Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 8, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 ~T The March 25, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Kuykendall at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Loftus, Wuellner and Kuykendall, Planning Director Don Rye, Assistant Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. ROLL CALL: Criego Wuellner Loftus V onhof Kuykendall Present Present Absent Absent Present APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Remove Commissioner Criego and insert Wuellner from the first paragraph. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE THE MARCH 11, 1996 MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner and Kuykendall. Criego abstained. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Loftus arrived at 7:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4.A 96-001 - PHEASANT MEADOWS: CONTINUED HEARING ON THE SCHEMATIC PUD, REZONING FROM R-l, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, 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.) Don Rye, Planning Director, gave an overview of the Planning Report dated March 25, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the Schematic Planned Unit Development, zoning change from suburban Residential to PUD and the Preliminary Plat for Pheasant Meadow as recommended or with specific changes. John Wingard, Assistant Engineer, presented the information from the Engineering Staff Report. His summation concluded the additional 50 unit townhomes when fully developed would add approximately 400 trips per day to the streets in this area. Estimation is 90% of the trips would be on 170th (County Road 12) and 10% would travel across Balsam Street. The Sunset Hills development currently handles a traffic load of300 to 500 trips per day. The additional traffic generated by the Pheasant MN032S96.00c PAGEl Meadows development and future commerical 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 of 1,000 vehicles trips per day. Terry Schneider from Project Developers, 600 South Highway 169, St. Louis Park, along with David and Jeff Williams, the builders were present to answer questions. Mr. Schneider explained the two changes recommended by staff. 1) Deletion of the small pond; and 2) Moving the road with the connection to the commerical area farther to the south. The location of the park trail will be subject to staff's review. The developer will eliminate the Balsam Street connection if the Planning Commission dictates. Comments from the Public: Carl Tremmel, 3399 Balsam Street, spoke on behalf of91 residents who signed a petition in opposition of the Balsam Street connection to the Pheasant Meadow development. Mr. Tremmel presented the petition into the record. The Sunset Hills residents' concerns are: 1) Increase traffic in the Sunset Hills development; 2) By increasing the traffic flow on Balsam Street the City will decrease the safety of the residents and children; There are many children and no sidewalks forcing people to walk on the street. 3) By the support of the petition from the Sunset Hills residents, residents are clearly against the Balsam Street connection but not opposed to a biking or walking trail. The Willow Street trail connection works well for the residents in the Willows. Mr. Tremmel also feels the walking trail meets the vision of the Mission Statement stating "Strong neighborhoods and homeowner associations will characterize most development. Most neighborhoods will be connected by transportation amenities for pedestrians and/or motor vehicles." He also said the residents feel the development is right for the community and creates a nice buffer between Sunset Hills and the commercial area. Their only objection is the connection of Balsam Street. Comments from Commissioners: Wuellner: . Major concern for the development is where it is situated with respect to the adjacent neighborhood and Willow Park. It is a public safety issue with all the kids in the Sunset Hills area crossing to the Willow Park area. . Like to see a bike path through the Balsam Street entrance to relieve fear of the potential danger in the area. It would be a great alternative. . Would support the development if the City entertains that alternative. It seems to fit everyone's agenda. Criego: . Whether the development has a bike path or road the units would be reduced to 48 instead of 50. MN0J2S96.00c PAGE 2 . Terry Schneider suggested the 4 unit building be changed to a 3 unit leaving an extra 30 feet of space between the buildings and put a trail between. . Question to John Wingard in regard to the amount of increased traffic. . Wingard pointed out Exhibit B "Traffic Volumes". The majority of the traffic is headed north to get out to Highway 13. The traffic in the Sunset Hills development at buildout would increase from 300 to 400, equal to about 10%. Another option is to have the trail go along 170th Street. . Mr. Schneider said he did not see a problem with the trail location. It accomplishes the same purpose of getting pedestrian traffic east and west. Loftus: . One thing the City has tried to do is connect neighborhoods. . Made reference to the Willows' trail with the same rationale of serving pedestrians and eliminating motor vehicles. . Rye stated staff's recommendation has not changed for a couple of reasons. The Comp Plan speaks very strongly of connecting neighbors. There is a policy in the Subdivision Ordinance which in effect requires a subdivision to connect to a street that comes up to a common property line from an adjoining subdivision. The fact remains there is an Ordinance requirement the street be connected. The Commission has to decide whether in the long run it is more important to maintain a full connection between neighborhoods and not just between Sunset Hills and this neighborhood but other areas further to the east. Or is that purpose served by a pedestrianlbikeway connection? . Maybe this could be phased in. Remove the two townhome units and make the connection later. . Rye explained the difficulty of doing an analysis of neighborhoods and tailor-making the transportation system for whatever the condition is at a particular point in time. . Now the responsibility is on the developer. Later on it would be on the townhome association. . Maybe they would put a street in, maybe not. The City can not predict what the association will do. . Concurs with the zoning change. Supportive of staff recommendation with the exception of the Balsam Street connection. Kuykendall: . Studied the issues and looked at the alternatives, looked at what the statutory requirements are in both the Comp Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. There are sound engineering reasons as well as planning and residential reasons to connect Balsam Street. I have seen nothing in the staff report indicating it should not connect. . 91 people say they are not interested in the street connection but there are no engineering reasons not to connect. . Sometimes perceived traffic problems look worse than they really are. The traffic trips in the report are minimal. MN032S96.00c PAGE 3 . The sad issue is there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood. There should be pathway connection but it should be part of the total street improvement. Balsam Street should continue on through as it was originally proposed. This is for safety as well as engineering. . Should not be the burden for some future association to work into these issues and deal with them later on. Support Balsam Street as a standard improvement. . Safety and maintenance vehicles should have access. . This will be a continual problem for the City because Balsam Street is not a cul-de- sac. It had a future and this plan is to eliminate that. It is not a good design. Open Discussion: Wuellner: . If Balsam Street was a reasonable distance from County Road 12 and a reasonable length of block, he could understand the reason for putting in a connection because there would be a public safety issue. Balsam Street is just one block depth away from County Road 12, it would be hindering traffic or emergency services into either Pheasant Meadow or Sunset Hills. . A second