HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 22, 1996
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, January 22,1996
7:00 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
V A96-02 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK
V ARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 7.6 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED
10 FEET AND A LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE OF 56 FEET INSTEAD OF
THE REQUIRED 75 FEET RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND
PORCH ADDITIONS, RESPECTIVELY, TO AN EXISTING HOUSE ON
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-
SHORELAND DISTRICT
5. Old Business:
Hackett Resolution-96-03PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING V ARIANCES TO
PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 4.5 FEET ON THE WEST AND A SIDE
YARD SETBACK OF 5.5 FEET ON THE EAST INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10
FEET TO PERMIT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE RI-URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND SD-
SHORELAND DISTRICT AT 3508 SYCAMORE TRAIL.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 ~~9~k Ave. S.E., ~ior Lake. Minnesota ~'72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~fT
Parts of this tape are inaudible.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 8,1996
The January 8, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman
Kuykendall at 7:03 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Loftus
and V oOOof, Planning Director Don Rye, Assistant Planner Deb Garross, Associate
Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
ROLL CALL:
Criego
Wuellner
V oOOof
Loftus
Kuykendall
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY VONHOF TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 11,
1995 MINUTES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, VoOOof, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION
CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. A SU95-02 Wild Oaks - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE
SCHEMATIC PUD, REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "WILD OAKS".
Associate Planner Deb Garross presented the Planning Report dated January 8, 1996. An
overview of her report is as follows:
The applications for Schematic PUD, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat are consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. The developer
presented an alternative at the October 28, 1995 public hearing indicating 19 single
family lots could be developed on site consistent with Ordinance standards. However,
the development of the single family lots would remove more significant trees, (81 %)
than the proposal, (53%). The developer has redesigned the plat layout to address
concerns raised at the public hearings. The proposal preserves more trees, reduces the
amount of grading required in the steep slope area, removes the Conroy Street extension,
is not objected to by the DNR and results in a layout which meets the requirements of the
City Code and Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation by Staff is to adopt Resolutions
MNOI0896.DOC
PAGEl
96-0lPC and 96-02PC and Ordinance 95-13 ad drafted recommending City Council
approve the Schematic PUD and Preliminary Plat of Wild Oaks.
Jim Sander, attorney representing the applicant, and Jim Sturm of James R. Hill,
Associates, the planners and landscape architects were available for questions. Mr.
Sander presented the project changes, in particular the cul-de-sac on Conroy Street vs. the
improved and extension of Conroy Street to Shady Beach Trail; the townhome units have
been reduced to 20; preserving 50% of the trees and planting 85 additional trees; storm
runoff is being cleaned in the NURP ponds. The DNR feels the proposed plat exceeds all
the minimum PUD performance standards in the shoreland area. The Tree Preservation
Ordinance does not apply to this project at this time. The owners of Wild Oaks would
not make any claim to the shore land easements. The exact wording will be worked out.
The developer has never intended to make that part of its development.
Comments from the audience:
Lori Heiling, will soon live at 6298 Conroy Street, read a letter from Bill and Calina
Townsend. It is the Townsends' belief the same problems exist in the revised plan and
would like to see a neighborhood of 6 single family homes.
Dave Frees, 6343 Conroy Street, lives south of the development and presented overheads
of the development for grading and tree loss. One of his concerns is for the lake access
through Conroy's Bay. Mr. Frees feels there has been very little change from the original
proposal and opposes the development. He also read a letter to Mr. Sander from Bill and
Calina Townsend. (Mr. Sander stated he never receiveq this letter.) Mr. Frees would like
to see a contingency written on the plat that would pass with ownership to cover future
developers if RCS decides not to proceed for some reason. Planning Director Don Rye
replied that the City is being asked to record something on private property where the
City would not have any standing. He was not aware of anything that would permit the
City to impose that kind of condition on property that was no longer before us.
Ted Schweich, 6436 Conroy Street, commented on the PUD; permitted uses in the R-l
District; park dedication; clarification on tree caliper and size; variances and economic
hardships. Assistant Deb Garross responded to Mr. Schweich's questions and opinions.
