HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 28, 1996
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Tuesday, May 28, 1996
7:00 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
7:00 Dan Herbst, President Pemtom Land Company, guest speaker.
4. Public Hearings:
96-041 ELMER CLARKE, 16280 PARK AVENUE, REQUESTING A 28 FOOT VARIANCE
TO PERMIT A LAKESHORE SETBACK OF 47 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75
FEET, AND A 7.9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 2.1 FEET
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET RELATED TO RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 24' X 24' ATTACHED GARAGE.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
Planning Commission chairperson recommendation to City Council.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 ~~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota ~'72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 13, 1996
The April 22, 1996 Planning Commission meeting was canceled
due to the lack of a quorum. Some of the reports will reference April 22, 1996.
The May 13, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman
Kuykendall at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Loftus, Wuellner,
V onhof and Kuykendall, City Planner Don Rye, Assistant Planner Michael Leek and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
ROLL CALL:
Criego
Wuellner
V onhof
Loftus
Kuykendall
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF TO APPROVE THE APRIL 8, 1996,
MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Vonhof, Wuellner, Loftus and Kuykendall.
MOTION PASSED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
96-012 - CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS
"EAGLE CREEK VILLAS"- SUBDIVIDE 13.5 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND THE
EXTENSION OF PRIORWOOD STREET.
The hearing was open to the public and a sign-up sheet circulated to the audience in
attendance.
Assistant Planner Michael Leek presented the information from the Planning Report
dated April 22, 1995. Staff recommended adopting Resolution 96-15PC for approval of
the preliminary plat of Eagle Creek Villas as presented subject to the conditions or with
specific changes directed by the Planning Commission.
Comments from the audience:
Al Rehder, 3440 Federal Drive, Eagan, the land surveyor and civil engineer for the
project said Mr. Leek covered all matters very well in the presentation and he would be
available for questions.
MNOSI396.DOC
PAGEl
Charles Cappuchino, 4206 Cates Street, stated his main concern was the density of the
project. His understanding is the asking price per unit is around $130,000 to $165,000
and does not feel the homes will sell at this price. Other neighboring condos are not
selling.
Commissioner Kuykendall closed the public hearing.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Discussion on grading.
. Assistant City Engineer John Wingard discussed the grading, drainage area, the water
quality pond and the extension off Duluth Avenue. Mr. Wingard feels confident
everything is being done to control the erosion and protecting the wetland.
. Al Rehder discussed the value of a $130,000 minimum unit. The developer feels the
demand is there. The units will not be put in all at one time. The development will
start on the westerly edge of the project. All grading will take place at one time and
take a year and one half to complete.
Loftus:
. The property was not part of the Priorview PUD. The market was not there for the
condos. There is no guarantee the twin homes will not become rentals.
. Leek said the City Ordinances do not designate owner occupied projects.
. Rye explained the use is a legal permitted use and not an issue. The ownership is not
something subject by regulation by the City any more than a single family
subdivision. The market will dictate the success of the development.
. Supportive of proposal.
V onhof:
. Wetland mitigation. Leek explained it was not possible to get all the mitigation on
this site because of the restrictions. Generally the City tries to get as much mitigation
on site as possible.
. Concerns similar to Criego' s regarding wetland.
. Supportive of road connection.
. Sidewalk area on one side ofPriorwood Street - any sidewalks on cul-de-sac?
. Leek responded that was a private driveway with no sidewalks.
. Generally supports proposed development.
Wuellner:
. All comments have been addressed.
Kuykendall:
. Sidewalks could be added on Duluth Avenue as part of the requirement.
MNOS1396.DOC
PAGE 2
. Wingard explained it would be a better to add sidewalks when the City upgrades
Duluth Avenue.
. Al Rehder said the chances of putting in a sidewalk now is not a good idea with the
reconstruction of Duluth.
. Wingard said they are oversizing the street to add sidewalks and allow for the school
bus traffic.