issue is the lack of a cul-de-sac on the Balsam Street stub. There are no houses at the end. There is one house on each side which have access to Spruce Trail as well as Balsam Street. So there is no need for a cul-de-sac. The issue is to get children safely from neighborhood to neighborhood. The Willows trail has been extremely successful. . Commissioner V onhof brought up a point last meeting in regard that there were no boulevard trees. This is important. . Terry Schneider said it was at staff's request to take the boulevard trees and shield and buffer Highway 13 and 170th. He would be willing to add some trees to the interior, foundation plantings around the townhomes will be done as well. Criego: . If we decide on a bike path along 170th why is it necessary to have a road from Spruce Street to the commercial area? A few months from now when the commercial area goes in the City will have the same reasoning. If the logic is right for Balsam, the logic is right for Spruce. Kuykendall: . At some time there should be a sidewalk along 170th but it is not the Commission's objective to design streets. . Balsam Street should be connected. . The desirable developments in the Twin Cities have many trees. . This subdivision is nice. . The City should not compromise our standards on engineering and street design. . The added traffic is not significant as far as a traffic hazard. MNOJ2S96.00c PAGE 4 Rye expressed his concern for a similar problem with subdivisions up and down Highway 13 whose only access is from Highway 13. There is no connection between them and everyone is forced to go out on the Highway for any trip beyond their neighborhood. In a more perfect world and this was designed differently we would not be arguing about this. Rye said he hated to see the City eliminate an option for an alternative access. The City is dealing with a county road which is potentially facing doubling in traffic in the next 20 years without any current plans coming from the County for upgrading. Loftus: . Compelling arguments on both sides. Understand staff s concern for the connection. . This development will bring more traffic through Sunset Hills. . For the larger public good it would be beneficial to have a street connecting. It would allow alternative ways to get in and out of the neighborhoods. . Hear the argument for a trail similar to the Willows, but it will put more traffic on County Road 12. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-04. DISCUSSION: Wuellner: . A bike connection has to be part of this project. It is an important issue the City cannot overlook. Criego: . If the logic is correct for Balsam Street the logic is correct for Spruce Trail. You can't go to every 50 unit PUD and just have private entries. It is important to open up to the greater community. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO AMEND AND ADD A SIDEWALK TO BALSAM STREET TO BE DETERMINED BY STAFF. Criego: . It is my understanding the developer had enough trees in the development and staff asked to put them near the road. Even though the developer said he would add trees from a marketing standpoint, it puts an added burden on him. . Schneider explained when the City adds things in it requires bonding and it complicates how the developer intends to accomplish them. The developer has more than the ordinance requires and will not leave the middle of the development bare. Wuellner: . Our standards is to have boulevard trees in our neighborhoods. If the standard is to connect neighborhoods then the standard should be to have boulevard trees. MNOJ2S96.DOC PAGES Kuykendall: . Agrees with Commissioner Criego. It is an added burden to what would be expected of the developer. From a developer's marketing standpoint they were going to landscape it anyway. Mr. Williams, the builder, commented they would like to work in as much landscaping and trees as they can. The perimeter trees serve as a buffer along the outside. Mr. Schneider said he had a solution. If the developers agreed to add one tree per space between the buildings it would accomplish the boulevard issue. Then work with staff in relocating some of the exterior trees to make up the difference. Staff could say what would be appropriate. Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Loftus and Kuykendall. Nay by Wuellner. MOTION PASSED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO APPROVE 96-05PC WITH AN AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER CRIEGO THAT TREES BE ADDED TO THE BOULEVARD USING THE TOTAL TREES WITHIN THE PERIMETER. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Criego, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO ACT FA VORABL YON ORDINANCE 96-10. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Criego, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. 4.B 96-021 - LESLIE HUNTINGTON, REQUEST FOR HOME OCCUPATION FOR FLORAL DESIGN AT 4087 RASPBERRY RIDGE. Assistant Planner Michael Leek presented the information from the Staff Report dated March 25, 1996. Staff's recommendation was to approve the request with the standard conditions. Leslie Huntington of 4087 Raspberry Ridge Road, was present for any questions. Comments from Commissioners: Criego: . Recommend the Resolution as stated by staff. MN032S96.00c PAGE 6 Loftus: . Ms. Huntington said she was presently working in a floral design shop in Shakopee. This business could turn into a full time job. She would be doing weddings with fresh flowers and arrangements with silk and dry flowers. . Supportive of request. Wuellner: Ms. Huntington does not feel she would buy a delivery truck in the future, maybe a mini- van. She doesn't feel there would be a large volume of deliveries to her home. Kuykendall: Supportive of the Resolution as stated. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-06PC. V ote taken signified ayes by Criego, Wuellner, Loftus and Kuykendall. MOTION PASSED. 4.C 96-020 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE BY RICHARD AND JULIE WARNER, WHO PROPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 5 FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE ON THEIR PROPERTY AT 3814 GREEN HEIGHTS TRAIL. Assistant Planner Michael Leek presented the Staff Report dated March 25, 1996. Staff recommends approval of the request based on their conclusion reasonable use of the property currently does not exist. Richard Warner, 3814 Green Heights Trail, explained the garage addition is part of the remodeling with their home. The only variance needed was for the garage. Mr. Warner read a letter into the record from a neighbor, Dave Miller, in support of the request. Leek pointed out the DNR indicated they did not have any objections to the request. Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: . Supportive of the Resolution. Wuellner: . Knows the property and applicant had no other alternative. Supportive. Criego: . With the letter from the neighbor, will support Resolution. MN032596.DOC PAGE 7 Kuykendall: This is an improvement and compliment applicant on existing structure. Supportive. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96- 07PC. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Criego, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION PASSED. A recess was called at 8:26 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:32 p.m. 4.D 96-023 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCES BY THOMAS AND CHERYL VIDMAR, FOR PROPERTY AT 4307 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE. 