The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMarch 25, 1996 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, March 25, 1996 7:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: A. "Pheasant Meadow" continue public hearing to consider the Schematic PUD, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat. 12.5 acres located North of 8TH 13, South of 170th Street and East of Sunset Hills Addition. B. Home Occupation Request for floral design by Leslie Huntington, 4087 Raspberry Ridge. C. Variance Request by Richard & Julie Warner, 3814 Green Heights Trail. Request side yard setback for construction of a garage. D. Variance Request by Thomas & Cheryl Vidmar for the property located at 4307 Grainwood Circle. Request for front and side yard setback and lake side setback average for construction of a new home. E. Variance Request by Gene & Coleen Tremaine at 16500 Inguadona Beach. Request for front, side and lakeshore setback; setback average; lot area variance; and impervious surface for construction of a new home. F. Variance Request by John Schiffman at 15220 Howard Lake Road. Request for lakeshore setback to construct a garage. G. Variance Request by John Schoeller for Carol's Furniture at 16511 Anna Trail. Request for a front yard setback for an addition on property. 5. Old Business: 16200 ~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, MinnesotaPMf372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 6. New Business: A. Planned Unit Development Report B. Capital Improvement Plan review. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: AG032S96.DOC PAGE 2 D14W1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 11, 1996 The March 11, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Kuykendall at 7:10 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Vonhofand Kuykendall, Planning Director Don Rye, City Attorney Suesan Pace and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. · Roll Call: Wuellner Criego Loftus V onhof Kuykendall Present Absent Absent Present Present APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY VONHOF TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 26,1996 MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Vonhofand Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS: WORKSHOP City Attorney, Suesan Pace, gave an overview of the planning and zoning with case law and decisions that could relate to the City of Prior Lake. Ms. Pace also spoke on zoning regulations and the responsibilities of Planning Commissions as well as the Comp Plan process; Zoning Ordinances; performance and dimensional standards; subdivision controls; district permitted uses; accessory uses; amendments to Comp Plan; Text Amendments, variances; legislative decisions/quasi-judicial decisions; 60 Day Rule; Standards of Review by Courts; "Sunshine Laws"; substandard lots; the Shoreland Management Ordinance and creating a "record". A recess was called at 8:03 p.m.. The meeting reconvened at 8:08 p.m. Planning Director, Don Rye, lead a discussion on comments for the record at public hearings. Other topics included: supporting your statement; characterizing a person or incident; paraphrasing; elements of negotiations; neighborhoods and community surveys; recommendations to City Council and personal liability of Commissioners; City Manager, Frank Boyles, reviewed the changes in the Planning Commission Bylaws with the Commissioners. Further discussions included: notification of special meetings; times, definition of Planning Commission; update and review Comp Plan; Planned Unit Developments; joint meetings with City Council and Planning Commission; revision of several ordinance issues; minutes; roles played in the meetings; submitted public comments for the record; closing of public hearings; officers; approving meeting MN031196.DOC PAGEl agendas; recommendations to City Council with Planning Commission applicants; performance criteria for the committee - set and review goals; conflict of interest and a staff review by Commissioners. The PUD Status Report will be scheduled for discussion at the March 25, 1996 meeting. The joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting is tentatively scheduled for May 20, 1996. Chairman Kuykendall adjourned the meeting at 9: 11 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MN031196.DOC PAGE 2 lLANNING REPORT PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4A Schematic PUD, Rezoning from R-l, Suburban Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for "Pheasant Meadows", property located in the R-l Suburban Residential zoning district Property located between Trunk Highway 13 and County Road 12, east of Sunset Hills Addition Donald Rye, Planning Director _X_ YES _NO-N/A March 25, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: INTRODUCTION: This application was originally heard by the Planning Commission at its February 26th meeting. The applicants are requesting approval of a townhouse development containing 50 dwelling units under the pun provisions of the zoning ordinance. BACKGROUND: At the February 28th meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and heard testimony from several area residents concerning the proposed project. Much of the discussion focused on traffic issues, including connecting the existing Balsam Street to the proposed development and safety issues at the intersection of County Road 12 and Highway 13. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing and requested staff to contact MnDOT to determine a specific time line for scheduled improvements to the intersection of County 12 and Highway 13 and to further consider the impact of the proposed development on the same intersection. DISCUSSION: Attached to this report is a letter from MnDOT indicating that modifications to the intersection of ! 3 and 12 are scheduled for the summer of 1997 and discussing other improvements which might occur in this area. Also attached is a report from the City Engineers office analyzing future traffic patterns in the area. This report concludes that the existing road system is adequate to handle anticipated traffic increases from the proposed development. Further analysis of traffic from the proposed development in comparison with a single family development on the same property having 25 lots shows the following: Total vehicle trip generation from the single family development would be approximately 250 trips per day while the 50 townhouses would 16200 ~~~~i\ve. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER generate approximately 400 vehicle trips. However, the distribution of these trips during the peak traffic hours of the day (the morning and afternoon rush hours) shows a different situation. During the morning or AM peak hour, the single family development will generate 18 trips while the townhouses will generate 22 trips. During the afternoon or PM peak hour, the single family development will generate 26 trips while the townhouses would generate 28. While the single family development would generate less overall traffic over the course of a .day, there is virtually no difference between the two developments durin~ the peak hours. Twenty-five single family houses were used because the site , while theoretically allowing about 40 houses, would probably only accommodate 25 to 30 houses because of the property configuration. With either development, the number of peak hour trips and the total traffic generated are unlikely to have a material effect on traffic conditions in the area. The addition of 20 to 25 trips during the peak PM hour is only one additional vehicle every 2/12 to 3 minutes. This level of increase is not considered significant from a Level of Service standpoint. The conclusions stated in the staff report for the February 26 meeting are still felt to be valid and the recommendation to approve the Schematic PUD, rezoning and preliminary plat is unchanged. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the Schematic Planned Unit Development, zoning change from R-l, Suburban Residential to PUD and the Preliminary Plat for Pheasant Meadows as recommended or with specified changes. 2. Recommend denial of the Schematic PUD, zoning change and preliminary plat for Pheasant Meadows 3. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Alternative 1.i ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to adopt attached Resolution 96-xx 032596.DOC/DR 2 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: DON RYE, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING JOHN WINGARD, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER T P vJ PHEASANT MEADOWS CIRCULATIONffRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 13, 1996 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Pheasant Meadows PUD, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning on February 26,1996. The Public Hearing was continued to March 25, 1996, in order to receive additional information from the Engineering staff related to circulation and access in the vicinity of the project. As requested, we have reviewed the traffic impact to CSAH 12, STH 13, CR 81, and to the Sunset Hills Subdivision due to the proposed development of Pheasant Meadows. After the February 26th Planning Commission Meeting, Larry Anderson called Paul Kachelmyer of MnDOT to verify the status of the proposed improvements at STH 13 and CSAH 12 (170th Street). Enclosed is Exhibit "A" which is a copy of the response letter from MnDOT stating that the proposed improvements are currently planned for the summer of 1997. Discussions with MnDOT will continue regarding design of the intersection. Due to the uncertainty of development and cost, the intersection improvements will probably be done in 1997 at the current location of the intersection. The major streets or roadways that serve the Pheasant Meadows area are classified as follows: STREET CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION Provide inter-community connections. Major business STH 13 "A" Minor Arterial concentrations & other important traffic generators are located on "A" minor arterials. Provide alternative routes for congested corridors & serve as CSAH 12 Other Minor Arterials cross-city traffic carriers. Connect individual neighborhoods to the minor arterial CR81 Major Collector system. All other streets in this area are classified as local streets. These streets are for access to adjacent property and are designed as low speed, low capacity facilities. PHEASANT.DOC The Pheasant Meadows development is proposed to include 50 units when fully developed. The trip generation rate for townhouse units is approximately 8 trips per day. Therefore, this development would add approximately 400 trips per day to the streets in this area. We estimate that 90% of the trips would travel to or from 170th Street, and 10% percent would travel across Balsam Street if that street is connected into the Sunset Hills development, and if the stub street to the east serves a commercial development. The local streets in Sunset Hills development currently handle a traffic load of 300 to 500 trips per day. The additional traffic generated by the Pheasant Meadows development, and future commercial development to the east, could add another 10% to this amount in Sunset Hills. The streets in the development can easily handle the projected traffic volumes. The City has several local streets with volumes in the 1000 vehicles per day range. The City measured the traffic in two locations in the Sunset Hills Development on March 14 and 15, 1996. The average daily traffic (ADT) at Balsam Street west of Spruce Street was measured at 310. The ADT at Spruce Street south of Balsam Street was measured at 320. Attached is a copy of Exhibit "B" which shows a comparison of the future and existing traffic volumes. The top number shows the daily traffic forecast for the year 2015 and the bottom number shows the existing daily traffic volume for the year 1995. The roadways should be built to accommodate the volume of traffic it is expected to carry. The following shows the roadway capacity for each type of street: CROSS SECTION OF STREET HOURLY LANE CAPACITY DAILY VOLUME CAPACITY 2 lane urban 550/ lane 8,000 to 9,000 4 lane urban 600 / lane 18,000 to 20,000 The traffic volumes on STH 13 will require improvements to allow this roadway to function properly. STH 13 is the only continuous roadway in the City that is generally aligned north to south. Topography and existing development preclude the establishment of a parallel facility. To allow STH 13 to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, the roadway should be upgraded by year 2015 to a four lane divided roadway with well spaced signalized intersections. Also, the City and County should establish parallel side street connections that allow motorists an opportunity to avoid using STH 13 for short trips. The City is working with MnDOT on a TH 13 Corridor Study. The purpose is to develop a long range plan for the design of TH 13 including spacing of intersections. It is unlikely that TH 13 will be upgraded to a 4 lane facility in the next 15 years due to funding. The future traffic volumes on CSAH 12 (l70th Street) should not require any additional lanes of through traffic. The City and the County intend to leave CSAH 12 as a two lane roadway. The future upgrading of CSAH 12 might include adding turn lanes at major intersections, and the City would like to add a sidewalk or trailway on this roadway. The improvements to CSAH 12 are not included in the City's or County's Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. PHEASANT.DOC In summary, the existing streets that serve the proposed Pheasant Meadows development have sufficient capacity to handle the additional traffic generated from this development. The reconstruction of the 170th Street intersection with STH 13 in 1997 will improve the capacity and safety of this intersection. . PHEASANT.DOC EXHIBIT II All eli' )- OF Tf\~ Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Roseville Off ice 582 - 1298 March 1, 1996 j Larry Anderson, Director of Public Works Prior Lake City Hall 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 subject: Proposed improvements at TH 13 and County Road 12. As you requested, I will summarize here, the project that Mn/Dot is presently proposing for this intersection. It is proposed that the existing southbound TH 13, to westbound County Road 12, right turn lane be lengthened, and slightly separated from TH 13. It is anticipated that this work will reduce the number of right angle accidents at this intersection. The change will allow drivers stopped on County Road 12 to more clearly see if vehicles southbound on TH 13 intend to turn, or continue straight. The project is currently planned for the summer of 1997, and is expected to cost approximately $75,000. You mentioned, that the potential exists, for a portion of County Road 12, to be relocated, so that it would intersect with TH 13 approximately 400 feet further south from its present location. Such a relocation would be "development driven" and would allow for the redevelopment of the car wash and former cabinet shop sites. It would also allow for access to the undeveloped area on the south side of TH 13, in that area. Such a relocation would create the need for right and left turn lanes to be constructed on TH 13. The cost of such turn lanes would likely be approximately $250,000. It has been the policy of Mn/Dot that these costs should be paid by the City, County, or the developer. However, in this case, Mn/Dot would likely be willing to pay for a portion of the costs, for the following reasons: 1. The realignment would eliminate the need to construct the currently proposed right turn lane project. This would only apply if the realignment were scheduled for the near future. 2. The driveways to the car wash and the former cabinet shop, were removed from TH 13, and relocated to the County Road. 3. The median opening at 170th Street, on the south side of TH 13, were closed, as part of the project. An Equal Opportunity Employer EXHIBIT nAn 4. The existing connection from County Road 12, to TH 13 was closed. Such a closure could also make several hundred feet of the County Road right of way available for development. Scott County may be willing to participate in some of the costs, because it would improve the connection of the County Road to TH 13. The improvement would be by increasing the length of the County Road which would be at a right angle to TH 13. Please feel free to .call me if you should have any further questions on this matter. Sincerel~ ~ Paul Kachelmyer P.E~ TH 13 Project Manager ~.~'..-~ <:.."'i~>) 1~-::/'CJ')j-\'l // ,f'(J.JiW.>._/..-;'!}' i.. .' / / ~/ \" /~// lh // L~./<;{~< _'\~ -"- ~J \ ~'::." '-- , ,:" "" '*" >'" ''\ ----- ---.. ) ;ta .: ~ --.. LLt y <I .