HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 9, 1996
!
J
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1996
7 :00 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case #95-080 ADRIAN AND ROBYN PORTER, REQUEST THE. FOLLOWING VARIANCES
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-
1 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SO (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT
AND IDENTIFIED AS 3019 F AIRVIEW ROAD: A 32' VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 53' SETBACK
FROM THE CENTER LINE OF CR 81 INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85' SETBACK
B. Case #96-081 RICHARD AND SHERRY CROSS. REQUEST A 19 FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY mGH WA 'fER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE OF 56
FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FAMILY ROOM
AND DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-l
(SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED AS 3827 ISLAND VIEW CIRCLE.
C. Case #96-082 CHAD AND TINA PAVEK, REQUEST A 22 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 63 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE A COUNTY ROAD
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING ON
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-l (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD
(SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 2610 SPRING LAKE ROAD
D. Case #96...083 DONALD KEMPER REQUESTS A 3.23 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE
YARD SETBACK OF 6.77 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-l (URBAN
RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED
AS 15097 MANITOU ROAD.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 ~kAve. S.B., Prior Lake, Minnesota~sg72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQl,JAL OPPORTl,JNlTY EMPLOYER
~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 26, 1996
1. Call to Order:
The August 26, 1996, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at
7:02 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Vonhof, Stamson, Wuellner and Criego, Planning
Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Acting City Engineer John Wingard and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Stamson
V onhof
Criego
Wuellner
Kuykendall
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
Corrections to the August 12, 1996 Minutes:
Page 2, clarify Mr. Stolcer's comments.
Page 3, re: Case #96-071 Dave Smith, Wuellner's comments change to say "We approved the
setback from the street." (not the garage).
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECONDED BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 12,
1996, MINUTES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Criego, Wuellner and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED.
4. Public Hearings:
Case #96-075 Sue Stang - Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Section 3.1 to
Allow Arcades in the B3 Zoning District.
The hearing was open and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public. Planning Director Don
Rye presented the information from the Staff Report dated August 26, 1996.
The applicant applied for an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow "arcades,
billiards/pool, equipment, etc." as a permitted use in the B-3 General Business District. Staff
was asked by the management of Priordale Mall whether a video game arcade was permitted in
the Mall. Staff informed the management this was not a permitted or conditional use in the 'B-3
district and, if they wished to pursue the issue, it would be necessary to seek an amendment to
the zoning ordinance. The applicants came to City Hall and discussed the procedure with staff
and subsequently filed this application. The ordinance provides that a use not specifically
designated as a permitted or conditional use anywhere in the City is considered prohibited and
authorizes the Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to the ordinance if it finds, after
MN082696.DOC
PAGEl
due consideration, such a use is acceptable and whether it should be a permitted or conditional
use.
Staff believes it is appropriate to establish game rooms (video arcades, pool halls) as conditional
uses in the B-3 district, subject to the following conditions in addition to those all conditional
uses must meet:
. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 9:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
. Such use shall be located at least 150 feet from the nearest residential structure.
. Parking shall be calculated based on all uses within the structure or tenant space, using
parking standards in the code.
Comments from the public:
Sue Stang, 4818 Bluff Heights Trail, stressed this youth center is not strictly an arcade and will
be an adult supervised facility. The center will be open to 17 year olds and younger. They will
follow the times established in the ordinance curfew section and will set hours as follows:
Saturday and Sunday: 10:00 a.m.- 8:30 p.m., Monday - Friday 2:00 p.m. -8:30 p.m. and stay
within the 9:00 curfew.
Lyle Durr, 4680 Tower St. SE, owner of Kathryn's Hallmark in the Priordale Mall said
customers came in and stated with the center being located in the mall, they are concerned about
teenagers loitering around the parking lot and access to mall with a bunch of kids. He is hopeful
the business owners will take care of these issues. His business is located across the hall and his
concern is for the noise coming out into the hallway which could disrupt other businesses. Mr.
Durr said there are limited bathroom facilities in the mall. His main interest is for his customers
and the safety for children with a proper facility to come to.
Comments from the Commissioners:
i
V onhoC:
. First concern is for the game room, the surrounding area and the problems that occur with
loitering and parking concerns.
. Rye said the parking issue is for the mall management. If the concern is people coming to
the mall and sitting around the parking lot, the management will have to deal with the
problem as a private owner. The City can limit speed if there is a danger to the public, health
care and welfare. There is an ordinance for loitering occurring after curfew.
. As a conditional use, the City puts specific conditions and restrictions on the use.
. Rye said it depends on conditions and legitimate concerns. The City can design specific
conditions to address potential or procedural problems.
. Most appropriate under the B-3 Zoning district.
. Definition for game rooms addressed.
. Would like to see at least one adult on premises at all times.
. Hours of operation should be consistent with the curfew ordinance.
Stamson:
. Agrees with the type of facility.
. B-3 is the appropriate district.
. Parking requirements should be consistent with bars/restaurant.
MN082696.DOC
PAGE 2
. Noise is a management issue.
· Not fair to make other people responsible for incidents off site.
. Agrees with closing times but more. flexible. Churches and other organizations rent
establishments for over night use.
· Building code requirements for restrooms. Depends on occupancy load. Building Code will
address issue.
. Adult on premises condition.
Wuellner:
. There is a need for a youth facility. Ifrun well will be an asset for the community. The
responsibility will fall on the management.
. Right facility for B-3 district.
. Adult on premises. Define adult as 21 years old.
Criego:
. Stang addressed several issues including age control. Parents or legal guardian will have to
register the child. The regulations and rules will be given out at that time and the child will
be issued an ID card. This maintains a record of any problems with kids. There will be strict
rules. An adult over the age of21 will be the on premises at all times. Also, there is no
admission charge. The access to the center will be strictly outside.
. Questioned noise issue into the mall area. Stang said all the machines have volume controls.
. B-3 district is allowed.
. Condition for adult as over 21 years.
. Condition noise is contained - not to cause problem.
. Agrees with registering patrons.
. Agree to stay within curfew limitations.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT 96-XX, THAT GAME ROOMS BE ADDED TO CITY CODE SECTION 5-1-7
AND 5-3-3 AND AMENDING SECTIONS 3.2 AND 8.1 OF ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6.
AMEND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. 1) THE HOURS OF OPERATION TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE'S CURFEW ORDINANCE. 2) THE USE
SHALL BE LOCATED AT LEAST 150 FEET FROM THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE. 3) PARKING SHALL BE CALCULATE BASED ON ALL USES WITHIN
THE STRUCTURE OR TENANT SPACE, USING PARKING STANDARDS IN THE CITY
CODE. 4) THERE SHALL BE AN ADULT OVER THE AGE OF 21 ON PREMISES AT ALL
TIMES DURING THE HOURS OF OPERATION.
General Discussion:
. Hours of operation - The ordinance curfew section will address church groups.
. Registering patrons is part of management not a land use issue. Registering should not be
part of the ordinance.
. May want to incorporate in the future.
. Rye addressed the school groups and curfew issues - there are provisions exempting church
group sponsored activities with accompanying adults.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner, Criego and Stamson. MOTION CARRIED.
The public hearing was closed.
MN082696.DOC
PAGEl
Case #96-073 Ebenezer Ridges - Ordinance Amendment to Allow Adult Day Care
Facilities in the Business and Residential Zoning Districts.
The hearing was open to the public and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public. Planning
Director Don Rye presented the information from the Staff Report dated August 26, 1996.
The applicant is seeking an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in order to include adult day
care facilities as a permitted use within the business and residential zoning district. Adult day
care is similar to the children's day care as it provides a safe place for those who cannot
completely care for themselves. The facility would provide care to functionally impaired adults
on a regular basis for periods of less than 24 hours in a structure that is not the residence of the
person being served or the facility operator. Staff recommends approval of the request as
proposed or with specific modifications.