City Engineer Larry Anderson stated Deb Garross properly indicated the staff
recommendation of the Conroy Street extension to Shady Beach Trail. The cul-de-sac in
the middle of Conroy Street is of great concern for the department because of
maintenance. Mr. Anderson said he has never seen a cul-de-sac stop in the middle of a
roadway. Cars will have to slow down to a very low speed when they hit the gravel and
the maintenance of a gravel road is expensive. The audience insisted at the two previous
hearings that the road should not continue to Shady Beach Trail. The cul-de-sac should at
least be constructed to the end of the plat so it provides access to all of the residents but
this is not what the developer proposed to construct.
MNOI0896.DOC
PAGE2
Carol Scott, 6370 Conroy Street, questioned what would happen if another developer
bought the property when the property has been platted. In the past the City has just
changed the Developer's Agreement. If the City put in Item 13 would anyone have to
abide by that because it is a condition the plat? Don Rye responded that his comment had
to do with the fact ifRCS Associates Inc., never carried through with the ultimate
development, (if the PUD and plat were not approved,) the City could not require the
filing of a restrictive covenant. If the plat is approved and sold, the condition can remain.
Mrs. Scott's other concern was for the cul-de-sac in the middle of the road. Deb Garross
restated staff recommended constructing the road through to Shady Beach Trail but the
residents clearly stated they did not want the improvements. Don Rye said another option
would be to remove the cul-de-sac. Assistant Engineer John Wingard addressed Mrs.
Scott's questions on the culverts and wetlands on site as well as the runoff from Savage.
Mrs. Scott concurs with Mr. Townsend on Item 13 of the Resolution. The developer
should file documents stating they will not claim any rights to the recreational easement
or any other dedicated rights to lake access through Conroy's Bay Subdivision.
Dean Olson, 6412 Conroy Street, stated his concern for traffic safety for his children.
Mr. Olson will talk to the Park Department with his ideas for a recreational area in the
subdivision.
Jim Sander, attorney for the developer, addressed issues of misunderstanding on the cul-
de-sac. There is no plan for six inches of concrete curbing. The engineers will solve this
and this is not an issue.
Dan Heiling, 6298 Conroy, said his main concern is a tr.affic safety issue on Conroy
Street and Shady Beach Trail.
Tom Kearney, 6424 Conroy, commented on the tree inventory and does not feel it is
accurate. He does not see any advantage of zoning the property PUD and would rather
see single family homes.
Jon Allen, 17220 Panama Avenue, stated he was speaking on behalf of a group of
residents who live adjacent to the site proposal. The biggest concern was the amount of
tree removal. He commended the developer for responding to the residents' concern and
coming back with a new plan. Mr. Allen feels the proposed grading plan will not save as
many trees. He also would like see a comparison plan for single family homes and the
impervious surface amounts. Deb Garross pointed out the trees proposed to be saved are
located outside the grading limits on the plan. She further pointed out the applicant's
landscape architect was present and he is very familiar with tree preservation planning.
The applicant in fact has met all the ordinance requirements and will exceed the
Subdivision Ordinance tree planting requirements by planting 85 trees.
Mary Ann Frees, 6346 Conroy, paraphrased a letter from Scott and Linda Roth of 6394
Conroy. They do not want the cul-de-sac, they do not want 10 feet graded off the top and
they would like the whole thing to disappear. Mrs. Frees indicated there was an upside to
MNOI0896.DOC
PAGEl
this situation that the neighbors have come to know each other. She loves the area and
consider the trees and wildlife her neighbors as well.
Bob Prchal, 6406 Conroy, had a concern for the amount of people in the townhomes
compared to six single family homes. He also feels there is a safety issue with the ponds
and high walls and all the children in the area. Don Rye also addressed Mr. Prchal's
question on the time line of one year. Mr. Prchal realizes everything the developer can do
is legal but feels it is not right.
A break was called at 8:51 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:01 p.m.