-J (L D f----1 w y <.::[ -1 LJ Z 1--1 CL CL V) ~ ~ // ~ ,/ W :L <[ -.l J c --",-~/"'( w u - Cl:: L!)L!) -0- ~o- Cf) W ~ ::> -1 o > u - LL LL <(- 0::(0 1-= t- Wen 0:::- :J~ I-W ::> LL o Z <( t:9 Z - I- · RESOLUTION 96-04PC RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE SCHEMATIC PUD FOR PHEASANT MEADOW. MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS: the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 26, and March 25, 1996 to consider an application from Williams Development LLC, for Schematic PUD for Pheasant Meadow; and WHEREAS: notice of the public hearing on said Schematic PUD has been duly published in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issue and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the Schematic PUD of Pheasant Meadow; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission finds the Schematic PUD are consistent with the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission finds the Schematic PUD of Pheasant Meadow in harmony with both existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the project; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission finds the proposed Schematic PUD of Pheasant Meadow is compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission finds the proposed Schematic PUD of Pheasant Meadow adequately provides for internal organization, uses, appropriate densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreation areas and open space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that it recommends the City Council approve the Schematic PUD for Pheasant Meadow subject to the following: 1. Subject to installation of Balsam Street from Pheasant Meadow Lane to the eastern terminus of Balsam Street located within the plat of Sunset Hills Addition. 2. Approve the Schematic PUD Plan Map for Pheasant Meadow 12-21-95. 3. Approve the cluster, townhome development consisting of 48 townhome units. 4. Rezone the 12.5 acre subject site from R-l, Suburban Residential to PUD 3-96. RS9604PC.DOC 16200 @Jh~~~~. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY EMPLOYER 5. No minimum setback standard from the units to the platted lot line of all proposed lots. 6. The following zoning standards shall apply to the PUD of Pheasant Meadow: STANDARD REQUIREMENT Maximum Density 4.5 Proposed Density 4.15 .:::m.!lft~rq,\II::::::::::::::I::::::::::II:::Iii~~:::~f:::::::::::~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~~:IIIII:Irl"::~\.if.i::::::::::::::::::::::II\::if!:::::::\::::::::I:::::::::::::::::::::::::::III::I::::::I::::::::::::::I::: Required Open . Space 20% . . ... . ....... ProposedOpeIlSpace" 51.8% ................ (Public or Private) (2.5 acres) (6.24 acres) - .. STH 13Required Setback. 50' from R-O-W .. Proposed snI 13 50'''&010 R-O-W . ..... . Setback units shall not be subject to setback requirement on the individually platted lots underlying the unit. PROPOSED PUD Passed and adopted this 25th day of March, 1996. YES NO KUYKENDALL CRIEGO LOFTUS WUELLNER VONHOFF KUYKENDALL CRIEGO LOFTUS WUELLNER VONHOFF Dick Kuykendall, Chair Planning Commission Donald Rye, Director of Planning City of Prior Lake RS9604PC.DOC DR Deb Garross :::::;:::;:::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::: :<.: . ......:. ..."'- :tiD.dil'-rResolutiorl. #2. :.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.;.:.;.:.:.:.............................:.;.;.;.:.:. ........... :.:.:.'.:.:.:.;.:-:.:.:.:.:.;.;.:.;.:.:. ..................... .................... ................. .... ................... . ..................... RESOLUTION 96-05PC RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOk LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "PHEASANT MEADOW" SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED HEREIN. MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS: the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 26, 1996 and March 25, 1996, to consider an application from Williams Development LLC, for the preliminary plat of Pheasant Meadow; and WHEREAS: notice of the public hearing on said preliminary plat has been duly published and posted in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issues and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the preliminary plat of Pheasant Meadow; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat according to the applicable provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and found said preliminary plat to be consistent with the provisions of said ordinances; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission finds the preliminary plat of Pheasant Meadow to be consistent with the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that it hereby recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat of Pheasant Meadow subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Schematic and Preliminary PUD for Pheasant Meadow to allow a cluster, townhome development. 2. Approval of Ordinance 96-10 establishing a PUD zone for Pheasant Meadow. 3. The preliminary plat shall be amended so there is no structure, (deck), encroachment into the setback areas adjacent to the boundaries of the plat. 4. The landscape plan shall be amended to show the required irrigation system as per the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The landscape plan should be amended to add additional shrubs and ornamental trees around the RS960SPC.DOC 16200 ~le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER entry monument. 6. A Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted to the City in accordance with Section 6.16 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. 7. The developer shall submit a draft of the covenants and/or agreements as a condition of preliminary plat, as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. . 8. The developer shall provide the required covenants and easements for proposed entry monuments as required by Sign Ordinance 94-6. 9. Per Ordinance 94-01, a minimum of 30' setback from the 100 Year Flood Elevation to all building pads and house locations is required. 10. A 5' wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the entire length of Pheasant Meadow Lane to the end of the cul-de-sac and be connected to an 8' bituminous trail providing a pedestrian link to the east edge of the plat. The specific trail location to be determined by staff. 11. A 5' wide concrete sidewalk shall be located on the south side of Spruce Road which should be constructed with the installation of other streets in the PUD. 12. A 30' wide trail easement over the 8' bituminous trail shall be given to the City of Prior Lake at the time of final plat. 13. The park requirement for the subdivision will be a cash dedication in lieu of land, the amount to be determined at the time of final plat. 14. The developer should re-examine if the sanitary sewer line on Balsam Street would be deep enough to serve this site. If the Balsam Street sewer line will not work, then the developer will need to construct the sewer line in between the houses on Lots 3 and 4 of Sunset Hills as shown on the preliminary utility plans. 15. The name "Spruce" Road shall be changed to a street name which is not currently used in the City of Prior Lake. 16. Balsam Street should be connected to Meadow Lane as indicated by the alternative shown on the preliminary plat. 17. Spruce Road should be moved to the south approximately 100' feet in order to provide enough depth to lots in the future neighborhood commercial district to the east. The road relocation can be accomplished without loss of units within the development. Some modification to the large storm water pond south of proposed Spruce Trail may be required as a result of the road relocation. 18. Dedication of 50' of right-of-way for 170th Street on CSAH 12, shall be required at the time of final plat, to accommodate the future upgrading of this street to a two (2) lane urban design with bituminous trails. 19. Dedication of drainage and utility easements shall be required at the time of final plat, over the southeast stormwater pond and all sewer and water lines constructed outside of the dedicated right- of-way. RS960SPC.DOC DR 20. The developer shall be responsible to acquire additional temporary and permanent drainage and utility easements on Lots 3 and 4 of Block 5 of Sunset Hills Addition, prior to the construction of the 8" sanitary sewer line proposed to be constructed along the common lot line in between these lots. The developer will be responsible for all costs associated with obtaining these easements. 21. As shown on the preliminary utility plans, the sanitary sewer layout shall include an 8" sanitary sewer stub and an 8" watermain stug in Spruce Road to serve the future development to the east. 22. An 8" watermain shall be extended to the south plat line to serve possible future development to the south of Highway 13. 23. The small pond located in the west central portion of the site shall be deleted. 24. Five complete full-size and one 11" x 17" set of the preliminary plat indicating all required changes identified herein, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to submission of a final plat for the development. Said full-size plan sheets shall be at the same scale as the final plat. 25. The preliminary plat is valid for 12 months from the date of approval by the City Council. Failure to submit the final plat of the within the required time frame shall cause the preliminary plat to become null and void. Passed and adopted this 25th day of March, 1996. YES NO KUYKENDALL CRIEGO LOFTUS VONHOFF WUELLNER KUYKENDALL CRIEGO LOFTUS VONHOFF WUELLNER Dick Kuydendall, Chair Prior Lake Planning Commission Donald Rye, Director of Planning City of Prior Lake RS960SPC.DOC DR CITY OF PRIOR LAKE . ORDINANCE NO. 96-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-2-1 OF PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 2.1 OF PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: The Prior Lake Zoning map, referred to in Prior Lake City Code Section 5-2-1 and Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance No. 83-6 Section 2.1, is hereby amended to change the zoning classification of the following legally described property from R-1, Suburban Residential to PUD 3-96. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the Northwest Quarter ofthe Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota lying northwesterly of State Trunk Highway No. 13, and west, south and westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest comer of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East (assumed bearing) along the north line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 375.80 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a bearing of South a distance of 200.00 feet; thence East a distance of 13.10 feet; thence South 4 degrees 52 minutes 42 seconds East to the centerline of said State Trunk Highway No. 13, and there terminating. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of , 1996. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of ,1996. Drafted By: Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek A venue Prior Lake, MN 55372 ORD96 I O.DOC 16200 ~~~r~lfP'.R~~. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Project . Developers, Inc. March 19, 1996 Mr. Donald Rye Planning Director City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Re: Pheasant Meadow Dear Don: I am including a modified landscape plan for the Pheasant Meadow subdivision that makes two of the major changes requested by staff. We have relocated the road connection to the east farther to the south and eliminated the small pond on the west side of the townhomes. Although we have not redrawn the plan completely to remove the decks encroachment on the setbacks, we have looked at it from a dimensional standpoint and will have no problem meeting that stipulation. We would, however, request that we would be allowed to make that minor modification as part of the final plat process to reduce the redrawing cost for the preliminary plat. I have also relocated the proposed trail to the parkland between units 32 and 33, since this currently has an existing 30 foot easement for the storm sewer pipe. I hope these revised plans will aid in the discussion at the planning commission meeting. If you have any further questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Project Developers, Inc. - )~ Terry Schneider cc: Jeff Williams David Williams Interchange Tower, Suite 1970 600 South Highway 169 St. Louis Park, MN 55426 (612) 545-0505 Fax (612) 545-1510 I I I ...J .J --- ~",I : 0 ) ! 0 a . It . : d . . 'Hi I ! S ~ , , , _ ;! ~ t e t :l f e 1 ,: ~ 5 5< - -1- --~ -Iii , , , I I. ~ : I I I --'--__...J. r I I I I I L - - - :.::':' -=':)lh ~ - - ~ " ,- a -- ,/ Ii' <( ---/01 I--~--_-- /h:::J~1 ' !? Ij~Oc I ~~~h ' I I I V;!~! "" II. . \ Y/..'~' ~\ / \, /,' --- )-J- ..~~ /. t ~w 1~ ~ M~ ?:"'~~~~ ~~ lilt; '(Jj'" ... it Itl ~ ~" ~ !!l~ ~:!J 3 to ~ UJ. ~a~i'ir , i~ ~5Uih / ~ '" i'i ~ ~ z:t '!I i< ", 5~ Z~:nUltt~~ ~:fi 2""'HIo'R oQ ~~~~~ii1~ ~9 ~~d~I-?,~ ~~ ~t)&\u~~i H ~~(U8.!J ./ -- ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ -- ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ -- ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ -- ./ ./ ./ ./ I I ! Illl! Ill':!, 1)11'01 t jl\!i!' 'I....l ~'!.!. .... I, ~1 , . PLANNING REPORT PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4B CONSIDER HOME OCCUPATION REQUEST FOR LESLIE HUNTINGTON R. MICHAEL LEEK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER _ YES -X-NO MARCH 25, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department has received an application for a Home Occupation Permit from Leslie Huntington of 4087 Raspberry Ridge Road NE. The applicant requests approval to operate a floral design business. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The subject property is developed with a single-family house with attached garage. The paved driveway is large enough to accommodate delivery vehicles or cars off-street. ST AFF ANALYSIS: The basic premise of the City's home occupation regulations is that such occupations can be permitted which would not disrupt the surrounding neighborhood. The Ordinance at Section 6.8 provides 6 criteria by which requests for home occupation permits should be evaluated. These criteria, and staff's evaluation of the request against the criteria, are set forth below. A. The home occupation shall be carried on by a member of the family residing in the dwelling unit with not more than one employee who is not a part of the family. This occupation would be carried on solely by the applicant who resides on the property. There would be no other employees of the occupation at this time. Thus this criterion is met. B. The home occupation shall be carried on wholly within the principal or accessory structures. 96021PC.OOC 1 16200 ~ Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The design and creation of floral arrangements in connection with the occupation would be carried on wholly within the fourth level of the existing split-level house. Consultations with clients would be held largely off-site. Thus this criterion is met. C. Exterior displays or signs other than those permitted under 6.4, exterior storage of materials and exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the residential character of the principal structure shall not be permitted. The City's Sign Ordinance, adopted in December of 1994, does not permit business signs in residential areas. D. Objectionable noise, vibration, smoke, dust, electrical disturbance, odors, heat or glare shall not be produced. The proposed occupation is not expected to produce objectionable noise, vibration, smoke, dust, electrical disturbance, odors, heat or glare. E. Articles not produced on the premises shall not be sold on the premises without a specified permit. The applicant proposes to sell only her services as a floral designer, and arrangements which she has created on-site for her clients. Thus this criterion is met. F. The home occupation shall not create excessive automobile traffic within the neighborhood. The only traffic expected to be generated by the proposed business would be the trips to meet with clients or for occasional deliveries of fresh or silk flowers and other materials. Any need for off street parking can be accommodated by the existing driveway. Thus this criterion is met. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the home occupation permit for a floral design business at 4087 Raspberry Ridge Road NE. as submitted or with conditions deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 2. Table or continue the item for specific reasons. 3. Deny the home occupation permit because it is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance criteria. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions; 96021PC.DOC RML 2 1. No off-site parking. On-site parking for a maximum of two (2) customer vehicles must be provided. 