Kedrowski Mader Schenck {Seal} 1 :\97files\97var\97 -028\ccres.doc YES Andren Kedrowski Mader Schenck NO City Manager, City of Prior Lake Page 3 PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP . 1.4093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 vUlley ~urveying CO., P. A. SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 EXHIBIT A l{tJ)rn@rn QWrn1fm WI <PH ~J~ '" '" LaKe J r, -.2. '- ~I prior EI.. gOI.5 4 I I I 91 ... o { DESC1UPTION: \ Lot 22 RED OAKS, proposed house \ NCll'ES' Benchmark Scott County, Minnesota. Also location of the Elevation 935.85 top of the existing garage slab on lot 23. 93;;.6 Denotes existing grade elevation (939.0 ) Denotes proposed finished grade elevations --+ Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 941.01 Set the top block at elevation 942.82 ~ The lowest floor elevation will be 931.19 Net Lot Area above el. 904.0 = 7,374 sq. ft. Net proposed impervious coverage = 29.9 " o I SCALE 30 60 I REVISED ,4/""96 DECK TO BLUFF DIST. REVISED 4/2197 TO SHOW HSE. FUPPED III GARAGE III CABIN REMOVED. REVISED 1/30/97 TO SHOW TOP OF BAN<, TOE OF SLOPE a CABIN ON LOT 20 1 h.,.by e.rtlfy thot tli. _y WOI prtfXJl'rd by me or lJrtd.r '"l' dlroet "",,,,,,.ion OM thot 10'"' duly I/e.nsed Lond SOItVPjOr under the I thl S'O"~o~nn.'o' /p;-) IN FEET o O.note. 1/2 Ineh , 14/neh Iron monument lit and morhd by lie.nI. No. 1018 J . O.nolu Iron monum.nt found ~ n.n,,'''. Jl t( N"jJ .., May-01-97 02:5BP Paramount Homes Inc. 612-431-2016 C' .UO 710.2 lIC KNIGHT HOlIES P.Ol POl PINNACLE PARTNERS, LTD. P.O. Box 24038 Apple Valley MN 55124 May 1, 1997 Don Rye City Planning Prior Lake. MN 55372 Reference: 1 5408 Red Oaks Road SE Don Rye~ We elect to appeal the denial of variaJu;es and request the earliest possible City Council meeting date. Sincerely, c...--- JRljp PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1997 1. Call to Order: The April 28, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Wu net at 7:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Wuellner, Kuykendall, St on and V oOOof, Director of Planning Don Rye, anning Coordinator Jane Kansier, and anner Jenni Tovar. Stamson Kuykendall Criego V oOOof Wuellner Prese Pre nt sent Present Present 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE APRIL V ote taken signified a s by Kuykendall, V 000 and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED. 4. None 5. None 6. New Business: x A. Case #97-028 Variance request from Pinnacle Partners: Lot width at the front yard set back; square foot variance to permit a minimum lot area; setback from the Ordinary High Water Level; and setback from bluff for the property at 15408 Red Oaks Road. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report. The applicant proposes to construct a new single-family residence on the existing lot and is requesting the following variances: (1) lot area: the existing lot is 126' short of the 7500 square foot minimum requirement and 0.47' short of the 50' minimum width at front yard setback; (2) setback from Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark: 23' variance (52' setback requested; ordinance requires 75'); (3) setback from top of bluff: 26' variance (4' setback requested; ordinance requires 30') and (4) bluff impact zone: 16' variance (ordinance allows no structures within 20' oftop ofbluft). 1:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin \mn042897.doc ]w~~u Page 1 Staff suggested the variance for lot area and lot width would qualify as a hardship out of applicant's control. Staff recommends the otherrequested variances be eliminated or reduced, as they do not qualify as hardships out of applicant's control. The DNR recommends no top-of-bluff or bluff impact zone variances be granted. Comments from the Public: Bud Waund, representing applicant Pinnacle Partners, explained the proposed house. Mr. Waund pointed out Lots 1 through 26 are also 50 foot lots and compared the site to other lake lots with bluff impacts. He felt if the applicants built a smaller house, it would lower the value of the lot. Rose Heinicke, 15398 Red Oaks Road, stated she was concerned with the side yard and bluff setbacks but felt anything that goes on the lot will increase the value of her home. Marv Mirsch, the owner of adjoining Lot 21, objected to the 5 foot setback as stated in the Notice. Mr. Mirsch also said he did not want to see the mature oak trees removed. Mr. Waund said they would make every attempt to preserve the trees and shrubs by using a high density building envelope. Comments from the Commissioners: V onhof: . Agreed with staff's recommendations. . Tree ordinance does not apply. Trees are on lot line. . Favors tabling the matter to see City Attorney's opinion. Kuykendall: . Agreed with staff report. . No foundation to deal with trees. . Questioned involvement with Pinnacle Partners. Stamson: . Agreed with some conflict in ordinance but did not apply in this case. . Lot area and width is a hardship. . Setbacks are a result of design decisions of owners. . Could use other building techniques. . Bluff setback variances are contrary to intent. . Drainage problems would be avoided by cutting down size of house. 1:\97 files\97pIcornrn \pernio \mn042897 .doe -::-'\ , i : ! L.J IT'. J~ \ C; 'l? U\J U~ u U Page 2 Wuellner: . Fairlawn Avenue structure is out of bluff impact zone. . No variance - appealed setback averaging. . Agreed with Commis,sioner Stamson . Cannot legally grant variance for design because it is not a hardship. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97- 12PC GRANTING A .47 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.53 LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET AND A 126 SQUARE FOOT V ARIAi"TCE TO PERMIT A LOT AREA OF 7,374 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE 7,500 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT. DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION DENYING (1) A 23 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET, AND (2) A 26 FOOT V ARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, AND (3) A 16 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE F Ai\1IL Y DWELLING. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. & C. Case 7-031 and 97-032 Annexation petition from and Deerfield De lopment for acreage in Spring Lake To esenbrink Construction ship. Planning Coordinator J e Kansier presented the sta rep9rts. This parcel is part of 270 acres owned by the develo . The developer has etitioned to annex the entire area; there are two petitions because wnership of th parcels is under two separate names. This property is currently located .thin the rderly Annexation area in Spring Lake Township. The petitioner has reques t annexation of this property in order to develop the land with municipal servic . The developer is proposing a mi a use develo ent on the entire 270 acres. The development includes about 6 acres of industrial! ercialland in the eastern half of the parcel. It also includes mixture of residentiallan uses, starting with R-l development on the no side, then R-2 and R-3 develop ent to the south and west. There is also a poten . 1 high school site consisting of 80 to 0 acres on this parcel. The total number of d elling units on the site at buildout may vary m 400 units to 800 units, dependi on whether or not the school district locates a hig chool on this site. The density fthe site can range from 1.5 units per acre to 3 units per' cre. The City originally proposed to include this site in the expanded Metropolitan Urban Service Area when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 1996; however, the acreage 1:\97files\97plcomm \pcmin \mn042897.doc ]m~Rc;r o Lt. L~ Lr U Page 3 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 6A CONSIDER A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE, LOT AREA VARIANCE, ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHW) SETBACK VARIANCE, TOP OF BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE, AND A BLUFF IMPACT ZONE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR PINNACLE PARTNERS, Case File #97 -028 15408 RED OAKS ROAD JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ~ l~ JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES l NO APRIL 28, 1997 The Planning Department received a variance application from Pinnacle Partners who is proposing to construct a new single family residence with attached garage and deck. An existing cabin was removed this past winter in anticipation of the proposed construction. The lot is located in the Red Oaks subdivision on Prior Lake. DISCUSSION: Lot 22, Red Oaks was platted in 1930. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels. Lot attributes are as follows: Size Requirement to Variance be Buildable Requested (as a substandard lot) Area 7,374 sq. feet 7,500 sq. feet 126 sq. feet (above 904 el) Lot Width 49.53 feet 50.00 feet .4 7 feet (measured at setback) OHW Width 53.13 feet N/A N/A 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The proposed structure has a footprint of 1,638 square feet, and a total floor area (on three levels) of approximately 3,400 square feet plus the deck. The lowest level will be a walk-out to the yard. The proposed impervious surface is 29.9%. The structure will have the following setbacks: Proposed Setback Setback Variance Requirement Requested (as a substandard lot) Front Yard 25 feet 25 feet None Side Yards 5 feet (on south side) 5 feet (one side) None 10 feet (on north side) 10 feet (other sides) OHW Setback 52 feet 75 feet 23 feet Top of Bluff 4 feet 30 feet 26 feet Bluff Impact 4 feet from top of 20 feet from top of 16 feet Zone (20 feet bluff bluff from top of bluff) The legal building envelope is approximately 34.5 feet wide and 36-40 feet deep, resulting in an area footprint of approximately 1300 sq. feet. Considering that a two car garage is approximately 480 sq. feet (20 by 24 feet), the footprint remaining for the habitable part of the structure would be approximately 820 square feet. The proposed garage is setback 25 feet, and the dwelling part of the structure is setback approximately 17 feet from the front of the garage (43 feet from the front property line). The deck is setback 4 feet from the top of the bluff (within the bluff impact zone), and the habitable part of the structure is setback about 11 feet from the top of the bluff. The applicant is proposing to excavate approximately 10 feet of the existing bluff. The current elevation at the top of the bluff is 941. The applicant is proposing to construct a walk-out structure with a floor elevation of 931 . Generally, the ordinance prohibits the placement of fill and excavation materials in the bluff impact areas. A variance to the bluff impact zone and top of bluff setback would allow the applicant to excavate and fill as indicated on the survey. If a variance to the bluff impact zone or setback to the top of the bluff are granted, then the resolution should specify that storm water be diverted from the roof away from the bluff towards the front of the house. This could be achieved with gutters and/or grading. Pat Lynch, of the DNR, has recommended that no variance to top of bluff or bluff impact zone be granted. Furthermore, the excavating of the bluff does not meet the intent of the Shoreland District in the preservation of the natural features of Prior Lake. He is of the opinion that the proposed house is not conducive to this lot due to the size and topography of the lot. 97-012pc.doc Page 2 - -- -- -- -- --- -- ..- -..-...-------- ---- - -- The property to the north is constructed in the bluff impact area. However, when this house was constructed (1992) there was no bluff impact setback required. Amendments to the Shoreland Ordinance that went into effect in September of 1995 included the bluff impact setback. The property to the north received a 21 foot variance to the OHW and an 8% impervious surface coverage variance. This resulted in a structure that is setback 52 feet from the OHW and a lot that has impervious surface coverage of 38%. VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance is literally enforced. In this case, there is a legal alternative for the applicant, and that is to build the proposed structure smaller to meet the setbacks as not to encroach upon the required setbacks. The building envelope can accommodate alternative layouts. However, the variance requests to lot area and width are existing conditions. There is a hardship with respect to the property because those dimensions cannot be changed to meet the criteria of the ordinance. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstances are the lot area and width. Considering that those are existing conditions created in 1930 and they cannot be altered to meet the ordinance requirements, hardships do exists for lot area and width. With respect to the setback variances, the applicant could reduce the size of the proposed addition to meet the required setbacks. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. The lot is considered to be substandard. The lot area is 7,374 sq. feet and the lot width is 49.53 at the required front setback. These are conditions which have been existing since the property was platted in 1930. The lot area and width are hardships that are not the result of the applicant's actions. The setback variance requests due to the size and shape of the proposed structure are controlled by the applicant. If the applicant reduces the size of the proposed structure and maximizes the area of the legal building envelope, the setbacks can be met and variances will not be necessary. The 97 -012pc.doc Page 3 applicant has control over the proposed structure of which their size and location are not hardships. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The size and location of the proposed structure on the lot are not greatly inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The property to the north is setback 25 feet from the front property line and 54 feet from the OHW and is located within the Bluff Impact Zone. However, the property to the south (and several others in the Red Oaks addition) are older cabins and small vacant lots. Staff anticipates the future development of these lots into year round single family dwellings requesting similar variances. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded that the variance requests for lot area and width are substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no control over. However, there do exist legal alternatives for which the applicant could build the proposed structure. A reduction of the proposed dwelling and the full utilization of the legal building envelope are viable alternatives to the granting of setback variances. If variances to the Bluff Setback are granted, the Resolution should include specifications that storm water be diverted from the roof of the structure away from the bluff as to reduce erosion of the bluff. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. ACTION REQUIRED: Staff recommends approval of the variances to lot width and lot area for the reasons discussed above. The attached Resolution 97-12PC is consistent with this recommendation. If the Commission agrees with this recommendation, a 97 -012pc.doc Page 4 motion and second to adopt Resolution 97-12PC is needed. If the Commission feels additional variances are appropriate, you should direct the staff to prepare a resolution approving those variances with findings for Commission approval at the next meeting. 