Comments from the public:
Susan Stenson, resides at 5850 140th Street, representing Ebenezer Ridges Care Center in
Bumsville. The proposed Prior Lake site is at the Assembly of God's Church. The applicants
would like to eventually license 12 to 25 clients. Days of operation to start with would be
Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Theyare licensed by the Department of
Human Services and re-license on a 2 year basis. Currently there are no adult day care centers in
Scott County and applicants would like to see the area served. Applicant handed out information
regarding the program.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Wuellner:
. Staffing for facility will depend on number of clients. The ratio for this facility would be 1
(staff) to 8 (clients). Typically they combine groups and the ratio would be 1 to 6.
. Stenson explained the difference with child care and adult care. Adult care is mainly dealing
with a frailer population who have medical difficulties and health issues. They help clients
with multiple health problems. Scott County provides transportation to the facilities. There
is also a social interaction. This program is for the care giver as well as the patron. Many
children and grandchildren are taking care of the clients.
Stamson:
. Excellent use and positive affects.
. Similarities with traffic and use as child care centers.
. Addition to parking - require participants park on site. Staff to park on street. Could be a
problem in residential areas.
Vonhof:
. Analysis is accurate as far as similarities of child day care.
. Should the City use same number of 12 person definition for child as adults.
. Rye explained the number 12 was the same as child day care. The City can increase number.
Do not want to lose compatibility with neighborhood. The rationale is the State Department
of Human Services set the number 12.
. Go with recommended 12.
MNOI2696.00c
PAGE4
. Agree with adult day care definition.
. Off street parking provided for staff.
Criego:
. Agree with Commissioners.
. Recommend on-site parking.
· Stenson spoke on the limit of 12. The stipulation is 40 sq. feet for each person (client and
staff) by the Department of Human Services. Her recommendation would be to allow 20 to
25 for this facility.
. Neighborhoods would not like 40 patrons.
Wuellner:
· Feels this should be a conditional use in a residential area.
. Rye explained a different slant. If there is a concern operating in a house and creating
problems, perhaps instead of calling it a permitted use, it could be allowed as an accessory
use in the Rl and R2 districts. It gives more certainty of the availability of parking. Traffic
would be less of a problem.
. Not opposed to land use but the affect on the surrounding neighborhoods.
Mrs. Stenson felt a reasonable number of patrons is 22.
Commissioner Stamson suggested tying in with the State licensing with 40' per patron.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO ALLOW ADUL T DAY CARE FOR
24 OR FEWER PERSONS AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES IN
THE Rl AND R2 DISTRICTS.
Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Wuellner, Stamson and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 8: 15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:26 p.m.
Case #96-045 Maple mil 2nd Partnership - Preliminary Plat for Maple Hills 2nd
Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Staff Report dated August
26, 1996.
The City received an application for preliminary plat to be known as "Maple Hills Second
Addition". This site is located directly south ofCR 42, about 1/4 mile east ofChatonka Beach
Road. There are two main issues with this development. First of all, municipal services are not
immediately available to the site. Development of the site depends on the extension of services
in CR 42, which is scheduled for 1998. For this reason, the applicant has requested a two (2).
year approval period for the preliminary plat. The Subdivision Ordinance requires a developer to
submit a final plat within one (1) year of the preliminary plat approval by the Council. The
question is whether or not a preliminary plat should be approved for an area without these
services. The applicant will also have the option of extending the services, with the
understanding that any additional, cost to the City would be his responsibility.
MN082696.DOC
PAGES
The other issue concerning this development is its effect on the development of the property to
the south. The cul-de-sac in the southwest corner of this preliminary plat is accessible only from
the property to the south. The applicant is working with the owners of the property to the south,
Gold Nugget Development, on the location and grades of the cul-de-sac and the extension of
Bluebird Trail. Development of these streets will require this continued cooperation.
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 96-28PC approving the preliminary plat of Maple
Hills Second Addition as presented and subject to conditions contained in the Resolution or with
specific changes directed by the Planning Commission.
Comments from the public:
Peter Knaeble, developer of the project, Brian Olson his partner, Randy Olson the realtor and
project developer for Knob Hill, Horst Graser were present. Mr. Knaeble explained their
contract with Knob Hill to tie in the Maple Hill project. They will share common streets and
utilities. The project would start at the earliest the spring of 1997. If water is not connected it
will start spring of 1998.
Acting City Engineer John Wingard spoke on the water and sewer issues. The water and sewer
systems are not available to this project at this time. Water is available to the east in the
Ferndale area as well as to the south at Carriage Hills. The City will construct a watermain with
the County's CR 42 upgrade project. Sanitary Sewer is available on Pike Lake Trail. The City
put in the 10" line extension crossing CR 42. This is the best area for the sewer connection to
Maple Hills Second Addition. Any extra cost to extend the sewer line on CR 42 will be paid by
the developer.
Carol Jarzyna, 14150 Rolling Oaks Circle, stated she had major concerns with the building
projects currently going on and what our City can handle. She works in the school district and
sees the growing class size and the growing traffic on CR 42. Ms. Jarzyna feels the City needs to
preserve the natural surroundings.
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
. First time an applicant came in with a development outside MUSA.
. Positive development working with the Knob Hill; small size; working roads together.
. Two recent developments have had stub streets going no where.
. The density for Rl is appropriate.
. Generally a good plan.
. The tree preservation ordinance will have an impact on the development.
. Not sure on approving a development so preliminary in terms of not having services
available.
Stamson:
. Good plat for a difficult piece of property in the Rl district.
. Same concern for stub street.
. Access off 42.
. Save trees.
MN082696.DOC
PAGE 6
Wuellner:
· Not against the preliminary plat but uncomfortable with the stub street issue or any kind of
development of property to the east. Sometimes developments work out.
· No readily available sewer and water.
· Rather see further development plans for the Garling property. Does not like to see a
temporary access on CR 42.
· Do not jump into this when it is not planned for an other 2 years.
Criego:
· Knaeble addressed the grading and said it would take place as soon as the utilities are
available. This project is based on Knob Hill's approved plat.
· Knaeble addressed the green way trail.
· Knaeble explained why the project should be approved now. The County is going to work on
CR 42 and would like to know the utilities are in place. The applicants feel it is appropriate
to plan the development at this time.
· Concern for temporary road on CR 42. The City does not dictate when the County updates
its road projects.
Horst Graser, representing Gold Nugget Development and Knob Hill, pointed out the area
drainage and the agreement with the Maple Hill development. The neighboring Twiss property
is proposed to come in to City Staffwithin the next 6 to 8 weeks. The overall improvements to
Knob Hill is proposed for next spring.
Brian Olson, co-developer and landscape developer addressed the tree concerns and explained
the ultimate grading plan.
Wingard commented on the 500' cul-de-sac from the south. The City felt CR 42 connection was
preferable. He also explained the road connection with the east property. Scott County will not
allow a permanent access on CR 42.
Rye said the only access to the development is off CR 42, until the street connection to the south
is made.
Criego:
· No problems with preliminary plat approval as soon as there is a connection south.
· No problem to grant 2 year window.
· State in resolution no grading or development take place until water and sewer are in place.
MOTION BY VONHOF TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 96-28. NO SECOND.
MOTION BY WUELLNER TO TABLE THE MATTER UNTIL REVIEW OF THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO THE TWISS PROPERTY. NO SECOND.
Open discussion:
Vonhof:
· Understand concerns - put a sunset clause on the temporary road. There is an issue of having
another access to the development. It is a safety issue.
MN082696.DOC
PAGE 7
. There is a written agreement between the applicant and Knob Hill. The major concern is for
the Garling property. The City does not need another stub street. Prefer to see the
developments work together as opposed to a free standing - no connection development.
This is not an ideal situation.
Criego:
. Applicant attempted to show the bigger picture in the development and are trying to work
together. It is a difficult issue. No harm in approving the development as it stands.
. Would like to see verbiage eliminating the temporary connection to CR 42.
Wuellner:
. The whole plan is predicated on what might happen in the future.