Jim Sander addressed the issue of the cul-de-sac pavement. The extension of Conroy
Street is outside of the development and the project is not served by that street. Legally
the City cannot compel the developer to construct it but it was agreed to earlier in the
project in order to expedite the platting process. The neighbors and Planning
Commission objected to installing a through street so the project was amended to a cul-
de-sac design. Mr. Sander reminded the Planning Commission this is not a brand new
project, but has been going on for over a year. The applicant is well within the scope of
the ordinances and commends staff. All questions raised by residents have been
addressed by staff. By using a PUD this allowed applicant to preserve more trees. If a
normal public street is used more trees and land would be lost. The lake access
easements are not an issue. No one has ever suggested they were going to buy an
easement for lake access. Mr. Sander also stated he has never received the letter referred
to by the Townsends.
Jim Sturm, explained the project was redesigned after the meeting in October and this is
the best proposal to meet concerns raised by Planning Commissioners and residents. Mr.
Sturm explained the cul-de-sac concerns. The tree survey was done by a registered land
surveyor. The applicant has made every attempt to save trees. Mr. Sturm is a landscape
architect and oversaw the plan changes. He feels they responded to the concerns of the
neighbors. Mr. Sturm has been through this process before in Eagan, where he was the
City Planner for 10 years. There are more trees preserved by the townhome proposal as
opposed to a single family development.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Larry Anderson commented on cul-de-sac and the resolution would be to "T" the
intersection with a stop sign and maintenance would be easier.
. new trees planted: 2 1/2" on deciduous 1 1/2" and 6' coniferous.
. John Wingard explained the gravel road on Conroy Street and storm water
management issues.
. Concern over off site drainage from Savage. John Wingard: Run off from this
development will be controlled through their on NURP ponds. The City policy is to
MNOI0896.DOC
PAGE 4
charge a developer a storm water fee, then the City installs the system. Larry
Anderson explained the water issue from Savage. Even if the City had to raise the
road it would stay gravel. Deb Garross told the Commission the Watershed District
would be reviewing the entire drainage area and plan.
Loftus:
. Lake access - Attorney Jim Sander replied this is not be part of the townhome
association. This development stands on its own and there is not a plan to connect to
the lake. These are not common areas of development.
. intersection on road - Deb Garross suggested making it a recommendation that is
acceptable to the engineers. This is the preliminary plat.
. Supports a change to the road.
. Larry Anderson said a possible solution is to convert the cul-de-sac to a "T"
intersection.
. Deb Garross said the 500' maximum cul-de-sac length is the common requirement in
Subdivision Ordinances and the distance is based on length of fire hose. Fire hydrant
location can be planned so the extra 60 foot cul-de-sac length is not an issue in this
case.
. Don Rye said the proposed cul-de-sac was designed consistent with the fire code.
. Harbor streets are private - should address the fire department. Deb Garross said
several residents have requested the City to take over the streets.
. When does a private street work equally as well as a public street?
. Don Rye: Basic provision in ordinance starting with it makes the same standards as a
public. In this particular case is what effectively will be the right-of-way. In any
private street it has to be determined whether that street provides adequate access to
the property.
. Applicant made a good faith effort to listen to concerns with the tree issue and save as
much as possible.
. A park available for toddlers should be provided but it is a small area.
. Not convinced a PUD is the best idea but 19 single homes would result in a lot of tree
removal which is not better.
V onhof:
. Moving the NURP pond from the northwest comer to the southwest comer - how is
that going to impact the storm water runoff? Deb Garross: The City did not want to
maintain two small ponds. A larger NURP pond will serve the area better than two
smaller ones. It meets all standards for storm water control.
. Final plat will determine the runoff. Runoff cannot be at a greater rate than current
exist on the property.
. Larry Anderson said this development will not create a negative impact on the storm
water system.
. Grading safe guards for erosion coming off site leading into the wetland or street.
. John Wingard said the City will require erosion control, buffers, fencing, surfacing
and turf established, all normal procedures.
MNO 10896. DOC
PAGES
· Should we put a performance bond on this? John Wingard said the City will have a
Letter of Credit as a safe guard which will be proof of the Developer's Agreement.
Kuykendall:
. Approximate price range of the units will be $200,000 to $250,000.
. Alternative with existing ordinances with 19 single family homes - approximately
what would the cost of the homes be. (No numbers available) This way is a better
way of development as proposed rather than single family homes.