97 -012pc.doc Page 5 RESOLUTION 97-12PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING A .47 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.53 LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET AND A 126 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT AREA OF 7,374 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE 7,500 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Pinnacle Partners has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-028 and held hearings thereon on April 28, 1997. 3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property, and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located. The unique circumstances applicable to this property include the substandard lot size, the fact that the property was platted prior to the incorporation of the city. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 6. The granting of the variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants, but are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors listed. above do not allow for an alternative location of the proposed structure without variances. 7. The contents of Planning Case 97-028 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variances has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and approves the following variances for future development on the lot meeting required setbacks; 1. A.47 foot variance permitting a 49.53 foot lot width at the required front yard setback instead of the required 25 foot lot width. 2. A 126 square foot variance permitting a lot area of 7,374 square feet instead of the required area of7,500 square feet to be buildable as a substandard lot. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 28, 1997. ~JJJJar ~ue Iner, Acting Chair 1:\97var\97-028va\97-12PC.doc 2 -- RESOLUTION 97-13PC A RESOLUTION DENYING (1) A 23 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET, AND (2) A 26 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, AND (3) A 16 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK WITHIN THE BLUFF IMP ACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Pinnacle Partners, LTD. has applied for a variance from Section 9.3A of the Zoning Ordinance in order to construct a single family dwelling with attached garage and deck (Exhibit A) on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks, Scott County, MN 1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-028 and held hearings thereon on April 28, 1997. 2. The Board of Adjustment has considered ihe effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 3. There are no unique conditions applying to the subject property. A legal building envelope of approximately 1300 sq. feet exists allowing for structural alternatives without variances. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as legal alternatives' exist. . 5. The contents of Planning Case 97-028 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following variance for the proposed single family dwelling with garage and deck as shown in the attached Exh.ibit A; 1. A 23 foot variance permitting a 52 foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake (904 El.) instead of the required 75 foot setback. 2. A 26 foot variance permitting a 4 foot setback from the top of bluff 3. A 16 foot variance to permit a 4 foot setback in the bluff impact zone. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 12, 1997. ~~ . 'r- William Criego, Ch ir 1:\97var\97 -028va\re9713 PC. doc 2 ... SUl;lVEY PREPARED FOR: PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP 1.4093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR,LAKE, MN. 55372 ... ... LOKe ~ pr\or EI.. gOl.5 4 I I I 91 '. , ; ~ ... o ! DESC1UPTION: I Lot 22. RED OAKS, proposed house \ NarES I Benchmark 935.6 ~ EXHIBIT A Valley Surveying Co., F?A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447 - 2570 IlUJfg@fgU\Y1fglm WI Ai'Il - A '''''I ~ 2,3 0'" t.. \I f- Scott County, Minnesota. Also location of the Elevation 935.85 top of the existing garage slab on lot 23. ( 939.0 ) Denotes proposed finished grade elevations Denotes existing grade elevation ~ Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 941.07 Set the top block at elevation 942.82 The lowest floor elevation will be 931.79 Net Lot Area above el. 904.0 c 7,374 sq. ft. Net proposed impervious coverage '" 29.9, % REVl.; r 04/V96 DECK TO BLUFF DIST. RE.\ ''-,t.l97 TO SHOW HSE. FUPrED 11 GARAGE a CABIN REMOVED. . ,_ 'I --r.~ " '<) ,'[ -;-- ,'- J l'Ii i(]I;~., .CJ.: flTIf"""1'''''''''''' l' ,~W- , I ~~J~LcJ :}b ) ,I ~~,:, ~'~;~ 1 I -I~ I ',' , .. , ' rTI\ ,,' I" _~I-i ~ \ ,I [){'fl ~\ 'I ~ ~,~~ ~ ~ "LLH"!'Lil ' loo~ ;; i \ II~ ~ ~ II . It I ;:'1!:.- ' , " I ry; I' . ~'. _,' 1<; ~ . '~ ~ I l ~ , " : ' \~'_, \ ,\ ~ ,I I" ' ~~ ' , \ l I ~ ) il ~ \ \ ~ .'"'" . CE" . ~ I IIh.1 , f " " . I , "\\\', ~f'\' , ~ " '-"7 ~ 1Il ''ii' . "\,,,'" fl ~ ~ I fffe"" I ~i/', , ~ -,I ' j 'i ' I ' , " ( 1 ' " I, I" '-;'"1./ Q,.I!' ,V, I' ! C::C" . ' I \ ~,' \ ,~~f-:;LJ" I ~.: ?" ~j . w'L,,, r:1 ~ ~"."~' .1 ~ t \ I,~-? ~; ~4 I, ~ " -~ ~rIW,: ~l\ ~., I~:' ' "W"' V ,ll' ,~ '" ~, ,'. ,,/)J,~.ff.~,\1 '1.~ILI,-. .-'. --I~"\ ,:~~,l ~ ! __~~ ~ EtG:'" 1 ~ 11\ ' ,~ -,-" ,', ,,:J:il~ ,'" J", ' ' ,/N T....::! ~ , ,I,T, ~'6", ' '/: '!j:~"~= , _ F-_I;f~ I ($-~ I Y i" ! ':'I.~ ~ I " I,,, I ",i II v.L L I i~ fc'=~ I Tie,' " ,,! ',:,: ,! ,'1 ,1_-] '-~I " ' ~ ,l~ri!l 0 f'_~~I)II~'~' ,~\~i " ~,;J;I:I ['i'\' IAi" ~:(-=- r::::--'M~~~I I ,W .....~j]....... f ' ".~l _"_ \ I~.j.li ..... ,1 I I t------L- ,- ' I I-!... . "I -'~ .~ f-n' , , (TIn" . 1m . .... i ~' ' ,-I- \~< t= · '\ ' ..~A\:: . " " ~c'; I I,I I~;' w ~ i~i 1$~1 ~ CJ i ~ ~ ~'\ j I H= ~K I i !I :.i: I - I I I' ~ ' I ~ ;J I ~ 1 '-';2! . ,Ill ; II IH I, i ~ , "" L : I' i I' It. - , - , . ,I I ( >:v! ~ ,} ;----- I I ~ ~ f ffi ~ '. I 'h [I'. '~, ,I I .. -; I !\ Wi, i :;.~~t.,." ; ~~\ I ~ - ~ ,~, ' .. ~t:Y- , . .::.;;\191' .\.-. ::;..'Vf ~ , 1 ~ bU r\\-4', I ! A 4 ~ ~~/\ :'llT~ " .~iJ':J ~ ~ ~ ,i ~ !_ ~ i,-L,'--- CD ;, ~ I : ~~ . I- '--L. i: , , '\ ~ !I : 1- ~ ~ , " .~ . Ii " I " '1 Ii LJ l I \ ! - --- I , i' - i ~ ~n lY~ I -- ~ LOCATION MAP WI'I~EA~r. ,,"'''''II,.., Rod -,q.a5 12 II ..I C 4 I / WILLI -CC SCOT' .. SURVEY PREPARED FOR.- PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP 1.4093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR.LAKE, MN. 55372 Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE {6IZ} 447-2570 IroY~ @ [g DW [g/fI/) WI "'1/ - "'" ~I prior E\.. 901.5 4/ 'I 91 '" '" LOKe ~ r, -l. '- -' ... o ") ..., ..U . . DESCRIPTION: \ !.ot 22 RED OAKS, proposed house \ NOl'ES' BenchmarK r Scott County, Minnesota. "Iso location of the Elevation 935.85 top of the existing garage slab on lot 23. 93~.6 Denotes existing grade elevation (939.0 ) Denotes proposed finished grade elevations --'I- Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage Set the proposed garagl! slab at elevation 941.07 Set the top blOCK at elevation 942.82 ~ The lowest floor elevation will be 931.79 Net !.ot "rea above p.l. 904.0 = 7,374 sq. ft. Net proposed impervious coveragn = 29.9 " o I SCALE 30 60 I REVISED ,4/4.196 DECK TO BLUFF DIST. REVISED 4/2197 TO SHOW HSE. FUPPED !l GARAGE a CABIN REMOVED. REVISED 1/30/97 TO SHOW TOP OF BAN<. TOE OF SLOPE !l CABIN ON LOT 20 IN FEET o D'nof'" /2 Inclt. ''''nclt Iron monument J.' an~ marbd by lic'n.. No. 10183 . Oenot.. Iron monument found $ Oenot.. 1'.1<. Noll..' FILE 110. 8428 800K ~"JlGE.2!.-.. .... ;;: ts :> z CI!) ~ ~ ~ ~. to m ~ tI1 < tI1 ~ .CI!) tI1 tj :> CI!) ~ z tj ~. (J ~.. tI1 ~/ C!). Z . en C ~ tI1 ~.. ~ ~ o ~ o 5 ~ ", .~~::; -.. ~~-.-~--:-:--~r~ - --~-:::'=_~=:=:=~~-=::-:~-. /------ ! ~,..--_... .... ..-..----------.----.-..-.- -~~~.:~:.:-:~.:....._.-.::.~;_ ..~ E~~-::.:_=:--:\.:===:_:~~~:~-::~;_ ;~;~~~~ =-~~=---~~~'~~~=,:~~ 1 - 'E"'r >,~>:":- C>>"-- :/'1111. .' '.c:i:+"VI1\j'- J:.~~ :; .......... ........ , , ~,..,. ....>, ........_LII ?.......<or"o7.::;:0.~ oJ .................... ill/ , "i :~ ,Iii GREAT ROOM ~ Td~r,~ ~...'.;'" /J..y 3'~' III ~_rC' . .---?'(,;..._-,2.._~~._.c." \' :~~?,*~,;n;; /fT~ 'r, ; ~_ J.~/!K .:,~5 ,ljC" Ii db 8:,'I! : ~ - _...'~ 50>' "2- w"J__ Co /' 2O-e2.. tl ...".' ':':' ,... ...,'-\ J_'_~ ~='_,.'(' 2'_\ol'~~: --------.-- ^ ."".....' :ID-- I --W'\ .)0'-::',0;:, ..... I I} .-1.-\.-' .. .l, t\ ( J/' rt I 4----__. ___-j~- _ __ __ __ ): ~~/ !..' ~d:>~/.,. ".~11:. +r--::: ~ I, m:-.~;q-J-'i~-':-" ~':"'.~ ""1' \1J', (lr L - 1'--- 1~11;;lJ~_~?, __ \ ... .... ~ f ~ v I A "'" ./}J4~ JT-- BATH~' '; ; ..?L. ~ I --,<{,; ~~~~. -~ . ~.. ~~X I \~ .~WNjr---'~ ": A~. ".1 /:LAY !\ '. ~lr/i!i.- .~--. \- ~4t ~ I :n.' .:: ;1 D ~ -^ ~ ....j Ii ""Z' .. . ~.. '.$<-. ":'.__ ".~ ._._1 .....c,J!$$'v,...:' ,r--'jl i..'........... :.:"iI .... ." h_C c .I:..'{+---:.". "'~j"" . r ..i;j . ".".; ........, .= i',.. >::... .".. '.:-::""" 0+. '.:':Ol.;."'[.':~.:".""+"r,-~,,,'j.. I."""". . 11 ':i 7':'-'""", ,;; j.....LQ. '" .:;....../;..~,t".;, .... ';~fiJ:"'!"""14'.LL .___JI i", 9~,; .' ..-. ~: :~'JL:... /~1x~ irl";~T.tITP:~f-i:'+;;r~l :'~'ll~;i .:'p III ....... ..... li~~ .......:'_"e.~ ~ ~_~Q "'1; ~r/..-t!':-:-11"; ..... L,~'J I; xi- .. ....Jl,f :)l 'p. ?-Oo ~(.'= ri! 4',,~ -=&- '_ c ~ '~~ I fr.- '.' .;:.........:. . 'c.:: ~r...". (fl' j ... \jjJ '"',.'....,. I ,~,. '''::'':':.' Lt.\...:.....;;.;, ~fui I "'=? "9...."'-<;~,., '\ .. ..c..~., '\""-:::IT ~O; ) mi' . I ~:::~~::..:::~'""<'~ ~0~~4~~ / I ;;2;;) ~,.~;~ )::::1~~.~_' - U"""",,~,,~~:~~ - : .________ J \=.:--,c; , ./. ~r "''-'-C 'C:.__'""""'-'~ 5"\'0::;.1' 't '4d~2,. "-~;<. -'" . '...... "" '-';:~ ",," I. /4 0 0. , ! ',..4050 'ar::: j_ _ ]m:.~ ;:':"'_ ..___~ ..___+_ .___-'.. +_ ___ _ "~ "_'__ ___....; .... . ...... .... ....... rr' Rt.' .:. '. :. )1.-'. "--. fit". .:c" .It> """'"-""';:>"'-"" ,";:0 c:. ......... "'" 0,-> I '.. ~ ~xr- , . ."" 'W<:>''--'-''fi ""'....,."'" "'-~ ."",- CJ6r",-. . . . 5.2>-\0 ~ lE31:; " I ~_ v-n".~/., CO,-.-, ~~9 I .. ,... ~<;;r.. "5<...;,')""0...., '"L ' <!:Lc,", I '\='0$'1:-5 ""~'?-/ ~.--:- -. - -- --.., -r-r-:-- "r--- ~- I '-V !.:=~_.J \x.. <;:s...~ 1:>$ 5""'(>~ I I' 4' cd~..::.. '---''''.....,.,q."... ~'--""'<e O~ ~'-~" I :~_/;;;;~t. ,;:~.~ '"i~':-:,-,-O~~~~~ 12" ~I'-""- .c:..'->'<:.:l.;;;:.",L, =\~ I 0.",,; <:;"A""-O~ 'O.CQ'<=' 0..... I 1.' / 2~ 4.......'\:.:> "'~.,-,<.,,-\ ~;::)'<;: ':-<~~.,*, TJ) I <':l f 5~;':'.c..;.~~_~ ~ :.z...4',~..:,f,.;.. . MAIN LE.~L I '! i " r-'~"~~;::;o~-~~--l I \ 'I I ,g I \ I' I L '4 ~~ :;;"'~ ~~ ~~... !, - 4-r IV-~~-'=:::::::-c.~c:c'::::~::.::=:.:..,,=cc~~~-==-=::;=:c~=.:::::=:=~._ N::::s:.. ~''-'''''''\c; .Qi".~'C- ~o-"'-v~'""<~.....~ ----- - ~-. I" 20bO 1\- "" ~/'. 2.0<0.0 II. 2040 / , . <i::<; 5... II 2040 I .. --.. ~~ GO" ,......~ "i?'~"E.'..~~ ,.~ ~#/ ~....:a.v~"'Go...O ~ '0 ~\( . ~j ~b.'Q...~',_~ s....,~~""'*'t;;) I L 'ZC.i4<! I' I I I \2. .~ '. I I. I I I ~~~ el~ ~,~~ "2;...... \-"':$U\';'. "=I,.::QO""- --I ""- :'0 ~'"1<'._ ;,~ ' ': ::.,{, ..... .' .... .....w. ~~} '. ... ' : '>O4~, its ~~;~C~~~j./ ~~>> l( N . ,....1.. .::' \0 C,',BEQROOK., ~. ~i ~.I"'.I '{1 : ~.'..".."""-~.'''..''''.' .fl=~. . ....Lrr\.....N "'1 ~I :~;. '. ........ ..,.QJ.::l".J't- .--.,,~ Q) ~. 0\. ' I'.,: '.' i!~.':{t~ #-..co'. .. ~..,~.. ;,(.... ... . . .(;!,..<oc~ K'.' ... . ~ $\\...., '.", ".,'.. ' ... -l"\c......e!\-.~..m . ,~::'C':,~.~j; V~~ ..~.. . _~ .pO" , ,.> ie.:,:.ti>' . . ,iI, rr. ir,",,~I~ ~iJ;~ ~lmttth,,~~ · ~~~?; ~/~h _.' ;J~~!!::~ t\. :~;~ ';frN,," ~, S '>1:.1., ., ......P.:;f .;.. .'. .... ." :,..... ,^, .,:. ...... .'.." ....... ...... If' ,\;(J .' ......... REDRJvM i .( " '.~ .~. . - , ; i 85:"~ \g~3: jM '; : . ",~ ..... ~ ~', ::.: ;'Q ~ I, ..j ~ilzc~~ .~ L. Q ~} '.,.... ." .~~ "',1<1 . ......."':. ..... ., M "N' HL'" l r . let ;./ ....., "..,';. ..". ..' .." u ~. l~ -- ,,' .......:..;....--' ...... ',,-- -:-"--- ......' l t' .."::a:, '.1, .I~~~'" q,~;'- ....~. ., . O. 2440". ....<i) \<2. .'. "~~', 3;.(P j:::..q.,..' 3':"':'2"'~ 't L 1:'.. . .;';1' t....;,.:.:.;!].. ....,. .; ,~.,~. ~.> .' ...A'....IfI' ~... . ". .: ~""" .' ,...... . ..... ....... ........../'.dh,,, ; < ,:' Q'> · ..... ........ ....,.s.~~,.~Qe-.,.".. "'':>'1'_/,' ~."';f" HV '/,' ',,' ',"., . ....... ' ~". ,~.~ - - ~~ , . ......... N..... , . .>...,~t:lQ''l:>~,",-<;''''\'''; "'t ~ -. ". '11 ..... I,r.' .~, \"".'. ~ ". __'...._ '~""'~'" :;l"? ..... ....'.. .... '.> ...........l..... ". ..,.t: ~,' 'Op' "E'N 'T"'O ,f'.-tlr . kt\: '-IC '~r .'0,' . ,";;!" . '.' '. ." .. ~,~ SELOW! '. ~~'.db~~~.c.['\s'o If) , ; ~;"':i .,1 .. ~.~.. ...... . t .... ~- ~""'~'~"'1'~;'-- f.1l:;1'~~~~f+......jr..... R, ~t " "'r'~.j~o,~; ~~~~~s,_ . .............\.......:i:,x. , ........I...~.,?=~o~.M...... ..":1,,,.\"5> o.::'.aoc.. .Z4............ '-:'.' ! ~ljJJt . ". . '. -in '\' "1' I.L.;.;..~,J..\;;.;t!l._~----.,,~,~. ! 'f~.,'T~,,] ~;. z),.>::y>" .....~.........,'.. ....'............flkfJL~c=:~:---~= ~.~ .. ". . ....,"..,.. . ."'''-'":-t.~SVQ~.IF''1:' ........ '" . '.::, , '~'="~tz.~.........,').. ....... ~~U~)\ .... .. '.' ~~.t.jr:~~;,[.,' .'. . .... r:.,.':', ., " .' . , ~<'.>' r~;;l~ft ;.''. "i' '. ..... ........ .... . . '; '.' . ...... ~1Vi '~i~\ .....;-t.tJP~eRu:v;EL,... ,c.. .t"..... .......... .,., ;..< '. ....... ....... '.' ie, .... ..... "j..~. . \.~4C. :. ~'~ 1 "'~~ I ~~~~~~ '" ., ;I~ If Ii ~ o ~ - ct r ~ ~ ,0 ~ g V ~~ ~~ 1 \'l h ;u> rJ ,; I" ; ~ ~ i \I .~ J~ Ill\) D~ \2 lei! () ~.^ . ~ - "!) '50 e\, ""'-0 ' (\I""-op.'"""",--.;: ~1I :. .. t~~_~~~-, ,:~!I; '-\;,;.5 .' '\!)~\-<:;""" '.' . .., . t ,. .... ...... 2,:"'.4.. 'NQ-..:.......c. \1.>. .~.<;::."'<;.....v.. ~.. ~ ;:,}"'~~o'<.Zf'\" Q... ...."L .. '. . ..' I r . . .' . .: .' ~,....-~-"""",.-..;,;.. I~ ~I ~~_ J~ ,f, I I . .' . . .' ~ It' '. . j I '. "'X .... "'''''''''''''-'!':,,'5, \io:l...~'-lC' ~::. ~t;aco'<', '.' '.' I,' ",,- 'lfU.~ J:., , "I' ,>' " " ' ' :. "'''''''',:''-'' , i ~tt::'J,""',tr\,;"""i~,, :,"~,"'.': ';"'i:) " 1:1,' ~ . : "IV. \iF' , . ;};:.< .... a <, 2<'= . I 4 '~~L f"' '~"., ';~:"1 .~~~.~. . -". ., ~~\- . ".. ....-.'i/- t':ii. t,/,I{ ','\,'.~~".~"~,~,:~,~".,',,-,,ijll, ,".,'-',,~, ",'~"~~,'" ',,'"" y= "-~'V--__=.:- '.~_-"~'~--"-'-~'. [ . ,"','," """',. ",'(,' I, """"1;:(;,;''''1'., ','''='-.<:.'lQ..",'<:';', " , F" ,""0,,",,, "'= ""''''''"Eo. I ':':>"',~""..."'I;!;;,,':$i,;,,,",oo;.;.,.~, .'. " r(/ ; ~o.r::._ /- ~'~'E.Q , ,"'ii.: ", "", " ". .:/.. ',,',' ':2."'..." ""'e.","""";.'a~ '00;..\& .... ". 6 ,. -;:: <;> "6O"';""'o.~-'" " ,'" c;,' ,,'i,',",'" ': , '",'i'.:: ",..,','..,';, ':' ,'.',,' "i ,') ,D """"'<:;;'\\,;)0<:"; / ' :20,., <:::> ~~";~:":"',:";id"'J{',..tt(,.,'",',."".'",',.,""..,,~,,"".,~>'~ .';"" .:.,....~iII,I~~, ~,', 1~-;.--- ",-" .., /< ':<'~~~ 'i'" "~""} j, ,... , "l' "'f ~ III / ~ I -~ ' '.J) "',' , , .i, l~.., ',',.',' ~t::~'7.~ .;.i~~.... ".r"" gNI.... \..... . ,....r' J ' ~ . ' r,;",~ 'Lt;; "I" '. .. ". ... ,.t; " ill it . · "i' I<\.,,'!,! . '. .~ . ...., I (). \'''' !:.'.~.S~J;"i I~ >>;,,'7..;:' ~fT . t ,/ '.;;',;;k;\f \.' .k',";i.,'.... .. z. ~)~, .20.".~,~""".:... '.1 j "'',,"''; ,., . .';'~.: ~"..y. ' -..(!oS I;;:'O';::'A'.,'\'-';"\..\.."=. . '''-''<:...''e\..::.''''''1 "",>:. < ',.. . -",...:,....,.. ',Ill, .'1.... .' "i?::::;~~~~...:,i""""",'-,..~.~~ /. !,"'.;\~.'/ ':2..:: ,.': .,..~ ,iJ ," """.. " ',....",.':. ,he' . .' .;ii7~ ,.... .',','. ....... . .