. Wingard said the Knob Hill and Maple Hill Second Addition will be developing together.
Stamson:
. Change the stub street to a temporary turn around.
. By design if the Knob Hill development completes consider the variance to the cul-de-sac.
. Potential for a lot of traffic and snow plows not being able to turn around.
. Concern for pond and grading. Under Condition #4 - applicants would have to redesign the
pond.
. Wingard said there is an existing easement on the Church property.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE 96-28PC AS WRITTEN
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1) A TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE END OF THE
STREET ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE.
2) THE TEMPORARY ROAD TO CR 42 BE ELIMINATED WHEN PROJECT TO THE
SOUTH IS COMPLETED AND A ROAD IS CONNECTED, AND
3) UPON FINAL PLAT A VARIANCE SHALL BE REQUESTED WHEN THE
TEMPORARY CONNECTION TO CR 42 IS ELIMINATED.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Criego and Stamson, nay be Wuellner. MOTION
CARRIED.
The public hearing closed at 9:48 p.m.
s. Old Business:
Case #96-071 Dave Smith Variance (continued).
Jane presented the information from the Staff Report dated August 26, 1996.
On August 12, 1996, the Planning Commission tabled action on this variance application to
obtain additional information from the staff. Specifically, the Commissioners wanted
information on whether or not a gravel driveway was included in impervious surface. While a
gravel driveway is not specifically listed, the constant use of this surface will cause the gravel to
become packed down and will not allow the percolation of water. For this reason, the staff as
well as the DNR, interpreted impervious surface to include gravel driveways. If the Planning
Commission chooses to exempt a gravel driveway in this case, a variance to the requirement all
MNOI2696.00c
PAGES
driveways be paved will be necessary. Staff recommended denial of the application because of
the lack of demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Ordinance criteria.
If the Board of Adjustment finds this request meets the applicable criteria, approval of this
variance should be subject to the condition the garage and driveway addition be drawn on the
certificate of survey by a registered land surveyor, along with the dimensions and distances from
the lot lines.
Comments from the public:
Dave Smith, 2590 Spring Lake Road, explained his difficulty backing up trucks in the driveway
and getting on the road. He pointed out neighbors hammerhead driveways as a safety issue. Mr.
Smith presented pictures showing where he took out concrete in the front yard and where he can
replace with treated lumber for a deck and reduce the impervious surface. He can also take out 4
feet of the driveway and still get into his single car garage. Mr. Smith said he could put a grass
strip between the driveways to meet code.
Dave Smith, Lakeville, said this house was under water and now his son, Dave, has reconstructed
the home and property. By adding this garage and driveway it is a 100% improvement.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Wuellner:
· The originally proposed project by the applicant did not include the impervious surface. If it
did not meet the impervious surface code, the variance would have been denied. The
Commission approved the 67 foot setback from the road. Nothing was said about the garage.
· If applicant can keep the impervious surface under 30%, withdraw the application and build
the garage.
Stamson:
· There is no hardship. If applicant an keep the impervious surface under 30%, withdraw and
build.
V onhof:
· Applicant has complied with Commissioners' request to reduce the impervious surface.
· Applicant's driveway out to street meets ordinance requirements.
· Meets impervious surface code.
Criego:
· Withdraw variance application or the Commission can deny the request.
Mr. Smith stated for the record he would withdraw his application and bring a new survey to ~e
City.
Commissioner V onhof stated the impervious surface stay under 30%.
A recess was called at 10:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10: 10 p.m.
6. New Business:
MN0I2696.DOC
PAGE 9
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Short discussion on the lakeshore tour including the lakeshore setbacks and vegetation screening;
Amend zoning ordinance to adequate screening; and work toward visual screening. Can be an
ordinance requirement.
Discussed the pile driving wall on Inguadona Beach shore line; Green Heights conditional use
permit for 23 dock slips. The docks go out 150 feet into the lake. Neighbors are concerned with
other issues; Low water improvement; Identified bays that have been dredged at low water
times; Lake use planning.
See attached minutes.
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADJOURN MEETING.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Vonhof, Stamson and Criego. MOTION CARRIED.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
MN082696.DOC
PAGEIO
----
August 2 1, 1996
To: Don Rye - Planning Director
From: Dave Wuellner
Subj: Planning Commission Lake Tour
On Tuesday, August 20, The Prior Lake Planning Commission spent four hours touring the
city from the vantage point of our largest asset, the lake. Similar to the tour we did last year,
we spent the time looking at various planning issues, existing problems, and future potential
opportunities. Those present for the tour were:
Dick Kuykendall
Tony Stamson
Tom Von Hoff
Dave Wuellner
Connie Carlson
The issues brought to light during the tour were as follows:
- Lakeshore setback: The issue of lake shore setback was discussed from the standpoint of
values. The question was posed as to why was there a requirement of75 feet from the lake?
Is it an environmental issue, or is it an aesthethic one? The consensus of the group was that
of aesthetics, namely the value of trees and greenspace along the shoreline. The beauty of
more remote pristine lakes further north in Minnesota is enhanced with the preservation of
tree lines between development and the lakeshore. Prior Lake may wish to consider a trade-
off in the future, whereas closer setbacks may be more palatable with the inclusion of a
planting or landscaping plan that provides for screening on the lake side.
- Conditional Use Permit Review - Green Heil!hts Lake Club: The observation was made
that although Green Heights is operating under a Conditional Use as a restaurant, they are
also actively involved and promoting their alternative use as a marina. The dockage for
Green Heights has been significantly increased in the past year, thereby expanding their side-
business as a provider of dock slips for non-riparian users of the lake. This needs to be
reviewed.
- Perrier Residence Lakeshore Problem: It was noted that the Perrier family on Inguadona
Beach Circle have recently "improved" their lakeshore by driving 6 to 8 foot-tall iron .
buttresses into the lake at the water level. We looked for the presence of anti-aircraft guns or
missile silos but sighted none. This recent property improvement is extremely improper and
ugly and needs to be removed immediately.
- Low-Water Imorovement: It became clear to the commission members that the two bays in
the lake that underwent dredging operations during past low-water years, Mud Bay and
Gateway Shores, were dramatic improvements and significantly enhanced the value of the
land on Prior Lake. Other areas that could also be similarlv enhanced were identitied, and
the point was made that it would benefit the city improve these areas and make them more
developable. The areas identitied were Boudin's Bay and the swampy bay near the end of
Shady Beach TraiL It was noted that Boudin's Bay was significant, too, in that it was one of
the few commercial sites on Prior Lake, and deserved closer study. It was also discussed that
a financial mechanism should be in place now to pay for the dredging operations in these
bays during the dry-years.
_ Lake Use Planning: The issue ofland use planning should perhaps extend to lake use as
well. If the lake is our largest asset and the "center" of our community, why shouldn't the use
of the lake fall under own wing as well? Discussions in this area included that of making the
lake a designated park, thereby giving the city the jurisdiction to regulate its use (similar to
that of Lake Calhoun). While this issue is still nebulous, a think-tank discussion of its
possibilities would be fun.
We appreciate the opportunity for the commission to make this tour. We found it to be a
valuable experience and and eye-opening one as well. We also appreciate the dinner.
Respectfully,
11t:t'lljtef-gLt~r
David Wuellner
t '
J,
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
6A
CONSIDER FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
ADRIAN AND ROBYN PORTER (Case File #96-080)
3019 FAIRVIEW ROAD SW
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINA TQR\. ,t;!
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR \JJ/~1--
_YES lNO
SEPTEMBER 9, 1996
The Planning Department received a variance application from Adrian and
Robyn Porter, who are proposing to construct a 22' by 24' detached garage on
the property located at 3019 Fairview Road SW. The proposed garage is
located to the south of the house, with access from Fairview Road. It has a 53'
setback from the centerline of County Road 81 (Sunset Trail). The applicants
are requesting a variance of 32' to the required setback.