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 lakeshore setback permitted under Section 9.1(D)2 to permit a lakeshore setback of 45' instead of the required 50.5'. Michael Leek presented the Staff Report dated March 25, 1996 with a recommendation of denial based on the lack of hardship and the fact the applicants have legal alternatives which would allow reasonable use of the property. Thomas Vidmar, 14300 Salem A venue South, Savage, stated they are proposing a change in plans. The home was designed in what he considers "in the spirit" of the neighborhood. He feels the deck size is not oversized for the home. It is three feet in front of his neighbor's home. Mr. Vidmar also feels his home design is comfortable for a growing family. Mr. Vidmar said they would like to shrink the garage down to a 10 foot third stall which would bring it up to a six and one half foot side yard setback. There is 24 feet from the garage door to the street. He does not think they overstepped their bounds for what they want to do and are open to suggestions. Comments from Commissioners: Wuellner: MN032596.DOC PAGES . Distance from garage to street. Leek explained the measurement is from the property to the right-of-way line. It is 20 feet from the right-of-way line. In this case the right- of-way is narrow compared to what would be done today. . Appreciate the property owner is willing to deal with the width of the third stall. The Commission has granted 5 foot side yard variances in the past. Mr. Vidmar presented a new plan to the Planning Commission. The staffhad not seen the plan before and could not verify the dimensions. Criego: . The neighbor's setback is around 20 feet. . The front yard setback is okay from the garage to the street; would rather give that up than the lakeshore variance because it is consistent with the neighbor's variances. . Concern lies in the side yard. There is plenty of room to bring back to 10 feet. . A three car garage is nice but not necessary. . Supportive of the lake shore and road side variances. Loftus: . Agree with comments by Commissioner Criego. . Neighboring Lot 17 had a smaller building envelop. . A three car garage is not a hardship. . Stay within the ordinance guidelines. . Supportive of the street variance and a small deviation to the deck. Kuykendall: . Applicant proposing a three level home with a total floor area of approximately 3,400 sq. feet. . Neighbors (Lot 17) proposed a three car garage and ended up with a two and one-half car garage. . There was no hardship on the side yard variance. . Difficulty finding a hardship on the 20 foot street side. . Mr. Vidmar said their plan has been considerably down sized to get an impervious surface coverage of 30%. Criego: . The applicant has tried to reduce the impervious surface by building three levels. Kuykendall: . The neighborhood is unique and is the only hardship. . Leek said there had been one or two constructions in the area that were less than 20 feet. Probably around 18 feet. . Support front yard setback. . No lakeshore setback - only for a suspended deck. MN032S96.00C PAGE 9 Loftus: Suggestion to the applicant to get a new design and review with staff. Leek said staff's recommendation would be the same with a two car garage. Wuellner: Applicant has to work within the building envelop. A two and one-half garage is reasonable and it is not a hardship to want a three car garage. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST TO APRIL 22, 1996. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION PASSED. Commissioner Criego requested staff to look into a comment made regarding the neighbor who did not follow the setback requirement. Leek said he would check into the matter and report back. 4.E 96-017 - VARIANCE REQUEST BY GENE AND COLEEN TREMAINE FOR PROPERTY AT 16500 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE. 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 of 37% 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. Michael Leek presented the Staff Report dated March 25, 1996 with a recommendation to approve the requested variances. Staff concluded the hardship criteria were met with respect to the lot area, impervious surface coverage, and perhaps front yard setback, but not with respect to the requested lake shore and side yard setback variances. Staff recommended the request be tabled to allow applicant to consider alternative designs. Pat Lynch of the DNR faxed a minor modification of the deck which was consistent with staff's recommendation. MN032S96.DOC PAGEl 0 Gene Tremaine, 16500 Inguadona Beach, said he had changed his plans and pointed out the proposed changes. He agreed to modify the deck and withdraw the lakeshore variance request. The size of the home would be 2,000 square feet with Mr. Tremaine's proposed changes. Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: . This is one of the small lots that always require multiple variances. The applicant should be complimented on modifying the plan. . Supportive of request because it is reasonable and necessary. Wuellner: . Concurs with Loftus. · Applicant is fitting a reasonable size house on an extremely small lot. Creigo: . Supportive of first variance which takes into consideration the size of the lot. The second variance is no longer required. The 7% variance is okay because of the size of the lot. The 9.25 variance for the front yard is acceptable without the deck. Agrees with applicant moving the house over so his neighbor can have a view of the lake. . Supportive to request. Kuykendall: · Requests are reasonable except #4 requesting the front yard setback. There will be a problem in the roadway. There needs to be access for safety equipment. · Neighboring Lot 19 has a driveway access. Only two lots use the private driveway. . Tremaine said the deck will be raised 8 feet. . Leek said with the deck redesign the lakeshore setback will be met. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY LOFTUS, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 16500 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE, TO APPROVE A 2,300 SQUARE FOOT LOT AREA VARIANCE; A 7% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE COVERAGE; A 9.25 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE FRONT YARD SETBACK; AND A 2 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE WEST SIDE YARD PROPERTY. RATIONALE: It is extremely small lot in square footage and width. The property owner has made allowances to minimize the variances. The variances are consistent with the neighborhood. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Loftus, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. MNOJ2S96.DOC P AGElI A recess was called at 9:37 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:42 p.m. 4.F 96-015 - VARIANCE REQUEST BY JOHN SCillFFMAN OF 15220 HOWARD LAKE ROAD; REQUEST FOR A LAKESHORE SETBACK OF 70 FEET INSTEAD OF THE 150 FEET TO CONSTRUCT A 26' x 22' GARAGE. Michael Leek presented the March 25, 1996 Staff Report with a recommendation of denial based on the lack of demonstrated hardship. There are other alternative locations for an additional garage structure which would meet the setback requirements in the Shoreland District. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. John Schiffman, 15220 Howard Lake Road, Shakopee, explained his rationale of meeting the four hardship criteria as stated in his letter attached to his application. Comments from Commissioners: Wuellner: . The DNR had indicated a certain area for constructing a new garage. . Mr. Schiffman pointed out the topographic elements on the overhead. He feels the requested area is the only appropriate area to construct an additional garage. Criego: . Leek explained the setbacks on Howard Lake are the same as a general developed lake. . Rye stated the setback from a wetland is 30 feet. . Leek pointed out on the overhead the 150 foot setback. . Does not meet hardship criteria. Loftus: . Mr. Schiffman stated he already has a 3 car garage but does not have enough room for his families' vehicles and the yard and snow equipment. . Leek said Schiffman would need variances on either adding to the existing garage or constructing a new one. . Would be more supportive to adding to existing garage. . The setbacks with a natural lake does shrink down the building envelop. Kuykendall: . Cannot accept applicant's hardship rationale. You are either in the area or not. This is an environmental impact. It is a negative impact either way. . Sewage treatment brought up by the DNR. . Does not see a true hardship based on the information. Applicant has space to build it. It is the applicant's choice - tennis court or garage. . Will not support. MN032S96.00c PAGE12 MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY CREIGO, TO DENY THE VARIANCE OF AN 80 FOOT LAKE SHORE SETBACK REQUESTED FOR THE PROPERTY AT 15220 HOWARD LAKE ROAD. RATIONALE: There are other reasonable alternatives for the property owner to utilize and build an additional garage. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Criego and Kuykendall. Loftus abstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED. 4.G 96-022 - JOHN SCHOELLER/CAROL'S FURNITURE, 16511 ANNA TRAIL, VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. Michael Leek presented the Staff Report dated March 25, 1996. Staff concluded the applicant had legal alternatives which would allow reasonable use of the property, and thus the Ordinance criteria had not been met. Recommendation was for denial. John Schoeller, 3570 Basswood Circle, presented a draft of the existing building and the proposed addition. Mr. Schoeller bought the property in 1986 with an existing steel building on the property. At the time the staff indicated he rebuilt for aesthetic reasons but he did not. The building was not where he would have liked it. Mr. Schoeller explained the need to get semi-tractors into the building. The City's proposed addition would end up blocking the road and driving up over the curb. Mr. Schoeller feels the hardship is the building existed on the property when he bought it. If he shifts it to the north there is not enough room with the building's 4 foot overhang. He feels there is a hardship where he can not get delivery with Staffs proposed change. The previous Planning Commission was happy he was rebuilding. It was in the public's interest to eliminate the metal building and this is the natural place to put the building. Mr. Schoeller presented a case law with the Board of Adjustment. His feelings were it is not only expensive to relocate but it is not practical. It is unreasonable to change his warehouse and showroom, redo the parking lot to get the merchandise in the building. Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: . Remembers the history of the property and metal building. The ordinance now states the building has to be aesthetically acceptable. Mr. Schoeller took the eyesore and improved the building. . This is a situation where there is an existing building and needs to expand and has a restrained building envelop. . The ordinance now requires 50' right-of-way. It did not require a setback at the time. MN032S96.DOC P AGE13 Wuellner: . Addition to the north end is not reasonable. It would be a big detriment to the business. . On paper it looks like it would be reasonable but it is not. Mr. Schoeller would be completely cutting off the supply to his business. He has to stay in business. . A hardship does exist. Supports to continue the building along Highway 13. Creigo: . When the variance was approved in 1986 did the applicant have one year for all items for future expansion? . Rye said he believed that is how the ordinance was read at the time. The ordinance changed in 1985. . Leek said the motion was to grant a 30' front yard variance for 16511 Anna Trail. If you continue the building line it clearly grants more than a 30' variance from the 50'. It was not intended to cover a future expansion. The ordinance changed in 1985 which was one year before Mr. Schoeller bought the property. . Mr. Schoeller said he bought the property with the intention of expanding. . Good faith to approve the variance as stated. The diagram is the exact diagram presented in 1986. Kuykendall: . Understands Criego's rationale. . Measure from the center line of the right-of-way. . Leek stated the ordinance is very clear on Highway 13. There is no consistency with the rationale. . There are other ways to make it more marketable. . Schoeller's concern is for the semi-trailers to get into the building. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE 15 FOOT FRONT YARD HIGHWAY 13 RIGHT -OF- WAY SETBACK TO PROCEED WITH THE BUILDING PLANS AS SUBMITTED. RATIONALE: Literal enforcement would result in undue hardship to the business because the legal alternatives would significantly disrupt business operations. There is an issue of health, safety and welfare with the traffic. Commissioner Kuykendall expressed his concern for reasonable alternatives. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Criego and Loftus, opposed by Kuykendall. MOTION PASSED.h A recess was called at 10:57 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11 :00 p.m. MN032S96.DOC PAGE14 NEW BUSINESS: 6A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REPORT - Planning Director Don Rye All the City's PUD's are complete or proceeding in a satisfactory fashion. Priorview Development has been on hold for 10 years. There is interest in the vacant property. The parties are talking about an elderly housing complex. They have an alternative to amend the PUD. Mr. Rye suggested City Council reconsiders the remainder of the Priorview PUD in the context of a potential developer showing some interest. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL PUD REPORT DATED APRIL 1, 1996, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW THE STATUS OF THE PRIORVIEW PUD 82-12 DEVELOPMENT. RATIONALE: Nothing has happened with the development for 10 years and there is no clear indication as to what the developer intends to do with the property. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Loftus, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. 6.B. 1997-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Planning Director Don Rye. There was a discussion of the importance of a trail system for public safety reasons along the arterial and collector streets especially County Road 12. Rye explained the Park and Recreation Department show trails and unless the City wants to take it on themselves, it is up to the County to decided what is going to be upgraded. Part of the problem all the platting was allowed earlier is very narrow. The question is timing. Commissioner Kuykendall spoke on the issue of signage and promoting the image of Prior Lake. There is no street naming system. Signage should support the Comp Plan. The first thing is gateway signage "Welcome to Prior Lake". This should fall in the street budget. "Way Finding Signs" should be in the major intersections. It is a part of the economic redevelopment. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO SUPPORT THE 1997-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AS PRESENTED WITH THE SUGGESTIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. A lake tour/workshop is set for Thursday, July 11, 1996, at 4:00 p.m. MN032S96.DOC PAGElS A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY LOFTUS, SECONDED BY WUELLNER. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Creigo and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :29 p.m. Don Rye Planning Director Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MN032596.DOC PAGEt6 .... RESOLUTION 9611PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING 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 7% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 37% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%; 3. A 9.25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 15.75 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET; 4. 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 AT 16500 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 18, INGUADONA BEACH, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Gene and Coleen Tremaine have applied for variances from Sections 4 and 9 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a new house with attached garage on property located in the RI-Urban Residential and SD- Shore land Districts at the following location, to wit; 16500 Inguadona Beach, legally described as Lot 18, Inguadona Beach, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case 96-017V 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. 16200 e!~~lAve. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER .... 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property, and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located. Among the conditions applying to the subject property which the Board of Adjustment relied upon are; 1) its small size, 2) its narrowness, 3) the association property adjacent to the subject site functions as if it were a part of the subject site for purposes of impervious surface coverage. 