. He did not want 19 single family homes - save the trees with the cluster concept.
. The developers have been very responsive the residents' concerns.
. A "T" intersection would be recommended.
. Loss to the city with a dedicated right-of-way.
. Sidewalks were not included as part of the design. Concerns for children are valid.
. Applicant accomplished a lot in terms of saving the trees.
. All the issues have been addressed by staff.
. Support applicants request, with the consideration of walkways and "T" intersection.
. The cul-de-sac design has met the needs to save more trees.
. A private street belongs in this development.
. A standard subdivision would be legal but would gut the area.
. Sidewalks should be on Conroy Street for pedestrians and this is the time to do it.
Creigo:
. Concern for sidewalks. Incorporate in a final design. John Wingard said it would be
tight along the street and wetland in one area. Would have to go with a narrow
sidewalk, on the north side of the street.
MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY VONHOF TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-
01PC WITH THE MODIFICATION OF THE CUL-DE-SAC OF 560 FEET.
Loftus does not feel a PUD is the right vehicle. The applicant has made a good faith
effort but there could still be further adjusting. The timing of the issue tonight does not
give us enough time. Has reservations although there is a big improvement.
Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, V onhof and Kuykendall; nay by Loftus. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-
02PC WITH THE AMENDMENT THE CUL-DE-SAC TO A "T" THE
INTERSECTION; OMIT ITEM 6 AND ADD ITEM 13 "TO SPECIFY IN THE
COVENANTS AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT THAT WILD OAKS WILL NOT USE
THE RECREATIONAL EASEMENTS LOCATED ALONG THE LAKE SHORE AND
CONROY'S BAY."
MNO I 0896. DOC
PAGE 6
Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, V oOOof and Kuykendall; nay by Loftus. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CREIGO TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 95-13.
V ote taken signified ayes by Criego, V onhof and Kuykendall; nay by Loftus. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
Vote taken signified ayes by V oOOof, Loftus, Criego and Kuykendall. The hearing closed
at 10:00 p.m.
A recess was called at 10:02 p.m. and reconvened at 10:09 p.m.
4. B V A95-44 William Hackett Variance Request - 3508 Sycamore Trail, NOTICE OF
HEARING FOR A WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE OF 5.5 AND AN EAST SIDE
YARD SETBACK VARIANCE OF 4.5 FEET AND IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE COVERAGE
OF 38.58% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30% RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICT.
Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information from the Planning Report
dated January 8, 1996. Staff concluded that reasonable use of the property currently
exists, and thus the first Ordinance criteria has not been'met. The Staff recommendation
is to deny the application.
Bill Hackett, 3508 Sycamore Trail, explained he and his wife bought this house six years ago and
they are expecting a baby in a few months. The current home does not meet their needs and
would like to add on to the home so their children's bedrooms would be on the same floor. Their
home was built on a substandard lot with an impervious surface coverage of 34.57%. By
removing the slabs by the garage he can reduce the impervious surface.
Comments from the audience:
Lowell Rieck, 3526 Willow Beach SW, lives above the beach area. The lot is
substandard and he feels what the Hacketts want to do is not out in left field. It would be
more practical and will increase the value of the property.
Dave Bathel, 3498 Sycamore Trail, felt the Hacketts made improvements on their home
since they moved in and does not see any reason to take the cement slab out. The
improvements are for the positive.
Mike Spanier, 3483 Sycamore, feels the Hacketts' addition does not intrude on the
neighbors and will improve the neighborhood.
MNO 10896. DOC
PAGE 7
Comments from Commissioners:
Loftus:
. Commend the neighbors for support.
. Regarding the impervious surface issue - would not like see the concrete removed.
. Based on the neighbors remarks does not see as a negative impact.
. The variances are not greater.
. Supports the request.
V onhof:
. The width of the lot at 35 feet and the slope is a unique factor due to the narrowness
of the lot and is not opposed to the side yard variances.
. Has a problem with the impervious surface. This is a shore land district.
. The first hardship criteria has not been met.
Kuykendall:
. The present house is approximately 1,800 sq. feet.