The hearing notice also referenced a variance to the impervious surface on the
lot. This reference was included to insure that all necessary variances would be
considered at the same time. The staff has since determined that the gravel
driveway on this site is not included in the impervious surface. Without the
gravel driveway, the impervious surface of the lot, including the proposed
garage, is 26.8%, which is below the maximum 30 percent permitted by the
ordinance. Therefore, a variance to the impervious surface of the lot is not
required at this time. It must be noted that a variance to this provision will be
required if the applicant wishes to pave the existing driveway.
DISCUSSION:
Fairview Beach was originally platted in 1926, prior to annexation to the City of
Prior Lake. This lot (Lot 27) is 50' wide by 122' deep, for a total area of 6,100
square feet. The area and frontage of this lot make it a substandard lot under
the current Zoning Ordinance.
,.....
The lot also has frontage on two public streets: Fairview Road and COUNTY
ROAD 81 (Sunset Trail). Access to the property is from Fairview Road.
j
e
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Section 4.1 K of the Zoning Ordinance states the minimum setback requirement
for County roads is measured from the centerline of the existing traveled
roadway. This section requires a minimum setback of 85' from the centerline of
County Road 81. Since the proposed garage does not meet this setback, a
variance is required.
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. An argument can be made that the
existing use of the property will continue without this variance. However,
there is no garage currently located on the lot, and the size of the lot and
location of the house will make it difficult to locate a garage on this site
without a variance.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
A unique circumstance in this case is the substandard size of this lot.
Furthermore, the southern portion of the lot slopes up to County Road 81.
The topography, lot size and orientation of the existing dwelling make it
difficult to locate a garage on this site.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The size and topography of the lot are hardships over which the applicant
has no control.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The location of the proposed garage is not inconsistent with the location of
other structures in this area. A variance in this case will not be 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.
96081pc.doc
Page 2
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:
The staff has concluded that the size and the topography of the lot, along with
the location of the existing dwelling, are a hardship outside of the applicants'
control. In addition, there are no legal alternatives for the location of the garage.
The staff recommends Alternative No.1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 96-31 PC.
96081pc.doc
Page 3
Lta1lDtJ M.w l
F1~~ VPr2JI4Nu=: (1,,- tiiI/)) .
PA.~H
OUTLOT
A
SPRING
LAKE
PARK
~
~ 22
FRANC1S WORRELL
136373
I
I
!
I N,i)Rl J.1
'l"OJ, ~t
I
1_-
0-
~ 23
__ ? I
~5 ~
II>
" 5 u- 0-
~ C ...:- " L
WO- >,"'0
~ !:: ale t> >,
>:~ >- t>
LV>
>, .. wO " Qj L
~o 5 v (n,': :)
Q: v '" -0 '"
Qj>- _ 0 '.c. :>.."0
0 0 v Qj ...: .
> L.. 0 _ E C
>,... o .
.0 :J 00 _ -0
o~ -
'" III r-- III =-g~
ij 0 Nt>
C
'" o.~ ,,:JC
_'0 C t> C
~ ....::0 c(5~S
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ \
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1(1 ~ ~ III
tJ l~ ~ \q
\.; ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~
~ \ " ~ ,
vi -.( ~ ~ i\ CI)
III ~ ~ ~ .!
I( () ~ 'l( ~
~ \) " ~ ~ ~ ..
"- ~ oil ~ I, eX
\S ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ \. ~
~ ~ .s
:l II, ~ ~
v'l ~ ~ ~ a ~ -
Iu ~ " it ..i
'l( )., 'I: 1 \)
11\ It ~ ~ ~ i:::
:l \.... 'II
() ~ /:l f5
~ f'.. IS ~
~ I\l
~ I'~ u
~ \.... ~
\) ~
~ 0
Q
...
\I'
\
\
).
~
c
~ 0
~ ~
\-------~
\ '" ~ . \
\ ;,~;. l \
N
-
()
N
O'll~
~
. ~ ----- ---
--:..< <;Z'O.
~
,~ --
x~.- ~/'
r--
, ~.t___
Y - ~::~'(l~
~'lI ~
,-- . ~
, . ~
\ .-'
\
. -.
..
'C
<:>
-1'1$'
....~
t
:t
..
o
~
\:\: -
\
0
c(
0
\ ~
....
0
w
:z
otJ -- ~
;i- ~ t.... ~
,,<( oJ <S""'i
w
~\ <.)
'"
~
..
'1\
~
,z. 0
\~::>u \
->f~.\
\:\:
\~
.<
Jv Ij i (]
Planning Case File No. q b - ro W
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake PRt::-L..rf"F 12 LSI~~o/",,1-
LAND USE APPLICATION .:cO~ I S~~O
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~)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
..IX( Variance
A~j ~
'5 '^ ,..- A....~ c:..
de.-f~4^
Applicable Ordinance Section(s): ~
Applicant(s): AD R ,A-J\J +- R ()~ yp..J Po1tT~R
Address: ~~, ~ FA ,~ v i t.:v fA.. () s. w.
Home Phone: ~o - ~ '1 b ~ Work Phone: "'7' /I 'S' - ~ I ~ J
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee
Work Phone:
Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement -"'L.
Legal DescriQ ion of Property (Attach a copy if there is not e ugh space on this sheet):
/\. 0 I- 2.. 7 ;:::1\. " v , t!AIV .AI-C-
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 w'n n e sed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
//~v-:>.;- / ~ /#f C-
Oate
~
Apphcant's Signature
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
Date
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1
(SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SO (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT
AND IDENTIFIED AS 3019 FAIRVIEW ROAD:
1. A 32' VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 53' SETBACK FROM THE CENTER LINE OF CR 81
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85' SETBACK
2. A 13% VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 43% OF THE LOT AREA
INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM 30% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
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, September 9,1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT:
Adrian and Robyn Porter
3019 Fairview Road SW
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
Lot 27 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota.
REQUEST:
The applicants are proposing the construction of a detached garage which would
be located 53' from the centerline of CR 81 (Sunset Trail) instead of 85' as
required in Section 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The construction of this garage
will also cause the impervious surface of the lot to be 43%, which exceeds the
maximum 30% as permitted in Section 9.3 S,1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the
following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the
property .
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of
persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and
is not contrary to the public interest
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing should
be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral anellor 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: August 29,1996
96080pn.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
RESOLUTION 96-31PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 53' SETBACK
FROM THE CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD 81 INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 85 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED
GARAGE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Adrian and Robyn Porter have applied for a variance from Section 4.1 K of the
Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a detached garage on
property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland
Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
3019 Fairview Road SW, legally described as Lot 27, Fairview Beach
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #96-080 and held hearings thereon on September 9, 1996.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the
Comprehensive Plan.
~
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance -and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property,
and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located.
The unique circumstances applicable to this property include the substandard lot size,
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
the fact that the southern portion of the lot slopes away from the County road, and the
location of the existing dwelling.
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.
The factors listed above do not allow for an alternative location of the garage without
variances.
7. The contents of Planning Case 96-080 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the
Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be
null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the 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 variance to permit a detached garage which will have a 53' setback from the
centerline of County Road 81 instead of the required 85' setback.
This variance is granted with the following terms and conditions;
1. The improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the site plan
submitted by the applicant, and attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 9, 1996.
William Criego, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
-~
1:\%var\96080va\res9631.doc
2
SENT BY: DNRj
9- 5-96 10:46AMj 6127727573 ~>
6124474245;
#4/4
Project Review Worksheet
DNR - Division of Waters / Metro Region
Project Name t=6r-te.r ~~ VlLt'\'a.....CA...J
Project Type (check all that apply):
CJ Preliminary Plat [J Final Plat o Subdivision
DPUD "$::I ariance Cl Other
DNR Jurisdiction (answer all):
Yes No ~ No
Floadplo.in CI 0 Shareland 0
(MS.I03F.IOl) (MS.I03F.:ZOl)
Yes No y~ Nu
Protected Waters CI CJ Water Appropriation 0 0
(MS.103G.245) (M..S_IOJQ.2~S)
Conunents 5 '"" L!I II
~~~;~.I~~-'
Sp d ~ L- It!:.