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. 7. The contents of Planning Case 96-0 I 7 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 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 7% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE COVERAGE OF 37% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%; 3. A 9.25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 15.75 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET; 4. AND A 2 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE WEST TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 8 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET; Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 8, 1996. 9611.DOCIRML 2 RESOLUTION 9610PC A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST BY JOHN J. SCHOELLER ON BEHALF OF CAROL'S FURNITURE FOR A 35 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD OF 15 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE BI-LIMITED BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT AT 16511 ANNA TRAIL. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS I. 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 meets the Ordinance criteria, in that the applicant has no legal alternatives to make reasonable use of the property which would not interfere with parking and loading on the site, and the continuation of business during construction of the proposed addition. 5. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance would not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. 16200 I!a~<t1?~. 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 96-022V 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 approves the requested variance with the following terms and conditions; 1. The variance shall become null and void after one year from the date of approval. 2. The variance is granted for the proposed 2,400 square foot addition as presented with the request. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 25, 1996. Richard Kuykendall, Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 9610PC.DOCIRML 2 ;v. r ';;; '1 , t......_a-~:- .~ir- T . .~ " ,~ "~~ -: ~ "y , tl."I. .~ ~.", .~ OEseR I PT ION: . ----- -- Tha~ par~ of ~he Wes~ auar~er of Sec~ton 2, ScaT~ Coun~y, MinnescTa Half of Township described The Scu~heas~ 1 14, Ran g' e 2 2 , as 'fol Lows: -~cmmenein9 at- a pOinT on ~he Eas~ line of ~he ~esT Hatf of the~ouTheasT Qu~rTer d'STanT 1940,80 feet" ncrTh 0":: The SFUTheaST cor.ner of satd Wes~-Half of The SouTheasT QuarTer, said POinT being o~. The SouTh Cine cf a Town Read; ~hence defLecTing WesT dT an angLe of 92 deg~ees 37rntnuTes a'long ~aid SOUTh tine o~ 'roae a dlsrance of .65;2.15 feer TO iTS inTersecT~on ~iTh The NcrrhwesTerly boundary of New Trunk Highway No. 1 3 , The po; n T 0 f b eg inn i n g 0 f t' h e l an d Tab e descrtoed; t'he. nee conTlnulng WeST ~long sa'l- Sout'h line of road a diSTance of 410. 00 fee~' Thence deflect-lAg TO The lefT aT a~ angle of 11 _ degrees 30 mlnuTes a disTance of 241.19 feeT more, or less TO said NorThwesTerty bo~ndary of New' T~unk Hlghway No. 13, Thence NorTheasTenly alo~g sald NorThwesTerly DOwnCary of New Trunk HIgnway No. 13 ~c ~he poin~ c~ beginn~ng. Co~Tainlng 1.02 acres 1 I ~1 ;.:j I 1 EXHIBIT A AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 4A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING 1) SIDE YARD SETBACKS, 2) REPLACEMENT OF NON- CONFORMING DECKS, 3) HOME OCCUPATIONS, AND 4) REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN CITY COSTS. R. MICHAEL LEEK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER _X_ YES _NO-N/A APRIL 8, 1996 The purpose of this item is to consider several proposed amendments to the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6. DISCUSSION: Amendment Permitting One 5' Side Yard Setback and Permitting Replacement of Non-conforming Decks: These proposed amendments grew out of the 1995 variance summary report. As the Commission has observed in various discussions, the granting of one 5' side yard setback, particularly on non-conforming lots of record in the Shoreland District, has become fairly commonplace. The proposed amendment provides for a minimum structure separation for health, safety and welfare reasons. Similarly, the granting of variances to permit replacement of non-conforming decks has become commonplace. Indeed, in 1995, the City Council passed an ordinance which permitted such replacement without a variance everywhere but in the Shoreland District. The proposed amendment would allow replacement in all districts. 96029PC.DOC 16200 gegle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Home Occupations: The proposed amendment would simply make home occupations permitted, accessory uses in the residential zoning districts, without need of formal administrative or Planning Commission review. This is viewed as desirable, particularly in light of the increasing numbers of people wishing to engage in reasonable occupations out of their homes. As can be seen, the criteria are still quite stringent, so that occupations like small engine, auto and marine repair would probably not qualify as permitted accessory uses. The Commission could, in fact, enumerate types of occupations which it feels would not qualify as permitted home occupations. Reimbursement of Costs: As development steams toward the City, the types of projects have become, and will continue to be, quite complex. The City's current fee structure cannot hope to keep up with the costs that can be incurred for complex projects, particularly those requiring additional attorney or consultant services. The proposed amendment would give the City Manager discretion to require reimbursement in certain cases. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Recommend the City Council approve the amendments as presented. 2. Recommend the City Council approve the amendment with changes directed by the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend the City Council not approve any of the amendments ACTION REQUIRED: A motion to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendments as written or with changes directed by the Planning Commission. A separate motion to close the public hearing is in order. 96029PC.DOC CC CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 96-XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, SECTION 5-4-1, OF THE CITY CODE AND SECTION 4.1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6 PERTAINING TO SETBACKS; TITLE 5, SECTION 5-5-8, SECTION 6.8 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-06 PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS; AND SECTION 5-7 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND SECTION 7 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY COSTS. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: Title 5, Section 5-4-1 of the City Code and Section 4.1(B) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 is hereby amended as follows: B. All structures, whether attached to the principal structure or not, and whether open or enclosed, including porches, carports, balconies, cantilevers and chimneys or platforms above normal grade level, shall not project into any minimum front, side, or rear yard setbacks. Provided, however, accessory structures for all residential districts shall be permitted within ten (10') feet from the rear yard setback. Provided. further. that decks not meetin~ the reQ.J1ired setback may be re.,placed if the followin~ criteria are met: 1. The deck existed on the date the structure setbacks were established: 2. The replacement deck is the same size and confi~uration as the deck in existence at the time the structure setbacks were established: 3. The deck is constructed primarily of wood. and is not roofed or screened. Title 5, Section 5-4-1 of the City Code and Section 4.