. The developer will be responsible for street lights on Priorwood Street (every 300
feet) which will be serviced underground.
Open Discussion:
The developer is showing the sidewalks, utilities and lighting in the plans. Other items
could become part of the Developer's Agreement. Discussion of sidewalks on both sides
of the development. Possibility of setting aside money for a sidewalk on Duluth.
Rye questioned the legality of requiring the developer to put money in escrow for a future
project that may never be built and whether the benefit can be demonstrated. A better
way to deal with this is through the Developer's Agreement.
Al Rehder estimated the cost for the additional sidewalk in the development to be
$15,000 to $20,000.
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
96-15PC RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF "EAGLE CREEK VILLAS" SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS HEREIN.
Discussion: The additional sidewalk would be a cost burden for the developer. The
Ordinance states one or two sidewalks and the City is going beyond the required one
sidewalk. Who will maintain the sidewalks in the winter not located in front of a
residence? The City (park and Public Works Departments) do not have the man power.
The State did not address pedestrian safety, only the traffic. Comment of justifying
sidewalks within a school and minor arterial street in the interest of pedestrian safety,
especially children. Snow removal is secondary.
Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Criego and V oOOof. Nay by Kuykendall.
MOTION PASSED.
96-029 - JENNIFER LAMBERT - ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT CERTIFIED
THERAPEUTIC MESSAGE IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS.
The hearing was open to the public and a sign-up sheet was circulated.
MNOSI396.DOC
PAGE 3
Assistant Planner Michael Leek presented the information from the Planning Report
dated April 22, 1996. Staff recommended City Council approve the amendment as
presented or with changes suggested by the Planning Commission.
Comments from the public:
Jennifer Lambert, 4575 139th Street, Savage, stated Mr. Leek covered the issues well.
Penny Borchardt, 21880 Panama Avenue, owner of Kay Lyn's Coffee and Tanning
submitted a petition of over 400 signatures for a massage service. The interest is there
and the residents want the service in Prior Lake.
Linda Epps, 15375 Garfield in Faribault, a certified massage therapist, stated she is
interested in having a massage business with Dr. Lemke in Prior Lake and is concerned
that the permitted use does not include the word "clinic". Ms. Epps wants to make sure
the clinics are included.
Michael Leek responded he tried to call Mrs. Epps and left messages. He said staff's
interpretation of those uses could easily be interpreted to include massage therapy,
specifically chiropractic and other health clinics. Staff's interpretation is the code
currently permits it for those kinds of uses but that it could be specified in the ordinance.
It is a necessary ancillary service.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Loftus:
. The Ordinance should be specific and include "clinic" type language.
V onhof:
. Agrees with Loftus and is supportive.
Wuellner:
. Concurs
Criego:
. Concurs
Kuykendall:
. Concurs
Rye explained the permitted uses.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 96-
13.
MNOS1396.00c
PAGE4
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner, Criego, Loftus and Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
96-034 - PHEASANT MEADOW - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TOWNHOMES
SOUTH OF 1 70TH AND EAST OF THE SUNSET HILLS SUBDIVISION.
The public hearing was open and the sign-up sheet circulated.
Assistant Planner Michael Leek presented the information from the Planning Report
dated April 22, 1996. Staff recommended adoption of Resolution 96-20PC
(recommending City Council approve the CUP for Pheasant Meadow) and Resolution 96-
12PC, (recommending City Council approve the preliminary plat of Pheasant Meadow
subject to the conditions outlined) as presented or with changes recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Comments by the public:
Terry Schneider of Project Developers, 600 South Hwy 169, St. Louis Park, along with
Jeff Williams of Williams Development were present to answer questions. Mr. Schneider
stated he wanted a clarification in the staff report. The original plan had the sanitary
sewer coming between two residential lots. Because of the change in designed from 50 to
42 units the developer was able to adjusted the grades to allow the sewer connection to be
serviced through an existing stub on Balsam Street. The developer will follow whatever
the City suggests regarding the Balsam Street connection. The revised plan is as close to
the original plan as possible. He would like to have the connection issue resolved before
it goes to City Council.