~ ~~< -::;!".';!/ ~":1.r ~ u~/~
I' Ih~r C) ~j ,. ", . tr 'M.._~411 ~
S 4'r _~ h;",e.rh" c.. - 6<<.rcJ ~rf!l4. ~ .
I..rrk. G.a..,-~ L S i~ +-
~AlI"~ '~~*
L r u... :.r- is d I" ,~J -/... c..u--i
rI.M....&c...1 +It r""OIjl.. .j".Lr< d,~ or s~.....4....
IQc-*'~ <<=>_
Recommendations and Proposed Conditions
c~~.~ ~---~7. J~~~ ~:~ +- r,,",,:Z
4... oS: ~ I A?L!_r.,..,
--S~~~ ~~ """-1'-- "'~.s
::4;J:
Reviewer~'Title ~ ~~hone ~'Z-?;/O Date 1'-..5-,~
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DIVISIO
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAil EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(612) 496-8346
GARY L. CUNNINGHAM
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BRAD LARSON
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
Fax: (612) 496-8365
September 5, 1996
Ms. Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior lake, MN 55372-1714
Re: Porter Variance Request adjacent to CR 81
Pavek Variance Request adjacent to CSAH 12
D~;ar tv1s Kansier:
We are in support of the PORTER Variance request subject to the following conditions:
e The setback distance is consistent with the surrounding homes.
· A.ccess be taken from Fairview Road and no access be allowed onto CR 81.
We are in support of the PAVEK Variance request subject to the following conditions:
· The setback distance is consistent with the surrounding homes.
· An access permit be acquired from the County.
· Drainage from westerly adjacent lot currently draining onto this property be directed to the
north.
· Future driveway will require a turn- around, backing out onto CSAH 12 not be allowed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any
questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Scott Merkley
Engineering Coordinator
c: Brad Larsen - County Engineer
w:\word\scott\adm\review\var
An Equal OpportunityjSafety Aware Employer
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
6B
CONSIDER LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
RICHARD AND SHERRY CROSS (Case File #96-081)
3827 ISLAND VIEW CIRCLE
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINA TO~ .IJ II
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~L
_ YES .A... NO
SEPTEMBER 9, 1996
The Planning Department received a variance application from Richard and
Sherry Cross, who are proposing to construct a 14' by 18' family room addition
with 8' by 12' decks on either side to the south side of the existing dwelling. The
proposed additions have a lake shore setback of 56 feet. The applicant is
therefore requesting a variance to the 75' lake shore setback.
DISCUSSION:
This lot is 135' deep (to the ordinary high water mark on the short side), 92' wide
on the north end, and 125' wide along the lake shore. The existing dwelling, built
in 1982, is located at the north end of the lot, 71' from the Ordinary High Water
Elevation. The current setback of the house is nonconforming, based on the
standards in the current ordinance.
Section 9.3 A of the Zoning Ordinance requires a setback of 75' from the
Ordinary High Water level. Under Section 9.3 (0, 2), this setback may be
reduced. to the average setback of the structures on the adjacent lots, or 50',
whichever is greater. In this case, both of the houses on the adjacent lots are
setback further than the proposed addition. Therefore, a variance is required.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
96081pc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. The existing use of the property will
continue without this variance.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
Because staff has concluded that there is no undue or unnecessary hardship
this criterion is not met.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
Any hardship results.from design decisions made by the applicant, not from
the application of the provisions of the Ordinance. Thus, this criterion is not
met.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The proximity of the proposed deck to the lake shore is inconsistent with the
intent of the Shoreland District to preserve the natural environmental values
of the existing lake shore.
AL TERNA TIVES:
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 staff has concluded that the there is no undue or unnecessary
hardship, and thus that the Ordinance criteria are not met, staff recommends
Alternative NO.3.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 9629PC.
-2-
SEC. 34 T //5 R. 22
--_._--~
m~ IS I c:::;:ur:;3 II ImlIIS II
r:::v m:-.:: 11 r:: 1= c=m
Ofn::: Li:::l;~~ 1':1 c:1 ~L
r';i: t:.,,:,:::; ;; r; c! C::) c:I.J fU
r.:;:~'::;[ I_:::S L::J 1:.i ~o:I-
1"1 I: 1;:1 L:";..:~.:~11':'J L.;~ LJ,.
.,....... ,.. I'....' ,.....1.'......
_...AM_''''' __.. ...... _.._
REPLAT OF LOTS 1,2.3,4,5.6&
BLOCK 3 ISLAND VIEW 1ST AOO II
L
R A
.- 260
3>0
...-4)7
..
. It. KO"OUT
152.$11
..
:;:
N
aT TO MO"aU".
161.51:!
Cl
..
Cl
II:
'Z.
LOCMlDtJ.
.~'i
Lcc.PffJON MAP
L~D5~ YARI~E (Q,,-D81)
WILLI"M J. SCHMOKEL
COUNTY SURVEVOR
SCOTT CQUIIITY. ....UOTA
_.-
'U I'.'
IIAf ".,
"a. I.I?
OCT. III.
....... I'.'
5 34
115 - 22
RUG-14-1996 17:22
JRMES R HILL. INC.
612 890 6244 P.03/03
-'- r--.Q~
9'2: '1 9'1.,.9 'A~.
9 '1 9'].7..'1. 9'].\.9 \ ~
~O ...~u.
9?'l-O 9 ~",~\~G I
'j.\~~G ___ . ~ ~
~. O~
-- 0 -f I1r _ .,,/- ~ '7~//.
\J ~~Oar""~ 'OO.O~ ~ ~ ~/
.:=;- ~ - - OOO~ ~f
=- _/ ~o1 ~~
65.00 " ~/"
8' "51' 5' E :::7/ ~ ......v.-'t.
- --- 0 ""r"911)
0\ O~ Go 1.'0.
~" ffl1 ~ :__galt.~~
@-- o~ '~~~~6
~~~ 1 f\O
~g()'1.-~
James R. Hill, Inc...
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
For: DICK CROSS
TOTAL IMPERVlOUS= 2808 SQUARE FEET
(EXISTING AND PROPOSED)
LOT AREA= 15117 SQUARE FEET ~
PERCENT OF LOT COVERED: ~c \, ~ /
2808 S.F. - 18 6" c\' '<' '-'/
15117 S.F. - . AI \j \~~~~~... ~ ~
~ ~ /' ~~~:,..'\
\ S L p..~Q. --- -. ,/ _~..."<f3'
--~ ,1"':lO'2.\\.':l~--..... ~~
tiQo ~~ ~
~ .- 92.
/'
931.7
--
-
<),
Ul
~
(1)0 '"
~~
to. '0
~
~
904 CONTOUR AS lOCATED
IN lHE F1aD ON 7/10/96.
-://
SlJR\JE"l UNE ",/
-'
2,4.0:t ....----_
......
Scale: 1"=30' Page 2 of 2
"1U:
( 'J\
"
TOTRL P.03
PlaDDine Ca5e FUe No. ~
Property Identification No. - - 0
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zonine:) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zonin~)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit IS'I\
Applicant(s): \ ~"6 L. ()..; Sh<u""(\. K. rrr.&S
Address: ~~d'7 l.slo..nA V',et).) C~...~. Pr,~ L,...J(.L
Home Phone: '-/.1../ () - _<5 1./7 I Work Phone: (~g; - 7 fr:45
Variance
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee
Work Phone:
Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
Lot q 61~,.k. i 1~;Q1\d \fiew c;Lhd A-J.AA~~
(Z 2.5 I 5 q '00 4-0 "
To the best of my knowledge the information prodded 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
ap c tions will e proces ed until d ed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
Z-U>-'1~
Date
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
I"
I
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
Date
Richard and Sherry Cross
3827 Island View Circle
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1 Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
respect to the property.