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 is hereby amended by adding (C) as follows and renumbering the succeeding provisions: C. Lots located in the RI-Suburban Residential and R2-Urban Residential zoning districts may have one (1) side yard setback of no less than five (5) feet as long as a minimum separation often (10) feet is maintained between structures on the lot and adjoining lot. Title 5, Section 5-5-8 of the City Code and Section 6.8 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 is hereby amended as follows: ABy home occupation saea as art smaie, dress makiag, teaemng er the preressieflftl effiee ef a physieiaR, engiaeer, arehiteet er aeee1:lfltant, may be permitted as an accessory use in residential zoning districts if it complies with the requirements of this section. The Prier Lake Plar~riflg CemmissieH may iss1:le a Heme OeeupatieH Pennit fello'::iHg a hear..ng fer wmeh abuttiflg property e\V'Ilers hlwe BeeR Rotified. A. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. B. Operation of the home occupation is not ~arent from the street ri~ht-of-w&y. C. The activity does not involve warehousin~. distribution or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. D. The home occupation ~ sftaI.I. be carried on by persons by a memBer ef the family residing in the dwelling unit, except that a licensed Group Family D&y Care Facility may have one employee who does not reside on the premises. '?lith flot mere tA.aR oHe eB'lJ:3loyee is Rot part of the family. E. The home occupation shall be carried on wholly within the principal ef aeeessery structure. Space within the dwellin~ devoted to the home occu,pation shall not exceed one (1) room or 10% of the floor area. whichever is ~reater. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory buildin~. F. Exterior displays, ef signs (other than those permitted under the Sign Ordinance, 94-6), and outside Seetion 6.1 exterier storage of materials aaQ eJ(terier indieatieH of the home eeeupation or variatieR Rem the residential eharaeter of the prineipal struet1:lfe shall not be permitted. G. Objectionable noise, vibration, smoke, dust, electrical disturbances, odors, heat or glare shall not be discernible at the property line prea1:leed. H. The home occupation shall not create excessive automobile traffic within the neighborhood. Title 5, Section 5-7 of the City Code and Section 7 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 is hereby amended by adding the following: 7.12 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY COSTS A. PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to provide a procedure to reimburse the City for its cost of review, analysis, and evaluation of development proposals, conditional use permits, comprehensive plan amendments, zoning amendments, and enforcement of this Ordinance in cases where, due to the level of complexity of the application under consideration, excessive costs beyond those normally incurred by the City as a result of the administration of this Ordinance are incurred. The excess costs 2 result from problems presented in review, analysis and evaluation which necessitate intensive investigation and research. The intent of this section is to insure an adequate level of review of these cases and to insure that the adverse effects of development on the City are minimized and compliance with goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and this Ordinance are obtained. B. CONDITIONS WHERE REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED 1. When the City Manager finds multiple Planning Commission and City Council meetings are required to review a particular item and additional staff time is expended on that item subsequent to the initial meeting. 2. When the City Manager finds it necessary to retain consultants and experts to review requests and advise its staff of specific impacts of a proposal, including but not limited to impacts on traffic, utilities, drainage, and aesthetic or environmental characteristics of the community. 3. When it is necessary for the City Attorney to review the proposal. 4. When the City Manager finds that other extraordinary costs are incurred by the City as a result of the Administration of this Ordinance. C. PROCEDURE 1. The City shall notify the applicant that the City will incur additional costs at the earliest possible time and, if possible, provide the applicant with an estimate of the expected additional cost. 2. The applicant shall pay the estimated additional cost to the City by certified check or bank money order. If the amount paid to the City initially is insufficient to cover all City costs, the additional amount shall be billed to the applicant. Any money which has not been used to pay additional costs after the applicant's request has been processed shall be refunded to the applicant. 3. No Certificate of Occupancy for any project subject to this section shall be issued until all money owing to the City has been received. 4. All costs billed under this section shall be based on the actual cost to the City of staff time, overhead, material costs, and actual billings from consultants, experts and attorneys. Current Section 7.12 to be renumbered to Section 7.13. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. 3 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: City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 4 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4.B CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR MURIEL ROUNA V AR 16594 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES ....x.. NO APRIL 8, 1996 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from Muriel Rounavar who proposes the construction of a new house with attached 3-car garage on the subject site, which is legally identified as Lots 6 and 7, "INGUADONA BEACH", Scott County, Minnesota. The applicant requests 3 variances; 1) a 17.5' lake shore variance to permit a lakeshore setback of37' instead of the 54.5' feet permitted under the lakeshore setback averaging provision of the Shoreland Ordinance, and 2) a 5' front yard setback variance to permit a setback of 20' instead of the required 25' . DISCUSSION: The subject site is wider than required by either the Rl or Shoreland districts. It measures 111.06' along the front property line and 101.20' along the lakeshore side, as opposed to 86' and 90' front widthl75' width at OHW required by the districts respectively. At 12,332 square feet in area, it larger than required by the Rl district and the minimum required for non-conforming lots in the shoreland districts (12,000 and 7,500 square feet respectively) There is a narrow strip ofland between the property boundary and shoreline. The survey provided by the applicant does not indicate the area of the proposed house. Staff "digitized" the area, and found that the footprint of the house contains about 2,022 square feet. The garage measures about 34' x 34', or about 1132 square feet in area. The proposed driveway is 30' wide at the street; the Zoning Ordinance permits a maximum driveway width of 24' at the curb. The survey indicates that impervious surface coverage would be 29%, i.e. less than the permitted 30% coverage. However, the surveyor has included a note that the calculation was based on calculations provided by the owner, and was not verified by looking at a house plan. In the event that the Commission were to grant the requested variances, it 16200 ~~~~fe~ve. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER should require that the impervious surface calculation be verified by the surveyor without reservation. The communication from Bud Waund, agent for the applicant, to Michael Leek of City staff (a copy of which is attached) indicates that he has used the setbacks for adjacent Lots 5 and 8 in drawing the proposed setback lines. The survey does not show the 46' lakeshore setback granted last year for an addition on Lot 5/16604 Inguadona Beach Circle. This grant of this variance was based on the small size of the lot (6,300 square feet), its narrowness (50.71' at the street), and the severe slope on the property. (See Res. 9532PC, a copy of which is attached. Attached to this report is a copy of the survey submitted by the applicant which shows the approximate location of the lake shore setback line permitted under Section 9.3(D)2 and the front setback line. As can be seen from this illustration, there is ample buildable area on the site is the setbacks requirements are met. The minimum distance between these 2 setback lines is about 40'. 