. Asked applicant if he know the lot was substandard when he bought it. Mr. Hackett
said he thought it was a 50 foot lot.
. This house is already in violation with impervious surface.
. Leek: There is nothing in the Ordinance that prohibits the structure from being
maintained. It is a good starter home.
. Agrees with staff it can be maintained and is a reasonable use.
. Leek explained this is a shoreland district and staff Ras been very strict.
. A lot of people could buy this property and there is nothing wrong with the property,
but it does not meet the applicant's needs. It is a marketable property.
. Is empathetic to applicants' needs, but cannot support the request. The Planning
Commission is bound by law.
Creigo:
. DNR has not responded. No lakeshore setback requested.
. Cement sidewalk is not included. Is less than 38.58%.
Does not want to see the slabs removed - but has concern for impervious surface.
Kuykendall:
. One alternative would be to acquire some land to the west to eliminate the impervious
surface.
Open Discussion: There are alternatives; not concerned with side yard variance but the
impervious surface issue is high; grandfather in existing impervious surface.
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY VONHOF TO ACT FA VORABL Y ON THE
SIDE YARD, AND DENY THE IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE COVERAGE.
MNOI0896.DOC
PAGES
Open Discussion: Grant side yard setbacks and make adjustments. Rationale: hardship
criteria met; special case; should have a reasonable use of property; trying to enhance the
usage of the home; lot is substandard; no hardship to the property; this is not a
substandard house and is 1800 sq. ft.; fail to see any hardship or argument.
Vote taken signified ayes Loftus, Criego, V onhof. Nay by Kuykendall. MOTION
PASSED.
4. C CU95-05 Fairview Hospital & Health Care - Ridge Valley Clinic, 4151 Willowwood
Road, NOTICE OF HEARING FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL AND HEALTHCARE SERVICES.
Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information from the Planning Report
dated January 8, 1996. Staff recommendation is to deny the CUP amendment, finding
that a wood trash enclosure does not meet the CUP approval criteria as defined by the
Zoning Code.
Ray Piirainen, representative for Fairview Hospital and Ridge Valley Clinic explained the
trash enclosure was an oversight on his part. The contractor made the judgment. Mr.
Piirainen stated Fairview is prepared to follow the Ordinance. He would like an
extension of time to complete the brick enclosure to approximately Spring of 1997 when
the second phase of the clinic would be completed. At this time he is not sure if the
present trash area is the best place to make a permanent enclosure. Ridge Valley Clinic
would like to make it as accessible and attractive as possible.
.
Tom Kearney, 6424 Conroy Street, representative of the Westbury Pond development
expressed his preference to a six month time limit.
Comments from Commissioners:
V onhof:
. The original CUP was designed to be brick and was not an oversight by the City
Staff.
Criego:
. A mistake was made - correct it.
. Follow the process.
Loftus:
. Agree with commissioners.
. Concern of doing brick work in the cold season.
. Grant Fairview an extension to June 30, 1996 to go from wood to brick.
Kuykendall:
MNO 10896. DOC
PAGE 9
. This is not unrealistic.
. Support staff recommendation but would be reasonable about extending the work to 6
months and give Fairview an opportunity to decide where they want to locate the
enclosure.
MOTION BY LOFTUS, TO DENY THE AMENDMENT BUT RECOMMEND TO
CITY COUNCIL THE REQUIREMENT FOR COMPLETION TO JUNE 30, 1996
No second.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO DENY THE CUP
AMENDMENT, FINDING THAT A WOOD TRASH ENCLOSURE DOES NOT
MEET THE CUP APPROVAL CRITERIA AS DEFINED BY THE ZONING
ORDINANCE.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Criego, Kuykendal and Loftus. MOTION
CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
5. A Tree Preservation Amendment Tabled from December 11, 1995 - CONSIDERATION
OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 5 OF THE CITY CODE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE
83-06, AND CREATING A TREE PRESERVATION PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR
LAKE.
Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information from the Planning Report
dated January 8, 1995. Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance as presented or with
changes.
Read letter from Karen Christofferson of the Builders Association.