A variance is being requested for adding a family room and deck to a current
structure of 1448 square feet. The family room will provide a recreational area for
the family of 4 and provide privacy for children and adults while entertaining family
and friends. The proposed addition and deck will provide a reasonable usage of
lakefront property consistent with other homes in the neighborhood.
2 Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to
the property.
Due to the layout of the home and also the positioning of the home on the
property, there are no other alternatives for placement of the proposed addition.
The proposed addition size requirements are based on a minimal living space for
a family of 4 and is aesthetically proportioned to the existing structure.
3 The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The hardship is caused by the positioning of the existing structure relative to
property boundaries by the original owner. Having not been the original owners
we had no influence on current house size, design and placement relative to
property lines and setbacks.
4 The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, substantial
justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The proposed addition will add aesthetic value and provide an appearance and
usage comparable to existing homes in this neighborhood. The lakeside view will
not be restricted for neighboring homes. The majority of homes in the
neighborhood are currently built less then 75 foot from the 904 foot lake level
contour, per City Ordinance. The impervious value of the existing structure and
proposed addition would be 18.6%.
BII!
I u___Ji
I
;, Q
I
~
t
~
'~
II
a
I
.
I
I
0\ I
~ ~,II
t
II ~ I
~ I
,..
!
T
I
!
,
~;
~,
':
t
01
~
i'l;
~--
'j
"lI-:>
~
'5
~
\f
- - - ;' I
I
CJ
, I
: I
- - -..1
~
1
r-
~
..~,<;
- -;
r - _J
a
I;
II !t
Ii ~
U <.
~
~
II
. -..-:J OIJoc.1~?
~ i
i-l
g -.
~':
--4.1
1
-;- I
. I
; I
. I
I.
ill
I i
I
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE:
A 19 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF
PRIOR LAKE OF 56 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
FAMILY ROOM AND DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED
IN THE R-1 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SO (SHORELAND OVERLAY)
DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 3827 ISLAND VIEW CIRCLE.
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, September 9,1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
Richard and Sherry Cross
3827 Island View Circle
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
3827 Island View Circle, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, Island View
Second Addition
REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to construct a family room and deck addition to an
existing dwelling in the Shoreland District along Prior Lake. The proposed
addition will be setback 56' from the Ordinary High Water Elevation of 904'
instead of the required 75' setback.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the
following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the
property .
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of
persons presently having an Interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial Justice
and Is not contrary to the public interest
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing
should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or
written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and
requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria.
I.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: August 29,1996
96-081va\96081.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
RESOLUTION 96-29PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKE SHORE
SETBACK OF 56 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FAMILY ROOM AND DECK ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Richard and Sherry Cross have applied for a variance from Section 9.3 (A,2) of the
Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a 14' by 18' family room
addition with an 8' by 12' deck on either side of the family room to an existing
dwelling on property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD
(Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
3827 Island View Circle, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, Island View
Second Addition
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case File #96-081 and held hearings thereon on September 9, 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.
5. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance would serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
6. The contents of Planning Case File #96-081 are hereby entered into and made a part
of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY EMPLOYER
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
requested variance to allow a family room and deck addition to be located 56' from the
ordinary high water level.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 9, 1996.
William Criego, Chair
ATIEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
96081va\res9629.doc
2
SENT BY: DNR;
9- 5-96 10:46AM; 6127727573 =>
6124474245;
#3/4
Project Review Worksheet
DNR - Division of Waters / Metro Region
Projec:t Name
C ,e IJS..s
.s~e~
~AJG€
Af:1q. Ie ATlo "-'
Project Type (check all that apply):
o Preliminary Plat
o Final Plat
o Subdivi:rion
DPUD
,)i:Y ariance
o Other
DNR Jurisdiction (answer all):
Floodplain
(M.S.I03F.IOI)
Yes
(j
No
(j
Yes No
Sborcland ..Ji:( CJ
(M.S.I03F.201)
Yes No
Water Appropriation 0 CJ
(M.S.IOJG.25S)
Prulcct&::d Waters
(M.S.103G.24S)
Yes
a
No
o
Comments
R.ecorrunendalions and Proposed Conditions
~~~~~S'~,-.~=:{~,.~ ~~~~~,.-
&, .5rl:, .m-w c...n.,~c...
-4 ..f'C,~,..~ -h_
;-5 h_~d_~:J 141/7'K nt!f-'r
R.'d-r- L..J4..., .
Reviewer ~ ~ Titl. ~ <<+~hon. "-"'-7HO
:s -~ '9.~1'
Date Y' ~
..
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
6C
CONSIDER FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
CHAD AND TINA PAVEK (Case File #96-082)
2610 SPRING LAKE ROAD
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINA TM ./1/.
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
_ YES -X... NO
SEPTEMBER 9, 1996
The Planning Department received a variance application from Chad and Tina
Pavek, who are proposing to construct a 28' by 65' dwelling on the vacant lot
located at 2610 Spring Lake Road. The proposed dwelling has a 63' setback
from the centerline of County Road 12 (Spring Lake Road) instead of the
required 85 feet. The applicants are requesting a variance of 22' to the required
setback. Based on the survey submitted by the applicant, the impervious
surface of the lot, with the proposed dwelling and driveway, is 28%, which is less
than the maximum impervious surface of 30% allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 29, Butternut Beach was originally platted in 1926, prior to annexation to the
City of Prior Lake. This lot is approximately 83' deep by 100' wide, for a total
area of 8,357 square feet. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban
Residential) and the SO (Shoreland Overlay) district. The area and frontage of
this lot make it a substandard lot under the current Zoning Ordinance. This lot is
also considered a corner lot since there is a platted road on the eastern
boundary of the lot. A physical feature of this lot includes a wetland and a
creekbed across the northeastern corner of the property.
Section 4.1 K of the Zoning Ordinance states the minimum setback requirement
for County roads is measured from the centerline of the existing traveled
roadway. This section requires a minimum setback of 85' from the centerline of
County Road 12. Since the proposed structure does not meet this setback, a
variance is required.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
There are also several engineering concerns relative to any construction on this
lot. These concerns are discussed in the attached memo from the Assistant City
Engineer.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. In this case, the legal building envelope
which results from the applicable yard requirements is about 20' wide. Most
of this building envelope is located on the north side of the lot, in the
proximity of the wetlands and creek.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
A unique circumstance in this case is the substandard size of the lot, and its
proximity to a wetland and a creek.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The size and natural features of the lot are hardships over which the
applicant has no control.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The size and location of the proposed dwelling are not inconsistent with the
location of other structures in this area. A variance in this case will not be
contrary to the public interest.
At TERNATIVES:
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.
96082pc.doc
Page 2
.'
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff has concluded that the size and the physical characteristics of the lot
are a hardship outside of the applicants' control. In addition, there are no legal
alternatives for the location of the proposed dwelling. The staff recommends
Alternative No.1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 96-32PC.
I.
i
96082pc.doc
Page 3
vAeE-N 'z
" MAT
Planning Case File No. 10-- 0 ~0
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230. Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zonin~) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zonin~)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land I-
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
Yariance
Applicable Ordinance Section(s): ~
Applicant(s):
Address: IV
Home Phone:
Work Phone: yStS-.3 ys<f'
'1'3/- /2//
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicantsj:
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
appl~tio~ will nQt be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
...4- ~ 0. li-~ r~ t'
, . .' 0""' 1'1- 9G:
Applicant's Signature Date
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARlNG
DATE OF HEARlNG
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
Date
'Loc..Pr1\D~ M ~9
P,..iEk. \j Ptttl~tJt.6 l qfo" Ogl')
~
\...o~
,,'''\
GO
COUNTY OF SCOTT
?<<~Y Lodtl1~
/'
5PR.Nfc:, LAK.E.
'AKE.