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 the development efforts without the requested variances. The subject site in this case is quite large, and its "buildability" is enhanced by the ability to make use of Section 9.3(D)2 of the Shoreland Ordinance, which reduces the required lake shore setback to 50'. The building pad which results when the setback requirements are applied is also quite large, and would permit reasonable use of the property in the form of the construction of a very substantial house with attached garage. For the above-stated reasons, this criterion is not met. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. Because staff has concluded that literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not result in undue hardship, this criteria is, de facto, not met. Moreover, by virtue of its size and shape, the subject site has no unique characteristics which would necessitate the granting of the requested 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. Because staffhas concluded that there would not be an undue hardship if the Ordinance were literally enforced, this criterion is not met. survey. 9626V APe. DOC 2 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The applicant's request is an example of what is sometimes referred to as "variance/setback creep", i.e. the granting of a variance for one property gives rise to increased requests on adjacent or nearby properties based on the argument that the requested variance is insignificantly greater. Particularly in this case involving a site with substantial buildable area, this sort of "creep" runs counter to the spirit and intent of the Ordinance, and is contrary to the public interest. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Ordinance criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Because staff has concluded that reasonable use of the property can be had, that legal alternatives exist to accomplish the applicant's objectives, and thus that the Ordinance criteria are not met, staff recommends Alternative No.3. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolution 9612PC. 9626V APe. DOC 3 VAQ0-c>J.b PID# 2 Sd tf ~ ~ I'J~~ CITY OF PRIOR LAKE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE '~Appl icant: L1. . e ).. Ii VI Address: /~ :;; ~A :ZA~d-;j /2uIlA Property ONner: WI- /..I-I''-L-.. +i 7J'~ lLH By., &I-.S'+1l d Address: t./;-<F-o s;;- /1 J-It Jt1f/f!' . ~.- "11t.t?...-A<J'?/ so Type of ONnership: Fee ;~ ' Contract' Consultant/Contractor: 15 fA " ~.. h.. (~~ WQ u..n-d Home Phone: J.j Ii- & -1.6 /.v Work Phone: Home Phone: I?-~~ -6~r~ Work Phone: Purchase Agreement Phone: ~lf 7.-. 9., ~ b 1(;~1/~~H~~'~ Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional use permit on the subject sit~ or any part of it? Yes )( N:) What was requested: When: Existing Use of Property: Legal Description of Variance Site: Variance Requested: ->f?~.s~ Present Zoning: h-I Disp:>sition: Describe the ~ of improvements prop:>sed: a.. ,4/' 9 ~ i? d h...... ~ SJBMISSION REOUIREMEm'S: . (A)Completed application foon. (B)Filing fee. (C)Property SUrvey indicating the prop:>sed developnent in relation to property lines and/or ordinary-high-water mark; prop:>sed 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 private covenants, if applicable. (G)A parcel map at P-20 '-50' showing: The site developnent plan, buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. L~J rJ.-~1t ~/'IVL 19-";:- ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE ACCEPl'ED AND REVIEWED BY THE PLANNIR:i moo:SSION. To the best of my knowledge the infomation 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 rovide info tion and follow the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. SUbmitted this aaay of J%" &,/, 19.!l.b w~A-.B~ Fee Owners Signature THIS SPACE IS 'lO BE FILLED OUT BY THE PLANNIN:; DIRECTOR PLANNING OJMMISSION CITY COml:IL APPEAL APPROVED APPROVED DENIED DENIED DATE OF HFARIN:; DATE OF HFARIN:; CDNDITIONS: Signature of the Planning Director Date ~ \() ~ ~ 0\ ~L- ~i I !I'~ ~.I ~I 5 I i I l 1 · II I' ; : I~ 1,\--,.--'--- ---Ij-.- I W-1 II ,i" II, , I I ~ i -;t-----;. ..- ',' ' I ' --jI ---;.- I ~ l : ? ' ,) , . ~ ; .', ,". . . ~~ 2!l ~8 ~7 Z8 ~I )1 ~~ )2 ~~ )~ .0 ~9 ~a ~7 41 4Z ~7 48 4~ ~ 44 3 4 " . '_ ':4'~ 6 ~ % .:."~;!.S.~:: . 7 8 " .... .. . ~ ". . 96-026VA ~~\O~ \..~'j(.E Valley Surveying Co.. P. A. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6IZ1447-2570 / SURVEY PREPARED FOR: BUD WAUND 14198 COMMERCE AVE. NE PRIOR LAKE. MN. 55372 44' 1 !XISTIHO \ofOU!E y"O E\.. 91Z ..., ,-' \) ,. ~i I , , ~~~ 'i , ;}'f / ... ".: 1;;:- ...... - --- .9;4, I .- ...- Af'PtlO~IMA"fE. u.~0JZe. ~~ UNE ($C)'ff!]:.~. 9.3(0).2,) / ~o DESCR I P1'ION: Lots 5 and 7. .. INQJAOONA RP.ACH", Scott County. MlnnellOtll, At"" showing all "bible improvements and ~ncroachments onto and off from said prop-.rty if any, ~ LOT AREA - 10, 099 SO. FT., AREA BETWEEN LOT LIN E a EL. 904. 2,233 SO. FT. TOTAL AREA- 12,332 SO. FT. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE -29 % RoY. 3/12/96 To ,now """",,0<1 _.. a ImP<<"lioU8 ~Oct a IMW sq.ft. artCI. o r SCALE 20 40 NOTE IM'ERVIOUS COVERAGE WAS BASED ON CALCULATIONS FURNISHED BY THE OWNER, WE 010 NOT VIEW A HOUSE PUlN TO VERIFY o ~not n , 12 inch .. '4 inch iron ~, ,.t fJfWf mort"' by Lje."'" No 1018 J . Owftot., ,,.on mOllutnfttt found ., Dll'""t." ~ K NfJf' ,,., :Oat", , ~b, elf"'r ffta, Ihi, .....,.., pW""'" fir me .". under my dirft1 Nt.-.ielOft <<WI ,,",' '~<IuI, 1/(...," L .....,..._,,,. ....,.". ~".. $~d'. of 0 ./ ..",' : I!:..,. IN FEET r-'LE No. 4594 800~ ~"JlGI[....!!...- NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES; 1. A 17.5 FOOT LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKE SHORE SETBACK OF 37 FEET INSTEAD OF THE 54.5 FEET PERMITTED UNDER ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 9.3(D)2 (i.e. SETBACK AVERAGING); 2. A 5.0 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 20 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET. ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOUSE WITH ATTACHED 3-CAR GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE Rl- 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, April 8, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: Muriel Rounavar 16032 Northwood Road Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 SUBJECT SITE: Lots 6 and 7, Inguadona Beach, Scott County, Minnesota, located on 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 17.5 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKESHORE SETBACK OF 37 FEET INSTEAD OF THE 54.5 FEET PERMITTED UNDER ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 9.3(D)2 (Le. SETBACK AVERAGING); 2. A 5.0 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 20 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 16200 ~~~ve. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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 28, 1996. 9626V APN.OOC 2 TEL:612-??2-?9?? 11:35 No.01? P.01 DNR METRO REGION Apr 03,96 ~ STATE OF 1NQ~~~<Q)1J'~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES , I Division alWatcn, 1200 WlIIllCf Ro.I. St Paul, MN 55 J 06 FILE NO '" : \ PHONE N0772.7910 ' .,I.!!. ;'",1 .~... . '~' , Apti14. 1996 I h : " '.' .~: \ '. , , ..',:' \ , '\ , ' , ~'. 01 . . .'. < -, .~:~", I . , <" " ("\ I ,.. Mr. Michael Leek ; City of Prior Lake 16200 EasJe Cnx& Al'CIlUe S.B. PriarLeb. Mi~SS312.1714 , . , U: ROONA V AI. VARIANCE REQUEST, LOTS 6 It 7, JNGUADONA BBACH, n..