~. '(, ,",,-.~Q;.~'- '<:. .\ , ....,:,1...........:. ,; .' t3'! ;,<~ <:1....','..'./ ',.'...... ""-,'~\ ':~=~. .' '..'... , .'~ i.,' .1 "':'/;<"'..,'['.'01'1.',' ":'1.": ' .;}t8:l..:.." ~"l ..'1 1'/1" '';~-?'\, l' " "'/" :. ','., "~,:'".0'I, ,;: ,,~J,,>,. :l . If Lfr J.t :s \ 2. "......~,~"" _~~!:.~ Ib, .;:,}.:..,......e",..>.:'/... . m ..( '/'"..; .... ,\I ..' ili " rc'-:'" .71i-:---=rYJ f""' ~~~ .-;.;, ,~?" >, ' .." ".; " ,..',',. . ,t. .' ". P~i1. "~" j 1;:2 I I ~ ~4, I ' '" Lrq ,......'., ...q~~l.,. ,': ',. E&'j' ..,..[2 'Ii: ,~.'. j I...:.o.,~~~c:..\....<j " I \1 ~ ' " fii,~N'.\;;lrT;J\t~~..~~I.:.:.:11;, ..;;,\:' ...~;:-~t · Ili~~ os~ 2~lt'l; I ."iii. '.'.:,'.".."'''.'' ,', '. . ,",' ",'.'.'.' "'.' .~,,-c;;.~. ,,'It R H. .' I~. _'._'~ ___"_, it ,,' '.'.;:.'ir.',~." IA"" ,. ".'7/ ,..... 1 \, L_,____....-__.___y g I Xj . It,"..!,..), ,.":i',;"':',,:,.,' \c:.:: t----<' \, <:"0",",00 "-'-<:";,,---:\.7 ~ ~ 1 .',"', '..~ ,', ,.' " , .f'. '.' . ' $~"7~ ...~,t:.__ ~ (I I I .'',,'\, .. ""., .' ,f..', ' '.' ,'~., ..... ". 'T-r .. . ....~, '.fa-~ ----T13r- ----... I[) I !'~i~jir:~;' f'>,,{i,i 'I,,:,>.;;a'~,.,.~~~ .' i.i, B.}~$ , :. """-,,, .'. ,~ . :" ,1""";--"""'-'1, "'.-, ",~. .' , " 1."\l5\.'i=''-D ...1,....;. .... "'"e:_=,.' .... _ I .\ ". , '.'., ':;".2,'.'.4,.:M,>-:,Y.~ 'j' '.. '. ,,>P'~'.. '<"" ,T' ..... ...., 1.1.: " ,( ..,.. .....;.... .' .... '1"5 o~""''<;.. 1lI."";'-'-, T~..::'-~UJ . . ",I. " 1,.:;;".,,;,1 'Z<:)'".o Co,",,!:;"".FOO~".....<:.. < '..<'...;:':X;/i'>"l ' .~c c~ '1 ~_i~~~; Il"!~.'I~i~~~~~~ 1/"1 I, .....," ..' 0>" .l2t:::"~3 ..J" ,4' ""-O,->c::. ~""c:>.ie. "'"'1.;;,.,..<;;. '<>t"" " __/. .', ." ". L'". ." "I.}i'.,'" ',.,., ,;-- -. -~..,...... ". l "N............ O_',~e.vc:>.",- $......:>....a _ " " ,";f., f() ..".''.,/ ...',';'.,,,,,,.,,, "~"" j l)2.,"',.... "'t'O'StYAo._s::IS c.~ ~Q., . , ,~:. ,..:i "'.1.;' ,,;:'1' ,.,)'.'..,.,.... , '.' ' ,'.,..... , --.,.. cooq", .' ./ I " ,. 0' ':;;' . '.-s. ., "..1,. :>;---': . .',' I .:,,:...: Ii";;";"'" '~4.'" .' ". _:LL'4\ '.."'.'/i< "'~.'2;:~~.:,~~~.\~.:'.:,ci,~~.~~~':~"'''...':.:''.'. .':1 ./ ... '. .......... F2 t...i"ll.....'..... ':.'~::..,~~t'),~....:.~~.~~.,~~~. ,ip: ~~~;:,,~; .fl" j ..:.i~''O~.~.\~....~..,z;~~~~~_~'1 I' X"'. ....... '. >j " . "'."., n . , ";;!ic::.; C~"e. '.'t;,Q , ~.. . "'.:/1:, ""'<'<\'..,14"::'';!i~__~!.','' i,,'\ '....,',,' 'I '~'-.-k-~~~~~~i't -.,:..... '.. "',..... ,. '" ,." """.\.;.....' ,'" · '",,-, :.;; ....'.'.':.',. .... .' ......, '/2,' 1:::'" i/l>io. ~ ~ CO"'..' r """""10 '. ",' .. ", , _h' ..'. . " '},". .... ..' ""ii,,'" ,', ,.: ',' "','...." .. :-."" '., : ",' . . ' i."]>' Sf : ,';.. . .,..' :~~:~~';,: I : "'i;f"~~Q~,~R,lEyEi{r~>;,c;1 I ....... ........... I . I .'w~ik:()UT::."1 L. .'( '. I I "c,c;'/;:'.i,:'~~;':";,;." """',; .... ,J ", ~",'" . '--::-------,..~_______ = .~_~,_ ;,1.,,1,' ': "';'~"""":':'i"L,:;':":"';, '.,'.."', '"... ..'.'....;::~';' ..... ;.... .;,..~."." .,~"c Fl":,.., ".':: '..,1 .1'.... ~ ~ -----'.'.'~ ~--=----..... sf,': .::> ,':', ~:. I; ". ""::zo,.6<0::.~.~~\~~ I .i .""....,<,., "..','",.',,:.,:,. ':""', ..., ....". i....":';' ......,... A><:"Q'e''2.''=~a:::~lilI.: :If,i;?, ,.. '.' :' .;>,11<: > ,........t'?;,'c~~.,'!o.::. c.:~:~ ' . J 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 o ~ "'r ~4 , ~. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ o a ~ , } {. & 1\ a~ . ~~~ 9 "," ~~ >( ill "'''1'4 1 ,'~ 3~ ~v ~~. , (.I',' z} .j o .~'o- " ) .0 7 I!i t ~ r~ D iJ - ? J 6 ~ ti '~ ~ f n -=-=-~=:-_::::::~ I =::::.==~==:- L "''C.. ~"""''I:':=~- -'--'-==--'~"'-'._"-- ,', '-'- c-. I I _____ r --..._- --...--- '--""-'-' '-----. - ._--- --- --._- --- ---..---.- G) 1 AKE~~~;I[:f E~ F.. \//'Tlf)C\ J ..-. ~--"'- r"~' \. I \ D n-.---- 1==:::=-=:- I----~ I - -t ., _/~, /./ i.. ----;-c--J \ xl:> Q.~ ''''~ Q.;1 c,. LV"",, ""'I"~~ \-:z...:<=a..= 0.'>.:.. ""'-I\~'""'(',-c,( """","-.).."'"'('- "~"'__"'..J~. _'..C:::..~...., ~~J~~_ ,,,)~~ ... "~"~: ~, ''':;;-.; -':'~;, ",:'.; -", ...... "': .-.:- " '~ .. '.,.. "w ..:...'l'C: ,/) .,. ......l_:. CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Penn it Application) For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District ( The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address /5L/o'O REo' O,4-K-5 '7<0 A-O Lot Area . 7l ~ 7LJ. . .' Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. f..) eo/ z:... f'.u- *********** ************************************************************ HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET '. ~ z... " x ~&.t i. =,. I 0 LJ . b ~ x "f = If) I. 0 Z~ x 'ZoO = 5~o 1:1+).. , TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... j) 1 Z'5 ,0011- ATTACHED GARAGE DETACHED BLDGS (Garage/Shed) x x TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... 0 DRIVEWA YIPA VED AREAS (Driveway.paved or not) (SidewalklParkjn~ Areas) ~,,~ B "'~ /{, x 'Z S .:t.. x x = "IP3 Ill-I- '-'- l1f'r = TOT AL PAVED AREAS......................................... . 41~ Afr. PA TIOSIPORCHES/DECKS x = (Open Decks W' min. opening between X = boards, with a pervious surface below, are not considered to be impervious) X = ,TOTAL DE CKS........ ............ ... ..... ....... ..... ................ (:) OTHER x x = = TOT AL OTHER.... ........ ...... ..... ..... ... ... ........... .......... TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE , I ZJ J'J'I01'Jf I (.t R~lL. ,~ Date -.JQ 1\1 . , , J '#, 7 Phone # '1~'7- Z~ 70 UNDER/OVER Prepared By ~I1lA{J .4" ~t.A:JQ. W~() ~ '../ CompanY~)(,{JIt!'i.s(AL,J'1!~ c,. />.4 NOTICE OF HEARING TO C.ONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A .47 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.53 LOT WIDTH A T THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BE BUILDABLE; AND A 126 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A MINIMUM LOT AREA, ABOVE THE 904 ELEVA TION OF PRIOR LAKE, TO BE 7,374 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 7,500 SQUARE FEET; AND A 23 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WA TER LEVEL (HOWL) OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET; AND A 26 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF THE BLUFF INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 30 FEET. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SO (SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 15408 RED OAKS ROAD. You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of CR. 21 and Fish Point Road), on:. Monday, April 28, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: Pinnacle Partners P.O. Box 24038 Apple Valley, MN 55124 PROPERTY OWNERS: Pinnacle Partners P.O. Box 24038 Apple Valley, MN 55124 SUBJECT SITE: 15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22 Red Oaks, Scott County, MN. 97var\97-028va\97028pn.doc 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER REQUEST: The applicants have removed an existing cabin and are proposing to construct a new single family dwelling with attached garage and deck on an existing lot that is 49.53 feet wide at the front yard setback rather than the required 50 feet and 7,374 square feet in area rather than the required 7,500 square feet. The proposed structure will have a 52 foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake instead of the required 75 feet and a 4 foot setback from the top of a bluff instead of the required 30 feet. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447- 4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria. Prior Lake Planning Commission Date Mailed: April 16, 1997 97var\97 -028va\97028pn.doc 2 STAFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: JENNITOVAR,PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER AN APPEAL BY PINNACLE PARTNERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCES TO THE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHW), THE SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF A BLUFF, AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE BLUFF IMP ACT ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15408 RED OAKS ROAD, Case File #97-028 MAY 19, 1997 DATE: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal by Pinnacle Partners of the decision of the Planning Commission to deny several variances for the construction of a dwelling on the property located at 15408 Red Oaks Road. BACKGROUND: Pinnacle Partners submitted an application for several variances to allow the construction of a single family dwelling with an attached garage and deck on an existing substandard lot. The application included a variance to allow a lot width of 49.53' instead of the required 50', and to allow a lot area of 7,374 square feet instead of the required 7,500 square feet. The applicant also requested " the following setback variances: Proposed Setback Setback Requirement (substandard lot) 25 feet 5 feet (one side) 10 feet (other side) 75 feet 30 feet 20 feet from top of bluff Variance Requested Front Yard ide Yards 25 feet 5 feet (on south side) 10 feet (on north side) 52 feet 4 feet 4 feet from top of bluff None None HW Setback op of Bluff Bluff Impact one (20 feet rom top of bluff) 23 feet 26 feet 16 feet L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-028\97-028CC.DOC Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A more detailed explanation of these variances is included in the attached Planning Report, dated April 28, 1997. On April 28, 1997 the Planning Commission heard variance requests from Pinnacle Partners. The Planning Commission concurred with the staff recommendation and approved the variances to lot width at the front yard setback and lot area. The Planning Commission cited as a hardship the fact that this is an existing lot and the width and lot area are not under control of the developer as rationale for approving these two variances. Upon review of the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission denied the setback variances on the basis of lack of hardship. The Planning Commission felt that the design of the house is within the total control of the applicant and the variances can be eliminated upon redesign of the structure. A smaller structure, maximizing the legal building envelope, and utilizing a more appropriate design is a viable alternative to the variance requests. The attached minutes of the April 28, 1997, Planning Commission meeting summarize the discussion of this variance request. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission based the denial of this variance request on the following factors: 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance is literally enforced. In this case, there is a legal alternative for the applicant, and that is to build the proposed Structure smaller to meet the setbacks as not to encroach upon the required setbacks. The building envelope can accommodate alternative layouts. ;........ 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstances are the lot area and width L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-028\97-028CC.DOC Page 2 AL TERNA TIVES: RECOMMENDATION: and topography of the lot. However, the applicant can reduce the size and design of the proposed dwelling to meet the required setbacks. Thus, the hardship is not a result of unique circumstances to the property, but rather the result of the chosen design of the structure. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. The setback variance requests due to the size and shape of the proposed structure are controlled by the applicant. If the applicant reduces the size of the proposed structure and maximizes the area of the legal building envelope, the setbacks can be met and variances will not be necessary. The applicant has control over the proposed structure of which their size and location are not hardships. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The size and location of the proposed structure on the lot are not greatly inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The property to the north is setback 25 feet from the front property line and 54 feet from the OHWand is located within the Bluff Impact Zone. However, the property to the south (and several others in the Red Oaks addition) are older cabins and small vacant lots. Staff anticipates the future development of these lots into year round single family dwellings requesting similar variances. 1. Adopt Resolution 97-XX denying the appeal by Pinnacle Partners and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. 2. Approve Pinnacle Partners' appeal by overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and approving the requested variance. In this case, the Council should direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact supporting the variance. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Council. Alternative #1. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-028\97-028CC.DOC Page 3 ACTION REQUIRED: L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -028\97 -028CC.DOC Motion and second adopting the attached Resolution #97-XX, denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. Reviewed By: Frank Boyles, City Manager Page 4 RESOLUTION 97-XX DENYING (1) A 23 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY mGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET, AND (2) A 26 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, AND (3) A 16 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS DRAWN IN EXHIBIT A, CASE NO. 97- 028, FOR PINNACLE PARTNERS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15408 RED OAKS ROAD MOTION BY: WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, SECOND BY: the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the 28th day of April, 1997, to act on setback variance requests by Pinna1ce Partners for property legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks; and the Planning Commission has denied the setback variance requests based on lack of hardship as determined upon review of the hardship criteria set forth in City Code; and the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decisions to the City Council; and the City Council heard the appeal on May 19, 1997; and the City Council, upon hearing the facts, concurs with the decision made by the Planning Commission to deny the setback variance requests. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. The Planning Commission held a hearing on April 28, 1997 to review (1) a 23 foot variance request to permit a 52 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark of prior lake (904 eI.) rather than the minimum requirement of 75 feet, and (2) a 26 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback from the top of bluff rather than the minimum requirement of 30 feet, and 16200 Eh~P-~~e1r~\?J'-~.~~~~i<fLake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612r~47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER (3) a 16 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback within the bluff impact zone rather than the required 20 feet for a proposed single family dwelling as drawn in Exhibit A, for Pinnacle Partners in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks Road 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the variance requests as contained in Case File #97-028, and denied the setback variance requests based on the lack of hardship determined upon review of the hardship criteria set forth in the City Code. 3. The Prior Lake City Council reviewed this appeal on May 19, 1997. 