2. No exterior signs identifying the business, its products, or services. 3. No sale of products other than the applicant's floral designs and design services on the premises. 4. No employees beyond the applicant/operator and one (1) employee residing off-premises. 5. The home occupation permit may not be sold, transferred or assigned. 6. The Home Occupation permit"is subject to all applicable ordinance and legal requirements. Violation of any ordinance or legal requirement shall be deemed grounds for immediate revocation of the Home Occupation Permit. 7. The Home Occupation may be reviewed annually by the City. 9602 1 PC.DOC 3 RML HO L1l- - 0;2) PIDt ,v IJ -, ;;1)4 - D~ /- D CITY' OF PRIOR LAKE APPLICATION roR Ham OCClJPATION PERMIT Applicant: L_('<~,~ ~\, t \^,~t \,\(.--tf:v\ Address: lJ(:~; K~ ')h'I.I)" ':2v\cp (.c\ fJ .<; Hane Phone: .-<-;1.' ::)C?"C\ \.) Work Phone: ::n.l., - ::1 c.o~ Property o..mer: ~.,~.,nV I~, t. VV ,,~ Address: Hane Phone: Work Phone: Legal Description of Site: U;+-3; ~1L-Lt kC.Dvtd (17Ui1 {1> 14<r1Q<~ ~ Propety Identification Number (pro): I Reasons for BeqUest: r..... ..a..~"c. h.. \ ~ I~ .!;o,- f'(\~~-~ () ~ - SUBMISSION REOTrrREMENTS.: (A) Ccmpleted application form. (B) Filing Fee. (C) Names and addresses of abutting property CMners. (D) Parcel ID (PID). CNLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE RE.VIEWED BY 'mE PLANNING COMMISSION. '1''0 the best of my kn~ledge the information presented on this form is correct. In addition, I have read Section 6.8 of the Prior Lake zoning Ordinance which specifies requirements for Hane Occupations. I agree to prOllide information and foll~ the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance~ - -jJ: ....? ~~ ----'~?fL- Applicants Signa Sul:mitted this -6... day of mM{'~ 19~ l / I I l--Fee 'mIS SPACE 'ro BE FILLED CUI' BY 'mE PLANNING DIRECroR ~ DATE ~ DATE DENIED DENIED PLANNING O)MM!SSICN CITY' CQON::IL APPEAL APPROJID APPROJID eondi tions: ~ Signature of the Planning Director Date ~". ,~~"'-~ ,,';" ....-,.-.. .,<0:........-' ;~"..~;"~.;:1'~~ ~~ '.: .....~_ ,__ _,..::.'_~-a:: 96-021HO . , < . ~ ~ ~ . u.:::> :'-? - " .. f : i j ! . -.'~~;. ~.D \)' . ~A:R:tc::_z: ~ /94332 , '" o '.\\~ .~ o ~ o .f' PARI< 3 ~ .~ .,.. !: '0 ~" i , ., '-- . .' . '. ~ , ~,. '. '. ,. ," " -.' ..\..~ '.: .... ~~~ - ~.: , ~O~ ....Q(J " ~r , '\. ~ ' . " \ ~ :~C; ,~,' \ . ' , \ , , , , , , , . , . ~ . . . :>- ; '/- i :Z"'; : ':) . 0 '~ ' ;::r . ; . r " :.~ ".n Kr.W,8r. - - ".sect.tlis, Inll:. -- 101 Edina IndUslrial Blvd. I,na. lAinnllsola r,~1q '924 CER1IFI~~ATE OF SURVEY EnolnMflng land Sur"Wflng ltndecatM Architecture Pfenning (61~1 1131-2989 -- --- ~~r~ey for: ::::~;?;!!!~}J BV/f,(JER}?___ 4't.~~, =:J Job No. /511 Iti' ''S''--A & ~ J t?~ ~~ ~ ~J< If,, ~1 0 '.>> . ~(> J. v "- , , , /~" "(, ~ .~ 'Yt1'~'" pi. f"~~ 1" '\." ~ ftf.111k 1flf.1)' C!~, 1 Bk. ~Pg. I!-I ,t:IL~ (e !.t) 'I~'~ J' ~ J'o ~<9 ~o'~ .. 6' ~6'.. .. ;. (' SCALE: 1- - 30' ----- 11t." fl.O) l'~. ." 'D,'" ". .... cy - - : 'Ht.w; ty ~ ~' ~ , .. "'I- "'I- .. o~\ ~ V] ( L 0 1" '3 ~~ ~~tS \iitJT'l E1<~-'- (' "I~) ,/ .......... ,/ ~'" " ,(J. C() ob( ~~ ~ \ .,/ ,/ (9/fJ,S) ,/,/ X ' ,/ ./ ,.,. " I I ,. 1~4.' (I :.,> hU'OSEDB..eIA1lJN9 XXX lDNEST FlOOR- '0"",, fj ~ (>OOQ . GAMGEfl.()()R. . ~11,S; ,.+ roPOFf()UNt)AroN- "1, '''~I "I}.~~ OENO'IS EXISl'Mi EtlYA~ IENatU~EllVA~ a:Na1BD~a:t:U1Na: SURFAcE~ . I HEReBY ceRTIFY THATTHIS IS AlRUE ANOTCf R~AT1ON OF TIlE IIOIlNoAIlIE!lo# L ~ T I. &ueK 4 'Zl!!! AOPlTION TO!?ASI' 'RR'f: Rt06e . . ~"Tr~.IIl~A. SURVEYED BY ME THIS Z 1- if ; DAY OF ()~~~ t.'~'" : I NOTE: Only Copies which bear an embOssed seal are 'certlfted eoples.:. AO'NALD.L KRUEGER: . . Sf A,. MIlIIIfftAnoH NO. td1t : . I . NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT TO OPERATE A FLORAL DESIGN BUSINESS 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, March 25, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: Leslie Huntington 4087 Raspberry Ridge Rd. NE Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 SUBJECT SITE: Lot 3, Block 4, Second Addition to Raspberry Ridge, also known as 4087 Raspberry Ridge Rd. NE. REQUEST: The applicant proposes to operate a floral design business, which would be housed in the fourth level of the house. The applicant expects most of the consultation with clients to occur in the clients' homes or offices. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Prior Lake Planning Commission Date Mailed: March 13, 1996 9602 1 PN.DOC I 16200 ~ Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ---------- - - - - .RESOLUTION 9606PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING A HOME OCCUP AnON PERMIT FOR LESLIE HUNTINGTON TO OPERATE A FLORAL DESIGN BUSINESS OUT OF HER RESIDENCE AT 4087 RASPBERRY RIDGE ROAD NE. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Planning Commission of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS I. Leslie Huntington has applied for a home occupation permit under Section 6.8 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit her to operate a floral design business service from her residence which is located in the RI-Suburban Residential zoning district at the following location, to wit; Lot 3, Block 4, Second Addition to Raspberry Ridge, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for home occupation permit as contained in Case #96-02IHO, and held a hearing thereon on March 25, 1995. 3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed permit upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fITe, 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 the nature of the proposed home occupation and the conditions of the subject property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed home occupation 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 contents of Planning Case 96-021HO are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. RE9606PC.OOC 1 16200 ~ Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby grants and approves the requested home occupation permit with the following terms and conditions; 1. No off-site parking. On-site parking for a maximum of two (2) customer vehicles must be provided. 2. No exterior signs identifying the business, its products, or services. 3. No sale of products other than the applicant's floral designs and design services on the premIses. 4. No employees beyond the applicant/operator and one (1) employee not residing on the premises. s. The home occupation permit may not be sold, transferred or assigned. 6. The Home Occupation permit is subject to all applicable ordinance and legal requirements. Violation of any ordinance or legal requirement shall be deemed grounds for immediate revocation of the Home Occupation Permit. 7. The Home Occupation may be reviewed annually by the City. Adopted by the Planning Commission on March 25, 1996. Richard Kuykendall, Chair ATIEST: Donald R. Rye Planning Director RE9606PC.DOC RML 2 PLA SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4C CONSIDER 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR RICHARD AND JULIE WARNER 3814 GREEN HEIGHTS TRAIL R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES ..lL NO MARCH 25, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from Richard and Julie Warner, who propose the construction ofa 5 foot addition to their existing I-car, attached garage. Construction of the addition would result in a side yard setback of 5.7 feet instead of the required 10 feet. DISCUSSION: The subject property is a combination of Lot 5 and part of Lot 6, which were platted as a part of GREEN HEIGHTS prior to the annexation of this area into the City Prior Lake. The existing house was built in 1962. The proposed addition does not require an impervious surface coverage variance. The subject property is located in the Shoreland District which, permits one 5 foot side yard setback on substandard lots in certain cases. [See Section 9.12(B)I(10)] The subject property already has one non-conforming setback of 7.2 feet on the West. Thus, the provision cited above does not apply to the subject property. 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 single-family residence with an attached I-car garage. Past Planning Commission decisions have seemed to hold that reasonable use in the residential districts include up to a 2-car garage. While the subject property is relatively wide (75 feet) for a substandard lot, the existing side yard setbacks on the West and East, respectively, are 7.2 and 10.7 feet. Neither of these setbacks provide sufficient area for expansion. Nor could the applicants explore a 16200 ~~~15.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER location elsewhere on the lot, since the Ordinance requires a 5 foot side yard setback for driveways. Strict application of the Ordinance, and staff understanding of previous Commission practice, leads staff to the conclusion that reasonable use of the property does not exist. Thus, literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the subject property, and this criterion is met. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The subject property is substandard for width at 75 feet. The location of the existing structure results in no legal alternative without a variance. 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 hardship results from the application of the provisions of the Ordinance to a lot which was platted and developed prior to the adoption of the Ordinance and the incorporation of the subject property into the city limits. The hardship is not the result of any actions of the applicants. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The proposed addition would result in a structure not inconsistent with other houses in the area. Thus, it does not appear that the requested variances would be contrary to the public interest. AL TERN A TlVES: 1. Approve the variance 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 code criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Because staff has concluded that reasonable use of the property currently does not exist, and thus that the Ordinance criteria are met, staff recommends Alternative No.1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolution 9607PC. 2 9620V APC.OOC/RML CITY OF PRIOR LAKE APPLICATION FOR VARIANcE ~icant:j;~~ ~ ~~e LO~r;~ ~~ ~er: . ~~ :r~~:~~ t. .- Wo~",<- Address: Type of Ownership: Fee ~ Contract Consultant/Contractor: l' \~\u..<:!:.lI\ -po I -Bu, Y...r s- :c; c-.. d-o~o ' PID# ...J~'~u7 .:lb --oq<./-- 00'+0 aome Phone: 1./'17 - F I lJ J... ~rk Phone: 7o/q' - 31 S ~ Home Phone: ~~7-!? I~ ~ ~rk Phone: Purchase Agreanent Phone: l?J?2 - dda- s- Existing Use of Property: "5 \V\,\~ -C.........., \u !J.,W\ <2- Present Zoning: R i Legal Description \ . of ~ariance Sited-oT5 """ ~~ ~: fC.~ #./Ct; .:.:6~,:,,' U"'sI"'~, s...,yc;;.""f, ~AI. Vanance Requested: :::c+ S-:;:+bodl. 0" \0+ iD ~~_ I,,, ~ (' Ga.~{'" ~"'Gl~'" .f'o.- ~. ...~C'" (\0.[" -b ~ d...u~l", Cor Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, use pemit on the subject site or any part of it? What was requested: When: Disposition: Describe the type of improvements proposed: obtain a va9-ance or conditional Yes -L~ SUBMISSION REOUIREMENI'S: (A}Completed application fom. (B)Filing fee. (C)Property SUrvey indicating the prop:Jsed developnent in relation to property lines and/or ordinary-high-water mark; prop:Jsed building elevations and drainage plan. (D)Certified from abstract fim, names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. (E)Complete legal description & Property Identification Number (pm). (F)Deed restrictions or privat~ covenants, if applicable. (G)A parcel map at 1"-20 '-50 I showing: The site developnent plan, buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE ACCEPl'ED AND Rf.VIEWED BY THE PLANNIN; <D1MISSION. To the best of my knowledge the infODnation 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 ov" e information and follow the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. SUbmitted this fda.y of /1errc ~ 192V Fee Owners Signature THIS SPACE IS 'to BE FILLED OOT BY THE PLANNnx; DIRECroR PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUN:IL APPEAL APPROVED APPROVED DENIED DENIED DM'E OF RE'ARIR.2 DM'E OF ffE'AR.nl; CDNDITIONS: Signature of the Planning Director Date Prior Lake Planning commission Prior Lake, ~ Prior Lake Planning commission: Thank you for nMewing the variance application that we have submitted for your review and approval. We are requesting a variance to the city code for set back from property line for a garage expansion from a single car to a double car garage. The garage walt is currently placed 11.3 feet from the north east comer and 10.7 feet from the south east comer to the property line of our lot We are planning a remodeling effort for the entire structure and would like to add on a 5 foot expansion to the garage which would leave the setback at 6.3 feet from the north east comer and a 5.7 foot setback from the south east comer to the property line. Given the width of the of the lot and the current foundation foot print the placement of the garage is currently in the most logical and effec1ive position. The garage cannot be placed on the north side of the house because of the slope of the land and the 75 foot setback requirement from 904 foot water level. The lot also has had terracing done on the north side of the house which makes moving the garage to that side impractical. The garage also can not be moved to the south side of the lot due to set back res1rictions from the road. The least impact on the lot is to keep the garage in the current position and request the set back variance. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely: -It dJ~ Julie, Rick, Aaron and Adam Warner ~ o N I \0 0'\ ~i .if- f! j ~I 5 I i r . .; :-'::.1..:;~ " ~.....#...;,/ c:1,. ,~:~ '4'. -/' .,-,.r:,<" :--:;.\~ ".,:.,:':' ,.-~ l 45/28 154 ..~~, .'~/L Land Surveying, Inc.' Phone (612) 854-4055 Fax (612) 854-4268 WOODROW A. BROWN. R.L.S President Survey For: Rick and Julie Warner. NORTH .\ . ( . . .- ,... --, --- r.. .-., -.. ...\ Scck: /": jlJ' o a:-~/"".1' /r~N' M~A'1"'''! .No/I:": ~ S'4C".ch We1S ~ hr AlA)' c;,~n?trA4-. PROPERTY DESCRIPTIOO .- ..' 00..' ~o ~\\.. '+ ...75. u~S \" /9".eq 01' d"".1'c"'I'~t!'oI /,,~r?-= MM~.. j( uE\Gp \ Ar~ 0/ Q~t:u~I'~/ N/c-'{'D>"rr ./tMot:!tFl 'G..'~~f.~ P 7Q/t,,/ ,4".40 01' hh.rd' .J'~;'/~ " t?74.1- .5',./,( ll' ~ .. Arb~. /J~61 t -'9. //. , .A?Ao' MlJr .j',.~~ "./~" ~,. .s'9.~/. .a.-..'~.....y= K7~~rt! I hereby certify that this survey. plan or report was prep~red by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly regtstered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC. ~//~'Rij-"~ 00 row . rown, ... . 0 DATED:'../AuUA.ey..5: /f'?~ 96-20VA NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A 5 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE EAST TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS 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, March 25, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: Richard and Julie Warner 3814 Green Heights Trail Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 SUBJECT SITE: Lot 5 and the West 25 feet of Lot 6, Green Heights, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as 3814 Green Heights Trail. REQUEST: The applicant proposes the construction of a 5 foot garage addition on the East side of the property. The proposed addition would result in a side yard setback of 5 feet instead of the required 10 feet. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. t. 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 9620V APN.DOC I 16200 ~ Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER - -- - - - -- - - -- - -- - - 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: March 14, 1996. 2 9620V APN.OOC RML DNR METRO REGION TEL:612-772-7977 Mar 19,96 14:16 No.012 P.Ol T~ '. M;~L .. 'Fr.-', p,,* , L~ Jd~ Project Review Worksheet " ,I DNR - Division of Waters I Metro Region Project Name Ji~ I ~~i~ WAXNul' St~-* 3~ , Va.,-i~ce..- ' , i \ Project Type (check.n that apply): ',' o PreJiminvy Plat o Filial Plat o Subdivision ' , "... ' : . OPUD ~uilllCe [J Other ,\ ,", . DNa Jurisdiction (answer all): (,' V.. No ft No ~""<Ipl. C 0 Shan:1and 0 , \ (M.S.I03F.I01) (M.S.I03F,ZOI) ....\ ." v. No Yes No .,' Protected Waters C 0 We ApPropriation 0 [J . . (M.S,103G.24S) (M.S..030.255) ,\ . \ \. Col1Ul1eftts IZ1:J ~ - --..:7z . . , .. " ,\ . ' == :,_...n~. :~,' \ , .. .0 ~ ~ ... - ~-~......._~ ~ . . . lbc:mmnendalioa ond ProP!*d ~ h- - ...,.~ :i7f(' , ) .(Z.S<<.J' ~.'-~..~~ -t!:,' ~ ~~~ := - ,. =- ~ '"It:"- L. L "brJe.. Reviewer ~~~tle,l_ ~J- Phone 7'7,2.1'10 Date 3-~9t . . c- \~ ~""_.._.... J.t ___. ,.............,- . ,....,.. . ............-......-.-"""...... ...............~.._.._..-.........".... .. RESOLUTION 9607PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE EAST OF 5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET TO PERMIT A 5 FOOT GARAGE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R1-URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND SD- SHORELAND DISTRICT AT 3814 GREEN HEIGHTS TRAIL. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Richard and Julie Warner have applied for a variance from Section 4 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit an addition to an existing, I-car attached garage on property located in the R1-Urban Residential zoning district and the SD-Shoreland District at the following location, to wit; 3814 Green Heights Trail, legally described as Lot 5 and the West 25 feet of Lot 6, GREEN HEIGHTS, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case 96-020V A and held a hearing thereon on March 25, 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. 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 16200 ~~T~~. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER land is located. Among the conditions applying to the subject property which the Board of Adjustment relied upon are its narrowness and the fact that alternatives are foreclosed because of development decisions made prior to the property becoming a part of 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 96-020V A 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 the variance 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 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 5 foot variance to permit a 5 foot side yard setback on the East instead of the required 10 feet. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 25, 1996. Richard Kuykendall, Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 9607PC.DOCIRML 2 SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4D CONSIDER FRONT, SIDE AND LAKE SHORE SETBACK V ARIANCES FOR THOMAS AND CHERYL VIDMAR 4307 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES ....x... NO MARCH 25, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from Thomas and Cheryl Vidmar, who proposed to remove an existing cabin and construct a new house on the subject site. Construction of the house would result in the following variances and setbacks; 1. A 5' front yard setback variance to permit a 20' setback instead of the required 25'; 2. A 5.57' side yard setback variance to permit a side yard setback of 4.43' instead of the required 50.5'; 3. A 5.5' variance from the lake shore setback permitted under Section 9. 1 (D)2 to permit a lakeshore setback of 45' instead of the required 50.5'. DISCUSSION: The subject site was platted as a part of GRAINWOOD PARKin 1944, prior to its being annexed into the City of Prior Lake. Like many properties in this area the subject site was developed with a seasonal cabin. The applicants propose to remove the cabin and construct a new, single-family house with attached 3-car garage. Section 9.3(D)2 permits new structures on undeveloped lots to have a lakeshore setback equal to the average setback of the existing structures on the adjacent properties or a setback of 50', whichever is greatest. In those cases where an existing structure is first being removed, the City has in the past deemed the site undeveloped, and applied setback averaging. The average of the adjacent setbacks in this case would apply, and would be 50.5'. The proposed house would be setback 55', but the proposed deck would require a setback variance of 5.5' 16200 J!!~~~15.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Section 9.12(B)1(a)10 permits a substandard lot of record to have one 5' side yard setback in certain circumstances. This provision does not apply in the present case because the applicants' proposed house would encroach in other required setbacks. The proposed side yard setback on the West is less than 5' . 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 proposed house would have 3 levels. The first level as indicated on the attached survey would have a floor area of about 1,184 square feet. The size of the proposed house could be reduced by 5.5' in order to comply with the 1akeshore setback average. This would result in the loss of 176 square feet of area for a net area on the first floor of 1,008 square feet. The applicant could also consider locating a deck on the West side of the proposed house. Similarly, the side yard setback requirement could be complied with by reducing the size of the garage and/or shifting it somewhat to the East. This is an approach the Commission has taken in the past. (See e.g. V A95-25, Ron and Kim Anderson) It appears to staff that even if these steps were taken, a small front yard setback variance might be required to accommodate both the garage and house. Because there appear to be a number of design alternatives available to the applicants, staff has concluded that reasonable use of the property can be made while still complying with lakeshore and side yard setback requirements. Thus, staff has concluded that this criterion is not met. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property . Because staff has concluded that there is no undue or unnecessary hardship this criterion is, de facto, not met. 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. Any hardship results not from the application of the provisions of the Ordinance, but from design decisions made by the applicants. Thus, this criterion 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. 2 9623V APC.OOC/RML The proposed house would result in a structure not inconsistent with other houses in the area. Thus, it does not appear that the requested variances would be contrary to the public interest. 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 code criteria RECOMMF:NDATION: Because staffhas concluded that the applicants have legal alternatives which would allow reasonable use of the property, and thus that the Ordinance criteria are not met, staff recommends Alternative No.3. ACTION REOUlRED: A motion adopting Resolution 9609PC. 9623V APC.DOCIRML 3 PIDt}~~fdf;>c CITY OF PRIOR LAKE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Applicant: Address: L. Property Owner: Address: L.j . Type of Ownership: Fee Consultant/Contractor: Contract Home Phone: L/y () - 1} q} Work Phone: q~;,(\)~~ Home Phone: L1Lf()- t~3 Work Phone: (Sl.-J() I~ '14"()3~3 Purchase Agreement )( Phone: Existing Use C 'D of Property: ll~~ ~ Present Zoning: "'''l ~. Legal Description I ~ ~ ~ of Variance Site:_\....o \~ ~r:..\n. (", 'E '\ Variance Requested: < '1 . ~' . t ~o c~ l\)t<.) ':\:" \\ ~ ~<1t "1,,, ~ tH~l \(. ~~, Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional use permit on the subject site or any part of it? Yes X Ii:> What was requested: When: Disposition: Describe the type of improvements propoSed:~rl Y\~u-..i ~C'lm-e SJBMISSION REOOIREMENI'S: <A)Completed application form. (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. (D>Certified from abstract firm, names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. (E)Complete legal description & Property Identification Number (pm). (F)Deed restrictions or private covenants, if applicable. (G) A parcel nap a.~ 1"-20'-50' showing: The site developnent plan, buildings: parking, loading, .~ access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE ACCEPI'ED AND REVIEWED BY THE PLANNIl'G <:x:H'IIS5ION. To the best of my knowledge the infomation presented on this form is correct. In addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ord. ce which specifies :.requiranents for variance procedures. I agree to prov:L info follow the procedures as outl ined in the Ordinance. /1_ f}./J. / Applicants Signature ~itted this /..Loay of 1/~ 19fb Fee Owners Signature THIS SPACE IS ro BE FILLED OUT BY THE PI.ANNIN; DIRECTOR MTE OF HEARIl'G MTE OF HEARIl'G DENIED DENIED PLANNING <XlMMIS5ION CITY COON:IL APPEAL CDNDITIONS: APPROVED APPROVED Signature of the Planning Director Date ~,~' 1~11 ,~ . ' ,'- ~--"-l I'~~-J ! ~ :h,1 ! :\.'\ ..,........,.. 1 I I .. ' I ! W ,,'~ ii,1(- r T I 1=f ' h ;.' .~ glli~ ~' .' t= ',4 W. ," . 8. I' iLCIf,Q1 p- :~!llllffi' ;-' ~.< I~~~~ :~i ,H~,. ,-)PJ_' ,[ " ,~,,'~ ~ I -....:.t.;.~< , !i 'UJfl I-~~ J I ;;~~ ,-;" ~-~., --,-- , !' ,'\IU · . ", I "f.!-' ~ 1~: II ""'I: " \ i" ,J, J '/ .' / :- III i W ~ , /: I '.' · , ' .~. ~-', I L1 L ' ",~,u '~.z'-'! d, ~;1' ".,. , ~/'l:" ,~ ,.__J i' I r~' ~ .~ .-:,IB' , kT " ! ~ ,'~,!, Z. g~~"_dK,r~n K Il ~ : 0 '" . k . , ' , I -'-- .,' . ,\F~,".\'\!!<l'-Il I 1--- v' ~t:5i~' :,J.l ~ tJJ! -- ,\ ,\',. ' "<';::(01~1;'\~ I;. I l(fl b:Jjl " " ',<J _,T\. d II'ifiI ,. , I ,. - .. ~~"~"'"_'~" 'I.' . ~~ I ~ .,: \ I 't~,) I. ' ~_ ~ I-""'ti ,,!..:-:~~ ,~~tl \.)1. ", , . I ' '" I' ."~ '';;=''',',f'i> - . WhY I~' I I, " I "', . ,." '-'--~0~~ ,~,'l...;, I( . \:Jtr~., \ l II , ' .,,, e-= ~..J " ' ,. ,'. .,.,,; .",~~ <"J I I I * = r'---, ,,, I ' ' " t"J ' ~"'-"-' -;'~'----~~ T I' " . ,.." . ,.' - ." ~, I ' , ,I r--' ,', ." "=. ,0" ',:c._ .)lii. .,' ,. "1) ) ~ l L I . ,".' ' .', -- ~.~"" ," - lib ' , ~~"'~:~I' "f $, 1,~, ",'~ ~7. '~)~~0~'~~~?lx";J;";I'" rf~" ,1 "'T,.-i J" Ii I'" ~ . . ,..:.: I' ~'2,1' ~'I' 1 :t _, '( - 00 tI' . ,\,' . - . > i , :,: J' ";t,, ~ -- 1 ~ I L' I j' :I'~:l:'" Q', ~\ ~ ,,~,;\.( ~:". ,. ~ ' " ...-JI. .' ..' . .' . ' ," iE' 'lc:, . j ,~ . " "., ! '" ' ,~\~ ~!~ ~ ;""~ f;Y) , -1~' '''7 '---- '/' ~v--' ! " 111.;';'1 t 'r;'J.. ~:4; F"" [ ~ \,Y" . ~ > ~ ~l i.~'\ '/fPlf'- !.,..,-, ~~(" ~cp , :~ J: ~k ".::" - L------\.," I" -~ 'H tv" I' ./'_ -," ,'" ., , ~. ' c" . . ",', I ,",,' ~ ,. n- ~ .', u "", _.,' ..., · r. j-'lt: ~ \ I ' 3 " / j"' ,\ BJ~- I( I "/~ -- -'----i ~'~,' I~~. ' '-'~ r I" ' 6;.:._--' ,v "LV . ,i rcl;Jl..... I ~ ) , I") ~ 'I II~ iGf(f;~~-':--1:.:tJ ~ I ~_JL,':;>..Jl 'I,:~~ " "" ~ : [' ' 1jY~~::Fli 'J ~ In _ ""1.-' ,if " ", ~ I \ Ii ' ":'fft! tV ,'. ~ ,I iil, i -:>\,:J J' '" .] I I ....! · '1" " .. , ' , , ,i' I, f'J,i; =,= ~~ ~- / J~~.'. ~...'",",,:: <----L-'.L' i ,'. __~ . .. ., > ,/1 "-" I I I ~ . \\ ,I ..5', ' , '~I _jl ~ ~ J li~t ,~~i~, T i ,/./~,:.... r-l' . ~ ..;p I Ii' -'''.' .. , ' 1,1,': L I ..~ " ., n.: I fcjiij)' 7: :1'0 I I~t '8' .' -- I ','I,' 17,r:,: ,== ,.,,1-, . =l ; r - ,I "-.Jr.!r'i(:/'/lA ~---:-- 'K'~ ..!J]. i I,.. "Ii, I ITJW' :~:f7t:/r CD ~ '" '.I l -' ; ~~"\ '- l' ".-----. .~ _~ l 1:1" I ~~ I !-L.'~' j ~ " 1 ' , p \ : ,I , ___.~~ --, t ~ I ~ t ~ ~ , ~ ') , " ~ ~ N o ~ 0'\ .~. r lJ I: --+-- I . ! L-_ ~ ~ ill Il/ V~ J- 1 -- ,~i , i I - ' I ~ : ) 1 I,i , .: , ~:' I ,~-~ ! -.- ;-l~-~' ~ · ~ '.J~ I ~ I , :'cl ~ ~1'. , ~ ; ~\~i I ~r , '" I I I , I , -1-, - '.-,.,..1 ~ . I ~I 'N;1'r: ~ I 96-023VA SURVEY PREPARED FOR" TOM VIDMAR 14300 SALEM AVE. SO. SAVAGE, MN 55378 Valley Surveying Co., P. A. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR lAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/-2 J 447 - 2570 PRIOR E:l. lAKe 10 90.....0 / :J /9~ 'J.fO"el/""~ ..c, ,- \ \ \ ) _ cO'/' ~~~~ _ DeCK lXI' TI NG "'OUSE TO ...r\...~ c\'C'.... ... PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 18, ~INWOOD PARK. Scott County. Minnesota. Also showing all visible improvements and encroachments onto or off from said property if any_ NET AREA ABOVE ELEV 9040 : 6.'79 SQ. F"T. PROPOSEO HOUSE. GARAGE a DRIVE/IMPERVIOUS SURF"ACE . Z,453 SQ. F"T. .30% COVERAGE. ~ R.... 3/6/96 To...._ propand hall" for vaMana requ..'. R.... UZ6/96 To. _ sq. ft. o I SCALE 30 60 J 0010 Licens. No lOl8J IN FEEr o Oe"orn 1/2 inelt J ,.. me" iron _, .., Ofld """".eI 11)1 License No 10183 . Denote. Iron mo"u"",,,' foUf'd ., O,no'." P K Nail ", F"II.E No. 6216 BOOK 213 PAGE J2.._ NOTICE OF HEARING FOR; 1. A 5 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 20 FOOT SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET; 2. A 5.57 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE ON THE WEST TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 4.43 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET; AND 3. A 5.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE LAKE SHORE SETBACK PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 9.1(D)2 TO PERMIT A LAKE SHORE SETBACK OF 45 FEET TO A PROPOSED DECK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50.5 FEET; THE ABOVE-LISTED VARIANCES RELATING TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOUSE LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND ZONING DISTRICTS. 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, March 25, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. . APPLICANTS: Thomas and Cheryl Vidmar 14300 Salem Ave. S. Savage,~esota SUBJECT SITE: 4307 Grainwood, legally description as Lot 18, Grainwood Park, Scott County, Minnesota. REQUEST: The applicants propose the construction of a new house with attached garage as shown on the attached survey reduction. 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 9623VAPN.DOC 1 16200 ~ Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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: March 14, 1996. 2 9623VAPN.OOC RML UPl'" l'lt. II'(U 1<t.6 I ON TEL:612-772-7977 - -._-.-..- - -.-.- - -- Mar 20,96 10:47 No.003 P.Ol Project Review Worksheet .~ . \ -:1 :.', I' , DNR. . Division of Waters I Metro Region Project Name ~~ i C4"rJ1 'Project Type (check all that apply): ~~~ ~ ~"-e., 4"'--r' . \ ,:~ :\ o Pn:liminery Plat oPUD o Final Plat )it'VIriIJ1Oe OSubdivi_ c Otbcrr ..., DNa Jurisdiction (answer all): ..'. . . . :~" ~ Yes No PIoodpI8iD Cl Cl (M.S. 103F. 101) Yes No Protl-w Waters Cl 0 CM.S.I03G.24S) Yea No ShareIaad ~ 0 (MS.I03F.201) Yea No Water Appropriation CI 0 (M.S. 1030.2.55) I \ \. . \ " i:- \ '. . . . .y..,,,,.,,.,... . . . i . \ . w. . . ". .. ~_.. Recommendations and Proposed Conditions '~~/.&.I~ ... "r~l-~1! AI./- 'Y....1 ~ ~ . \ . . Reviewer~ T~ ~ ~PIrone 77~. 1'1.. Dote 2b ~ ~ RESOLUTION 9609PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR LAKE SHORE, FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK V ARIANCES BY THOMAS AND CHERYL VIDMAR IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSED NEW HOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R1-URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICT AT 4307 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Thomas and Cheryl Vidmar have applied for variances from Section 4 and 9 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a new house on property located in the R1-Urban Residential zoning district and the SD- Shoreland District at the following location, to wit; 4307 Grainwood Circle, legally described as Lot 18, GRAINWOOD PARK, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case 96-023V A and held a hearing thereon on March 25, 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. The request does not meet the Ordinance criteria, in that the applicants have legal alternatives to make reasonable use of the property. 5. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance would serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. 7. The contents of Planning Case 96-023V A are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. 16200 ~8~~~. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -- -- --- -- --- -- ---~--- - -- -- CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the requested variances. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 25, 1996. AITEST: Richard Kuykendall, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 9609PC.DOCIRML 2 'l AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: 4E CONSIDER LOT AREA; LAKESHORE, FRONT, SIDE AND LAKESHORE SETBACK; AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCES FOR GENE AND COLEEN TREMAINE 16500 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE SW R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES ....x.... NO MARCH 25, 1996 SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from Gene and Coleen Tremaine, who propose to construct a new house on the subject site. Construction of the house would result in the following variances and setbacks; 1. A 2,302 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 5, 198 square feet instead of the required 7,500 square feet; 2. A 2 foot lakeshore setback variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 48 feet instead of the 50 feet permitted under Section 9.3(D)2; 3. A 7% variance to permit impervious surface coverage of37% instead of the permitted 30% 4. A 14 foot variance to permit a front yard setback of 11 feet instead of the required 25 feet; and 5. A 2 foot variance on the West to permit a side yard setback of 8 feet instead of the required 10 feet DISCUSSION: The subject site was platted as a part ofINGUADONA BEACH in 1924, prior to its . being annexed into the City of Prior Lake. Like many properties in this area the subject site was developed with a seasonal cabin. The applicants propose to remove the cabin and construct a new, single-family house with deck on the lake side. The proposed plan does not include a garage. Section 4.1 (C) and Section 9 .12(B) contain at least a tacit assumption that lots of record are developable after application for and approval of appropriate variances. Given this 9617V APC.DOCIRML 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER assumption, lot area variances are routinely granted except in those cases where the applicant owns contiguous property which can be combined with the subject site to improve compliance with the Ordinance. In this case the applicant does not own contiguous property. Thus, it would be appropriate to grant a lot area variance in this case. Section 9.3(D)2 permits new structures on undeveloped lots to have a lakeshore setback equal to the average setback of the existing structures on the adjacent properties or a setback of 50', whichever is greatest. In those cases where an existing structure is first being removed, the City has in the past deemed the site undeveloped, and applied setback averaging. Because the average of the setbacks in this case is less than 50', the 50' setback would apply. The additional variance requested by the applicants is relatively minor, but as is pointed out in the letter dated March 13, 1996, from Pat Lynch of the DNR, minor modification of the deck could abrogate the need for this variance and still result in an eminently useable deck. Because the area of the lot is only 5,198.33 square feet and the proposed impervious surface is 1,947 square feet, a 7% variance is technically required. However, in those cases where a subject site abuts association land which is available only to the subject site for a dock it is functionally appropriate to consider that area as part of the lot area. Doing so in this case would result in impervious surface coverage of only 27%. Thus, in this case it appears that the requested impervious surface coverage variance is reasonable. As mentioned above the current plan does not include a garage. Using the functional analysis, there would not be sufficient margin to permit the future construction of a 2-car garage, although a I-car garage could be accommodated, but not without additional setback variances. Section 9.12(B)I(a)10 permits a substandard lot of record to have one 5' side yard setback in certain circumstances. This provision does not apply in the present case because the applicants' proposed house would encroach in other required setbacks. Moreover, in this case it appears that the applicants might be able to mitigate the requested side yard setback by shifting the structure 2' to the East. Similarly, the front yard setback could be increased by looking at some design options. For example the "deck" could be replaced by a "stoop" which is not subject to the setback requirement, or the structure itself shortened somewhat and widened. Variance Hardship Standards: 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. Because of its small lot area and narrow width, literal enforcement of the area and impervious surface coverage provisions would severely limit the applicants ability to make reasonable use of the subject site, and would thus result in undue hardship. 2 9617V APC.DOC/RML -------------- However, with respect to the side yard and lakeshore setback requirements, legal alternatives appear to exist. Thus, with respect to those requests this criteria is not met. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The hardship with respect to lot area and impervious surface coverage relates to the size and configuration of the site. In this regard this criterion is met. Because staff has concluded that there is no undue or unnecessary hardship with respect to side and lakeshore yard setbacks, this criterion is, de facto, not met. 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. With respect to lot area and limitation on impervious surface coverage, the hardship relates to the lot size and width, which were established before the property was even within the City limits. Any hardship related to the side yard and lakeshore yard results not from the application of the provisions of the Ordinance, but from design decisions made by the applicants. Thus, this criterion is not met with respect to these requests. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The proposed house would result in a structure not inconsistent with other houses in the area. Thus, it does not appear that the requested variances would be contrary to the public interest. 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 code criteria. RECOMMRNDATION: Because staff has concluded that the criteria are met with respect to the lot area, impervious surface coverage, and perhaps front yard setback, but not with respect to the requested lakeshore and side yard setback variances, staff recommends the request be tabled to allow the applicant to consider alternative designs. 9617VAPC.DOCIRML 3 ACTION REQUIRED: A motion to either table the matter to allow the applicants to examine other design alternatives, or a motion directing staff to prepare findings consistent with the Commission's decision. 9617V APC.DOCIRML - - - -- .- .- - - - - - - - 4 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE APPLICATION FOR VARIANcE d-Oll PIDt J s~ 95"a l.ra ..c-Applicant: 6- t!A ~ II- ~d /~'I!"- ~",. ~ A.,'... l!!. Address: /~ reU:J .zA~ "'. d___ e,._; ~ :-.._: /,. Property Otmer: (;. ".... ~ <i' ~... I ~ , ... '7""... .. __ . '_ ",. =~~:~~~MP~-f~- d.,__ /.?C;;t~a~"~' /.. Consul tant/Contractor: Elane Phone: '1''''~ - r 1l'C' y .r~ ~rk Phone: ~ 9~ ~ ~9j 9 Home Phone: rH" ~rk Phone: Purchase Agreement Q~H Phone: Existing Use of Property: /? ~,.,' C:/~... r.:.c / Present Zoning: Legal Description of Variance Site: L:.,t /~.J I,. ~ ___ eI.#t.. Variance Requested: s: ~,. ~ _ d4,.. '7" _ ~ , '//. . '. . I I SR; aW!('~' J)3az. 0 l...ctQ.I"~CA.IIAt.lA11 ~ . ~ rp ~V,t"lZrtI.Ql\-f:; 7 /. J.""'p . Svr{:.o.CJ.. Vitt../~c.Jl !!as the aAAicant:Jpreviously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or cond'~ional;;"" Lot: use permit on the subject site or any part of it? Yes X N:> I (Jy\'(lf.C3 ."5/Q)QVoU.30/; What was requested: ) tv~t SI~LfUA.ov,4, ~"u When: Disposition: Describe the type of improvanents proposed: A/ ~ IAJ #'" -. ~ ... L 4... ,i _-<!"~ .... ..'.... y ... SUBMISSION RmUIHEl-1ENrS: r&., (AlCompl.eted application foon. <BlFiling fee. (ClProperty Smrey indicating the ~ : proposed developnent in relation to property lines and/or ordinaty'-high-water mark; r. I-",(f-'proposed building elevations and drainage plan. (D)Certified from abstract firm, \I' I 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 privat~ covenants, if 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 APPLIO\TIONS SHALL BE ACCEPl'ED AND REVIEWED BY THE PLANNm:; <D1MISSION. To the best of my knowledge the infoanation presented on this foen is correct. In addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior rake Zoning Ordinance which specifies requiranents for variance procedures. I agree to provide information and follow the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. C>" ~~ - ~~ ~ Applicants Signature Submitted this ;2.,. day of ~~_..._~ 19 ?~ ~.... , Fee Otmers Signature THIS SPACE IS ro BE FILLED OUT BY THE PLANNm:; DIREx:'1'OR PLANNING <DMMISSION CITY COm'CIL APPEAL APPROVED APPROVED DENIED DENIED DM'E OF ErF.ARm:; DM'E OF ErF.ARm:; CDNDITIONS: Signature of the Planning Director Date 96-017VA PETERS, PRICE & SAMSON LAND SURVEYORS, LTD. 12400 PRINCETON AVENUE SOUTH, SAVAGE, MINNESOTA 55378 612-890-9201 · FAX 612-890-6569 Certificate Of Survey For GENE AND COLEEN .TREMAINE I" = 30' \ \ \ ) -- / --_/ DESCRIPTION LOT 18 ~ JO}? INGUADONA BEACH ... ...~~O}? SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ... ~ EI.Ev L.. ... _--.0::: . ~ Sa 4 '" _~ iC"<J "E" L \~ /. N AREAS LOT 18 = 5,198.33 Sq. Ft. ~- o ~ Q) -'C ~ a ~ -~ Association Land = 2,066::1: Sq. Ft. Total Hard Surface = 1,947 Sq. Ft. (Per 9wner) , -~ , , , , ~ LOWEST FLOOR=91Z.3' :...', :'': <0 I . __ of cone. I .,H~~_ -- /' . ( I .J !" " ... ~: tJ o Denotes Iron Monument Set . Denotes Rod Wi th Nut Found 9/8.9 Denotes ExistIng Elevation " ItEV1!5ED 9- 2/-95; ~&V1SD> Z-Z3 -"1'-) We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the bOundaries of the abOVe described land. and of the location of all buildings thereon, and all Vi~'l encroachments. if.. "'i. I",m '" on Kid '~ A ~ ~/J ~ .. As surveyed by us this 7- day~~J:JI. 1995 -:L:\-~~ L.S. . / Minnesota License No. /4t!J 90 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES; 1. A 2,302 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT AREA OF 5,198 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 7,500 SQUARE FEET; 2. A 2 FOOT LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKESHORE SETBACK OF 48 FEET INSTEAD OF THE 50 FEET PERMITTED UNDER ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 9.3(D)2; 3. A 7% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 37% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%; 4. A 14.0 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 11 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET; 5. AND A 2 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE WEST TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 8 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET; ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS 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, March 25, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: Gene and Coleen Tremaine 16500 Inguadona Beach Circle SW Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 SUBJECT SITE: Lot 18, Inguadona Beach, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as 16500 Inguadona Beach Circle SW. REQUEST: The applicant proposes the construction of a new house on the subject property. The proposed construction will result in the following requested variances; 1. A 2,302 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT AREA OF 5,198 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 7,500 SQUARE FEET; 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 2. A 2 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKE SHORE SETBACK OF 48 FEET INSTEAD OF THE 50 FEET PERMITTED UNDER ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 9.3(D)2; 3. A 7% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE COVERAGE OF 37% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%; 4. A 14.0 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 11 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET; 5. AND A 2 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE WEST TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 8 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 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: March 7, 1996. 2 PHONE N912-7910 ~~TrnT~@u~ ~DEPARTMENT' OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St Paul., MN 55106 FILE NO. March 13, 1996 Mr. Michael Leek: City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 RE: VARIANCE REQUESTS. HOWARD LAKE (SCHIFFMAN) AND PRIOR LAKE (TREMAINE) Dear Mr. Leek:: I ~ reviewed the materials sect to me relative to the two subject varim:e requests which will be considered at the March 25. 1996 Planning Commission meeting. I otfer the following comm~t, for consideration at that meeting. SCHIFFMAN V ARIANCE- HOWARD LAKE This property looks vaguely familiar to me. Did the applicant (or a previous owner of the property) not apply for a lake setback variance afewyears ago? According to the survey. there is cum:ntly a three stall detached garage on this parcel Is there reasonable hardship for the variance to be issued? Is the proposed use of the additional garage for commercial purposes? There is little information to base a ~Arion an. From what I reviewed. I must recommend denial of the variance. It appears. however. if the survey is accurate., that the i1I.U~ ~akc setback would be closer to 75 feet, rather than the 14 feet stated in the hearing notice. You may want to double check that Whether it is 75 or 14 feet has no bearing on my recoru",~d8tion, however. It would appear the best place for additional development on this lot would be where the tennis court is situated. This would maximize the setback from the lake. and assure virtually no vegetation would. have to be removed.. Lastly. the ordinary high water elevation for Howard Lake is identified as 958.0 on the survey. My records indicate that the OHWL for Howard Lake is 957.3'. In areas with steep b8Dks (like this one). the difference of 0.7 feet would not result in a significant difference when measuring setbacks. Should the city grant the variance. please ensure the on-site sewage treatment system is in conformance with current standards. If it is not, an upgrade of the system should be a condition of approval TREMAINE V ARIANCE- PRIOR LAKE I have discussed this proposal with the applicant, and inspected the site. The dimensions of this lot of record make development or redevelopment within the current standards difficult, if not impossible, without variances. Is there a garage planned on the proposed new structure? The plan I reviewed did not indicate so. If not, is it reasonable to expect a future variance request for front yard and impervious surface coverage to accommodate a garage? I suggest this be discussed with the applicant at the hearing. I do not object to four of the five requested variances. If the association land is inciudcd in tile computation of imp~..ious surface. tile result is approximately 26%. It is reasonable. in this situation, to consider the association land in the impervious equation. Although not tcclmical1y proper. one could also consider the association land in the lot size determination. If so, the square footage is very close to the minimum 7500 square feet The 1akeshore setback variance could be elimin..tM with a slight modification to the design of the deck On the enclosed copy of the survey, I have depicted a modification which slightly reduces the square footage to approximately 230 square feet, or roughly 25% smaller than proposed by the applicant Please request the Planning Commission consider the modification, as it still provides a useable deck surface. and eliminates one of five variances. The DNR would not oppose the granting of the variances for lot size. impervious surface, front yard, and side yard, provided the lakeshore setback variance can be el;min"~, . Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment Please provide me with the record of decision on both variance requests. Please call me at 772-7910 if you have any questions. Sincerely. ~I'~~ Area HYdroIO':P ~ AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ,._.........,,- . . ........... . I 96-017VA PETERS, PRICE & SAMSON LAND SURVEYORS, LTD. 12400 PRINCETON AVENUE SOUTH, SA V AGE, MINNESOTA 55378 612.890-9201 · FAX 612-890-6569 Certificate Of Survey For GENE AND COLEEN .:IREMAINE N \ \ \ ) -- / --_/ /"=30' I ..... , , , , :' ~I ~'': 20 I , ~;. DESCRIPTION LOT 18 ~ toR INGUADONA BEACH , ,~~~~9R SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA , """""- ~ .:V I - -.::: . ~ So "- 41( '-~ '<.<) C \ l.SO-l~ ~ ~- \~ 60 .. .""') ..... . I , ... - - \)~ ~ ~~~~~. q~\.>-\~~Ic. rz..+^- - - c - c.. AREAS LOT 18 = 5,198.33 Sq. Ft. ::... c 3: <U :::. .\:: a Association Land = 2,066:1: Sq. Ft. Total Hard Surface = 1,947 Sq. Ft. (Per Owner) ~ LowEST F'LOOR: 912.3~ 9/8.9 --. I .J ~ / ( o Denotes Iron Monument Set . Denotes Rod Wi th Nut Found 918.9 Denotes Existing Elevation .. ... a:: ~J !!EY/~~ 9- 2/-95; ,t!!&V~ Z-Z'3 -~G.) We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land. and of the location of all buildings thereon, and all vi~h encroachments. if any. from or on said la~ /1 ~ L!/ ~ ~. .. As surveyed by uS this 7_ daY~~P.f. 199.5 ~~~ LS. . . Minnesota wcense No. /4690 PLANNING REPORJ: AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4F CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR JOHN SCffiFFMAN 15220 HOWARD LAKE ROAD NW. R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES -X... NO MARCH 25, 1996 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from John Schiffman. Mr. Schiffman wishes to construct a 26' x 22' garage on the subject property to house a couple of cars which he has inherited. The notice that was originally sent incorrectly stated that the requested variance would result in a setback of 14 feet; the request would in fact result in a setback of 70 feet instead of the required 150 feet for Howard Lake, which is a Natural Environment Lake. A corrected notice was mailed on March 18, 1996. DISCUSSION: The subject property is zoned Al - Agricultural, and is located in the SD - Shoreland District. The existing house was constructed in 1962, prior to the annexation of this area in 1973 from Eagle Creek Township. The subject site is a part of Howard Lake Estates, which was platted in 1982. The subject property is "L" or "flag" shaped with a relatively narrow (85.94' wide) access from County Road 82. Howard Lake forms the southern boundary of the property; a large pond to the North partially covers the property on the North. The driveway loops past the existing garage and house, and surrounds a low area which is occupied by a tennis court. Mr. Schiffman was granted a variance in 1992 from the then-200' lakeshore setback requirement (the current setback requirement is 150 feet) to permit a lakeshore setback of 63 feet in order to allow the construction of an addition to the then-existing garage. The setback established by that variance is not used in the present case because the language of the Commission's approval motion specifically limited the variance to the addition proposed at that time. Copies of the application, staff report and minutes relating to that variance are attached to this report for the Commission's information. In granting the previous variance the Commission's rationale included; . "...the requested site would not require removal of trees...", 16200 I!a~~.e'~ve. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY EMPLOYER - - - - -- -- - - - -- -- - - - - . "...it would limit the amount of excavation...", . "... it meets the spirit and intent of the Ordinance and is not detrimental to the health and welfare of the community." None of the stated reasons for granting the previous variance are contained in criteria 1 - 3 for granting variances. 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. It also goes to whether the applicant has legal alternatives to accomplish to the requested variance. Arguably, Mr. Schiffman already has reasonable residential use of this property insofar as it is developed with a house and 3-car garage. In addition, while it is understandable why Mr. Schiffman has chosen the proposed location, it appears that there are other, legal alternatives which he could consider. This same point is raised in the letter from Pat Lynch of the DNR. 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. 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 staff has concluded that there would not be an undue hardship if the Ordinance were literally enforced, this criterion is not met. The property does have many unique characteristics which have been described above and can be inferred from the attached survey. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. ~L TERN A TIVES: 1. Approve the variance 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. 2 9615VAPC.DOC 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Ordinance criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Because staff has 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 REQUlRF.D: A motion adopting Resolution 9608PC. 961SV APe.DOC 3 ~qG- CiS- PIDt 02~-.?l) c.f - DO d--O CITY OF PRIOR LAKE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE _C'Applicant: J (;) tf!J S c.. tt I FFl\'\ r\o-tJ " Address: [S'd.iiD -HO\.4l~4) J:~.t f/..~ N.t..v. Slt~o~,'"^" Property ONner: .s-~W\t" Address: I, Type of OWnership: Fee Contract Consultant/Contractor: W-e.s+eIC..W c...orJ.S t Home Phone: L-ftr-O 77D Work Phone: Home Phone: Work Phone: Purchase Agreenent Phone: - Existing Use of Property: 1< t J ,o,,.;-f,PrL Legal Description of Variance Site: t.. 0+ ~ ~L K. I f ~ 0 wAK,J Variance Requested: 1.3 l.....~t!t+Cllt Ar{IPrNi t. Present Zoning: .. ~AtK(. J5J~- Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional use peonit on the subject site or any part of it? X Yes ~ What was requested: /37' [AKl"S~(),Q,~ VM/AtJ'~ When: :;:rO/'J{ Jr I fR r- Dis};X)sition: G~At.J~ , I 1'_ c CtJ-st14. 1)[ + ~ ~ X ~ ~ '!) lt~ftfJE Describe the type of improvements pro};X)sed: gJ8MISSION REQOI~S: (A)Completed application foon. (B) Filing fee. (C)Property SUrvey indicating the pro};X)sed developnent in relation to property lines and/or ordinary-higl'rwater mark: proposed building elevations and drainage plan. CD)Certified from abstract fion, names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. (E)Complete legal description & Property Identification Number (PID). (F)Deed restrictions or private covenants, if applicable. (G)A parcel nap at 1"-20'-50' showing: The site developnent plan, buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. ONLY COMPLEI'E APPLICATIONS SHALL BE ACCEPl'ID AND REVIEWED BY THE PLANNI~ <:cMMISSION. '1'0 the best of my knowledge the information 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 provide information and follow the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. Qt? c. O'~ ~ icants Signat SUbmitted this ZlLLday of . w~19~ APPWJED APPROVED DENIm DENIED DATE OF HEARI~ DATE OF HE:ARDG ptANNIN:; COMMISSION CITY COmOL APPEAL OJNDITIONS: Signature of the Planning Director Date TO: City of Prior Lake FROM: John Schiffman SUBJECT: Property owners rationale of meeting the 4 standards of variance granting. 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to property. A. Property consists of large 4.6 acre parcel. Storage and auto garage space is needed because of additional licensed drivers in family. Harsh winters are not condusive to keep vehicles outside. Lot lines or adjacent neighbors homes would not be encroached with new garage. Garage would not even be visible to neighbors. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circum- stances unique to the property. A. Requested site for new garage is the only feasible area on the 4.6 acres to build structure due to land- scape, trees, current house location, marsh and pond areas. Also, requested site is only area that is esthetically proper for new structure to be built. 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. A. Variance applicant is 3rd owner of property and had no input of the original site development, landscape or existing structures. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. A. Adjacent homes have received variances for new construction. Normally, large parcels such as this (4.6 acres) would have mUltiple areas to construct needed buildings. This parcel only has one, through no fault of the owner. No harm~ the environment would result, neighbors would not be negatively affected, and trees or landscape would no be significantly altered on proposed site. ~ . . a · ~~ . ~. 01 9'l ~ <\i SCALE: 1" · 100' ---- .----. .... ,- ----- --- ----.. '~.'...' .. , ---- ~ ---. : DRIVEWAY LOCATION APPROXIMATE AND ~RAWN ~ - SCALE Q).~ MERELY FOR ILLUSTRATION ---- ~. .~-- ~--- , ~ '~ ~ ~ ~~ '.~t ~ seALL .~ ,_.~ .<::) ~ 0 !)cNOTc: ""l t;::) . If"J . Oc'IJOrE: - 'q- > POND ''-'' I'~ . ./8. 49 SI3-52'2'''Vj SURVeY L fNe HQIA"/7 . v//~R/) 1.../ - L.4Kc" ~'/\ _><..~~. J -'.OROINARf HIG14 '/lATER ...ELE/.= 9~'. 0 . ~IPTION ":ARD L.AK( ESTATES, o.ccording to the plo.t thereof on file ~rcier Scott County Mn. descrlloec:l o.s ~OllOWSI -?" of So.ic:l \ot 2. thence on o.n o.c;su",ec:l Ioeo.rlng of South . __ ~ ~ ...,.~.."",..", '"!~ e~ Cl~ :>?I?t. 't""enc.-SO\,i'th 16" 96-015VA ---- ------~---- -------- ------ NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A 136 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 14 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 150 FEET RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 26' X 22" GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE AI-AGRICULTURAL 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, March 25, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: John Schiffinan 15220 Howard Lake Road NW Shakopee, Minnesota SUBJECT SITE: Lot 2, Block 1, Howard Lake Estates, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as 15220 Howard Lake Road. REQUEST: The applicant proposes the construction of a 26' x 22' garage. The proposed garage would result in a lakeshore setback of 14 feet instead of the required 150 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 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTIJNITY EMPLOYER 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: March 7, 1996. 2 CORRECTED NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A 136 FOOT LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 70 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 150 FEET RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 26' X 22" GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE AI-AGRICULTURAL 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, March 25, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: John Schiffman 15220 Howard Lake Road NW Shakopee, Minnesota SUBJECT SITE: Lot 2, Block 1, Howard Lake Estates, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as 15220 Howard Lake Road. REQUEST: The applicant proposes the construction of a 26' x 22' garage. The proposed garage would result in a lakeshore setback of 70 feet instead of the required 150 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 9615PN2.DOC 1 16200 &We Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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: March 18, 1996. 2 961SPN2.00c RML PHONE N'h2-7910 ~iF:I:!~~@u'&' . ~INDE~:T;T:ENT OF NATURAL RES Division of Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St Paul, MN 55106 fD1@ <S @ O\0'@ n II( MAR I HlOO U FILE NO. March 13, 1996 Mr. Michael Leek City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 RE: VARIANCE REQUESTS, HOWARD LAKE (SCHIFFMAN) AND PRIOR LAKE (TREMAINE) Dear Mr. Leek: I have reviewed the materials sent to me relative to the two subject variance requests which will be considered at the March 25, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. I offer the following comments for consideration at that meeting. SCHIFFMAN VARIANCE- HOWARD LAKE This property looks vaguely familiar to me. Did the applicant (or a previous owner of the property) not apply for a lake setback variance a fewyears ago? According to the survey, there is currently a three stall detached garage on this parcel. Is there reasonable hardship for the variance to be issued? Is the proposed use of the additional garage for commercial purposes? There is little information to base a recommeQdation on. From what I reviewed, I must recommend denial of the variance. It appears, however, if the survey is accurate, that the proposed lake setback would be closer to 75 feet, rather than the 14 feet stated in the hearing notice. You may want to double check that. Whether it is 75 or 14 feet has no bearing on my recommendation, however. It would appear the best place for additional development on this lot would be where the tennis court is situated. This would maximize the setback from the lake. and assure virtually no vegetation would have to be removed. Lastly, the ordinary high water elevation for Howard Lake is jdentilied as 958.0 on the survey. My records indicate that the OHWL for Howard Lake is 957.3'. In areas with steep banks (like this one), the difference of 0.7 feet would not result in a significant difference when measuring setbacks. Should the city grant the variance, please ensure the on-site sewage treatment system is in conformance with CWTent standards. If it is not, an upgrade of the system should be a condition of approval. *' TREMAINE V ARIANCE- PRIOR LAKE I have discussed this proposal with the applicant, and inspected the site. The dimensions of this lot of record make development or redevelopment within the CWTent standards difficult, if not impossible, without variances. Is there a garage planned on the proposed new structure? The plan I reviewed did not indicate so. If no~ is it reasonable to expect a future variance request for front yard and impervious surface coverage to accommodate a garage? I suggest this be discussed with the applicant at the hearing. I do not object to four of the five requested variances. If the association land is included in the computation of impervious surface, the result is approximately 26%. It is reasonable, in this situation, to consider the association land in the impervious equation. Although not technically proper, one could also consider the association land in the lot size determination. If so, the square footage is very close to the minimum 7500 square feet The lakeshore setback variance could be eliminated with a slight modification to the design of the deck On the enclosed copy of the survey, I have depicted a modification which slightly reduces the square footage to approximately 230 square feet, or roughly 25% smaller than proposed by the applicant Please request the Planning Commission consider the modification, as it still provides a useable deck surface, and eliminates one offive variances. The DNR would not oppose the granting of the variances for lot size, impervious surface, front yard, and side yard, provided the lakeshore setback variance can be eliminated. Please call me at 772-7910 if you have any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Please provide me with the record of decision on both variance requests. Sincerely, ~~IUD~ Area HYdrolo:f! ~ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER RESOLUTION 9608PC A RESOLUTION DENYING AN 80 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKE SHORE SETBACK OF 70 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 150 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 22' X 26', DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE AI-AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT AND SD- SHORELAND DISTRICT AT 15220 HOWARD LAKE ROAD NW. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. John Schiffman has applied for a variance from Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a 22' x 26', detached garage on property located in the AI-Agricultural zomng district and the SD-Shoreland District at the following location, to wit; 15220 Howard Lake Road NW., legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Howard Lake Estates, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case 96-0I5V A and held a hearing thereon on March 25, 1996. 3. 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 variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The request does not meet the Ordinance criteria, in that reasonable use of the property currently exists and legal alternatives exist for placing a garage on the property . 5. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance would serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. 16200 ~8~~~S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ----------.--- - 7. The contents of Planning Case 96-015V A 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 requested variance. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 25, 1996. Richard Kuykendall, Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 9608PC-B.DOCIRML 2 .~ _=----- -~~~~t,! ! / . ~I ... PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 1992 PAGE 2 MOTION BY WELLS, SECOND BY ROSETH, '1'0 APPROVE A ONE HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN (137) FOOT LAKESHORE VARIANCE FOR 15220 HOWARD LAKE ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A 15'6" X 22' ADDITION. RATIONALE BEING "THAT THE REQUESTED SITE WOULD NOT REQUIRE REMOV1.L OF TREES, IT WOULD LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF EXCAVATION, IT MEETS THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE ANt) IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. vote taken signified ayes by Wells, Roseth and Loftus. MOTION CARRJ:ED. Jl'iU III - u.l'UU l'lUf't~J.1'f"ell - \-kRIMT8E Te Hunsinger, 15229 Fairbanks Trail, stated he is re var nces to construct a 22 X 24 toot attached garag expan on tor primary house access and stairs for access. ['..... Sam Lucast resented the information as per memo~of June 18, 1992. The ariances requested are a 6' lot coverage, 12 foot front yard, 5 ~ot north side, and a 3.5 foot sOuth side yard. The subject . e is a 50 foot wide substand6rd lot. currently the applIcant has 0 garage or acce.. to ~e rear yard. The north side yard riance for the garage)(ould be a continuation ot a legal nonconfo~ng setback of the inciple structure. A lot coverage ratio v~riance is neees ry because the i~pervious surface coverage exce s 30'. Fairba . Trail is not centered in the dedicated right-of- but will probablY not be realigned becau.. many structures e roach s stantially into the setbacks. Same tree. will be lost ue t the construction of the garage, possibly tree replac81llent ma part of the motion. staff recommends approval of the va ances as requested. comments from the Comaissi ers re on: tree replacement, lack of a garage is a ha~ship, an removal of existing shed from property line or ]love y.o the proper etback. MOTION BY ROSETB, S~ND BY WELLS, TO PROVE THE SIX (6) , LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE ,...tf1'WELVE (12) FOOT FRO YARD VARIANCE, FIVE (5) FOOT NORTH SIDUARD VARIANCE, AND THREE ONE HALF (3. 5) FOOT SOO'l'B SIDE YAJU).fVARIANCE FOR 15229 FAIR TRAIL TO CONSTRUCT A 22X24 FOOT A~CHED GARAGE AND A DEClC WI STAIRS. RATIONAL BEING THAT 1JJT IS A SUBSTANDARD 50 FOOT , LACK OF A GARAGE HAS BEEN NSIDERED A HARDSHIP, PROPERTY PLATTED IN 1920 UNDER THE SDICTIOII OF A PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT, APPLICANT WILL WOlUt WI STAFF ON TREE REPLACEMENT, AND FAI TRAIL IS NOT CENTERED N RIGHT-OF-WAY. o 1,'0 MOTION signified ayes by Roseth, Wells, and Conse froa the Commissioners on the appli t will work with Staff on removal campl ance with City Code. shed was that the or bringinq into -"1::"'. "':"~; .;~.,-,... .