Open Discussion:
Definition of "site"; control vs. regulating; give examples so residents get a better idea;
define true value (market value) ($100 per caliper inch) for trees; great job; make it more
understandable to lay people.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE WITH THE ADDITION OF "SITE" DEFINED
AND CLARIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE REGARDING "PUBLICLY OWNED
AND CONTROLLED".
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Loftus, Creigo and Kuykendall. MOTION
CARRIED.
Don Rye gave an update on City Council's comments on the Comp Plan.
MNOI0896.DOC
PAGEIO
Discussion on the workshop - tentative date of Saturday, March 23, 1996.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO CLOSE THE MEETING.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Loftus, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION
CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11 :41 p.m.
Director of Planning
Don Rye
Recording Secretary
Connie Carlson
MNOI0896.DOC
P AGElI
The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian and Marilyn
Carlson. The Carlsons intend to remodel their exi;;ting house. The portions of the
proposed remodeling which are the subject of the variance application are 1 ) the removal
of the existing deck and construction of an enclosed porch in its place and 2) the removal
of the existing, detached 2-car garage and its replacement by an attached, 40 foot garage.
Based on the survey submitted with the application, construction of the proposed porch
addition would result in a lakeshore setback of 56 feet instead of the existing 61 feet and
the required 75 feet. Construction of the attached garage would result in a minimum side
yard setback on the East of 7.6 feet instead of the existiRg 12.5 feet and the required 10
feet. The survey indicates thatthe net existing and the proposed impervious surface
coverage are 22.6%, which would be consistent with the Shoreland Ordinance.
The subject property was plattedin 1923 as Lots 18 and 19, FAIRLA WN SHORES.
a large property, containing 15,767 square feet and measuring 77.96 feet wide at the
streetside property line. The existing house was built in 1971. Both the platting of the
subject property and the construCtion of the existing house occurred while the property
was in the unincorporated area of Scott County. The property was a part of the 1973
annexation from Eagle Creek Township.
The rationale fotthe request vii:'a-vis the proposed porch is.l) that the existing deck is
dilapidated and requires replacement, and 2) the applicants wish. to create more usable
interior space. The City's ordiriahces would permit maintenance of the dec~ as a non-
conforming structure. . Replacement of the deck at its current size and in its present
configuration would require a variance; . The existing deck is not/should notbe included
. in impervious surfaceundei the Shoreland Ordinance. . The proposed porch count toward
. impervious surface coverage because of the roof
16200 ~€~~@KAve,S.E:. Prior Lake. Minnesotil55372~1714 I Ph, (612) 447-4230 IFaK (612)447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTL'NITY EMPLOYER
The applicants wish to add a larger, attached garage for additional storage and,
presumably, convenience. While staff does not have benefit of a floor plan for the
existing house, it appears that the proposed garage could be shifted to the 2.4 feet to the
East to comply with the side yard setback. It does not appear that the shift would conflict
with the entrance to the existing house. The increase in the size of the garage would
result in additional impervious surface. The survey does not show the proposed fmal
driveway configuration, thus it is not clear whether or not it would add impervious
surface. In the event that the Commission approves the requested variance, staff suggests
that the applicant submit verification of the proposed impervious surface calculations
with the building permit application.
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. The property is currently developed with a residence with lakeshore
side deck and detached 2-car garage. The house has a building footprint, exclusive of the
deck of 1,288 square feet, and has a walkout level. In staff s opinion these facts
constitute prima facie evidence of reasonable [residential] use of the property. Similarly,
the property currently has a 2-car garage. Moreover, legal alternatives exist which would
allow the construction of the desired garage. Thus literal enforcement of the Ordinance
would not result in undue hardship (i.e. deprivation of reasonable use) with respect to the
subject property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property .
Because staff has concluded that literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not result in
undue hardship, this criteria is, de facto, not met. Moreover, the size, shape and
configuration of the subject lot does not present unique circumstances.
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.