4. The City Council has considered the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning Commission upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The City Council has reviewed the hardship criteria in relation to the setback variance requests for the proposed structure as shown in Exhibit A. 6. The City Council has determined that there are no unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property that are not the fault or cause of the applicants. 7. 8. The City Council has determined that literal enforcement of the ordinance will not result in undue hardship, as the applicant's can build a structure on the property within the legal building envelope. 9. The contents of Planning Case File #97-028 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby denies the setback variance requests and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny (1) a 23 foot variance request to permit a 52 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark of prior lake (904 el.) rather than the minimum requirement of 75 feet, and (2) a 26 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback from the top of bluff rather than the minimum requirement of 30 feet, and (3) a 16 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback within the bluff impact zone rather than the required 20 feet for a proposed single family dwelling as drawn in Exhibit A, Case No. 97-028, for Pinnacle Partners on property located at 15408 Red Oaks Road Passed and adopted this 19th day of May, 1997. 1:\97files\97var\97 -028\ccres.doc Page 2 {Seal} I:\97fiIes\97var\97 -028\ccres.doc Andren Greenfield Kedrowski Mader Schenck YES Andren Greenfield Kedrowski Mader Schenck NO City Manager, City of Prior Lake Page 3 PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP 14093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR. LAKE, MN. 55372 VUlley ~UrVeYing CO., P.A. SUITE: /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 EXHIBIT A prior EI.. 901.5 4 f I f 91 IV '" LaKe .! Ifm@ @ @ aWl@1fm wT APH ~~ ... o r, -J. '- ~I ( ") " ,_ I.. J DESCRIPTION: I Lot 22 RED OAKS, proposed house \ NarES' Benchmark ~ Scott County, Minnesota. Also location of the 93:.6 Elevation 935.85 top of the existing garage slab on lot 23. Denotes existing grade elevation (939.0)Denotes proposed finished grade elevations --'>- Denotes proposed direction of finished Rurface drainage Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 941.07 Set the top block at elevation 942.82 ~ The lowest floor elevation will be 931.79 Net Lot Area above el. 904.0 = 7,374 sq. ft. Net proposed impervious coverage = 29.9 % IN 60 I REVISED .4/4.196 DECK TO BLUFF D/ST. REVISED 4/2/97 TO SHOW HSE. FUPFED a. GARAGE a. CABIN REMOVED. REVISED 1/30/97 TO SHOW TOP OF BAlli<, TOE OF SLOPE a CABIN ON lOT 20 I h.,.b, ..,tif, 'ho' 'Ii. _, wo. iW'P<Jnd by m. ., undor my dirt., .",.....././0" ond 11I0' 10m duly /i.."..d lond Survryo.. Urrd... 'h. · Ill. S'o'~ .!/"I"""o, /P..% o I SCALE 30 FEET o O."ot.. 1/2 I"ch . 141".h i,o" m.""....'" "' ond morhd by lie..... No. 10/8 J · 0'''0'15 Iron monumftlf found II 0'''0'''.1>. K. l'JoiU.L __ _ MaY-01-97 02:S8P Paramount Homes Inc. 612-431-2016 ~ ~~o 710~ XC KNIGHT HOKES P.Ol POl PlNNACLE PARTNERS, LTD. P.O. Box 24038 Apple VaJley MN 55124 May I, 1997 DOll Rye City Planning Prior Lake. MN 55372 Reference: 15408 Red Oaks Road SE Don Rye: We elect to appeal the denial of variantes and request the earliest possible City Council meeting date. SincereJy, c--- JR/jp PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1997 1. Call to Order: __ The April 28, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman WueIJner at 7:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Wuellner, Kuykendall, Starltson and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye,Plannmg Coordinator Jane Kansier, and Planner Jenni Tovar. / 2. Roll Call: \ / / Stamson \ Present Kuykendall \ Present Criego \ Absent Vonhof 'Present Wuellner / Present / 3. Approval of lVIinutes: / / MOTION BY KUYKENDALL: SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE APRIL 14, 1997, MINUTES. /. \ V ote taken Signi7ed a es by Kuykendall, V o~ and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED. 4. PublkUearings: None / 5. Old Business: None 6. ~ew Business: x A. Case #97-028 Variance request from Pinnacle Partners: Lot width at the front yard set back; square foot variance to permit a minimum lot area; setback from the Ordinary High Water Level; and setback from bluff for the property at 15408 Red Oaks Road. ,- - Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report. The applicant proposes to construct a new single-family residence on the existing lot and is requesting the following variances: (1) lot area: the existing lot is 126' short of the 7500 square foot minimum requirement and 0.47' short of the 50' minimum width at front yard setback; (2) setback from Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark: 23' variance (52' setback requested; ordinance requires 75'); (3) setback from top of bluff: 26' variance (4' setback requested; ordinance requires 30') and (4) bluff impact zone: 16' variance (ordinance allows no structures within 20' of top of bluff). I: \97files\97plcomm \pcmin \mn042 897. doc iT! m fX\ R fil', ~ ~I~ L~ LI u Page 1 Staff suggested the variance for lot area and lot width would qualify as a hardship out of applicant's control. Staff. recommends the other requested variances be eliminated or reduced, as they do not qt!alify as hardships out of applicant's control. The DNR recommends no top-of-bluff or bluff impact zone variances be granted. Comments from the Public: Bud Waund, representing applicant Pinnacle Partners, explained the proposed house. NIr. Waund pointed out Lots 1 through 26 are also 50 foot lots and compared the site to other lake lots with bluff impacts. He felt if the applicants built a smaller house, it would lower the value of the lot. Rose Heinicke, 15398 Red Oaks Road, stated she was concerned with the side yard and bluff setbacks but felt anything that goes on the lot will increase the value of her home. Marv Mirsch, the owner of adjoining Lot 21, objected to the 5 foot setback as stated in the Notice. Mr. Mirsch also said he did not want to see the mature oak trees removed. Mr. Waund said they would make every attempt to preserve the trees and shrubs by using a high density building envelope. Comments from the Commissioners: V onhof: · Agreed with staff's recommendations. · Tree ordinance does not apply. Trees are on lot line. · Favors tabling the matter to see City Attorney's opinion. Kuykendall: · Agreed with staff report. · No foundation to deal with trees. · Questioned involvement with Pinnacle Partners. Stamson: · Agreed with some conflict in ordinance but did not apply in this case. · Lot area and width is a hardship. · Setbacks are a result of design decisions of owners. · Could use other building techniques. · Bluff setback variances are contrary to intent. · Drainage problems would be avoided by cutting down size of house. I:\97files\97p Icomm \pcmin \mn042 897. doc I~ i,- .--, ~ f' ~ I'" 1 ~ ~ j\ I' U ...:.J Ii! '~J If :....ll~ Page 2 Wuellner: · Fairlawn Avenue structure is out of bluff impact zone. · No variance - appealed setback averaging. · Agreed with COmnii5?ioner Stamson · Cannot legally grant variance for design because it is not a hardship. MOTION BY STAL\1S0N, SECOND BY VONHOF TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97- 12PC GRAL"\fTING A .47 FOOT V ARIAt"\fCE TO PERMIT A 49.53 LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET AL"\fD A 126 SQUARE FOOT V ARIAt"\fCE TO PER..\1IT A LOT AREA OF 7,374 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE 7,500 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT. DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION DENYING (1) A 23 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY mGH WATERMARK OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET, AL"\fD (2) A 26 FOOT V ARIAt"\fCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, AND (3) A 16 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PER.t\1IT A 4 FOOT SETBACK WITillN THE BLUFF IlYfPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE F AL\1IL Y DWELLING. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. & C. Case~-031 and 97-032 Annexation petition from Me;enbrink Construction and Deerfield Development for acreage in Spring Lak~p. Planning coordinat~", Kansier presented the s~.reports. This parcel is part of 270 acres owned by the developer. The developer has petItIOned to annex the entIre area; there are two petitions becau~~o.wnership of th~/p"arcels is under two separate names. ' / This property is currently located\vithin the0rderly Annexation area in Spring Lake Township. The petitioner has requested the' annexation of this property in order to develop the land with municipal serviceS\.,,- / '", The developer is proposing a mix.e~se develo~ent on the entire 270 acres. The development includes about 69/(cres of industrialle:-o{l11Ilercial land in the eastern half of the parcel. It also includes a''Inixture of residential lan'cL,uses, starting with R-1 development on the noI1h--;ide, then R-2 and R-3 develoPment to the south and west. There is also a potential high school site consisting of 80 to }DO acres on this parcel. The total number of dyvelling units on the site at buildout may vary from 400 units to 800 units, dependin{on whether or not the school district locates a high. school on this site. The densi"/,6fthe site can range from 1.5 units per acre to 3 units per\cre. . The City originally proposed to include this site in the expanded Metropolitan Urban Service Area when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 1996; however, the acreage I: \97fi1es\97 pIcomm \pcmin \ron 042 897 .doc ~ !~.' i fi\ ~ V1J, '-..I L j~ L=,j u _ Page 3 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DA TE: INTRODUCTION: - - -._-.._--- - - - - -.---------- PLANNING REPORT 5A CONSIDER RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR PINNACLE PARTNERS, Case File #97-028 15408 RED OAKS ROAD JENNITOVAR,P~ANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR _YES lNO MAY 12, 1997 On April 28, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed variance requests from Pinnacle Partners who is proposing to construct a new single family residence with attached garage and deck. The Planning Commission, concurring with staff, has concluded that the variance requests for lot area and width are substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no control over. The Planning Commission approved a variance to lot area and lot width by adopting Resolution 97-012PC. The Planning Commission denied variances to Ordinary High Water (OHW) setback, top of bluff setback, and bluff impact zone. The Planning Commission cited the size and design of the structure as hardships created by the applicant which could be changed, as well as the maximum use of the legal building envelope and building over the garage as alternatives to reducing/eliminating the variance requests. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a separate resolution of denial with findings as discussed. Attached is a resolution of denial as requested. The Planning Commission should be aware that the applicant has appealed the denial of the setback variances to the City Council. The City Council will review the appeal on May 19, 1997. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER RECOMMENDA TION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 97 -13PC denying the setback variances requests as directed to prepare. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Approve Resolution 97 -13PC denying the setback variance requests with or without specific modifications as the Planning Commission deems appropriate. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. ACTION REQUIRED: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution, as the Planning Commission has denied the requested setback variances on April 28, 1997. Resolution 97 -13PC provides a written resolution with findings outlining the basis for denial. 97-013PC.doc Page 2 EXHIBIT A SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP 14093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR. LAKE. MN. 55372 Valley Surveying Co., P. A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAil OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR lAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 ~&,:~,O,,~&~ prior EL. 901 .5 4 1 I 1 97 '" '" Lake ~ !!, ... o 23 ! I ( I- " oesCRI.PTJ.ON: I Lot 22 RED OAKS, pr:oposed house I Narl~l Benchmar:k Scott County, Minnesota. Also location of the , ; 935.6 " ElevatJ.on 935.85 top of the existing gar:age slab on lot 23. Denotes existing gr:ade elevation (939.0) Denotes pr:opoaeci finished gr:ade elevations ---+ Denotes pr:oposed dir:ection of finished Illlr:face dr:ainage Set the pr:oposed gar:age slab at elevation 941.07 ~ Set the top block at elevation 942.82 The lowest floor: elevation will be 9~1.79 Net Lot Ar:ea above el. 904.0 c 7,374 sq. ft. Net pr:oposed imper:vious cover:age c 29.9, % FEET 60 I REVISED. ;414196 DECK TO BLUFF DIST. REVISED 4/2197 TO SHOW HSE. FUPPED 8 GARAGE 8 CABIN REMOVED, REVISED 1/30/97 TO SHOW TOP OF BAt'f(. TOE OF SLOPE 8 CABIN ON lOT 20 o I T SCALE 30 IN o Oenol.. //2 Inch x 14 Inch Iron monument lit and marked by lic.n.. No. /0/8:3 · O'nollJ Iron monum.n, found . O.no'" P. K. Noll.., F/lF u^ 8428 ,... May-01-97 02:SBP Paramount Homes Inc. 612-431-2016 tt ~~O 7102 XC KNIGHT HOKES P.01 POI PlNNACLE PARTNERS, LTD. P.O. Box 24038 AppleVaney MN 55124 May I, 1997 Don Rye City Planning Prior Lake. MN 55372 Reference: 15408 Red Oaks Road SE Don Rye: We elect to appeaJ the denial of variances and request the earliest possible City Council meeting date. Sincerely. c--- JR/jp PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1997 1. Call to Order: The April 28, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Wuellner at 7:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Wuellner, Kuykendall, Stamson and V oOOof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, and Planner Jenni Tovar. 2. Roll Call: Stamson Kuykendall Criego V oOOof Wuellner Present Present Absent Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE APRIL 14, 1997, MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, V oOOof and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED. 4. Public Hearings: None s. Old Business: None 6. New Business: A. Case #97-028 Variance request from Pinnacle Partners: Lot width at the front yard set back; square foot variance to permit a minimum lot area; setback from the Ordinary High Water Level; and setback from bluff for the property at 15408 Red Oaks Road. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report. The applicant proposes to construct a new single-family residence on the existing lot and is requesting the following variances: (1) lot area: the existing lot is 126' short of the 7500 square foot minimum requirement and 0.47' short of the 50' minimum width at front yard setback; (2) setback from Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark: 23' variance (52' setback requested; ordinance requires 75'); (3) setback from top of bluff: 26' variance (4' setback requested; ordinance requires 30') and (4) bluff impact zone: 16' variance (ordinance allows no structures within 20' of top of bluff). I: \97files \97p1comm \pcmin \mn042897 .doc fIDOO&\~1J Page 1 - - -- - -- -- -- -- -- --. ---- -- - Staff suggested the variance for lot area and lot width would qualify as a hardship out of applicant's control. Staff recommends the other requested variances be eliminated or reduced, as they do not qualify as hardships out of applicant's control. The DNR recommends no top-of':'bluff or bluff impact zone variances be granted. Comments from the Public: Bud Waund, representing applicant Pinnacle Partners, explained the proposed house. Mr. Waund pointed out Lots 1 through 26 are also 50 foot lots and compared the site to other lake lots with bluff impacts. He felt if the applicants built a smaller house, it would lower the value of the lot. Rose Heinicke, 15398 Red Oaks Road, stated she was concerned with the side yard and bluff setbacks but felt anything that goes on the lot will increase the value of her home. Marv Mirsch, the owner of adjoining Lot 21, objected to the 5 foot setback as stated in the Notice. Mr. Mirsch also said he did not want to see the mature oak trees removed. Mr. Waund said they would make every attempt to preserve the trees and shrubs by using a high density building envelope. Comments from the Commissioners: V onhof: · Agreed with staff s recommendations. · Tree ordinance does not apply. Trees are on lot line. · Favors tabling the matter to see City Attorney's opinion. Kuykendall: · Agreed with staff report. · No foundation to deal with trees. · Questioned involvement with Pinnacle Partners. Stamson: · Agreed with some conflict in ordinance but did not apply in this case. · Lot area and width is a hardship. · Setbacks are a result of design decisions of owners. · Could use other building techniques. · Bluff setback variances are contrary to intent. · Drainage problems would be avoided by cutting down size of house. I: \97files\97plcomm \pcmin \mn042 897 .doc [ID[lli&\~~ Page 2 Wuellner: · Fairlawn Avenue structure is out of bluff impact zone. · No variance - appealed setback averaging. · Agreed with Commissioner Stamson · Cannot legally grant variance for design because it is not a hardship. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97- 12PC GRANTING A .47 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.53 LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET AND A 126 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT AREA OF 7,374 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE 7,500 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT. DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION DENYING (1) A 23 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET, AND (2) A 26 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, AND (3) A 16 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. & C. Cases 97-031 and 97-032 Annexation petition from Mesenbrink Construction and Deerfield Development for acreage in Spring Lake Township. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff repprts. This parcel is part of 270 acres owned by the developer. The developer has petitioned to annex the entire area; there are two petitions because ownership of the parcels is under two separate names. This property is currently located within the Orderly Annexation area in Spring Lake Township. The petitioner has requested the annexation of this property in order to develop the land with municipal services. The developer is proposing a mixed use development on the entire 270 acres. The development includes about 60 acres of industrial/commercial land in the eastern half of the parcel. It also includes a mixture of residential land uses, starting with R-l development on the north side, then R-2 and R-3 development to the south and west. There is also a potential high school site consisting of 80 to 100 acres on this parcel. The total number of dwelling units on the site at buildout may vary from 400 units to 800 units, depending on whether or not the school district locates a high school on this site. The density of the site can range from 1.5 units per acre to 3 units per acre. The City originally proposed to include this site in the expanded Metropolitan Urban Service Area when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 1996; however, the acreage I: \97fiIes\97pIcomm \pcmin \mn042897 .doc []Jillffi~~ Page 3 Resolution and Minutes L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC CelL I en II H Ll I~ \ U \ll t( j ( t ( f ~ {{:j -7 C (I( I G. Consider Approval of Planning Commission Recommendation for Planning Commission Chair. H. Consider Approval of Building Permit Report for May, 1997. . Councilmember Kedrowski asked that item 4D) be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. MOTION KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A, B, C, E, F, G, H. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, and Schenck, the motion carried. 5. PRESENTATIONS: A. Mayor Andren will Present Plaques to Retiring Firefighters . Bill Slipher - 28 years . Al Borchardt - 21 years (6 years as Chief) . Jerry Mahoney - 15 years . Fire Chief Chromy honored the three volunteer firefighters. They had 64 years of combined experience. He said each of the firefighters helped make the Fire Department what it is today. Mayor Andren presented the plaques and thanked the firefighters on behalf of the Citizens of Prior Lake and the City Council for their dedication and service to the City. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. There were no public hearings. --;('7. ---- OLD BUSINESS: A. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-51 Denying an Appeal by Pinnacle Partners of the Planning Commission Denial of Variances to the Setback from the Top of Bluff and Variance to allow Construction within the bluff Impact Zone for Property Located at 15408 Red Oaks Road. . City Manager Boyles distributed a revised Resolution to the Council which no longer reflected the variance from the Ordinary High Water Mark since the Council amended the setback from 75 feet to 50 feet. 61697.DOC 2 61697.DOC . Planner Tovar gave the staff report on the item, describing the variances requested. The planning commission denied the variance from the ordinary high water mark and the variance from the construction within bluff impact zone. The Planning Commission denied the variances based on no proof of hardship as required by City Code. The house could be designed to comply with the setbacks. . Mayor Andren asked for public input, and said it would be limited to three minutes per person. . Bud Waund of 15196 Edward Circle said others will be speaking on this tonight. He said there was a hardship caused by the provisions of the ordinance. He said there was a list of property owners involved, on Fairlawn Shores, Lakeside Avenue, Quaker Trail, Edinborough, Forsythe, Fish Point Road, and Red Oaks. He said there were over 160 total properties on the lake affected by the City's bluff ordinance provisions. He said there were other lots that are the same size but can have bigger houses because they are not affected by the bluff provisions. . Planner Tovar said Mr. Waund was comparing lots with those that did not have bluff restrictions imposed on them, so the comparison is not valid. . John Milde of 21891 Wagon Wheel Trail in Lakeville said he closed on Pinnacle Partners property on October 31, 1996. He said he waited until other properties on the lake closed. He got a demolition permit for the old structure on the lot. He was notified they were in violation of the bluff impact zone. He said they are problem solvers, not creators. He said they want to work with the community to fit the houses in. He said they revised the plan 3 or 4 times. Drainage problems are always present, and they worked with neighbors to assure compatibility. The criteria of the bluff ordinance should not be applied to already platted lots. This is creating hardships for all who need to move ahead. He said he applied for permit in February 1997 and has been working on this issue since. He said these hardships are not unique to this lot, and there will be more like this. . Don Hall of 15739 Fish Point Road said he appraised real estate in Prior Lake. This ordinance impacts new and old platted lots. There will be a lot of newer homes being built which will be affected. . Marv Mersh of 2260 Sergeant wants to build a house on this lot. He said people in the neighborhood have been hostile. He said he was told if you 3 61697.DOC there was no compelling argument to grant the variance. The lot cannot take the huge house like the one proposed. . Councilmember Schenck said he thought Pat Lynch's response was compelling. He said when the City passed the 50' setback, no one came in and talked about it. He said the bluff issue affects many people. He said only once were safety and soil issues discussed. The City may be in a legal bind if something wrong is done. . Mayor Andren read each of the ordinance criteria for variance and reported that the request did not meet the criteria. The criteria are part of the staff report and resolution. MOTION KEDROWSKI SECOND SCHENCK TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-51 DENYING AN APPEAL BY PINNACLE PARTNERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCES TO THE SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15408 RED OAKS ROAD. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, and Schenck, the motion carried. B. Consider Approval of Cable Television Report . City Manager Boyles presented the staff report. He discussed issues from the report, including graphics and audio concerns. There would be three 27" monitors for the Council to view. There will be audio mixers and speakers for better sound quality. He provided a list for equipment from A VW. He said he will need to prepare specifications and proceed through the competitive bid process to acquire this equipment. . Councilmember Kedrowski asked who would run the camera. . City Manager Boyles said a trained independent contractor would be hired at $12 per hour. Operating the cameras would cost about $1,000 to $1,200 per year for the City Council meetings only. . Councilmember Schenck asked if there would be video or audio record. 5 61697.DOC there was no compelling argument to grant the variance. The lot cannot take the huge house like the one proposed. . Councilmember Schenck said he thought Pat Lynch's response was compelling. He said when the City passed the 50' setback, no one came in and talked about it. He said the bluff issue affects many people. He said only once were safety and soil issues discussed. The City may be in a legal bind if something wrong is done. . Mayor Andren read each of the ordinance criteria for variance and reported that the request did not meet the criteria. The criteria are part of the staff report and resolution. MOTION KEDROWSKI SECOND SCHENCK TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-51 DENYING AN APPEAL BY PINNACLE PARTNERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCES TO THE SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15408 RED OAKS ROAD. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, and Schenck, the motion carried. B. Consider Approval of Cable Television Report . City Manager Boyles presented the staff report. He discussed issues from the report, including graphics and audio concerns. There would be three 27" monitors for the Council to view. There will be audio mixers and speakers for better sound quality. He provided a list for equipment from A VW. He said he will need to prepare specifications and proceed through the competitive bid process to acquire this equipment. . Councilmember Kedrowski asked who would run the camera. . City Manager Boyles said a trained independent contractor would be hired at $12 per hour. Operating the cameras would cost about $1,000 to $1,200 per year for the City Council meetings only. . Councilmember Schenck asked if there would be video or audio record. 5 fiLE COP, RESOLUTION 97-51 DENYING (1) A 26 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, AND (2) A 16 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMll.. Y DWELLING AS DRAWN IN EXHIBIT A, CASE NO. 97-028, FOR PINNACLE PARTNERS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15408 RED OAKS ROAD MOTION BY: WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, Kedrowski SECOND BY: Schenck the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the 28th day of April, 1997, to act on setback variance requests by Pinnacle Partners for property legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks; and the Planning Commission has denied the setback variance requests based on lack of hardship as determined upon review of the hardship criteria set forth in City Code; and the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decisions to the City Council; and the City Council heard the appeal on June 16, 1997; and the City Council, upon hearing the facts, concurs with the decision made by the Planning Commission to deny the setback variance requests. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. The Planning Commission held a hearing on April 28, 1997 to review (1) a 23 foot variance request to permit a 52 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark of prior lake (904 el.) rather than the minimum requirement of 75 feet, and (2) a 26 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback from the top of bluff rather than the minimum requirement of 30 feet, and (3) a 16 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback within the bluff impact zone rather than the required 20 feet for a proposed single family dwelling as drawn in Exhibit A, for Pinnacle Partners in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property 16200 EagooUDc:ij8ks~~J$Iii"l;S~@J1-lblt~ Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61?P~17-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks Road 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the variance requests as contained in Case File #97-028, and denied the setback variance requests based on the lack of hardship determined upon review of the hardship criteria set forth in the City Code. 3. The Prior Lake City Council reviewed this appeal on June 16, 1997. 4. The City Council has considered the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning Commission upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The City Council has reviewed the hardship criteria in relation to the setback variance requests for the proposed structure as shown in Exhibit A. 6. The City Council has determined that there are no unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property that are not the fault or cause of the applicants. 7. 8. The City Council has determined that literal enforcement of the ordinance will not result in undue hardship, as the applicant's can build a structure on the property within the legal building envelope. 