~ ' _: .:.~,~.;<,,;\':. '. - "-",,. I WVA17pcw ;':.p- SUBJECT: APPLrCAHT: SITE ADDRESS: PREsElh".t;K: PUBLIC BEARnfG: DATE: PLMNnfG REPORT JOHN SBZPP'MAH LADsHORE VAlUANCE JOHN SBZFPIWf 15220 BOWARD LAKE ROAD SAM WCAST, ASSOCUTE PLANNER YES X NO JOHE 18, 1992 ;1~~' :~r ::i .i t .; .. SITE ANALYSIS IIZSTORY(BA~: JOhn Sh~f%1lan ~s requestinq a one hundred thirty-seven (137) foot lalceshore variance to construct a 15'6W x 22' addition to the west side of an exist:inq detached qaraqe. The subject site is an irr~larlI shaped 4.6 acre parcel on Boward Lake Road. The buildinq s te is a level area adjacent to the driveway between Boward Lake and a low area in the center of the lot. -.1.. ..\ .! -." :i;~'~ : ~,:..'" i ~OUS PROPOSALS: The 8X1.st1nq house was const:ructed in 1962 and Howard Lake Est:ates was not platted until 1982. The City of Prior Lake apprOVed the subdivision per the ordinances effective in 1982. In 1987 with the adoption ot Shoreland Xanaqement Ordinances, the plat, without any new hOJleS built upon it, became a l~al nonconformit:y. Therefore, the pre existing qarage on the subject site has a leqal nonco~o~ setback. The lots are lots of reCOrd, SUbject to a buildinq perait, but also subject to the new Shoreland Kanaqeaent Ordinaiice which requires a two hundred foot setback frOll the Ord~-Hiqh-Water (O-B-W) mark of a Natural Environment Lake. In 1988 a hOlle was built on Lot 1 Block 1 Boward Lake Estates which required a one hundred (100) foot lakeshore variance due to the tOPC?9'raPhy( lot shape, and setbacks. Currently a buildinq permit is p&nd1.nq for Lot 5 Block 1 Boward Lake Est:ates and has been qranted an one hundred fifteen (115) foot lUAshore variance for the same reasons. The previous hoae owner and developer of the plat tried unsuccessfully on two occasions to raise the density of the SUbdivision both before and after plat approval. The applicant is request~ a continuation of the buildinq line which WOUld be considered a l~al nonconto~ setback. Bowever, because the shoreline curves back toward the qaraqe the distance to the' 0-8-W becoaes less and requires an increased variance thereby losinq the continuation of a leqal nonconforming setback. 4629 Dakota St Sf.. Prtor LMe. Mfa.-.I~ 55372 I Ph. (612) 4474230 I Fax (612) 4474245 Nt EQl.W.. CJIlPORrtHty 9I'lOYER - ,;-........;...:,,41" > ".0_ ~.. .~ ,.. . / PHYSIOGRAPHY : The ~ot contains ~evel areas, lowlands, slopes, marsh areas, and a pond. The driveway makes a loop in the level area between the existing house and garage, and around the sunken tennis court in the center of the lot. Adjacent to the driveway the land either slopes down toward the tennis court or the water body, or rises in the southeast portion of the lot by the house. In some areas the slopes are steep. ADJACENT OSES: Residentia~ development, open space/agriculture, and water bodies surround the subject site. Immediately adjacent to the parcel on the north and south sides are bodies of water. Howard Lake is located south of the subject site. It is a Natural Environment Lake to which the DNR assigns the most restrictive setbacks because these lakes are the most sensitive to development. Development is setback two hundred (200) feet from the o-a-w in an effort to reduce its effects. To the east and west are residential and open space/agricultural uses. On the north side of Howard Lake Road is also residential open space/agriculture. EXiSTDfG CONDITIONS: currently, a bouse, detached garage, and tennis court occupy the main usable portion of the lot. A driveway circles the tennis court, passes in front of the garage and house! and passes between the court and the pond on the northern port on of the lot. See attached map. NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES IMPACT CONCERNS: A )acent ouaes ave rece ve var ances for new construction due to the topography, setbacks, and shape of the lots. The addition could conceiVably be placed on the east side of the garage and meet the legal nonconforming setback. However, bardship exists in the removal of a significant oak trae and the excavation of six (6) to eight (8) feet of bills ide to provide a level building surface. The western side is nearly flat, treeless, and more aesthetically appealing. Pat Lynch of the Minnesota DNR visited the site and did not object to the request. He was concerned with tree removal and disturbing soil wbich.~y create erosion problems if the addition were placed on tho east side of the qarage. The proposed addition will remove brush or volunteer tree growth if any at all, and the ground is already disturbed from the placement of a dog kennel. AssuaincJ sumaer leaf on conditions, the addition will be w'2ll screened from the lake and Hovard Lake Road. PROBLEKS/OPPO~: Without a Vis1t to the site or detailed information about the ~~aphy, . it would be easy to reccmaend denial of the application. However, an insp6c;:tion reveals the applicant has a legitimate hardship. construction on the east side of the garage requires the removal. of a significant oak tree and much excavation. Locating 'the ~ge east of the house would require additional pavinc; and would not be aesthetically pleasing or consistent with gOod site planning techniques. -c .~"""CIo_~;'"~---'--'" ~- " , t, '~",..' . ":j :t ,J ~".....", ',', " -...~--_......._---.- >. ..... I \ - -.",,', :..~' 'c'~.~~' c:'<-:' " -'''''' ~;":"~-"::':"::"~~~-:.'~""~'':'-l'":'!.~'':''''~';: c.' ~? ':">;::;-o",c,>; c .',~.-~ ._:"-: ""_~;\ "':"""__"_~"; The opportuni~.l exia1:a ~ construct an adclition ~ the ai.tinq C)araqe ~or JIOre .~rage ~ce. It is a reaSOnable request when conaider~ 1:he alternative locations. The topoqraphy and plaC4m8nt or struct:uru uD' t:be propo.ed location t:he most suitable. Past: pr~ent: cites !rr.galar lot:a shape aDd l1m1t1nq t:oDoar2mhv .. a hardsb1p. Also the zwaoval or trees and a larqe voluie -'or" soU 1ncreaIi8 1:he cbances o~ erosion near a Natural BIlviJ:oaaent lab. fte rationale ~or approval i. that t:be City of Prior Lake approved the 8UbcUvision accordiDq to ita 1982 ~ aDd theD cbaJ.lcJecl t:be 8t:andarda to JIOre restrictive ones in 1987 vit:h t:he a~on or t:be Shoreland Xanaq~t Ordinance. The hardship i. due to the ord1nancI ~ and not: to actions ot the p~ 0Wb8r. The applicant: i. cont:1nu1nq t:be buildinq line and mzst apply ror a larc;er variance because t:be o-U-W mark curves back toward t:he CJaraqe. STAPP ~Olf: Sta~~ r8C1:I -nc18 apprOVal ot t:be variance as requested. The criteria inclUde it: pr--.-.rves a siqniricant oak tree, limits the amount or excavation in close ProxDity to a Natural Environment lake, it lleets t:he SPirit and intent or t:be Ordinance, and it does not diminish t:be health, safety, or welfare ot the COIIDIUn1 t:y . ~~: ' ~: ': -, ,/;'-.1 i" , / A '. \'A et... -.J2..... pi5;/. ~Cl-S- ~o4-co.}.-t!) crT! OP PRIOR LAKE APPLICATION FOR VARWa ~icant: '"r~l~ = ri;.; r= F ~ Address: ' r () . t:> IA,.t .J.. A )t F ~ L Property Owner: .:: 1+ "" r:: Address: .::; P. "-Ie ~ of OImership: F~ ~w"'e 12- Contract consultant/Contractor: (! DIVe e D '"B t/ tLIJH"~'( BaDe Phcne: ~I/S - () 77h 1I)dt Plate: BaDe Pb;me: li)r:k Phone: P\m:~~1 i :l, .J . ~i~ ,;t ,,. '.,.:';..' 4 ~:1 '...<'.1.'. ] :{, , ~= ;. C.A. \. ~A(A~c / tf(15,(f~.[;(J ( Present ZOning: AI Sf) " Pt~ed use ( / v r ~ of Ptoperty: :f U1 0~r- / /fJ~id(""f-! i #. ( j Legal DesCription. ' j of Variance Site: L,.r ~ gL~ ~ ~OfAJA-e.O.,l..A-1t!..b E57'19--r~~ ~; VarlanDe llequeSt:ed. ~ 'sell5A~t ~!!l 'll~r"""JOJ t"'$~i'O tJF~ :zoo' !;~=-t:. X\' t:fe. 1d~~1& A-.OIJ ,he"; -rDlit',J.1iIl1J" 3D)l 1."7. G,,~1i - /57 '~I:.<,~~ VG""~;'... the . lXevio&D.y SoOght to plat, rezone, dJtain a variance or conditional" use.pera1t em the sd:Jject site or 1Jfr[ part of it? Yes -X-1Io1 1Ibat vas tequested: :1 When: PisPOSition:1 .::, .'~ Describe the typ! of DpIOlTements plcp:lSed: SlBMISSIaf Iti)u~: (A)~eted a(:plicaticn form. CB>FUiD;J fee. CC)Prcperty SU:vey. CD)Certified frcm abstract firm, names and addresseS of property owneIS within 100 feet of the exterior txnmdaries of the ldJject property. (E)~lete legal description , Pxcperty Identificatiem !bIber (pD)). CF)Deed restrictions or private ccwenants, if applicable. CG)A parcel JI8P at 1--20'-50' slnfing: '!'he site dl!Yel~t plan, buil.diDJs: parlt.in3, loadiDJ, ~, surface drainage, larmcapiBJ and utility serlioe. CR.Y <XJn'IIBl'E APPLI~ SWL BE R!NIBm) BY '1'BE PJANRIR; aJIIW)SION. 'J.'b the best of DJ knowledge the information presented on . this fom' is correct. In aa3ition, I have read section 7.6 of the Prior Lake' ZOning OrdinanCe which specifies requi~auents for varianCe proc:edDres. I agree to prcwidefnfo on - CM the ~res as outlined in the 0r;d1mnce. ' 9Ddttec1 this.~day of ~')- RMUlG ~ 7 2:FIWIl ~t,;fjli-7r~ a1.~ CIT!~ APl'FAL _ ~ __'l&UIJ) .' tr4'B.C1',1IEARItG w..><TlU$-#"1' J.ar~UIR<U;g;/a:t~4~~_dfj ... ~.:..' .,_. . I "._ _0. '_",_ :."' . "',' ,~:.""<,,,.,.,-, .-..... .'- .~.~ ;-:'~~ .;"-:;~ :r3: ",,:#! . '.:.~ '''<' :'t '-'.'~1 ".~ ~::; 1 :"~ i :; '1 ";.; ~ t if .1-' .. .'/f' ~, I q:1} ,:;,,:,... ,,":. ,..__.~-:-. ~~~it~~;~ '_:~-..-~ ~I~&-.i:(~}~~#~f~{~':~ :- ^. -... ; ~'.. " . f ---- ---~~---------- l ., PLANNING COMMISSION MINtJ'l'ES JUNE 18, 1992 The June 18, 1992, Planninq Commission Mee~inq was called ~o order J?y Chairman Lof~us a~ 7: 30 P.M. Those presen~ were Commissioners Lot~us, Wells, Roseth, Director of Planninq Horst Graser, Associate Planner Sam Tucast, and Secretary Rita Schewe. Commissioners Arnold and Wuellner were absent. ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING MOTION BY ROS~, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN . Vote taken .iqnified are. by Loftus, Wells, and Ros.th. MOTION CARRIED. NOTE: C~ ssioner Wells was not pre.ent at the previous meotinq but voted on the minutes to fill the quorum. ITEM II - JOHN SCHIFFMAN - VARIANCE Kathleen Sehiftllan, 15220 Howarc! Lake Road, stated they are r.qu..~inq a variance to construct a 15'6" X 22' addition to the vest 81de of an eXistinq detached qaraqe. Sam Lucas~, presented the information as per memo of June 18, 1992. The presen~ hoae was built in 1962 bu~ the subdivision was not platted until 1982. The applicant is reque.tinq a continuation of the bui1dinq line which would be considered a 1eqal noncontorminq setback. However, because the shoreline curve. back toward the qaraqe the distance of the O-H-W becomes le.s and requires an increased variance thereby losinq the continuation of a 18C1al noncontorminq setback. The location planned tor construction is the moat lO91cal area a. it i. nearly flat, treel..s and JIOre aesthetically pleasinq. There have been previous variances qranted to other lots in the area. DNR was more concerned with erosion into the lake than with the requested .etback. Statf recOBends approval as requested. Comment-.a trom the Ccaaissioners were on: shape of lot, tree location, and use of the proposed construction. COJlUll1ssioner Loftus wanted to put on record that Mr. Schiffman is a former client but would vote on the variance due to the absence of two Commissioners. , 4629 DMota St. S.E. PriorLalcr. MInnesota 55372 I Ph. (612) 4474230 I Fax (612) 4474245 A."'~ 0PPCIm.NTV DROYER ~. ..4 I 4~-:.~_., P SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4G CONSIDER FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR JOHN J. SCHOELLER/CAROL'S FURNITURE 16511 ANNA TRAIL R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES ....x- NO MARCH 25, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from John J. Schoeller on behalf of Carol's Furniture. DISCUSSION: The subject site was purchased by Carol's Furniture in 1986. At that time, a 30' variance was applied for and granted to permit construction of the current showroom building. Accompanying this report are copies of the application, staff report, Commission minutes and site plan related to that variance. The site plan did indicate an area for future expansion; the proposed building in this case is consistent with the area shown for future expansion. The variance was exercised by the issuance of a permit for, and the construction of the first addition. The applicant now wishes to construct a 2,400 square foot addition in the location shown on the 1986 site plan. It does appear that other, legal alternatives exist for the placement of the expansion. For example, the expansion could be placed at a 90 degree angle to the existing building on the East. It could also be shifted North to comply with the setback requirement. Either of these alternatives would probably require greater reconfiguration of the parking lot. 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. As the analysis above suggests, staff is of the opinion that an expansion can be accommodated, and thus reasonable use of the property can be made while still complying with the setback requirements. Thus, staff has concluded that this 16200 ~!gwe'~15.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNl1Y EMPLOYER - - - __ __ __ - - - - _u_ _ criterion is not met. Staff did view the request in terms of the previous variance, and concluded that the previous variance was granted on the basis of largely aesthetic considerations, rather than hardship and characteristics unique to the site. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property . Because staff has concluded that there is no undue or unnecessary hardship this criterion is, de facto, not met. 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. Any hardship results not from the application of the provisions of the Ordinance, but from design decisions made by the applicants. Thus, this criterion 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 proposed structure would not be inconsistent with other development in the area. Thus, it does not appear that the requested variances would be contrary to the public interest. ,ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variance 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 code criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Because staff has concluded that the applicants have legal alternatives which would allow reasonable use of the property, and thus that the Ordinance criteria are not met, staff recommends Alternative No.3. ACTION REQUIRED=- A motion adopting Resolution 9610PC-A. 2 9622V APC.DOC/RML CITY OF PRIOR LAKE APPLICATION FOR VARIANcE '""I:Plicant: ~/9"""; ~~ ~ !lane Pmne: fi, I :1.J'I'l.7-S"S, 7 Address: ?- ')/7 6 - p., ;it ~ff~~Work Pmne: '74'7--5"5";2 Property Owner:. )~~ j-~,OL- ; Home Phone: Address: /~,5)J Ie.-..... V<<)rk Phone: Type of Ownership: Fee X. Contract Purchase Agreanent Consul tant/Contractor: Phone: ~-D~ PID# ~)-Cfcfl-() -3 Existing Use of Property: rr/APJ7l/l"e 5 A-Lfl C; Legal Description of Variance Site: ~;6..;- ~rr-.llJ..C-J*,,"~ Variance Requested: / ~" ~ ;;;":7- ~ ~ pW"'J Present Zoning: ~I tJ~ Y .p3 / Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional use peonit on the subject site or any part of it? :z Yes N:> - What was requested: . ;1 0 ' ...~.6.7"' ~~ ~t<_1'n J+'vvt.y /3 When: J 9 B ~ _Dis};X)si tion: / . Describe the type of irnprovanents pro};X)sed: J9.dd, r I~~L-- ~.r'~~ r.p Jt.... ~ P--'V J-~L- /~ /'IfA. ~ SJEMISSION REOUIREMENrS: 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 fion, names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. (E)Complete legal description & Property Identification Number (pm). (P)Deed restrictions or privat~ covenants, if 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 COMPLEl'E APPLICATIONS SHALL BE ACCEPl'ED AND REVIEWED BY THE PLANNI~ CCMMISSION. To the best of my knowledge the infoonation presented on this foon is correct. In addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which specifies requirements for variance procedures. I agree to provide information and follow the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. ~ ~_"'!5,~f!t. _ ican Signature SllI:mitted this LLday of ##<#192(. ~* ~.~l!~ ee Owne S~gna re THIS SPACE IS 'IO BE FILLED OUT BY THE PLANNnx; DIREcr'OR PLANNDX; CDMMISSION CITY COm-or. APPEAL CONDITIONS: APPROVED APPROVED DENIED DENIED DATE OF HFARnx; DATE OF HFARIN:; Signature of the Planning Director Date ~ ~ o I \0 0\- Wit- ~~I ii"1 ~I ~I I 5 i . J , i ! .1..:.' ~ . /f :',~:\- , / \ \ \. \ \.----. ._~ ~\ ~.. \ \ qt>, \ \ '^~\ '~;" '.' ~ N 8l J \0 0\ l'h' fl,p " " ./ \ '\ \. '\\ \ \. \,', ___r-,-~, " . n ~ / , , :, ':\ ; i / .~ {/ .~ ~ I\{ ~ / i I (i " " -, r,) -, \ \ \ I / -0.' J / .---.