- Mr. Leak: t J have reviewed the matarials submitted along with the subject VarlllllCe request. Based upon my review. I wish 10 GXp1'CII oppoaition to the ......ling ofthc vlrillK:D U requcstod. Setbedt averaain. was designed to 1Iddres. situations lib tbi. one whereby development could occur within the JaqUired ICtbedc Ift8 without vanm:e. No attempt hu been m8de to mecl the standard. Allowing this home closer to tho .ake will establish a new bcndunlrk for aetba avcraaiaa when the adjacent pan:cls are rc-devc1opad. The Ipplicam dcXII DOl ~ to havo made MY aft'art to daaip a slrueturc that consider. tIu: constraints mthe shallow lot I I DGID lha nanh wall ortbc tJnc.staU gage is 34"1aog. This is . greal d.eaJ longer than a slaDdard garage. ]f il were 'rcduc:ed to a two stall gar.. the entire stnc:turo shifted north 011 tba lot. 8Dd liviDa' spea: were added to tho rear of the garage,l boliavc the lab setback variance could be eliminated. I have seen better att.cmpls to c:oJI1ply with the requin:d ZCIIIiDa proviaions on loti a lot mWlcr and .halloMt than this one. Tho pI.n doeI DOt ~ whadv:r or not a deck i. ineludcd in tho dcIip. The ~pligant should be !Dado awltl: that · cIcdc mUll also IDlIll:t str\Icturc Ictb8dc. The homo desisn should be loobd at care1UIJy to lee if doors In included whicb.1D8)' resuJt in request for future varim if/when a future addition is pllll1DCd. I trust tho applicant will be required to demonstrate hardship bctote the PllIDDing Commission. I look forward to leyjowm, tho Findinp CJfFaclBDd Conc1..,iOlll for this varilD.lXl roquest.. ABain. the DNR if oppoJed to this variance. We do not rClOI that an adcqutc attempt has been made to design D stnlcturc which considers the lot c:onslramts and required J)lO\'isions of your shon:land zoning nnaoce. Please call me at 772.7910 if you have any questiOlll. SinccnIy, TU lu~ PItrick 1. L~ m Area HycIn)JoaiJt AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITV EMPLOVER . " , ~"1lIII\Iwl"1'" .... , , I DNR METRO REGION TEL:612-772-7977 Rpr 03,96 11:36 No.017 P.02 . I ," I' tu""lE'r PIIII~"'f;D lID": BUD WAUND ....,. CClMMI"C! .VI;, /II [. ~RIOR LAIC!. NIN. 55572 '.' Vollq Surveying Co.. P.A. SUIT!! IIC/-C. '..'0 ""''''KL/'' tItAI" ""AMlI./1f rRlr/L O",C! CtJIIIOQIII/H'IIM ""'0- LA"I;. HI~"'.'OT. ~;J72 Tltl.41'HON' (elZJ __,. ~no ~.~ .... , \.~~1. ,,,,0" llClIClII IPrfClh l.oe. · - 7. - bIrlIMIlllMA 1ICIlCIr. ....el c:oun.". "iM"". At_ _t", .41 -l.'''&. i-.ro-_&a lInd ~I. anlo ..,.. ott tr. Mld PRPH'IY l! -.y. ~ I..OT AltCA - 10,0" 10. !'T.. .RU .l!TW(ItN LOT ...IN... fl.. 8CM- z.zJS set.n: TOl'AI;., .II1A. la,332 ..fT. IMPIIIVIOU, SURF.ell COVI"AGI! .Z' '" " .'" 40, '. FUT . /lfQTIt 'flIIII'V/OIJ$ CClVUM( 'WAS lAUD 0llI C.l.ClAA1'laNS fI\jM.1MSl '" ?t4, o..CI\ WI 01 I) HOT II1IW ... HOUllE lIl.AN TO vlIlI'l"l' .... It'''' r. ___ . ............ ..,... ..... ,,'t. .... . '...... """" -... __, - ......---....-.--....., ~~_. --- - ,~;:;.( - ~,_ lie, ..,.~ o I .sc..u 20 o ~.,"=:':"-:;- ~_... ,.".~ ., .....,........--... . _..~" -... '''''II .... .... -.air ~_r-.!!... RESOL UTION 9532PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 46 FOOT SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET, A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5 FEET ON THE SOUTH INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET, AND A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LIVING ADDITION TO PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND SD- SHORELAND DISTRICT AT 16604 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Jerry Halliday has applied for variances from Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to p.ermit construction of a living area addition to an existing house on property located in the R1-Suburban Residential and SD-Shoreland districts at the following location, to wit; 16604 Inguadona Beach Circle, legally described as follows; Lot 5, Inguadona Beach, Scott County, Minnesota 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the Application for Variance as contained in Case #VA9532 and held a hearing thereon on September 25, 1995. 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. 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 variances 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 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E"'IPLOYER diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property, and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located. Among the conditions applying to the subject property which the Board of Adjustment relied upon are its size and severe slopes. 6. The granting of the variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. 7. The contents o(Planning Case V A95-32 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 this variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variance has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvement. CONCLUSION Based upon. the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and approves the following variances; 1. A variance to permit a 46 foot lakeshore setback; 2. A variance to permit a 20 foot front yard setback; 3. A variance to permit a 5 foot side yard setback on the South. These variances are granted with the following terms and conditions; 1. The new, southerly wall be I-hour rated; 2. Erosion control be maintained in connection with the completion of the project which is the subject of this request; Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 25, 1995. ~~::Ji~r Donald R. Rye Planning Director 2 FROM :EDINR RERLTY PRIOR LRKE 447 4735 1996,03-30 16:15 #608 P.02/03 )1/~ V It. a-e L ~ ; ?'-l1-te. S 6 44~ ~ Th-~f;- K d V-6L~ " ~ The Sef-.6-~ L,-/1t..e ~ k-5 ~ cI LI 6 ~ (~""'",,.P! V4"'#~ c t!') ~rJ "'" '-~ f- ..s- a #L cI ~ '+ I Q..r ~4;-v7'c/ s+J,-~~") h r 0- ~ -F (/ ".. L fl' f- ~. ~ J; p f-It..... c 42:..3 t:" .s' - I 0 7 It- ;- ..> ,-.s h-d of- Th-P c- L tJ oS ~ S' cf-- 1'",' "'- ~ ~C7 ~ ~ ;:J::'~ 6 CJ ~ Co.-..s e.r f -f W'~~.?d 6-t:1 i (?s s l~)"" ~ ~c.sc.c,,# To if(.. Po ,... J-1, +- ~ fi- CL..;. A/'.t1 P' -!-Ii- ~ .J2 I 'l/ f!>> ....r' ~w n /4. e c-L I? S (f"S' '"T- r r;) ,.... r- .-.P--o r- h h & ~? u~,- ~ <:L- S " --. -L _ 1..,.-'/ (!} ~ d 1:S f-Q.. tk-~ To Th (} R' t7 'I .. rh-e FROM :EDINR RERLTY PRIOR LRKE 447 4735 1996,03-30 16:15 #608 P.01/~3 i ., Joan & Bud Waund \b..:~......j 447-4700 ~ 447-4413 I ; " ; j TO: FAX: J'1 /" c..- It a... &t L jpt9..h - 4 47 -Lf-~ 'i-S COMPANY: L / I-v' 0- ~ , PJr./'IJ~ t..~ e "" ,. TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 2. FAX 447-4735 COMMENTS: r' v t1 d Yw,e.cJk. b ~r:- Th.e 5 e 7-,6 Q.. e:..K L / "'- p. 6- J ~ V ~ ~ TLd /I-.p.jD ~d ai' 't/ -+-1' ~ l?- I' " r:1t1~ fy. u "Y'''!17 ~ .J? '-'? j> J--? "..~.r S d ~ La r- oS ,:L.-r j~Qr4~ ~~__~Id>7 ~D" Ih~ V4#'~~e-e " rgg~~s-b ~ r }>ez,.r-~'L- C"4h ~ IT'?) ~O~.Q ~ , , ~~..J_ A- r~ IS ~c;;,A..e.l_ PL,.~~e J-,. T- u, K~U/ LVi~K JI-....:F::F.s R.?D;--I- /.. oJ ~ (J "'- e 61 -P-I ~ ~ P, ~K&<.~ "'t c-....~.-. ~..s .. ~ I?~h/'~ I Edina Reallv 447~700 14198 Commerce Avenue NE :III Prior Lake, MN 55372 , [H1S) -. ~IO'. :11I.111II I ' RESOLUTION 9612PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR; 1. A 17.5' LAKE SHORE VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKE SHORE SETBACK OF 37' INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 50' UNDER SECTION 9.3(D)2 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; 2. A 5' FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 20' INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25'; FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOUSE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 6 AND 7, "INGUADONA BEACH", SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Muriel Rounavar has applied for variances from Sections 4 and 9 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a new house with attached garage on property located in the RI-Suburban Residential zoning district and the SD- Shoreland District at the following location, to wit; Lots 6 and 7, "INGUADONA BEACH", Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case 96-026V A and held a hearing thereon on April 8, 1996. 3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The request does not meet the Ordinance criteria, in that reasonable use of the property can be obtained if the Ordinance is literally applied, and legal alternatives exist for placing a house and garage on the property. 16200 ~~~~ve. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 5. The granting of the variances is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances would serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. 7. The contents of Planning Case 96-026V 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 April 8, 1996, 1996. Richard Kuykendall, Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 9612PC.DOC/CC 2