Karl Tremmel, 3399 Balsam Street, spoke on behalf of the Sunset Hills Subdivision
residents. They would not like to see Balsam Street connected but would be in favor of a
bike/walking trail or other connecting pedestrian path.
Commissioner Kuykendall closed the public hearing.
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
. The Planning Commission is governed by the Conditional Use Permit Ordinance and
one of the issues is the connection between neighborhood. Balsam Street was
stubbed in during the development of Sunset Hills and without the connection it does
not meet the criteria.
. Under items 5 (street connection) and 6 (Comp Plan) the development does not meet
the criteria. The Ordinance is very clear. The other criteria is met.
MN051396.DOC
PAGE 5
Wuellner:
. Balsam Street was intended for a single family development connecting Sunset Hills.
. Would support if it had a trail connection.
. Appreciate the low density.
Criego:
. There is no sidewalk on 170th in this new proposal.
. Rye stated the County has not included the upgrade ofCR12 in their 5 year CIP.
. There is no crosswalk for pedestrians.
. Agrees with V onhof to connect Balsam Street - it goes with the 2010 Plan and is also
a safety issue.
Loftus:
. Should connect neighborhoods. There will not be a park on site. It is nice to have a
connection other than the busy 170th Street. Not against a trail but it would ease the
traffic. Vehicle stacking can occur.
. At this level the Planning Commission and even Staff feel connecting Balsam Street
would be best.
Kuykendall:
. Support the Balsam Street connection for safety.
. City Council may want to entertain the idea of a trail where safety vehicles could get
through.
. All the changes are positive in the development.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-20
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR PHEASANT MEADOWS.
Discussion: Extend Balsam Street.
Vote taken signified ayes by V onhof, Loftus, Criego and Kuykendall. Nay by Wuellner.
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-
21PC, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "PHEASANT MEADOW" SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS OUTLINED HEREIN.
Discussion: Amend by adding a sidewalk connection or painted crosswalk into the
commercial area. Add under item #9 of the Conditions. (stub at the intersection of
Spruce Trail and the alignment).
MNOSI396.DOC
PAGE 6
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO AMEND THE MOTION TO
INCLUDE "A SIDEWALK CONNECTION OR PAINTED CROSSWALK INTO THE
COMMERCIAL AREA." UNDER #9 OF THE CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION 96-
21PC.
Vote taken on the amended motion signified ayes by V onhof, Loftus, Criego and
Kuykendall. Nay by Wuellner. MOTION CARRIED.
The public hearing closed at 9:00 p.m. A recess was called at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened
at 9:07 p.m.
96-037 - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING INVALIDATION OF
VARIANCES.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the information from the Planning Report dated
May 13, 1996. Recommendation is to approve the amendments as presented and convey
the recommendation to City Council.
Comments from the public:
Walter Jobst, 15110 Martinson Island Road, is the neighbor of the project discussed on
Martinson Island Road. It is his opinion the ordinance was misinterpreted by staff. He
feels the ordinance has two categories, conforming or non-conforming. If it is a non-
conforming use it should not be constructed after one year. He felt the neighbors would
be notified. A variance allows people to get by with making a non-conforming use
conform. He is in favor of making these changes. Mr. Jobst explained the neighbor's
situation with the variances granted in 1977. It is a buildable lot. Hopefully the language
can be cleared up.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Wuellner:
. Leek explained the building department's process of reviewing the files. Basically
enforced by complaint. He also clarified building permits are not specifically good
for one year. The standard the building official applies is whether or not there is
regular, continuous progress on the project.
. Discussion on reasonable progress.
Criego:
. In favor of ordinance.
MNOSI 396.poc
PAGE 7
Loftus:
. This situation in 1977 is an oddity.
. Appreciate comments from Jobsts.
V onhof:
. SUPPQrt changes.