9. The contents of Planning Case File #97-028 are hereby entered into and made a'part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. CONCLUSION Since the application was received and reviewed by the Planning Commission, the City Council has amended the OHW setback on General Development Lakes to be 50 feet, rather than the previous setback of 75 feet. Therefore, the 23 foot variance request to allow a OHW setback of 52 feet rather than the required 75 foot OHW setback is irrelevant. Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby denies the setback variance requests and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny (1) a 26 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback from the top of bluff rather than the minimum requirement of 30 feet, and (2) a 16 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback within the bluff impact zone rather than the required 20 feet for a proposed single family dwelling as drawn in Exhibit A, Case No. 97-028, for Pinnacle Partners on property located at 15408 Red Oaks Road Passed and adopted this 16th day of June, 1997. r:\counci1\resoluti\planres\res97 -51.doc Page 2 YES NO Andren x Andren Kedrowski x Kedrowski (vacant) (vacant) Mader absent Mader Schenck x Schenck {Seal} r:\counciI\resoluti\planres\res97-S I.doc Page 3 " PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP I~093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 '" '" LO\(e J prior EL. gOl .5 4 I , I 91 ~ o I SCALE 30 IN o o.not.. //2 Inel.. /4lnell Iron /nOnumtlll '" ond mon.d by Lie..... No. 10/83 . Denol., f,on mOflumonl foumJ ~ D.nofu P. /(. NoI/.., ... " DESCR1PrION: \ Lot 22 RED OAKS, proposed house \ NOl'ES' Benchmark 93t.~ vUlley ~urveying CO., P. A. SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447- 2570 EXHIBIT A !fi5J rn @ rn U'W [glfm m8~ Scott County, Minnesota. Also location of the Elevation 935.85 top of the existing garage slab on lot 23. (939.0 ) Denotes proposed finished grade elevations Denotes existing grade elevation -- Denotes proposed direction of finished :mrface drainage 60 '1 FEET Set the proposed garagf! slab at elevation 941.07 Set the top block at elevation 942.82 The lowest floor elevation will be 931.79 Net Lot Area above el. 904.0 = 7,374 sq. ft. Net proposed impervious coverage = 29.9 " REVISED 4/4.196 DECK TO BLUFF DIST. REVISED 4/2/97 TO SHOW HSE. FUPPED a GARAGE a CABIN REMOVED. REVISED 1/30/97 TO SHOW TOP OF BAN<, TOE OF SLOPE a CABIN ON LOT 20 I ".,.by eertlfy '''''' Iii' ....,.., woo p,.portd by me 0' under my dfrt<:t !up"";,ion ond """ / orn duly licen'td Lond S....."". _or III. I tII. Sfol~~ne'Ol /P/'l Oal. W. .J...~~'-~~- rl I SEP 'I" \ i U: \\: UI - 2 i~,=rl' ,.....1"-' File No. 97-028 Lot Width and Lot Area Variances STATE OF MINNESOTA) )88. COUNTY OF SCOTT ) The undersigned, duly qualified and City Manager of the City of Prior Lake, hereby certifies the attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the original. Resolution 97 -12PC Pinnacle Partners, Variances to Lot Width and Lot Area on file in the office of the City Planner, City of Prior Lake. .. J!.J'r Dated this ...2L day of Ju \:J . ~ ~ - . . . "~_ <( F; ;"1 /:~:~ .~~~ \...) .... "'. .. ......- /::) '.. (CitY Seal) '. --: /' '.. ,~"'::C '0r:.:?C,,:.~;,,,<,:-::,-"., .:.J : ...... . .-., ~..."': /... :. .. . r---. ' ';.,: (:":' -.; '" . j (4 " 'Z :~::~):. .:: : ~~:;; ~j~; ,. ." . . \ . , 1997. ... Doc. l'ifI?~u:imJ:l- Vol. ~ ~~e1Z1.c.z:t:. 1 o.v:t 0. 'rEI Ul:IS'1'UJl O. fn'Io.IS sc..~ C01l1ft'r, XDIIDSC'1'A e..:-~~1 Ule4 011. AUG 4 1qq7 / /: IS;; '11.. P:::Ir Rn~krn=, q 5} Pa~~~ a.q~u_ I . 111" (4j //X./ Dep1lt.y T - / /f:>CC> - . &cott County Abstract and Title, lne. ~ 223 Holmes Street, P.O. BOll 3lIO Shekopee, MN 5l537i LJ757Y -l :il IW 16200 ~~~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 5001l'j2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER RESOLUTION 97-12PC A RESOLUTION GRA1~TING A.47 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.53 LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET AND A 126 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT AREA OF 7,374 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE 7,500 SQUARE FEET REQillRED TO BillLD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT BE IT RESOL YED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Pinnacle Partners has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-028 and held hearings thereon on April 28, 1997. 3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property, and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located. The unique circumstances applicable to this property include the substandard lot size, the fact that the property was platted prior to the incorporation of the city. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E:v1PLOYER ..: 6. The granting of the variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants, but are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors listed aBove do not allow for an alternative location of the proposed. structure without variances. 7. The contents of Planning Case 97-028 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variances has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and approves the following variances for future development on the lot meeting required setbacks; 1. A.4 7 foot variance permitting a 49.53 foot lot width at the required front yard setback instead of the required 25 foot lot width. 2. A 126 square foot variance permitting a lot area of 7,374 square feet instead of the required area of 7,500 square feet to be buildable as a substandard lot. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 28, 1997. (JEST: .' ~O t"l nald R. Rye, ~J;jJJac ~ue lner, Acting Chair 1:\97var\97-028va\97-12PC.doc 2 RESOLUTION 97-13PC A RESOLUTION DENYING (1) A 23 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET, AND (2) A 26 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, AND (3) A 16 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK WITHIN THE BLUFF IMP ACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Pinnacle Partners, LTD. has applied for a variance from Section 9.3A of the Zoning Ordinance in order to construct a single family dwelling with attached garage and deck (Exhibit A) on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks, Scott County, MN 1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-028 and held hearings thereon on April 28, 1997. 2. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 3. There are no unique conditions applying to the subject property. A legal building envelope of approximately 1300 sq. feet exists allowing for structural alternatives without variances. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . . ~ 4. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as legal alternatives exist. 5. The contents of Planning Case 97-028 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following variance for the proposed single family dwelling with garage and deck as shown in the attached Ex.hibit A; 1. A 23 foot variance permitting a 52 foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake (904 El.) instead of the required 75 foot setback. 2. A 26 foot variance permitting a 4 foot setback from the top of bluff. 3. A 16 foot variance to permit a 4 foot setback in the bluff impact zone. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 12, 1997. ~{;d(Gr- William Criego, Ch ir 1 :\97var\97 -028va\re9713PC.doc 2 Correspondence L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC .. ~ "A Family Tradition Since 1955"'. ~ - . Bud Waund Southwest Suburban Office June 14, 1997 14198 Commerce Ave. N.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Office (612) 447-4700 FAX (612) 447-4735 Dear Property Owner: You are one of approximately 160 property owners of steeper lots on Prior Lake potentially effected by the Shore/and Management Regulations, adapted by Prior Lake in December 1995. The regulations contain several new restrictions affecting lakeshore properties. The one affecting a property like yours is called the Bluff Impact Zone and Bluff Setback Line. You may not be aware of the restrictions because the original hearings were not well attended, nor has there been any significant effort to publicize it. After a denial for a variance by Planning, the first application of this new regulation regarding a lot of record, is in the process of an appeal to the City Council, scheduled for June 16th. The denial was based on the stand that the new regulation did not create a hardship to the property. Attached is the planning staff's drawing of the building envelope for this lot. Note: Anything to be built on the lot including, but not limited to, the house, garage, decks and porches must be within this envelope. Also attached is a drawing of the Building Envelope for a similar lot recently approved by the Planning Staff for comparison. Normally a lot like this one would accommodate a small, normal, 1,000-1,200 square foot house and modest two car garage. This is cut to 500-750 square feet with the Bluff Regulations, which is the reason for the variance requests. If you are adding on, building new, or selling, this regulation may affect you. If you are not thinking of any of these things, it still affects you by reducing the underlying value of your property. For more information feel free to call us, talk to your neighbors and/or attend the City Council Meeting on June 16th to become better informed. Sincerely, jJf-~ Bud Waund Edina Realty Phone: 447-9426 (B@ 1'lE"LfO~. =.::::: September 4, 1997 McKnight and Associates Attn: John Milde 14093 Commerce Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 15408 Red Oaks Road Mr. Milde: On September 3, 1997 the Planning Department received a copy of Resolution 97-12PC with recording documentation from the Scott County Recorders office. They also sent us $10 cash from an overpayment from you when the document was recorded. Enclosed is a copy of the resolution documenting "proof of recording" and the $10 cash. Call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, (~~~ Planner 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ;.. CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVENUE SE, PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 Date: ~ - a Vl...tZf 7 Number of pages including cover sheet: 0/ To: --f a::t 4fnch From: .JaVJM ta VQ/ City of Prior Lake Phone: "71a -1'10 Fax phone: 71 J." 1q77 CC: Phone: Fax phone: (612)447-4230 (612)447-4245 REMARKS: o Urgent o For your review 0 Reply ASAP o Please comment F" Y.:r - '?cvt ) 6'irJnac.J~ .grf^trs a./lA. JDhl'\ tY1;ld~ ~s schniltd a.. bu, lei;"', \>ennit 1Y\lt-fi~ elll Sf tb:ld,s t (lY\p~ry;CIV~. J: l'x.ptct 1k perm;t to be 'I ss v-(a tw 5 VWL /L LctPJ.. 't.fJ ?fW Mve ~vlsfiohS. ~~ 1J -4 (T\ ~ r _0 ..... 0 N U) N 0 ~ ..... N U) <P ~~, aeo= :tlCD~ ro ~ 1>0; ~3: (' ~3: r fTI 3:::0 f1 20 .tTI .. . :1 (JJ)> :t C1I < '"'! (J.I fTI "'" ~Z - rvC - fTI~ zf1 iTt:::l (J :J - -i '"tJ "?J <n ~ ...,:O:::uc: r-C;b-C ~::o~r;t: ar-r--~ ;Z~~~ 111""-tO( - :::u. C _;::b - ())-;::-~ i\i~ "'" _<= "'L ...,0....,..... ~(I)~O: .e.0- - ....,-iO~c: Ibl11b ~ O;ZC ...., 0" oo.;zCC ~O~.; ....,0 -t 1\)~:::Uo 3:~'" c:r-~ ~ 0 ./ b ,:: C'O Of N13. lot <~ SA' C; .- So '? 00. .07: ~ - t'" 0 g. t"J (J1 _n Jo.) ;iO- N"" - "., ,::0 ~ 6 ~ / / I~ I~ en en 10 o rr rr g :::l rr < ~ II-" ~- iff; ~~ ~ :) l / ~'" ~ ~ 0 ~ ~~ f l~_ " r ~\) ~, ...../ I ~ .: - ~fb:t _.... '". ~z --.$ ;::,>.- . - ~'$ .... --.~r:... .... .. ~"'\....-- :' o .... 0- ... ~ I <' I (O 0) ...... "V .. ,., -, , J {') eN / , -----.......... July 31, 1997 Pinnacle Partners c/o McKnight and Associates Attn: John Milde 14093 Commerce Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Red Oaks Road Resolution Dear Mr. Milde: Our records indicate that Resolution 97-12PC has not been recorded with the Scott County Recorder. Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent on June 3, 1997 regarding recording procedures. The ordinance allows 60 days for recording, which expired on June 28, 1997. However, due to the circumstances relating to the appeal to the City Council and continuation requests, we are giving you until August 15, 1997 to record the enclosed resolution and provide the City with proof of recording. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, /1 "'MA j~a,,-, ~~ovar Planner enclosure 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER f\l[ COP1 June 3, 1997 Pinnacle Partners P.O. Box 24038 Apple Valley, MN 55124 RE: Recording of Approved Variances Dear Pinnacle Partners: The purpose of this letter is to advise you the resolution approving a variance to lot area and width granted on property located at 15408 Red Oaks Road must be recorded within 60 days of approval or the variances will be null and void per Section 5-6-6 of City Code. Enclosed is a certified copy of the original and a copy for yourself. The resolution must be recorded by June 28, 1997. We did not mail you copies sooner because we were waiting for appropriate signatures and awaiting the outcome of your appeal to the City Council regarding the setback variances. After the resolution is recorded, you must submit proof of recording such as your receipt/recorders stamp to the Planning Department. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 447-4230. ~CereIY' ~ 'l/1;t1;Jw.~a1 nnlfer :gv~r lanner c: Bud Waund, Edina Realty 1:\97files\97var\97 -028\recdlet.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER f\lE COPl May21,1997 Pinnacle Partners P.O. Box 24038 Apple Valley, MN 55124 RE: Extension of Sixty Review Period for Variance Appeal to the Decision of Planning Commission Dear Pinnacle Partners: The purpose of this letter is to advise you the 60 day deadline for City of Prior Lake action on your appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying variances to the lakeshore setback, bluff impact zone and top of bluff has been extended an additional 60 days from June 2, 1997 to August 1, 1997. The reason for the additional 60 day extension is to due to your request for continuation of City Council consideration of your appeal of the proposed variances. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 447-4230. jnJON c: Bud Waund, Edina Realty 1:\97files\97var\97 -012\60daylet.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER FROM IEDINR RERLTY PRIOR LRVE 447 4735 1997,05-20 0S=06 #043 P.02/02 Pinnacle Partners, ]Ltd.. P.. 0.. Box 24038 Apple Valley, Mt1 ~lYl ~ May 150 1997 5/20/97 Jenny - please put us on the schedule f 16th. - Thank: you DOll Rye Planning City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 Reference: 15408 Red Oaks Road SE Subject : Rescheduled Appeal Date Don Rye: Additional preparation time is requested to accommodate the parties who have come forward to pmticipate in the appeal of the above referenced property. Therefore, we request a rescheduling of our appeal to the City . Council from May 1 gh to the next possible dc'te. Sincerely, f)i ~f~~ P jp FROM :EDIN~ RE~LTY PRIOR L~KE 447 4735 1997,05-20 08:06 #043 P.01/02 'p"'~':":"""""\ Joan & Bud \laund \.. 1991 ../ 447-4700 ~ 447-4413 L!.................. , ~~".~~~~l~~. TO: . YA1~ ~;t!b FAX: COMPANY: TOTAL PAGES INCLUDI G COVER: d.--. FAX 447-4735 COMMENTS: ~'A.a ~'jQ ~ s~ -t; r I (q~ t" f1~n e~. ~cr' " , CUd-W L ~ tf7 'I ;):a'o I Edina Realty.~ 447~700. 1,1],198 com~. aree Avenue NE Prior Lake, MN 5.. 