Because staffhas concluded that there would not be an undue hardship if the Ordinance
were literally enforced, this criteria is not met.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of the Ordinance is to provide relief in those cases where development
opportunities are severely limited by the conditions of a property. This does not appear
to staff to be a property where opportunities are so limited. However, because of the
96-02V A.DOC
2
setback from Fairlawn Shores Trail, and because of the additional encroachment toward
the lake is only 4 feet, it does not appear that the proposed additions would have an
adverse, aesthetic impact on the surrounding properties.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicants, 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 Ordinance criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Because staffhas concluded that reasonable use of the property currently exists, that legal
alternatives exist to accomplish the applicants' objective, and thus that the Ordinance
criteria are not met, staff recommends Alternative No.3.
ACTION REQillRED:
A motion directing staff to prepare a resolution with findings consistent with the Planning
Commission's action.
96-02VA.DOC
3
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
'~Applicant: (l.,ItI/lH' LJ~ ......, ~AteJJ..Yr/ ~ C~~.iS4.n/
Address: s:. W/AueJ._f./AI/ ~i!..~t:./" ~ ~L_1 E_
Property ONner: .A'A""~ AJ' J461t1vr
Address: m':- A'.r .#16'~vtt'
Type of ONnership: Fee Contract
Consul tant/Contractor:
W/'( 0 - () d.-
pmt 25"- 'J.:j / ~ '717
,
Home Phone: J/'JL 7 -YJ'//
Work Phone:
Home Phone:
Work Phone:
Purchase Agreanent
Phone:
Existing Use
of Property: () t/~
Legal Description
of Variance Site:
Variance Requested:
IfE.n&Jz5K'I.'E
Present Zoning:
Jeqrr CQvY7V
.
L#/f ..//...,.,/9 ;C'/?/,e.t,4&vN' ..r)-/o~&.r
-..5ErL1'#(,K /~~n1 ~A4r
..s .#" -r4ACK WtF'.r r ..r nO&" ;<, ?
Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone,
use pennit on the subject site or any part of it?
What was requested:
When: Disposition:
obtain a variance or conditional
Yes X' ~
Describe the type of improvanents proposed:
./fcmqAE~ ~AJ;:;-
SOBMISSION REOUIREMENI'S:
CA)Completed application foon. (B) Filing fee. (C) Property SUrvey indicating the
proposed developnent in relation to property lines and/or ordinary-high-water mark;
proposed building elevations and drainage plan. CD)Certified from abstract finn,
names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of
the subject property. (E)Canplete legal description & Property Identification Number
(pm). (F)Deed restrictions or private covenants, ff applicable. (G)A parcel map
at 1"-20'-50' showing: The site developnent plan, buildings: parking, loading,
access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service.
ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE ACCEPl'm AND REVIEWED BY THE PLANNIN:i a::MMISSION.
To the best of my knowledge the infonnation presented on this foon is correct. In
addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which specifies
requiranents for variance procedures. I agree to ide intPrma . follow the
procedures as outl ined in the Ordinance. _ 6/
5Ul:mi.tted this,&s ~"""""~ 199?
PLANNnX; aJMMISSION
CITY comor. APPEAL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DM'E OF HEARIN:i
DM'E OF HEARIN:i
CONDITIONS:
Signature of the Planning Director
Date
JRVEY PR EPARED FOR:
RIAN CARLSON
)54 FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL S.E.
~ lOR LAKE, MN. 55372
OEC)(
EXISTING
IfOUSE
..
&n-
N:
-,
904
I
Q)
::Lu:
o = ,
-f\J
'-I't)-
0- 0
'11 " Ci
.S ;;-
-7-0"
i I >, ~ ~
:-_f\J
~ ,
,
,
\
\
EXISTING
HOUSE
.::.,- -0"0 _ <J.-.
932.4 - - - - _ _
-----....;
)'..-----
__ 932."'-.
---
-"--
T.C.EL.
931.88
-t_______
Fair/awn
----
-----.-
SAN. M.H.
RIM 931.56
,E-
I
I
I
J
n~
o
~~ores
933.16
Irail
.------
--- ._._--~- .__._--~
January 15, 1996
Mr. R. Michael Leek
Associate planner
City of Prior Lake
Subject:Variance
5544 Fairlawn
Shores Trail S. E.
Dear Sir:
Friday morning, January 12, when you called to tell me that
the planning department had denied my variance and you
wanted to know if I wanted to proceed to go to the
planning commission and then city council my reply was yes.