. One of the objectives of this year of the Planning Commission is to go through and
update the Zoning Otdinance and try to address these issues.
Kuykendall:
. This action will render any variance granted previous to 1985, null and void after six
months of being granted.
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
ORDINANCE 96-11, AMENDING SECTION 5-6-6 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 7.7 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING
ORDINANCE (83-6).
Vote signified ayes by Loftus, V onhof, Criego, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Loftus, Criego, Vonhofand Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
96-027 - COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOCIATION - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
THE PROPERTY AT COUNTY ROAD 42 AND TIMOTHY AVENUE TO
CONSTRUCT UTILITY POLE.
Mike presented the information from the Planning Report dated May 13, 1996. Staff's
recommendation was to approve the variances requested based on the information the
hardship criteria had been met. Upon approval the variances should be conditioned on
installation of the landscaping as depicted on the Planting Plan.
Comments from the public:
Kevin Maas, land use manager of Cooperative Power Association, and Mel Hentges,
Minnesota Valley, supervisor of engineering were present and outlined the applicant's
request. Basically the Cooperative Power Association serves 17 coop's. This project is
providing a second circuit to the substation. The main station will start in Savage and
continue down Highway 13 across County Road 42 and into the substation. They are
MNOSI396.DOC
PAGEl
basically modernizing the substation. The cost will be approximately $1.2 Million. They
are also governed by Federal Safety Standards.
Comments from Commissioners:
Criego:
. Currently serves 5,500 customers in the area. 69,000 volts come into the substation.
. Supports request.
. Discussed landscaping around Timothy Avenue.
Loftus:
. Agree with staff recommendation.
V onhof:
. Not opposed to the proposal.
. Good opportunity for Minnesota Valley to landscape and screen the area as it is one
of the most visible pieces of property. Would like to see more shrubs obscuring the
screening at a fence level and a few more trees along County Road 42. This is
adjacent to a residential and commercial area.
. Support with more shrubs and landscaping. It is the gateway into the community.
Wuellner:
. Explanation from Mr. Maas regarding the primary switches and structure.
. Screening around the substation.
Kuykendall:
. Mr. Hentges explained they try to center their location in the service area. The site
location was a rural area in 1965 and a favorable area. Most sites are at intersections.
. Mr. Maas explained they have not considered relocating the substation. It is very
difficult in essential services to do a new project. The applicant hired a respected
landscape architect to landscape. Under the Rural Utility Standards, the Power
Company is required to have a chain link fence (for safety).
V onhof:
. There should be more screening. Use the slats inside the fence. The more that can be
done to screen the area the better the City is. Savage will develop the area north of
CR42.
Loftus:
. Regarding screening - sometimes leaving it in its raw (visual) stage, would be better
for safety.
MNOSI396.DOC
PAGE 9
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO
THE JUNE 10, MEETING AND HAVE THE DEVELOPER COME BACK WITH A
NEWER SCREEN PLANTING PLAN.
Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Loftus, Wuellner, Vonhofand Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
96-030 - ROBERT OSTIDIEK - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM THE CITY CODE TO
CONSTRUCT A POLE BARN ON THE PROPERTY AT 4510 JACKSON TRAIL SE.
Michael Leek presented the information from the Planning Report dated April 22, 1996.
Staff recommended denial of the variance to permit a pole building in the Rl Zoning
District due to the lack of demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Ordinance criteria.
Comments from the public:
Robert Ostdiek, 4510 Jackson Trail NE, stated his reason for constructing a pole barn was
to store personal items and collector cars. His neighbors (Shakopee residents) have pole
barns.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. The problem seems to lie in the zoning ofRl and the area should be Al or Cl.
. Rye said the area is unique. Sewer was never provided in this area. Perhaps the way
out of this is to determine what the area is. A 10 acre minimum is required for
agricultural.
. There is a hardship and will support the variance.
Loftus:
. Agrees with the hardship and supports.
V onhof:
. Agrees with comments.