~s
0IttIf1cate
lIMY Fill: coneg. City
IllCllIIED AS: Lot 29, B1J'l'TBmfUt' BRACH, City of Prior Lake, Scott County,
Minnesota and reservin~ easements of record.
~ 100. 00 12-GLOC.Al€ c.. u-.a E: \L- TO R..t:.AI1...-
~ Pn.OPSQ.T'{ '-, .....,e-
~l ~ 'i. e.. \ P U-A.p
C\~ !II r
r 0
0
1-- ClIo.. @
''':' ".Oll ~
,
-...
---...., I a
I ..,. ""...... IIIuII a 03
lG . lIS In
bl.tlRI ..,. nJ
III.. i a:t 10. DO 2I.DO a:t
--1..1 '5.00
I~ @ ~
I ~ II \ \
_1 ..
..
- -- 100. 00 ~
~
co. ROAD
NO.
12
loo.~
)4. _______~I~
LOT SQ. FOOTAGE = 8, 357~
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
Top of Foundation . 100.5 A
GlrlOI Floor "100.\
8asl.lnt Floor
Aprox. S.wlr Service EI.v. "
.'j Proposed EI ev. " c:> j
Exl.tln; Eln. 1-
Drainage Dlr.ctlons ,-
Denotes offlet Stake " 0
llCAI.f : l Inch · 3D F..t
BENCHMARK,
MIN. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
Front .
Rear -
Hous. Side -
Garage SId. -
'I8I.UNII
JOB NO:
'tr..ft.SQ4
PAGE:
"'''''''11' D,'II..,.'II, tv"n1111f
.. lat 1'..,_,_ ....I..1It. 11I_14 ...
'o,_leul __
DU' 8 ,%.()/ "
OIlG. CHIC.
UUI ~I ....J-:;JU ....--,.,...n.I
SJMtOr's
0Itttf1cate .
~ Fill: Cou.ege City
DDCRIIED AS: Lot 29, Btrn'BJltiD'r aBACK, City of prior Lake, Scott Co~ntYI
Minnesoba and r.servin~ eas~Menta of record.
~ tOO. 00 12.cLQc-A,,{& C-lLeG51L. To aeA tt.-
~ .p~P..It.T'I.
~, '-'....e
('.J ..:. ~. P ll.A-P
1--
C'
I
...
---.1 I. (:)
I .. c:a
blltl.1 IQ ~~1~ In J
II... I ~ nI
IZI EN""LO~&.. 0I0'1C~') CD
--.I..J \ 0
~
_l_ IS' 11:
I~ tr.
-~ ~
100.00
'1
CO. ROAD
NO. 12
IOQ1.
. "St
__-----t(l~
LOT SQ. FOOTAGE = 8, 357~
~o'Y.-:; ~'5'01.IO
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
Top of rouftdatlOft
Glragl Floor
8as...nt Floor
Aprax. Slwlr Slrvlce Ellv.
proposed EIIY.
Elll.tlng Elev.
Drtlnigl Dlrectloni
Denote, offltt Stake
--
- 0
A
i
leAl! :. 1 lnell . 30 '.1\
BENCHMARk,
. IDo. S
-100.\
.
. c:::::::>
.-
MIN. SETBACK REOUIREMENTS
Front - House Side -
Rear - Garage Sid. -
~"Iln'n' /tIl"n.." In, "'''Y07''''
...... """~:...::..-rtur= ~l''''
I MEREIV CEATIFY lIIAT 1MII 18 4 TIU 4110 CONIECT IIEPlIEstHTATl1Ilt
.Of 1\1( IClUlllJ_A I ts Of M AlO~[ DUeA I KIl JIIlIIKJIlY AI 9UMY€D
!t'~1 OA IHIlR MY OIRECT UERYIIIDN AND DIlES NOT l'\lIlIlORT TO
__. IIPIIOVEMEItT$ OR iNCROACHMIl . 11tEJI1 Ai - SI4GiilJ .
OIU ~~/~ fl.
JOB NO:
"..".SO"'
BOOK: PAGE:
116III.UNII
CAOD r Il[: DI/G. CHIC.
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
JOHN WINGARD, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
SEPTEMBER 4, 1996
RE:
PAVEK VARIANCE FOR LOT 29 BUTTERNUT BEACH
2610 SPRING LAKE ROAD
The following are my review comments:
· The developer/builder of this lot should verify if any wetlands are located on this site.
A certified wetland delineator should submit to the City their report about this lot.
· The overland outlet for a 20:t acre wetland currently drains through the middle of this
vacant, wooded lot. If a house is constructed on this lot and fill is added across the
outlet, the storm sewer outlet for the 20 acre pond will need to be extended to the new
edge of the pond.
· The elevations of the proposed house will need to allow for 3 feet of freeboard from
the HWL of the 20 acre pond to the lowest entry. A revised surveyor's certificate
should be submitted that shows elevations of the pond and of the proposed house.
· The revised surveyor's certificate should show the location and invert elevation of the
existing culvert that is located in the front yard area of this lot. The culvert is the
outlet for the 20 acre wetland and it drains directly to Spring Lake.
· The drainage system along CSAH 12 is a rural ditch system. The front yards drain to
a small ditch that conveys the water in an easterly direction to the existing culvert that
crosses CSAH 12. If the new house is approved, the driveway will need a culvert
under the driveway to convey the storm water runoff in the ditch.
· The lot owner shall dedicate a permanent drainage and utility easement across the lot
which covers any wetlands and storm sewer facilities.
· The City will pay for the extension of storm sewer facilities to continue to provide for
the outlet of the 20 acre pond.
ENGCOMM.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE:
A 22 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 63 FEET FROM THE
CENTERLINE OF THE A COUNTY ROAD INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN
RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SO (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 2610
SPRING LAKE ROAD
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire
Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish
Point Road), on: Monday, September 9,1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
College City Homes, Inc.
c/o Chad and Tina Pavek
New Prague, Minnesota 56071
PROPERTY OWNERS: Roger and Robin Gaustad
17320 32nd Avenue
Plymouth, MN 55447
SUBJECT SITE:
2610 Spring Lake Road, legally described as Lot 29, Butternut Beach
REQUEST:
The applicants are proposing to construct a dwelling on an existing lot which
will have a front yard setback of 63' from the centerline of the County Road
instead of the required 85 feet.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the
following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the
property .
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property.
3. The hardship Is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and Is not the result of actions of
persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and Intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial Justice
and is not contrary to the public Interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing
should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or
written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and
requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: August 29, 1996
96-082va\96082pn.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
RESOLUTION 96-32PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 63' SETBACK
FROM THE CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD 12 INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 85 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Chad and Tina Pavek have applied for a variance from Section 4.1 K of the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property
located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay)
District at the following location, to wit;
2610 Spring Lake Road, legally described as Lot 29, Butternut Beach
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #96-082 and held hearings thereon on September 9, 1996.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance "and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property,
and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located.
The unique circumstances applicable to this property include the substandard lot size
and the proximity to a wetland and a creek
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. The granting of the 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.
The legal building envelope which results from the applicable setback is about 20'
wide.
7. The contents of Planning Case 96-082 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the
Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be
null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the 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 variance to permit a single family dwelling which will have a 63' setback from the
centerline of County Road 12 instead of the required 85' setback.
This variance is granted with the following terms and conditions;
1. A revised survey, meeting the conditions outlined in the memo from John
Wingard, Assistant City Engineer, dated September 4, 1996, must be
submitted for approval.
2. The improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the revised
certificate of survey submitted by the applicant and approved by the staff.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 9, 1996.