At that time, I asked for information regarding past
decisions regarding variances and building permits with
regard to lakeshore properties. This information. I felt,
would be useful in my preparation for the upcoming meetings
with the planning commission and city council. You stated
that this is public information and you would talk with me
Tuesday about information you had gathered. You stated that
this is public information and available to me.
This weekend I had some additional thoughts which may help me
in my presentation to the planning commission and city
council and are listed below:
.
1. A copy of the ordinance that would have applied to the
improvements made to the property when the home was
originally built. I believe the home was built in 1971 or
1972.
2. A copy of all new ordinances, up to and including
the present ordinance, that have been enacted since the home
was built.
3. If there is such a thing, a copy of the ordinance that
applies to substandard lots.
4. A listing of all lakeshore building permits since I
became a homeowner in 1978.
5. A listing of all variances granted for
lakeshore property since I became a homeowner in 1978.
6. A listing of all variances denied for
lakeshore property since I became a homeowner in 1978.
8. A copy of the DNR requirement concerning lakeshore
setback or confirm that it is 50' or 30' if your home is up
on a bluff.
Please advise If you would have any question or
suggestion concerning those items.
Based on our previous conversation, I assume that the
information requested is public information. In other words,
if I have no legal right to this information do not give me
the information.
If I can be of any assistance in researching the records, I
will take whatever time is necessary to help. .
u,
~
PS: You said the planning department denied my request for
variance. Do I get something in writing telling me why?
~
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A SETBACK OF 7.6 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET
AND A LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE OF 56 FEET INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 75 FEET RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND
PORCH ADDITIONS, RESPECTIVELY, TO AN EXISTING HOUSE ON
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-
SHORELAND DISTRICT
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, January 22, 1995, at 7:00
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT: Brian D. And Marilyn J. Carlson
5544 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE: Lots 18 and 19, "FAIRLA WN SHORES", Scott County,
.
Minnesota, also known as 5544 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE.
REQUEST: The applicants propose the removal of the existing, detached
garage, and the construction of an attached garage as shown on the
attached site survey. The applicants also propose the removal of
the existing deck and construction of an enclosed porch extending
4 feet closer to the lakeshore. The applicants' plans propose a
side yard setback to the West of7.6 feet instead of the required 10
feet and a lake shore setback of 56 feet instead of the required 75
feet. Thus, the applicants request that the Planning Commission
approve a 2.4 foot side yard setback variance on the West, and a
19 foot lakeshore setback variance.
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.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4,\7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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: January 12, 1996.
2
;RESOLUTION 96-03PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK
OF 4.5 FEET ON THE WEST AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5.5 FEET ON THE
EAST INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET TO PERMIT AN ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE Rl-URBAN
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICT AT 3508
SYCAMORE TRAIL.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. William B. And Ellen M. Hackett have applied for variances from Section 4 of the
Zoning Ordinance in order to permit an addition to an existing residence on property
located in the Rl-Urban Residential zoning district and the SD-Shoreland District at the
following location, to wit;
3508 Sycamore Trail, legally described as Lot 1, MAPLEWOOD, Scott
County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained
in Case #V A95-44 and held a hearing thereon on January 8, 1996.
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.
16200 l!lB9liPG~~. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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. Among the conditions applying to the subject property which the
Board of Adjustment relied upon are its extreme narrowness (the property is 35
feet wide) and its severe slope to the Prior Lake.
6. The granting of the variances is 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 is necessary to alleviate demonstrable
hardship.
7. The contents of Planning Case V A95-44 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 (I) year from the date of approval if the holder
of the variance has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits
for the completion of contemplated improvements.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and
approves the following variances;
1. A side yard setback of 4.5 feet on the West and a side yard setback of 5.5 feet on
the East instead of the required 10 feet.
These variances are granted with the following terms and conditions;
1. Impervious surface coverage after completion of the improvements which are
the subject of these variances shall not exceed the current impervious surface
coverage of34.87%.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 22, 1996.
Richard Kuykendall, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
96-03PC.DOC/RML
2