Wuellner:
. Agrees with comments and possibly rezone the area.
Kuykendall:
. Neighboring properties are zoned Agricultural.
MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED
VARIANCE AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION; AND TO
RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A POLE BUILDING FOR THE SITE.
MNOSI396.DOC
PAGEIO
Vote taken signified ayes by Creigo, Loftus, V oOOof, Wuellner and Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 10:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:40 p.m.
96-031 - ANDREW SIEBENALER - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY
AT 3842 PERSHING STREET TO CONSTRUCT A 2-CAR GARAGE.
Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated April 22, 1996.
Staff recommends approval of the variances based on the hardship criteria.
Comments from the public:
Renee Siebenaler, 3842 Pershing St. SW, explained the only location for the garage
would be in the front of the home.
Michelle Lein, 3852 Pershing St., lives next to the applicant and stated she had a front
yard addition with a variance granted 4 years ago and is supportive of the request.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Loftus:
· Supportive of the request.
V onhof:
· Hardships are met and in favor of approval.
Wuellner:
. Supportive of request.
Criego:
· Supportive of request.
Kuykendall:
. In favor of request.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 94-
16PC.
Vote taken signified ayes by V oOOof, Loftus, Criego, Wuellner and Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
MNOSI396.DOC
PAGEII
96-032 - MICHAEL LEITCHMAN - V ARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY
AT 3044 170TH STREET TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE F AMlL Y HOME.
Ii
Michael Leek presented information from the Planning Report dated April 22, 1996.
Staff recommended approval of the requested variances. Staff feels the hardship criteria
had been met.
Mike Peters, 4048 134th Cir, Savage, the builder for the applicant, explained the layout
of the home on the property.
Comments from Commissioners:
V onhof:
. Hardship criteria has been met. In favor of request.
I
Wuellner:
. Agrees
Criego:
. Mr. Peters pointed out the common driveway for the neighbors on the back of the
property .
. In favor.
Loftus:
. No comments from the DNR.
Kuykendall:
. In favor
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-
13PC.
Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Criego, Wuellner, V onhof and Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
96-035 - THOMAS MANSK - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PROPERTY AT 14840
OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION AND GARAGE.
Michael Leek presented the information from the Planning Report dated May 13, 1996.
There was no recommendation by Staff.
Hydrologist Pat Lynch from the DNR had no objection.
Comments from public:
MNOSt396.DOC
PAGEt2
Tom Mansk, 14840 Oakland $each, explained the home layout. He has very little space
in his home and would like to Ihave a two car garage for storage.
i
Comments from the Commi sioners:
Wuellner:
. A garage is a necessity.
. Reduce the amount of v . ance on the addition. Would rather see a street variance
over a lakeshore variance.
. Supports granting the vari ce to the garage.
Criego:
. Distance from the garage d the front yard is 25' .
. The only request is for the lakeshore setback.
. Standard garage depth is ound 22 feet.
. Fine with variances.
Loftus:
. No additional comments.
V onhof:
. Rather see the off street p king spaces.
. Criteria is met.
. Garage is a necessity.
Kuykendall:
· Applicant explained the re ons for not attaching the garage.
. Supports the variances.
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SEC ND BY VONHOF, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE
A RESOLUTION GRANTIN THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.
Discussion: Hardship has be n met.
Vote taken signified ayes by oftus, V oOOof, Criego, Wuellner and Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Loftus left at 1 :21 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS:
MNOS I 396.DOC
PAGEI3
96-039 - CONTINUATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING
SIDE YARD SETBACKS, REPLACEMENT OF NON-CONFORMING DECKS;
HOME OCCUPATIONS AND CITY REIMBURSEMENT COSTS.
Michael Leek reviewed the recommended changes made by the Commissioners at the
April 8, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.
There were no comments by the Commissioners.
MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED.
Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Wuellner, V onhof, Loftus and Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE:
New Planning Commission members: Don Rye said the interviewing process would be
coming up soon.