12 [D. tit JIlt~L'O' ._~.,_.t Mit~o~g~~ -l(foij~llRe~ll~plli 'l1a\lf,~ffi Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-79 , '" (c;:::;,. r2, 0 '0.n r2 n ~;:LS8:~ju May 6, 1997 Ms. Jane Kansier City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55312-1714 RE: ADMINISTRATNE LAND DMSrON AND OHW LOT WIDTH V ARIANCE, PARTS OF LOTS 41, 42, &43, LAKESIDE PARK MULTIPLE VARIANCES, LOT 22, RED OAKS, PINNACLE PARTNERS Dear Ms. Kansier: I have reviewed the materials which accompanied the notices for the subject zoning matters and offer the following comments on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. ADMINISTRATIVE LAND DIVISION AND LOT WIDTH V ARIANCE- LOTS 41-43 LAKESIDE PARK Minnesota Rules, Part 6120.3300, subpart 2D, requires the combination of contiguous substandard lots of record held in common ownership. This proposal is consistent with the intent of the shoreland rules, and the DNR encourages the city to approve the lot combination as requested by the applicant. The DNR is not opposed to the 3.48-foot lot width variance at the ordinary high water elevation. MULTIPLE VARIANCES. LOT 22. RED OAKS I had faxed the city preliminary comments on April 23. Since that time, I have inspected the subject property. The applicant has proceeded to excavate in the bluff area, apparently without the required grading permit. Shoreland regulations are in place to protect bluff areas from the vel)' destruction that has occurred at this site. The DNR is opposed to the granting of the lake setback variance and the bluff setback variance. No attempt has been made to design a structure which is sensitive to the provisions of the shoreland zoning requirements. Tne DNR recommends denial of the variance as requested. We are not opposed to the lot area or lot width variance. The applicant should immediately restore and stabilize the bluff area, apply for an after-the-fact grading permit, and re-design a structure which meets the bluff setback requirement. The DNR would prefer the city consider a variance from the street setback in order to maximize the structure setback from the lake and bluff. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these land use matters. Please call me at 772-7910 if you have any questions regarding DNR review. DNR Information: 612-296-6157, 1 -800-766-6000 . TTY: 612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity ft Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a t..>> Minimum of lOst Post-Consumer Waste SENT BY: DNR METRO; 5- 6-97 9:26; 6127727573 ==> 612447424!i;.. #1/1 / ; 'i '-, " ' ,.---~I rJC'!;zl' UU 1!5 Ill)! MAY 61997 1l.!JJ -.. Minnesota neoartlncnt of Natu[~,,1 Re..so Metro Waters -1200 WamerRoaa, Sf 'Yau , "M:1<r5, 10 - Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 May 6, 1997 1 () ~ J~_~_ ~J'Cll.-(' Ms. Jane Kansicr City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue:: S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 (Y': i .--, f / -KT" 1. y N'~){ RE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND DMSION AND OHW LOT WIDTH VARIANCE, PARTS OF LOTS 41, 42, &43, LAKESIDE PARK MULTIPLE VARIANCES, LOT 22, RED OAKS. PINNACLE PARTNERS Dear Ms. Kansic:r: I hove reviewed the materials which accompanied lhe notices for t.he subject ZQning matters and offer Lhc lo11owiug comments on behalf o[1.he Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. ADMINISTRATIVE LAND DIVISION AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE- LOTS 41-43 ~~KESIDE PARI< Minnesota Rulcs, Part 6120.3300, su.bpart 2D, requires the combinaLion of contiguous substandard lots of record held in c;:onvnon ownership. This proposal is consistent with the intent of the shoreland rules, Wld the DNR cncoW'lIges the city to approve the lot combination as requested by the applicant. The DNR is not opposed to Ihe 3.48-foot lot width vllI'iancc at the ordinary high water elevation. MIJL TIPLE V ARl(,\NCES. LOT 22. RED Q~K.S 1 had fil,,,cd the city preliminary comments on April 23. Since that lime, I have inspected the subject property. The applicant has proceeded to excavate in the bluff area. apparently without the required grading permit. Shorchmd regulations arc in place to protec;:t bluff areas from t.bc very destruction that has occurred at this site. The DNR is opposed to the granting of the lake setback variance and the:: bluff setback vununcc. No attempt has been made to design a StruClUrc whieh is sensitive to the provisions of the shorcland zoning requirements. The DNR recommends denial of the variance as requested. We are not opposed to the lot area or lot width variance. The applicant should immediately restore and stabilize the bluff area., apply for an after.the-foct grading permit, and re-design a Sln1Clure which meets the blufi" setback requirement The DNR would prefer the city consider a variance from !he street setback in order to maximize the structure setback from the lake and bluff. 'Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these land use matters. Please call me at 772~ 7910 if you have any questions regarding DNR review. Sincerely, '-,- L/" I tor {~_..ct:... ~t,t.~:. .-!i:'\_..) patrick J. Ly,gch.lll ,- Area Hydrologist n'\lU (llfllrln:lIioll: tlJ::!-:.!'.I(,-(d.'n. I !lOll 7(,(;.(.,(II,If,1 . TTY: (,12 2(,1(, 'i4~.:1. 1-~()(\-6.~7.::I'.):N .\11 1:.'1',1,,1 ON'.onllllll) ".HlI'III}".' \\'Iw Villll':!; I )l\,\,..,..ilv ... Pfi'Hl"d 1\lIlh:l.~,..'ktl P;I,,"'" CnIHdiJlil~= .. <<.;1' \1I1UlfII:lH or lfJ(,f PII"'I-(\III'ILIIII~r \"'"..1,' FROM :EDINR RERLTY PRIOR LRKE 447 4735 1997,1215-1216 15:42 #668 P.C212/C213 May 6, 1997 Jenni Tovar Prior Lake Planning Attention: Jemri Tovar Reference: Appeal of 15408 Red Oaks Now that I know the. Shoreland Management Regulations adapted by Prior Lake in December 1995 have not changed in the last twelve months r d like to revisit bluff characteristics required to be called a bluff. Please read the following three printings of this specific characteristic of a bluff. · The slope rises twenty-five (25) feet above the ordinary high water level of the water body. · The slope rises twenty-five (25) feet or more above the ordinary high water level of the water body. · The slope rises at least twenty-five (25) feet above the ordinary high water level of the water body. Match up the following answers as to how high the slope must be to be classified as a bluff for each of the above: · Any number over 24.999 feet · Some number greater than 25 feet. · Exactly 25 feet ]f you will reference back to 1995. the minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting, there should be a reference to th.e discussion and notes on the specific characteristic of a bluff. FROM :EDIN~ RE~LTY PRIOR L~KE 447 4735 1997,1ZI5-1Z16 15:42 #668 P.1ZI3/1Z13 If a complete set of minutes were kept, it should show that the words~ "at least" were added before a yes vote was achieved.' Nine knowledgeable adults on the Planning Commission agonized a long time before reaching a consensus and a vote. The debate was - how high was the highest slope on Prior Lake- No one seemed to know, but tbe majority wanted to be sure that Prior Lake did not have a bluff under the defmition. Since I was at that Planning Commission. Meeting waiting for an.other agenda item, I am speaking first hand as to what I remember. In speaking with the member of the Planning Staff who was presenting the proposed ordinance, tbey recall it the same way, so I feel a further look is warranted before the appeal. . . Thank you. ;L~ Bud Waund nBW/jp Jennifer Tovar From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Angie Jaspers Jennifer Tovar Greg IIkka; Jeff Evens; Verlyn Raaen Lot 22, Red Oaks Proposed House Survey Review Thursday, April 24, 1997 12:24PM My comments re: the 4/4/96 [97?] revised survey are as follows: All the storm water runoff originating on Lot 22 which can reasonably be conveyed to Red Oaks Rd. though the use of roof gutters and grading of the site must be so conveyed. The grading of Lot 22 from the proposed house out to the side property lines and out to Red Oaks Rd. adjacent to the side property lines must provide for drainage swales to convey surface stormwater to Red Oaks Rd. Any alterations proposed to be made to the "Bluff Impact Zone" will be required to comply with the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance. Erosion control is required to be maintained in good condition on this site whenever bare soil areas are present. Proposed improvements below elevation 904 are regulated by the DNR and may involve permit application prior to making improvements. Load limits on roadways may dictate that vehicles servicing this site lighten their loads. Page 1 May-01-97 02:S8P Paramount Homes Inc. 612-431-2016 e HO 7102 IfC KNIGHT HOMES P.Ol POI PINNACLE PARTNERS, LTI), P.O. Box 24038 Apple Valley MN 55124 May 1, 1997 Don Rye City Planning Prior Lake. MN 55372 Reference: 1 5408 Red Oaks Road SE Don Rye: We elect to appeal the denial of variances aJld request the earliest possible City Council meeting date. Sincerely, c.--- JRljp CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 FAX # 447-4245 - TELEPHONE # (612) 447-4230 FAX COVER SHE=T DATE: 4-413 -1'7 TO:~~ FROM: ~h M_' lDvat" SUBJECT: _~ ~OCt~s i?J. T1ME: FAX#: 17;;J-7Cf77 MESSAGE: _Fy.:r.... Uk ~ /Vance s; ovr 01'\ tf-f(p'LJ7, ~/U5 ~r ~ if\(Juf. ~ Number of Pages Sent (lncluding This Page): -3 " .1 '.' Verlyn Raaen From: To: Subject: Date: Verlyn Raaen Jennifer Tovar Lot 22, Red Oaks Proposed House Survey Review Wednesday, April 23, 1997 11 :27 AM My comments re: the 4/4/96 [97?] revised survey are as follows: f All the storm water runoff originating on Lot 22 which can reasonably be conveyed to Red Oaks Rd. tHough the use of roof gutters and grading of the site must be so conveyed. The grading of Lot 22 from the proposed house out to the side property lines and out to Red Oaks Rd.adjacent to the side property lines must provide for drainage swales to convey surface storm water to Red Oaks Rd. Any alterations proposed to be made to the "Bluff Impact Zone" will be required to comply with the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance. Erosion control is required to be maintained in good condition on this site whenever bare soil areas are present. Proposed improvements below elevation 904 are regulated by the DNR and may involve permit application prior to making improvements. Load limits on roadways may dictate that vehicles servicing this site lighten their loads. Page 1 SENT BY: DNR METRO; 4-23-97 15:29; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #1/1 Minnesota Dcparlnlent of Natural Resources Post-It" Fax Nole 7671 I.)alc ( To -~ From .,~ Co.lDept. Co. Phon... H Fa. N fa)( 1/ (' -- _ E: DNt I ,_ lMG~, Llu f-( c: ,J I 1 -, ,.\ u U. ~.Q_ ( \/a...., ; (i..LA (_tL " - -.t ...2,U c~ ~'J") ~ L (Ll{{' (/~ \ ~.J(J -:1-" . l \ ....'_, \._I,j I -~"z.:;;) VIA. <L.R._ P IN/'Ji~(l t;: '\ . P.'k'\ N t.: l~.:::~f-I {,.;' v~ It U\~ C (; 0::.. kfL/J ':~.'-t ~ -' o_.-L-'fc- ,_b(~f'( -+.. C.'C'I-l Gl.1 6'-'5, y" L(l. (L.t J i Ir. <-\. ~;J ---' S)/ .- fA " e.J lo~ t:.--f'- .. c . '- L L. A t._ .:;.Q-~ lJ'-'C.r.: " .-. . :J.~~) J \1I1~-f ,..,'\ ~. , . ,,j C 'n ..~ ~ . + h Ou. ~""-'.e (')() <~" V -,::' 'y fA.. i ~_. '.) \) v<...\ { 6 S. ,,-l. . II ." -! I ::.~OlA.. . ""- .' C'/ 'j -,.' v. A -::.:;, /kH-\r"i \. .Q. -. ,.... .. _ )V"- , '-- L D-f \J W\f i ~ Cc,.. sn t(v...~ a v'.e 0./( . LAJld1k I lo-l c:.:>[,..~\ll r.~ C (;i1.A':.l d4 '4~ 'J .l"../I......, .sd~lCK ~ }'Ori-.cf k, 1.\ ~ b~., I --/- 0 b..x I/tvk- VI (J - , ,-) r l- ~ \ \ <<... :)..oc c>',J""ed II ~51 ki05 (.~~~ t 'frd lcJ 1'1 ~~o " IJ' I ,_.t;....._ ~ <I...L:- J.:. - '\ ro, b { L~~-t. L~ reo s~~~:,.;. '. d U j 8 - i 7 --1- IAJ y / Ie \IA c: . \....c e. - . e,....., 7 -' L Yl ;;> i ~ ~. . l-e... ~'{ ~~"rt-.'--.A./t ~6'-. ~ -f'\. L''-"tlA C L. DNR Inforlllation: Ii 12.'1')t.-o I""'. 1 .1<1111.'](',(', (,11011 . 'ITY: 612.~96.~4~4. 1-1\00-6:1". W},l.l s~Jbqc..k -f'b \ v'\. .\" J:':LI~I.1l Op~Il..11Ullll)' 1i1ll(.l!~~~L'1 \.\"Iw V;IIUI.!~i l1h'l.:',.~il~ ":.. J1r~I\~I.'d \~I' R.,......:y\~h.t'I PIII~";' ClIl...;,iIl1l11: ~I c... ~lll1lmllm nl [(\1.,' P'\I\,I.t'IIII'llfllt"1 W;I'.h' Miscellaneous I I . I L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO.DOC WM K & VIRGINIA MACDONALD 15391 RED OAKS RD SE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372-1835 MARVIN W MIRSCH 15428 RED OAKS RD SE PRIOR LAKE MN 55105-1158 WILBERT SEEFELDT 15442 RED OAKS RD SE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372-1834 DANIEL J & ROSANNE HEINICK 15398 RED OAKS RD SE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372-1834 DONA D MEYER 15401 RED OAKS RD SE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372-1833 MARVIN MIRSCH 2260 SARGENT AVENUE ST PAUL MN 55105-1158 ROBERT D CLAYMORE 15380 RED OAKS RD SE PRIORLAKEMN 55372-1834 JOHN DAVID & LAURA GEER 15425 RED OAKS RD SE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372-1833 PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP 1.4093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 vOlley ~urveying Co., P. A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (61Z) 447-2570 EXHIBIT A ({lj) rn @ rn 0 \VI rn ,1m 1M8~1 IV IV \...o~e ~ 23 pr\or EI.. gOl.5 4 I I I 91 ... o DESCRIPTION: \ Lot2:l. R~::O OAKS, proposed house \ NOTES' Benchmark Scott County, Minnesota. Also location of the Elevation 935.85 top of the existing garage slab on lot 23. 935.6 . Denotes existing grade elevation ( 939.0 ) Denotes pro~ed finished grade elevations -----+ Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 941.07 Set the top block at elevation 942.82 ~ The lowest floor elevation will be 931.79 Net Lot Area above el. 904.0 = 7,374 sq. ft. Net proposed impervious coverage = 29.9, % o I SCALE 30 60 'I REVISED ,4/4196 DECK TO BLUf'f' OIST. REVISED 4/2197 TO SHOW HSE. RJPPED a GARAGE 8 CABIN REMOVED. REVISED 1/30/91 TO SHOW TOP OF BAI'f<, TOE OF SLOPE a CABIN ON LOT 20 , hereby eerrlfy Ihal lhi. IlUtvey was prepared by me or under my dlrecl supervision and Ihal 'OM duly lieensed Land Surveyor under Ih. . Ihe SIal!-?nne.ol /y~ IN FEET o O.nol.. 1/2 Ineh x 141neh iron monumenl Sfl and marked by lie.n.. No, /0/S3 . Oonol.. Iron monum.nl found ~ O.nol.. P. K. Noll Jel valley ::;urveying Co.. P. A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE I MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447- 2570 PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP 1.4093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR. LAKE, MN. 55372 pr\or Lo\<.e E\.. 90\.S 4\ I \ I 91 ~ o I SCALE. EXHIBIT B LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE 2.3 t~" "o:'''~ 't $',.~ 2() DESCfUPTION: \ Lot 21 RED OAKS, scot~ Cc;>unty, Minnesota. Also location of the proposed house \ NarES' Benchmark Elevation 935.85 top of the existing garage slab on lot 23. 935.6 ~ Denotes existing grade elevation (939.0 ) Denotes proposed finished grade elevations ------+ Denotes proposed direction of firiished 5udace drainage Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 941.07 Set the top block at elevation 942.82 The lowest floor elevation will be 931.19 Net Lot Area above el. 904.0 c 7,374 sq. ft. Net pt'oposed impervious coverage c 29.9. % 30 60 1 REVISED ,4/4196 DECK TO BLUff DIST. REVISED 4/2197 TO SHOW HSE. FUPPED e. GARAGE e. CABIN REMOVED. REVISED 1/30/97 TO SHOW TOP OF BANK, TOE OF SLOPE e. CABIN ON LOT 20 I hereby cer';fy 'h.' 'hi. JUrvey w.s preporod by m. .r under my dlrec' .uperv;,'on .nd fh.' ,.'" dul)' licen.ed L.nd Surveyor under 'he I 'he S'.'!.