-./ \ " ~:~ '", '., o ~ : .' .' ~ ~'> \'-... G Z. . <'. ~ .1 . "'~ ;:~\ / i t. x O' ". L l\!;;;(',. r""";;;'" , ., "~(":';.... ; ~ ~ ~: o , ...,l" ;,.",. NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A 35 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 15 FOOT SETBACK FROM STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 13 INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2400 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE BI-LIMITED BUSINESS 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, March 25, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: John J. Schoeller/Carol's Furniture 16511 Anna Trail Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 SUBJECT SITE: 16511 Anna Trail, legally description as found on the attached survey. REQUEST: The applicant proposes the construction of a 2400 square foot addition to the existing store. The addition would continue the setback of the existing store. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Literal enforcement ofthe 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 9622VAPN.DOC 1 16200 ~ Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTIJNITY EMPLOYER 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: March 14, 1996. 9622V APN.DOC RML 2 .RESOLUTION 9610PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST BY JOHN 1. SCHOELLER ON BEHALF OF CAROL'S FURNITURE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE Bl- LIMITED BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT AT 16511 ANNA TRAIL. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. John J. Schoeller has applied for a variance from Section 4 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an addition on property located in the B I-Limited Business zoning district at the following location, to wit; 16511 Anna Trail, legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case 96-022V A and held a hearing thereon on March 25, 1996. 3. 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 variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The request does not meet the Ordinance criteria, in that the applicant has legal alternatives to make reasonable use of the property. 5. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial propertY right of the applicant. The variance would serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. 7. The contents of Planning Case 96-022V A are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION 16200 l!8Mt~~. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the requested variance. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 25, 1996. Richard Kuykendall, Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 96 1 OPC.DOC/RML 2 i 1 ~t i .fr. .r..,:;~ll . ~"'_~'~~" ~";.''- .1 . ~ l ..' . . r. .; _"l( If' .......'\ ~---- --. OESCR I PT rON: Half of Township described T li e S O'W The a S T 1 1.4. Ran 9 e 2 2 : as fO.l LOwS: ThaT par.T of The WesT OuarTer of SecTio~ 2. SCOTT CounTy, M'tnnescTa ~ommenci~9 aT a poinT on The EasT Line of Th~ West" Hat-'f of The'--SOUTheast" Ow'ar;-er ,disTa.nT 1940.80 feeT norTh of The SfUTheasT car.ner 'of said Wes~-Half of t"he SouTheasT OuarTer, said poinT be.1ng o~-The SouTh ~ine of a To~n Road; .t'.~hence deflec:r ing . West' aT an ang La of 92.de'g.l"ees 37 .'minuT.es .a'lOn9 said Scut'h tine of':""oad 'a d1STance of_652.~5 fee~ TO iTS inTe~sect'\on ~tTh ~he NorThwesTerly boundary of New Trunk Highway No. 1 3. The poi!!T 0 f beg i nn i n 9 o'f 1" h e l' and "t" 0 be d~scrioe~; 1"hence conT~nuing WeST ~lang S~ll SouTh line of road a dtsTance c'f 410.00 feeT' Thence defLect'i~g t'o t'he Le'fT at" an angle of 11. d.egrees 30 minu't"es a cis-rance o'f 241.19 'feef" more, or less TO said NorThwest"er~y boundary of New! Trunk H "lghway No. 13; -rhe;""lce NorTheast"er L ya L on,g' sald NorThweSTerLy co~ndary o'f New Trunk HIgn~ay No. 13 ~c ~he po~nt c~ beg~nn~ng. CcnTain1ng 1.02 acres EXHIBIT A CITY OF PRIOR LAKE . ~ ~ - .aJ~~ - ~ <DNS'mrJM'Tnt.: m. Al.X;'(m 7, 1986 SDR. TPr'I': '1'0 consider a 30 foot front yard variance for 16511 J\nna Trail. STAPP ANAr.Y!;T~: 1'be applicant is representi.ng Carol' s furniture who has a purchase agreement to buy the metal building at intersection Anna Trail and Highway 13. Where this building lIaS constructed Prior Lake did not have an ordinance preventing metal construction. FurJlemore, at the time of construction the site was Zoned B-2 business which has no front or side yard setback requirements allaiing the building to be placed 15 feet fran Highway 13. Prior Lake has since changed 'the zaung of the subject site to B-1 Limited Business and p3SSed an ordinance pcaenting metal construction. The current building pr<::~...s a poor visual iDpression and ~..i.onable business OPPOrtunities on a sita ~t has eJlcellent camnercial potential am exposure. The current B-1 ZOning re:;uires a 50 foot Highway 13 setback and 15 foot side yard setback. It is the opinion of the future owner -Carol's Furniture- that the erterior of the existing building needs to be brOl.oght into architectural caDpatibility with any ~~=';i. The proposal entails adding 3000 ~re feet of retail space to the northeast. '!be intent is to have exposure to Highway 13, pemit functional COIpltibility and take into account future expansion. tl1der the cirOlDSt:ances it woJl.d not be Prudent to exp::ni along the southwest property line and develop parking along Highway 13. 1he exi.sting building bas an 18 foot setback fran His!lway 13. This proposed CCIlStruction including the future expansion space would maintain that distance. '!he 30 foot cede deviation will not affect vehicular traffic on Highway 13. Baieger, the proposal will have a mch more direct orientation to Highway 13 than both the Post Office and Bank. S"rAFP ~'l'Tl'W: 'Jbis proposal should be ~oYed since it will greatly ~rove a building and site that has beetJ allowed to deteriol'ate CRer the years. 'nle existing building under u~i1inss the site am cannot address the potential of the site unless 8:ldified and added onto. '!be proposal otilizes the existing situation lw'ell and will result in inprovements that will be in the best interest of the camuni ty. PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372 . . ~....., The l'Iann;ng Commission meets on the first and third ThurdSc1v of each month. All applications must be c:ompleted and sub- mitted 10 days prior to the meeting it will be considered on. '<~.~...., .. . ,"~';" "". Piii7,:. ~%~ 'i"".-~'l .~:~1' ~y.." City of Prior lake Application For Variance , X'}; </:':l'?> ~~~:: ~ Information Applical"t: And~rson-Knutson Constrllct ion Co. Phone: R1'i-c;OOO Address: 4640 W. 77th St.. Suite 275 , Edina, MN 55435 Property Owner: _ John and Carol Schoeller Phone: 447-1)538 Address: Carol's Furniture and Carpet-Priordale f-1all Hwy 13 Type of Ownership: Fee Contract_ Purchase Agreement /' ConsultAnt/Contractor: lmderson-Knutson Constr'Jct ion Co. Phone: 8.35-5000 Existing Use of Property: Prev!nt Zoning: B-1 Auto Service Proposed Use ;,f Property: Parcel No: Furniture Store Legal Description of Variance Site ! AI i\4 ("' Mr '\)) VaN~ Requested: 20'-0 Set Back Has the applicant pte\oiously sought to pLlt. rezOl'Ie. obtain a variance or Conditional Use Permit on the subject site or any pan of itl: N~ vesC What was reque!oted: When: _ -- Disposition: Describethetypeoiimprovement~proposed: Sp-e .:it-t n~h~d drnw; ngc: Describe the type of undue hardship which exists based upon circumstances unique to the propeny: Th~ prot)p r expansion and upgrading of the existing building requires a variance due to the placement of the existinq structure. Both exoansion and Suupgrading.are considered essential to the success of the project. IJtfl"l'i1SSIOn Re(fulrements (A.)C.cmp\ft~ application form. (B.}Filing Fee $50.00 (C.)Cenified from abstract firm. names and addresses of pro- perty owners within 100 feet of the extericr boundries of the subject property. (O.}Complete leg.;al description. (f.lDeed restrictionS. if applicable. (F.lAn area map at 1'. - 200' available from the City Engineering Section showing: e1l- isting tuP081~. utirlties. lot houndries. building easements and soil test d.1ta if penl"'~:1t within 300 feet. (C.lA parcel map at l'.-2O'.SO' showing: The site devolpment pta". buildings: ~rking. loaoing. ace!'" 'Surface drainage. landSCdping and utifity service. The above items shall be submrtted unless dearly not applicable and of no value in the r~iew of this request. Only complete appfications shal! be'n!'Viewed by the Board of Adjustments. Subm;tted th;' ~ day of ,.;'ul v ...,r- _?~ ;:d'~-ri? .:~:V~::1~': T{t' . 9J 9I4 - 1:,,:<-. \).Ifwithin one year from the dae of I'antinB a ~uponrecommendation of the Zonins Oficer. substantial progress has i~l,{~;L< nCJt been ~~~it:s ~ the Board of~~~ ~Il declare the variance '!ull and void. ;'!~F{(~:;~t:,(~:..,,:<;;"Y:':" :'~;),~,;t""}?:~;,;i';"3~:;~?i:~:;{: i. ..... :t ~:{,l, .:"., "c. . . ~ ~--~------------ ~;~.; ,.-:. ~~~ ~~ ':'i ~; ;,= I !'. . Item III, r01'..JeSt tfJ Pichard J. h1derson f~r an 18.5 foot laJceshore '.rariar.ce am ~ 5 foot side yard ....atiances for 2963 Terrace Ci rcle. Me. & Mrs. Anderson were pr~ to ans.~r questions. ~. i'nderscn stated t.;at L~e'i' wt"re seeking 2 fi'..re foot side yard '.rariances in order to const.ruct t.~ detached garage in a'1 aesthetically pleasing location. Cir.! Planner Graser C01-=nted per DIEr.1O dated 8/2/86. '1'be ~nNBi'3sioners had no problem with t.~ laJceshore vurianoe but the side yard v,uiances shafeC no hardship. K7rIa. BY LCPrus 'ro G?.M-r' AN 18.5 fOOl' I..AKF.SHoRE VAALl\lQ FUR 2963 'l'ERAAO: CIR::'LE sno: IT IS ~ ~~i PREVICCS PLA.~ ~OO PROCmoRE AN:> 1Cr ~ '10 '!HE AREA, BUr 1'0 ~ mE n..o 5 FOOl" .')Ir.E YARD VARIAl1Q:5 sna ~ IS 00 HAROOHIP wrm 'mIS SIZE LOl', srx::::mm IrI WELLS. OFON A VOl'E TAKEN, 'mE K:1r1~ WAS OOLY pASSm. (WELLs, LOMl1s,. Ll\RSCN) Ite:t 'N, request by John Zalesky for a ~.2 foot side yard variance for 5706 Birchwood Avent.'e 11..E. Kr. zalesky was present to answer questions. Mr. Zalesky o::~_:::uted that he applied for a building peDnit for a dEck and found tbe lot 18' narra,er than the builder said and the builder had put a s1idi.~ c;1ass door on the side yard. Since there is a hill in the back of the hooc;e this presents a hardship. City Planner Graser <:aI:riEnted per me1lO dated 8/7/86. At: this time Olaiman Larson read three letters Exhibit wAw Rick D. rt.ttray, -a- Mr. 'Mrs. Michael Volkart, we. James L. & Patti A. Howe, for the record all cbjecti.ng to the variance request. 'lbe Cn!n;ssioners had COIlQ!rn over setting a new precedent even t.hou9h Cefinite hardship exists. lm'!eJi BY LCPlUS 'to GP.ANr A 5.2 EOOr SIDJ:: YARD VARIANc:E FOR 5706 B:r.P.C:ma:D AVa<<lE R. E. sna mIS WAS '11IE POLICY STAm4ENT CP 1m: CITY CCON:n, IN 5IMILAA ~ All) 'mE ONE YEAR TIME FUR BUILD~ EXTDDm IREFINrra,Y, 5fXLmm BY WlU.S. UPON A VOI'E TAREN, mE PCrIt.W WAS OOLY PASSm. (WELLs,. IDPlUS,. IARscw) Roseth arrived at 9:28 P.M. and did not vote on the zalesky variance. Item V, Anderson - Knutson Construction C':>. request for a 30 foot front yard variance for 16511 Anna Trail. Jim I'.nderson of Knutson Construction Caupanj.' camented that the variance was nec:P.sscuy to cake the best visual fo.mction ancl use of the facility for a storeroaa and shovrOOD when enclosing the existing metal building. City Planner Graser ~Jt:nted per memo dated August 7, 1986. .. .,.., ~" . . . ~. ' .. . :. :. . . . , . . ,. ')', '. . . . ~. . ':' . ... . ' ". 'I i e. . . MJI'IOO BY WELLS 'lU GRh'o--r AmF;R.Q'JN - Km.Jr.~ <DNSI'ROCrION ro. A 30 FCOr rna..Yf 1M[) VA.~ FOR 16511 ~~ TRAIL SINCl~ TP.E PPOPOSAL UfTLIZFS THE EXI~ srroATIOO m.L m> WILL ~ IN IKPROm'ENl'S 'mAT WILL BE m THE BFsr ~-r OF '!HE a::>m1NI'l'Y'r SEXIH>ED E"I ROOEm. UPON A varE T.N<EN, THE K7l'lON WAS txJLY PASSm. (WELLS, UFlUSr }(OOE'llJ, UUS:Nl . ID'rItfi BY LCPl'OS ro AIlJOORN 'mE ~T 7 r 1986 PRIOR LAKE ~ (DMMISSlOO ~.!!tG, ~ BY WELLS. UPON A vaI.'E TAKEN, THE flOl'IQI WAS tx..."LY PASSm. 'mE Mt;r;J:'~ ~ AT 9:43 P.M. I ! I , ._:....~...~.~. ~~' :',~. "', ,.,<',;"; .' . . " f-." '. \. '. ':""". ' . , , '- . -.\ ,', ~.. ~.. " " ... ':... ~ , ~, 'L=" '~ . ~.. ~ "-:," '. '.. ';/t ~ . . .'.. ~.:~\.:' ~".. ". '. ::S;:'.' " . \'. ',::~.,:,. ", ,. ....., . .... : ,:}.'".~. ' "..' :;..... '.,: ';~.': ~., ':.- -, ),' " ,"';~'.-!: ~'... ..~. ~ . . ;'.~'.4~" , ........... \ .~. '~.~. .,' : .....J":~:~~:.;,.,~;. ""\"'~(; '';''.. '. ., '.' ..."..vi. .' ~ .- '. :,:....<./1.: ". .~. I "'11 . ./ :t a- t '~4: .:;i: .).: , I J j.." ~ . , " :\,.. ;:,~.':. ,~, oil,::' '.' .' -",:,:"., '-. ',I.' .1 . . " t. , ~ . '. .). .... \. . .\. ..\ .,--\ , ,. , \ ';" ~~ ";'. . . ,r I .,,1 IJ , ... "i-. -. '~ ,.... ~:;, -----. . '. I I . , I '~v.,"'.'" Gl . ,~. ! \ '. "', \ .:'~ .' '- ~': . ,. ~ PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 6A ANNUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REPORT NONE DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES _X_NO-N/A MARCH 25,1996 INTRODUCTION: The zoning ordinance requires the Planning Commission to review all Planned Unit Development districts in the City once a year and to make a report to the City Council on the status of development within each district. If the Council finds that development has not occurred within a reasonable period of time after original approval, it may direct the Planning Commission to initiate a rezoning to remove the Planned Unit Development designation from the subject property BACKGROUND: At the last meeting, staff distributed a report outlining the major provisions of each PUD in the City and summarized the development status of each. In addition, a recommendation relative to each district was included. For commission members who were not present at that meeting, a copy of the report is included in the agenda packet.' DISCUSSION: The recommendations in the report are uniformly to continue the PUDs in effect. If Commission members feel differently about any particular development, they should be prepared to state specific reasons and justification for a recommendation to discontinue the PUD. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Recommend that all Planned Unit Developments currently in existence be continued in effect. 2. Recommend discontinuing specific Planned Unit Development designation on individual districts as determined and recommend continuation of the remainder. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 1 ACTION REQillRED: Motion as required to recommend the Planning Commission's decision 16200 I!'a!F~~~~S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 6B 1997-2001 Capital Improvement Program None Donald Rye, Planning Director _ YES _x_NO-N/A March 25, 1996 INTRODUCTION: At the joint meeting with the City Council last summer, Commission members expressed a desire to become involved with the Capital Improvement Program development process. The Council agreed that this was an appropriate role for the Commission. BACKGROUND: Attached is a summary of the 1996-2000 CIP report including maps of the locations of major projects. Typically, projects which are not constructed in the current year are carried over to a subsequent year. In some cases, projects are dropped from the CIP if it becomes apparent that there is no need for the project or that another project may achieve the same goals. DISCUSSION: The summary describes the CIP process and the financing sources available to the City in completing the projects. As always, the primary constraint on developing capital facilities is the availability of money. At present, the largest issue facing the City in terms of capital projects is the financial commitment required to planned and programmed County road improvements. During 1996 and 1997, the City's share of County road projects is expected to be $1,125,000. This is approximately 1/3 of the total City capital expenditures during this 2 year period. Recognizing that there are real monetary constraints on projects, the job of the Planning Commission is to review the projects proposed in the current CIP, decide whether they make sense from the perspective of community planning and development and make specific recommendations concerning either programmed projects or projects not currently in the CIP which the Commission feels would better achieve goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission does not need to feel constrained to restrict its consideration only to those projects contained in the current CIP. Any recommendations for changes to the CIP should indicate what particular goal or policy in the Comprehensive Plan is being advanced by the recommended project. The 16200 l!hlj~eRlAve. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4474245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER thing to keep in mind is that all projects are competing for a limited amount of money and the CIP will be limited to those projects having the highest priority. Included in your material is a time schedule for adoption of the CIP. As you can see, the time available for review is limited. Please give this your careful attention prior to the meeting. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to recommend changes ,in projects and priorities as the Commission determines . 2 Document4/DR