There was a brief discussion of the upcoming meeting with City Council on May 20,
1996.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
Votes taken signified ayes by Wuellner, V onhof, Criego, Loftus and Kuykendall.
The meeting was adjourned at 11 :43 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
MNOSI396.DOC
PAGEI4
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
ONSIDER VARIANCES FOR ELMER CLARKE
6280 P ARK AVENUE
MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER
YES ...x.... NO
Y 28,1996
The Planning Department rec ived a variance application from Elmer Clarke who
proposes to reconstruct a hou e on an existing foundation as shown on the attached
survey. The Commission he d a similar request from Mr. Clarke in the Fall of 1995
(File No. 96-041). The previ us request was denied by the Commission because Mr.
Clarke owned abutting prope which could be combined to create a more conforming
lot. The Commission's denial of the previous request was upheld by the City Council.
Since that request was heard~. Clarke has conveyed his interest in Lot 14, Lakeside
Park (See copy of attached qu t claim deed). Thus, he no longer owns abutting land, and
has re-submitted the request D r the following variances.
I
1. A 28 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 47 feet instead of the
required 75 feet.
2. A 7.9 foot varianc to permit a side yard on the South of2.1 feet instead of the
required 10 feet.
DISCUSSION:
The existing house, which w substantially damaged by fire earlier in 1995, was
constructed in 1960. The pro erty was platted as a part of Lakeside Park which was
approved by the Scott County Board of Commissioners in 1921. This area was also
annexed by the City of Prior ake in January of 1973.
The subject property is basic ly pie-shaped. It is 16.7 feet wide at the front, about 24
feet wide at the 25 foot setbac line, and widens out to about 62 feet at the shoreline. The
terrain is gently rolling until a point about 15-20 feet behind the existing house, at which
point it drops 'Off sharply tow d the shoreline. At its closest point on the South, the
existing house is about 14 fee from the neighboring house.
. I
V A9S-3i I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lak , Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The proposed setbacks are as follows;
It appears it would be feasible for the applicant to move the proposed new house to the
North so that the house would meet the side yard setback requirements, although the
garage at the size shown would not meet the setbacks on both sides. The garage setback
could be dealt with under the recently amended setback provision for substandard lots of
record.
Variance Hardship Standards:
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
If the Ordinance were literally enforced on this property, the building envelope would
only be 24 feet wide at its widest point. The pie-shaped configuration of the lot and sharp
drop-off to the shoreline severely restrict options for placing a house and garage (either
attached or detached) on the property. Thus, with respect to the requested lake shore
variance it appears the criteria is met. However, with respect to the side yard setback
variance request it appears that other, legal alternatives exists.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
As it relates to the lakeshore setback request, the hardship relates directly to the
configuration of this lot and its topography as it drops off toward the shoreline. As it
relates to the side yard request, the hardship results from economic considerations of the
applicant's.
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 the lakeshore variance, the hardship is caused by the application of the
Ordinance to a property which was platted and developed before it was incorporated into
the City. With respect to the side yard, the hardship results from the applicant's desire
and decision to re-use the existing foundation.
V A9S-31
2
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The requested variances would observe the spirit and intent of the Ordinance in that
suitable structure separation for public safety purposes would be preserved, as well as
separation from the roadway for aesthetic purposes
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Because the request for lakeshore variance appears to meet the Ordinance criteria, staff
recommends approval of that request. Because it does not appear the side yard request
meets the criteria, staff recommends denial of that request.
ACTION REQillRED:
A motion directing staff to prepare a resolution consistent with the Commission's
decision.
V A9S-31.
3
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
C1b--O'-f (
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zonin~) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zonin~) ;J, /~5X5 .:)/5 ys fer /.111 LA'" ~ (!avq e
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance 4~ ,I L q /f e s .tc ye 5'Ys
.
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
Ji' Variance Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
.
1::~:~~t(S)/ b~ot ?~~~~ I
Home Phone: q~7~~~7f) Work Phone:
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone: Work Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement .
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
To the best of my knowledge the information procided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applications will not be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
~~n~ ~./2~ Y'-z8-9to
.
Date
Fee Owner's Signature Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date
-e.
.sURVEY FOR; ELffiEk
/~\
\,__LA Q~-\<~ E
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 13, LAKESIDE PARK, Scott County, Minnesota and that part lying westerly of
said Lot 13 between the westerly extensions of the southerly and northerly lot lines
of said Lot 13 to the shore line of Prior Lake.
<V
~ ~;:j-
V o.o'V ~ ~./:-
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~<A. \~~
"'-J 0\, ~/
:-,0 .1' .il
')-.r '/,0 /W~~n:R.L'1
<:Y ~ .J" ~ C/tni.lJGIO,J
o /,,0 /. >~
'" V. /~
/)()/ -:l ;;l<" A
/.../ - #' J>'~.
" <l/ ~o ;,
J.:! 0 "
~ .
~ ..-
Noft~ WOOD tQ.f'lrr\E.. O{
S'(t'5\1Nu- HDUSE 'bA QL'{
8:>u.Rt-JT
,,\-l
I '5. 3 -... ----
l,I..J<:_ .11:} l..,. \
of. l 'V\~ -"S \-
or /~, LAk~S'Q,- ::\~~ i~~ ~ \\
Sea Q,^' lInch 30-\Q9J- a.~,~n.;\ il
'- \ g \
-',5DO ~~<' Bearings are assumed (..
G:,GoO ~ ~ H2..0Pot>l;..b \-\()u.~F--
. V _ - Subject to easements of record if any
B. <<0 0 10 c.ou cR...
Proposed garage floor elevation
C12.\.t)
Propoped top of block elevation
Al.SO Ot\STlUG
CJ\'7.0
Proposed lowest floor elevation
Auo E.J<,IST I klG
o Denotes set or found iron pipe monuments
~ Denotes set wood hub and tack
i64.0 Denotes existing elevation
~ Denotes proposed finish grade elevation
(..~'oo dimUo. .,
surface drainage
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries
of Lot 13, .LAKE.. 'SlOE:. -PARK, Sc.OTT County, Minnesota 88 on file and of record
also showing the proposed location
ot a 'house as staked thereon.
in the Office of the County Recorder in and for said County,
I.and Surveyor under the Laws of the S ta t8 ot lofi n.,8sota.
~~Q,~~QM~H
That I am a duly n8gistered
Dated: Jl.\Ue.. \~I \<1<17
\)t:lltS,F.IY r:we II ?In V~q(o
II.
~
(\\
I'~,
I'
,,'
,
\,
:!lln'l I
"',ll", f
~.l ........,
!
i
\
'-...
.-....-..--
I., j
\; I
.~ I
~, 'i
\1\ I'
~. I!
~ 1
,. I
(, ~.
Ii ~
f-
~~
(,\
~
'I
u /'
\ 1
I
,
,
,
I'
~.~' :
~n'i J
."\~l :
11."'
{,~ !(
I'
\1 '
II \'.~
I.rl ~
I:'\'~
1.1,il'J
i'l'""';
.....ITI
!'--..
\
~.
I'
M
\,\
"6
Oc III
\'I~LA ~
~~rI9
I~V'h
. C \i'
\~~
~
~
~
\"
". '~" 1
'--......" '''.--
",._-----------------
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A 28 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
LAKE SHORE SETBACK OF 47 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75
FEET, AND A 7.9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF
2.1 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET RELATED TO
RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 24' X 24' ATTACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
AND THE 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 ofC.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Tuesday, May 28,1996, at 7:30 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT: Elmer W. Clarke
16280 Park Avenue NE.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE: Lot 13, LAKESIDE PARK, Scott County, Minnesota, and that
part lying westerly of said Lot 13 between the westerly extensions
of the southerly and northerly lot lines of said Lot 13 to the shore
line of Prior Lake, commonly known as 16280 Park Avenue.