-.~nn..o' /y/j IN FEET o Denot.., /2 Inch. 14 Inch Ir.n m.nu....", SI' .nd marked by License N.. 10183 . Den.'.. Ir.n monumen' found dl O.nol.. PI(. Nt'" II' ,I I I 'il , ",I i',1 il 'I ',I 'I 'I ',I ,I , "il , 1',1 , "I ',I 'I I ~o:* ~c.~ 41 08/g~ 15408 Red Oaks Road OUTLINE - - -- - - ---- --_.-_.- - - -- . .. --- - . . --- -- . Proposed House . Red Oaks Road Lake Homes . Red Oaks Bluff Lots . Prior Lake Bluff Lots . High Density Design Use of Building Envelope . Lets Do a Comparison . Summary il ,I I il il , ii:1 !i'. Proposed House i I I I I I iil "il i i'il , i,l 'ii 'il i II ',I __ __ - ___ - __ - __ _________ ___~ .._ ___ ____ - _____ __.__~_._._ __ _n _.__ I i,l ",I , .' 'I....I~..... ! ..... ~ I 'Ifl I ~ . . -. ~ . I '.:- .... . '. ~ '" I i I .~.A.~::~~' ~ ..t'e,.. .........,. ;::z I 7 . .;.~:; , ,.-~\. / -. .lfl.c' /- ~ -~ 1~1----,rS-, . .<7~_ (,-/ /~_. I ',I , 11,1 I I I I I ,I I ,I Red Oaks e.. ~~.. · .,:-=-,.... '1 . . , , . -. -", ", ......... -....". ,..' ; . ," . ........ " . t. -?-. -- . . .-. .. . . ~-. -:;~-;.. ._,~. -"---, ... --.- --. --------- ..-.,-. . 3 Bedrooms . 4 Bathrooms . Office/Bedroom . Great Room . Eat-in Kitchen . Dining Room . Family Room ~. ,(,~ I d I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . Red Oaks Road Lake Homes I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 445 0229 SCOTT COUNTY Page 9/9 Job 571 Oct-03 Thu 11 :30 1996 ) ~. ~ .. ~~ ED t:(j; -.....-... Qfl~ ~).: ... I. " . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RED OAKS LAKE HOMES OWNER LOT # COUNTY MKT RECENT PRICE VALUE I 1-3 228,200 Walz Riehl 4 & SI/2 5 274,900 Hedberg 5 ex 21 ' 6 245,400 Fischbach 7,8 134,100 Thielen 9 175,900 3/97 170,000 Reese 1 0 & S 1 /2 11 243,400 3/94 410,000 Derksen 12 & Nl/21t 110,800 Lannon 13 & S1/214 119,100 Bird 15 & N1/2 14 133,400 6/89 123,000 Hannes 16, 17 130,000 Seefeldt 18, 19 121,200 Mirsch 20,21 94,900 SUBJECT 22 89,600 Heninick 23 188,800 1/93 214,979 Barth 24,25 184,600 3/94 194,000 Cutaia 26 205,400 1 0/89 221,950 I I I I I -Red Oaks Bluff Lots I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I il I I }f-tlut;8 B~/Lt 19q~ I I I Bl~-f;f-" il . t-;...e I il i I .., tJI'" 0<<' II I I Bluff Line Red Oaks Road '-- ~""" -~ ~ ~~ ..........."'"' ' ~, , .......- .~ 1.4 ~-.'---~~ · ~~ k 'Z "~' ~ ' '~~".., , " ,.~..,t ~~.;,;, i:'... ',- .>, 't/~l;j~L-H' ~ ~ j '",,",! ",' "C"'I' 1.2' ~ ;~~:~:,";"/,;",,i,'/"~ r;~,.,~'" ," I !'~' ...."j" ,-.rill' it "'~ ~ .;;,~~ ' ,'i<'I'~j): i::,.. ,i'f' :'wA, ~ . . },..fl vf "" tr..J "'- . . ~ "- ~. ( V-;Jrf'e"J-- , SeTb Q.c~ \f ~r I I . Prior Lake Bluff Lots I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I il ,I I ,I 'I I ,I il il il I I :.c .~)oo ~~J~i Q 8~~lu :iI wl!.caWl:;H ."'....W.::t-< ~;::~:CIJi I~~n:nl~~ SE;=;~E tot "'''''f""z !~gH!l~::: U:n::!L~::: ..~<C!t:_~ ~~9G5i~ ""t;::::::::: ~ E=~=~~~ ~ ~ l() :::::: ~ ~ ~ V) ~ ......... <: . w . Cl -0- 0: . & i ... 2': ~ ',. n ~~ \:: " .. .. w ~ .:{ J "" (J\ (J\ a:: rl 0 E-< - Ul a:: p 0.. Cl '" ~ ~ u ~ 0 '" 10.1 '" Ul - >- g H X'" ::\a ... ::> "'u ~ '" 0 ... ... 0 - ... .. :I 8 Q In w ~~ .J 2; ~ ~ u ~ I I I ~~i I b~ ~g15Q ~"'oA.! ~Ii~ '1c!.. i}j"~ I ~Zl;!'t g~!ij I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ;1;;;;;; mmu ~ ; : ~ W ll: <t ..J 0: Q 0: a.. 0\ co 0\ M ~ Z P I-) o ~ Ul ~ I I I I I I · Pixie Point Circle I I I I I I I I I I I I I Prior Lake Bluff Lots .Chatonka Beach .Manitou (Kopp's Bay) . Edinborough · Northland Road (N orthwood) - Lakeside I I I · High Density Design Use I I of Building Envelope I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -0 ~ -. o -:'\ ~~ ..... . ., , . <,.. .... .,,'....... ,. I .~ -g ...........1- " I ,/ ,- I ~UI b ?C (1) P~rplal O( 101 "'13. S4bo. -~ So ~ .07_ << II -....... 1.1 I ~QJ ~c:J'~ ::;3~ ... 'II ~.~O ... f') ...... "Jt-.. -A....q- _ 0 .:> 'l .. I f' ,-, Ir' .....- I i / '" ......,,: i ctC16 t? Q. c., '" .- g~ 0) ~: ..... ~.~ ': ~~, ~ "'$~ ~:., ~ "~:~S-:~) 0-': .-.. ... .:>. I ~i:; ;;:, o - /"""'J:j............:...... . . ..... ~... w ,. ~ 0- 'b8 ,0 l ~ .... Q~: I '" - '" " '" 'b (() ~ 'II ._ 0) .. 'V . '" ~ ~ ,. --0- . ~ ~ r'J ttJ ~ \::J 11> ~ ~ V) '- f.' '--'> 1\1 ~ ~ ~ "l ~ '\- " ~ ~\J ~ ~ -......~~.- ~ ," .~ "'- :r "'-'-, ~Z ,~ \) ti0 -.. fb ~ '^ I \+ - ~ -J- ,........ "< ~ ..- , I ~ II \! ~ ::u (J) :0 . - C ....,.0 2::0 ,...~~ Z'~ . ):>-< ro 1> 0 () '1} ^~ r :0 CTl ~ rr1 ~ .. CTl 1> :o~:o ~v m z 0 ):> 0 . m :0 011>' ~ "Tl 01< 2 0 VI CTl rr1 :0 ,"",2 ::u '" ~ U) zI CTl"1J -i~~~ ~ ~O1>:1 _ ~:o~fTj Cb :J::r-!:i\;"< 01>20 :C:" I I'Tl I'Tl -i () (J) - :0_ c: 1> ..., -3:-_< m_r(]lC1) N <: (]I '< '- ~ 0 d -. ~<n~ ::l .ll.O~~Q ~~fT1~ I\) () 2 () 01 O~O '""012-. 00102_ e,...,0-i ." '""3:::0 'U 1\)-1>~ 2_~ c:r- 3: I I I I I I I I I 0c10I0i\1I:] 'ZiU!PI!l1fj JO Sfl(d ~/o06 .IJAOJ J'i18.1CD pUB JSnOI-1 .. l . A\;)!A P II ~] - - - Ma!A ) II o.lJa}Il'.'l I I I I I Pt~O}1 Plll~ISI 1I0SlI!J.I t:(;\I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I I I I I I I I La I{eside Vic\v Lords Street Elld Vie \\' 1-loLlse and Garage Cover 780A) of Building Envelope I I I il I · Lets Do A Comparison I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . .~/i"~ '1J. . ":.i:\n ,1r. ,+ ~~R.~~y PREPARED fOR Hlt~llCREST HOMES 16714l\lJAGUAFI AVENUE L~~e!;(,ILLE I MN. 55044 'I'j;'.'" i. . '..' ",_ .;,;-.:,.J',::l ',' ~ ; ,- " ;'1:~.:' ~;t.I~ .. ", ,",4 :~., :~!.~,. . .!' ~ .' .~~. ,.' ':" ,':' "'" .1, . \t~l ;:';-';\:' ::','" , I I I I .\ :'j :'::::::", o I SCALE nEV 11/13~\l6~TO' Aoo ,,' TO pnoPOStb tlbUSE. IlEV IO/24/lIG TO SHOW El.EV. Ar lOP Of bANK. ~EOVEC~O~~I(~~ 2;0 :~OO":. ,:. BAtIK ON Ulr 24. e. TOE OF I SLOPE. I.ot 24. f^JHI,J\WN !';lkJm~;. :;cott Coullty. NillllP.Butil. ^Iso """,,,iny the locatiO!, of I al.l exiutill<J i'''fltuV<:IIK:llt<l "" :;IIL'v"y.!d tlli" Uth OilY of .Jllly. 19<Jl-. Lol Area above EL. 904.0 .11~'.q.fl. NET IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COvERIllGE' .h.o'\'. Valley Surveying Co.. P.A. SUITE /20-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FllIlNKlIN TRAil OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR lJ\/(f:, MINNESOTA 55372 TElEP/lONE (6121447-2570 '-~"... . -'---'r~ .I"'~ ~ / " ~ / i ; ~,..< ?lJ; J .1 PRIOR f, 1..4k~ . ;' I,: 'oJ'J.? )u Ot r" ,.; (/lye , ,.,,1. ~o" tt~ ~ ~ "'Il {l 0.... fr" .0,. 0" ~, ~IJ' i.1 -----.,. "0 us€, .. ~ .'.. o. .J / ,----J c.: .:~ "ll~ ll. '132. Zr 7- I-.JIJ U. 955.10 \0.1." '3 ''''lYe ..t "vllU.. 9)J.." -..--- 10" ,",Sff o ~ , ___ ": -.499. "-__' So' 7,"'€\J ,UL. ""--ttlf;o ':/p,I s'" g]4,r rc (~~(S.J.:.~ -._-. ,]4.0' --_ ~'.4 .8' ~;..fl:---..- 9I).10 - ,.'!t.R ~~_'!.'::A WN ---'--"- ~'!9RE S '--'.. " .,.._~RAIL -.-- OF.oS<.:lup-nUH: NVl't;S' lIen<;h,''''c:, "lev,.lioll 'JJ'I.66 top lIut O[ hyd. at l.ot:. L' & ;~,) ~ 20 933.6 IX!Ilotl'lI existi"" \Ic/ldo aJ'~v"tio" ~ I . 4~ DENOJES PflOPOSED flNISIIEO GRADE ELEVATION I _.... DENOTES PROPOSED DIRECTlOtlOF SUflfACE ORAINAGE SET pnOPOSED GA/lAGE SL/lU AT ELEVATION 936.20 SET pnOPOSED TOP Of ULOCK AT ELEVATION 936.:;3 SET TilE LOWEST fLOOfl AT ELEVATION 928.34 Il.~ It I II 1.96 ..Jg .hoW propond ~ o. .loU IO/Y,oll' .. ReV.. 1~1/98' To .hoW 101 And , dill, 10 w04.0 on ad)olnlnQ .101.. I . I hmby e.,IIIy fh.' lIi'ifUwt.~. ",:...hd. by me ., .nItf my dlrecl IUpwvltlOll arJ ihdl 10m 0 dutr I,cennd land S..-wrOt. vndtr 'he ...law: .~'he 51.,. .f MI~'O~, \ L I .,..r " i . .' .....L~. ,.~..~..... ,. 1~4~;l!.~r.,,,1;;. O<Ile _ 'I-/~' . :,.., lle.n.. 110.1018.5 \ IN FEET o O.noh. I/Z Inch. f1lneh I,on monurntn' .., ond morhd by Lie.".. No. lO'8J . Otno'" iron monumtnl (oul'td ....... ~,..., t.., 8'~9 Ronit' ZI\I ..-or I , : 'I' ,~, ~U~~~Y PREPARED FOR: PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP 14093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E, PRIOR:LAKE, MN. 553'12 ,j~'t , f., ~ iii~f "j'-:- Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372 TELEP/lONE (612) 447-2570 I I I ~ : '" '" rl "l. l.- ~, I prior.: LaKe! o EL, 9'01.!i 4 I .\ I 91 J I I I I I 0"''' L. \ I I DI'-.<;CI\II'1'100: Lot In RI';o OAKS, I't'oposed house \ NO'l'I~ t Ocnchmark Scott County, ~l1nne"ot". Also Elevation 935.05 top of the existing g1lt'age IIlab OIl lot 23. I 93~.6 Denotes existing gt'ade elevation (939.0) Denotos I't'oposed [\nlshed '/t'ado elevations -'t- Denotes pt'oposed cllxectlol of f1nlohed IIndace dt'alml\le I Set the I't'oposod <jat'agf! slab at olevatlon 941.01 Set the top block at olevatlon 942.62 II ~ The lowest [\oot' olevatlon wIll be 9~1.79 Net (.ot At''''' above ..1. 904.0 = '/,374 sq. ft. Net pt'oposod Impet'v lOllS covet'a<j" = 29.9. \ I I IN FEET REVISED .,4/4/96 DECK TO BLUff DIST. IlEVISED 4/2197 TO StlOW HSE. fUPPED Il GARAGE e. CABIN REMOVED. REVISED 1/30/97 TO SHOW TOPOF DAN<, TOE OF SLOPE e. CABIN ON LOT 20 I h...by ."my fha/ 'hi. IlKV'Y waJ prtparal br In, ar und.r Inr d/red Juporvlrlan and Ihaf , O(~U')' llcented land Surveyor under 'h, IV. aP/h. 5/a>h"nn,za, ~/ ~ 4.A'":;;>~-t /' _.' - .- 0..... Lle,n.. No. la'OJ I I o I SCALE. 30 60 I I o Oeno'" ./2 'nch 1l,4 'nch Iron monum4n' It' and markld by LIC.nll No. 10181 . Otnolu 'ran monum.n' found cJ O.no'~' P. K. Noll .., FILE 110. 84'26' 800K 214 PA.G. ~_ - - ----- ------- -~~--- - - -- - I I I -Summary I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I II 15408 Red al(s Road I SUMMARY eBuilding substantially les~er honles will reduce values of newer honles culrrently bui It on the street. I I I ! e The legal building envelope acconlnlodates a footprint of approxilnately 560 square feet for a norlnally designed honle ~ith a two car garage, which is not acceptable. I I I ! I e High Density Design use pfthe Building Envelope will result in a cracker bot. I , e The less than 1200 square fe~t main floor, two I story hOllle planned is snl~ll even by yesterdays standards and is the result of nUlnerous design attempts and three differe,lt, full house plans for this lot. i i I · The proposed house will ~t well, have good curb i appeal and be an asset to ~he street. SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PINNACLE PARTNERSI:iIP 1.4093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR, LA K E, MN. 5537,2 Valley Surveying Co., F? A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447- 2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE pr\or LO\(e EL. 90\ .~ , 4 I ' \ I 97 r, -1.. '- ....' tJr11 "o':'ltt; 't ~ I -.., IJ I Shtdi8.' p.Jo "-9 -'. "00 r"I' ','-. c..' , , r 0" L~U III ' ~.,' . I -..............' ,/ .. . . I I. .:,~ ~~j r C~8'N ' ............ . / County I Minnesota. Also showlng the location of the . ..'" i/'(',k{1\j~';/~J"':,"Wi ' .''1'"'''''' . ,^ m';'".:t~,~,:\, :J~t . .. ":(:'YiI DESCRI:f1TION: \ Lot 22 RED OAKS, Scot t pr:opo$ed house \ NOTEs' Benchmark Elevation 935.85 top of the existing garage slab on lot 23. 935.6 " Denotes existing grade elevation ( 939.0 ) Denotes proposed finished grade elevations ~ Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 941.07 Set the top block' at elevat,ion 942.82 The lowest floor elevation will be 931.79 Net Lot Area above el. 904.0 c 7,374 sq. ft. Net proposed impervious coverage = 29.9, % o I SCALE: 30 r IN 60 l REVISED .',4/4/96 DECK TO BLUFF DIST. REVISED 4/2/97 TO SHOW HSE. FUPPED a GARAGE a CABIN REMOVED. REVISED 1/30/97 TO SHOW TOP OF BAM<, TOE OF. SLOPE a CABIN ON LOT 20 , FEET I herf!by certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licf!nsed Land Surveyor under the , the Stat~o~nnesot /y~ o Denotes 1:/2 inch II 14 inch iron rrionumf'rit SIt and marked by License No. /0183 . Denotes iron monument found & Denotes P. K. Nail let ,1'" FILE No. 84'28 SOOK 214 PAGE 39 /" SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PINNACLE' PA RTNE RS I:i I P 1.4093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRJORLAKE, MN. .5537.2 Valley Surveying Co., I? A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE ,MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447 - 2570 pr\or EL. 90\ .5 4/..\/91 '" '" La \(e ~ .I.u ~ .8~ ~ ;f 0 ::- . o' ~o ~ If) i~ ~ : ~~ r, -1. '- ...1 ... r 0'" L~ \.J DESCRI[1TION: \ Lot 21 RED OAKS, proposed house \ . NarES' Benchmark f' Scott County, Minnesota. Also location of the Elevation 935.85 top of the existing garage slab on lot 23. 935.6 " Denotes existing grade elevation ( 939~O ) Denotes proposed finished grade elevations ~ Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 94L07 Set the top block at elevat.ion 94'2.82 The lowest floor elevation will be 931.79 Net Lot Area above el. 904.0 = 7,374 sq. ft. Net proposed impervious coverage = 29.9. % o I SCALE. 30 .- IN REVISED. .\4/4196 DECK TO BLUFF DIST. REVISED 4/2/97 TO SHOW HSE. FLIPPED a GARAGE a CABIN REMOVED. REVISED 1/30/97 TO SHOW TOP OF BAN<, TOE OF. SLOPE a CABIN ON LOT 20 I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly licensed Land Swveyor under the . the Stat,!--o~nnesot /p"~ o Denotes. 1:/2 inch II 14 inch iron monument set and marked by Lieente No. 10/83 . Denotes iron monument found & Denotes P. K. Nail set FILE No. 84'28 SQOK 214 PAGE 39 ~ 9 ~ ~ ::> > :2: -1\I ffi ~~ ~J art') ~ :2::20 cJ ~'" ... ... o ~ ...~ ~ _ 0 -u lO ~~ 1\I lLJ o::t I ul-~ -o~ ltu)~ 0 o~- -l~~ ~ _<10 o::t - ~ 0: - @ I-~ lLJ :2:::::':::2: _o::to -l-l:t: ::::'::Q:a.. ~ :2:0lLJ 0.~ o::t_-l c3 Q:Q:lU k.a..~ :t w :1 z I 'OVa- ,~;-~~-::,~~;;.::,.. . ,',' -,:,' , , >~,,'~Sil" " ',,:~>-'~~O' :", ...,~~!:' - -. ..' ..~.::.;- . ._-. - . .:.-;:::-- >'<-~~-:O ~~.'~"',. '-':(:;;~~Q. . :,,'~':b:-:::: .....;,. ._ ;.....;.:.. ....~7. ", :.'~#'..::". .J-'..' :-:..... - ,'-,- -,.,."", (l) ..c .j.J \:-: o -: ,0} I I c o .~ .j.J ~ g .-< ~---~ I D /.' j 0)' o 0) ~ .::: 0~ -g' 0) (l) c ,c. '''; ::E: o ... "'> -0: ~ - ,.. c~- ~4?) .., . ~ In ~-~-- ~ .:: - - - >0, ' .j.J C ::l 0-' u I '~ .j.J .j.J o U' CI) CI) :.:: .::( o (l) .. C7) z o::l o '.' c -.. ,.. H 0:;- ~ '0 =: NGI ~ N III cJ- 0 CI) .j.J Q, r;J 0 0 o .....:i~ -- 4,) ~ 3 1Clt- ,0> ~ 0...... CJI- 0 ' -- .- ~q- '- 0- f' '~~ ~:I:- <uo..s .d: '>- ~ .:Ll9o c.) . .:J:. -8 "0 ,~ ~ -.8 Q.) 0 ~ V) '2J :A VARIANCES REQUESTED Size Requirement to Variance be Buildable Requested (as a substandard lot) Area 7,374 sq. feet 7,500 sq. feet ~ (above 904 el) Lot Width 49.53 feet 50.00 feet .4 7 feet (measured at setback) OHW Width 53.13 feet N/A N/A Proposed Setback Variance Requested Front Yard Side Yards 25 feet 5 feet (on south side) 10 feet (on north side) 52 feet 4 feet 4 feet from top of bluff OHW Setback Top of Bluff Bluff Impact Zone (20 feet from top of bluff) Setback Requirement (as a substandard lot) 25 feet 5 feet (one side) 10 feet (other sides) 75 feet ~ 30 feet 26'Teet 20 feet from top ofCD:f6-ree~ bluff & None None ~ . :E <t :::! 2 c::t~ a.: 0: - (\J ~ :E "- o .~c"" ci :J ~:go U ~u ~ ~ C\J c::t 0.0: UJ~ I c:u..~o~ __ 0 u.. U) ~ ~~o~- :>~-J~~ '"- - :E (0 _ c::t - - -0: (f) U I-- I.~ l ....UJ O~~~ ~ C\J _ "'t Cb - -J-Jo _ ~ :x: _ !-U ~ Q: a.. o ~c::toUJ , ::::>o:--J ..... CI) I. 0: UJ ....a...... j'lJ cJ / / "- /' ^ ~. Q..w J:z Cf)w 0::: :J C\I Q: W z~ o Z wl'0 IL. L > L{) ~ <t t{) 00:: w' ~ <,:;! u z q u.. Q:~ a.. w wW~':" 0: .-.J ~ w a.. U o~ >- <:( () ~ ~ Z I't) 0: O:ZCTlO ::>_0- U) Q.; o;t 0: ....;il.. ~ ~ o' .:t .. 9- Q ~ " . w. ~.~ ~ '" ~l~ ~-2'q, Q) 4.; ~ /-- '-/ (\.; ~ .. .... (0 / '" r ;: ~ c. / -- c: <;. r.J r- 1:: 3 ~o. .00... oS_ ?(? ..,s . 101 o~1 N Jo Q,) ~I 10/l:J _ ./,{I J~d __ 'MN 3 ,/ 1Clt- .(7:\ 0-' 0\- '- o s- a.. . -. ~~ / - t "'-- 9c "" ....., ------------ ...;-~ ~r" ~'-:'". ~ ~..tc. ~ . ,~, ; ~~ ~