REQUEST: The applicant proposes the reconstruction of a single family house
which was damaged by fire earlier last year. The applicant's plans
propose a lakeshore setback of 47 feet instead of the required 75
feet, and a side yard setback on the South of 2.1 feet
instead of the required 10 feet. Thus, the applicant requests that
the Planning Commission approve a 28' lakeshore variance and a
7.9 foot side yard setback variance.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance
against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
16200 EaQie creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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: May 15, 1996
2
. ~"",... -....;...._._~----..;...._"'~-,-"-"-~--. -- .......~".-...,.._,-',-...-----
:......~., .' ;._----..~,..--"'.-'-......_..;...... ~
." .
.--,.------,,-....-----
m::bis 3J nbent u te, .lFaM thu.............J~.~~..................da,y of..........~.eE.g......................._........, 19.....~.~..,
betwecn..............~j......a.((......W....@""1..q.Y.../{..e......,....w-idewe.r;........................................................................................................................
\
:~ :~ ~~~n~~::..~;:a,~~t/!;J.:;Ie.:s.:::::0::::tt1.:::..:!...:::::::~~:~::~~~~::=.:~:!:~.::::::::::::===::=:::..:....:::~::::::=::::
:=:..:::..:....::..::.;p.;ij~...;;....!t..a................:..........:...................;;:~.se;;;t;.;f:::::::::::::::::i;i;:;.~::k:;;;:::~:;;:I.~:::::::::::::::::::::..;~~..~;~:!e~;::::%::.
ailneS5ttf), That t"M said part............ of t"M first part, in consideratio... of t"M GUm. of....Q.Jc.r$.:........
._.............................._................................................._................._........................................~.........................................................................DO LL.1.RS,
to....................................i... hand. paid, by t1~ said parties of the sec07m part, tho receipt wh.ereof u h.creb.v aclcnow"-
edded, do............ hereby Grant, Dargain, Quitclain., and. Con-vey un-to t"M said partios of t1~ sceOM part as
joint ten-ants aM not as ten-ants in comm-on, their assigM, tT~ survivor of said parties, and t"M T~rs aM
assitns of t"M survivor, Forever, aLL tT~ tract...... or parceL... of LaM Lyind aM beint in t"M Coun.ty of
..............................__.._.................................antL State of .lfin-nesota, described as foLlows, to-wit:
Lot 14, Lakeside Park, according to the recorded' plat thereof on
file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for
Scott County, Minnesota.
;/)eed 7;-p/ dlJ.e-
J~ /. 65'
I
No 1.-:f1(/d(. I t,S
Deed Tax h!'!09 .01 $ .
paid thisJl.2t,Hay 01~19J:C.
~~...IIo.Jtounty Treasurer
Conservation Fee Paid
.f"......... ......_,,--
r:;?"\. "~.' :'.'," :~" Ol"" ! ,.,,'.(>..1
~ \~ .., .... ':'r:r;::~~~~.'~ f
I:
I
18:0 ~abe anb 10 ~olb Ibt S1ame, Tolot"Mr with. aLL tM "Mrcd.i.tam.ents and a.ppurten.anccs t"Mre-
u.n.to beLon-tint or in. anywi.!6 appertainint to t"M said parties of the second. part, their a.uitn.s, t"M sur-
vivor of S4id parties, and. t"M heirs and assitns of the survivor, Forever, tM said parties of t"M B8C0M part
takint as join.t ten.a.nts aM not as ten-ants in com.m-on-.
3Jn 18:tlSthnonl' aI)trtof, T"M said pari............ of t"M first pari ha............ Mreunto set....................................
haM...... t"M day aM year fi,r!t above written.
.......-d..~...._..!V1......~.....................
(
=.....==:~:~..~~~::~:~=~~:~~:::::~~~~::::::::::::::::: ~
In. Prucnce of
1
I
!"J.~