William Criego, Chair
ATIEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
I
I'
I
1:\96var\96082va\res9632.doc
2
SENT BY: DNRj
9- 5-96 10:46AMj 6127727573 =>
6124474245j
#2/4
Project Review Worksheet
DNR - Division of Waters / Metro Region
Project Name
J1;,el<
~~Nt:.t::
/lPP~1 c .A-r7ol\J
Project Type (check all that apply):
o Preliminary Plat
DPUD
o Final Plat
~ariancc
C1 Subdivision
o Other
DNR Jurisdictiun (ans'Wcr all):
Yes No
Floodplain a 0
(M.S.I03F.10 I)
Yes No
ProlC\:(cd WII(c:r:l Cl a
(M.S. 1030.245)
~ No
Shoreland Cl
(MS.I03F.201)
Yes No
W.b:r Appropriation CJ 0
(M.S.103G.2SS)
Colt1ments CY"e.c..lC ("'11.c...rc.-.... J ~'" ~lu.LLd ~v~
is Maf- .,..~.. ra~ j,~ 'D-...\~ L-;,~ W,H~
If:~-Igs,- ~ t ~ "~ r~n~~ t; ~
v_ /,- LuJ.,," - ~# .e. ,114e;. h
L..o-J- 2.9'.
Recommendations and Proposed Conditions
",,*- V;~eJ s,-Ic. .
Nb
f~C.D_----. n lQ~on t
ka.~
Reviewer ~t ~Title~ {.{rr/;Jphone 77 l--J'I{O Date S J?r. "6"
..
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
60
CONSIDER SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
DONALD KEMPER (Case File #96-083)
15097 MANITOU ROAD
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINA T~ /J /J
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
_ YES ..lL NO
SEPTEMBER 9, 1996
The Planning Department received a variance application from Donald Kemper,
who is proposing to construct a 4' by 20' deck addition to the north side of the
existing dwelling located at 15097 Manitou Road. The proposed addition has a
side yard setback of 6.77' at its closest point to the north lot line. The applicant
is therefore requesting a variance to the 10' side yard setback.
DISCUSSION:
This lot is 105' wide by 322' deep. The existing dwelling, built in 1963, is located
on the east end of the lot, and is closer to the north lot line than to the south line.
The applicant is in the process of building an addition to the east side of the
house, which meets all applicable setbacks. The purpose of the deck addition is
to provide an outside access directly to this portion of the house.
Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all structures have a 10' side
yard setback. Since the proposed deck does not meet this standard, a variance
is required.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. The existing use of the property will
continue without this variance, and there are legal alternatives to provide
96083pc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
access to the new addition without a variance. A stairway and landing on the
south side of the addition are included in the building plans.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
Because staff has concluded that there is no undue or unnecessary hardship
this criterion is not met.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
Any hardship results from design decisions made by the applicant, not from
the application of the provisions of the Ordinance. Thus, this criterion is not
met.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of the Ordinance is to provide relief in those cases where
development opportunities are severely limited by the conditions of a
property. This does not appear to be a property where opportunities are so
limited.
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 staff has concluded that the there is no undue or unnecessary
hardship, and thus that the Ordinance criteria are not met, staff recommends
Alternative NO.3.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 96-30PC.
-2-
~
PARK
3
v....Q'O
#
,~
It)
CD
r-
I .
,
>
/
, ,'\ '
" \
\
\
4
4
//
/
,
.,.
~ ~4 196
>/
~~
) :::
i\ ?
~~ ~'
. F I:
cJ~ n
l.
[1' '
.
z
o
I
~
::.~ ~ ~
~~ ~ _. :;
:> ~ ~
5~' ~ :.
~ ~ ~ :
~~. f f
~ ... '"
.. ~
~. ~
~ -:=:
.
; .
:;
'" .
~
il ~
i ~
~
~
,.
'"
_.
~
~
~".
--....... -
-"""-"JIf"=...
/
~
(''',
i
i
-~~...--:
/
/
'.
/ ':~
,.,
.::.
,/ [' 't"
~"'~ ;
\ Y"",,'
~~\'\:.. ,~- ,-
.. -, .,.' ". ~.,
,
\.
.~...-,.r",\
~:
- ~ \
~:~ \
!
..---J ~.
"'t., '.
' J'
I ,/ :/
I '\. .... .il".
// ,- '\
\ -
~-
~.
"~
~'.\\'
~'\l~
in.
, ,
. -;:.
"
~
-~~
-~
~ ~....'
--~~
i.t~1
,.
o
~~
\'.' ~
e
,;.~
~~
..
~
'/l
-, " ~~
- t S'~.::;:. __ -i
Jt.~ <>8 ~ _ >l:r..". "
a' :-::.~, ~'''-.
....... ~~.- ....,... ~':l.~>
....:-. ...~.I.;:- . ~ '\,,~
... .... '- ". .
'" ~".
'~\~.
~~\i'
" -
~.
~'::
.-::"::., "
~'"
'~
...:.
'::".L
~
""...
~._~~
,
'I,
'"
t
\l;{,
I.;
VI
.1;
"
\~
?:J ~l
~.~ \)1
ili;;
III
"
>.
.\
,!
f
,,,
;>~
,,"-':;;J ...
-- '-:~-~-;.- ",';;-,
--
't
~~
~i \)
rn
~~
t~
, '"
~t
''A
,~.
"""
~~-
--
. -oc
.1>>"'''
~~
-,.'"
~ '"
. ~ ~
"'.~
-~'"
~::-<
~ n
:t Q,...
~.. ~
. ~ =.
-~-
~--
~'"
a~;
~ ~
~~~
~
~,.~
~ '"
~-
~::
:."'~
..
- ~
~-
~~~
:.n.,
. =;
~;-:t z
~ :.
-~
~ _n
:..:..;
--.,
=.-~
.... ?...
~=~
~ .....
~;~
::"'::'11>
'-"".'It
"'CoO ~
~ -~
----:.
~~;
'<" ~
~
-,,~
... .~
;:: :~~
..., . ;).,
:I:
~~
~
a.~
~
-~
-"
..
c
-<7
~g
<7~
-a.
..~
0-
~o
~~
~~
"'~
.~
..
~ ~
~
'"
:: ~.
..
z
~
,..
... ;!;
; ;:
~
'"
~
..;
'"
::
,..
'"
'"
Plaooiog Case File No. ~~ '
Property Identification No. . 5- 0 -tt:[;-b
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zonin~) sheets/narrative if desired) /)OO,e
to (proposed zonin~) 5~T Qt: stYli'S 7?> SlOe,
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance Or fhus€
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
J?J Variance Applicable Ord~iOn(S): 4-.;;).., (s1d.J ~
~_<p
[)f>NRt-O kf/lll Ptll I
Applicant(s):
Address: /SoCJi rn~lIt1jTO" RoAD
Home Phone: ifL/7-:lV't;?- 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):
lor 5 1 r.0,4Ps B~'f' 1/ DlJ,'rt'oAJ
p~o ~ z..s oS \ ooso
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.
,~ .\., ~ )-;-' 7 -30 - '76',
, . '" I'
'.,.:' r......... r... ....~ /" u..~
Applicant's SijPi'ature Date
~ .1 ).'
,- J / /. 7 _.10 - '/~
.':.' 1~.Jl . / (L.A._~""_ .
Fee Owner's Sighature 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
AUGUST 14,1996
TO: PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: MR. & MRS. DONALD J. KEMPER
15097 MANITOU ROAD
PRIOR LAKE, MN.
RE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS AS FOllOWS:
1. CONSTRUCT AND ELEVATED 4 FOOT WIDE WALKWAY WITH STEPS ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO ALLOW AN EXTERIOR ACCESS FROM THE FRONT OF THE
HOUSE TO THE LIVING QUARTERS.
2. THE CURRENT SIDE SETBACKS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE RANGE FROM
10.37 FEET TO 13.43 FEET. THE CURRENT SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS 10 FEET. THE
PROPOSED WALKWAY WOULD REDUCE THAT TO A MINIMUM OF 6.37 FEET TO APPROX.
9 FEET.
3. THE TERRAIN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS VERY SLOPED AND WOODED
WITH NO REAL USE BY THIS PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR.
WE BELIEVE THAT A VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED FOR SEVERAL
REASONS:
1. THE FAILURE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PROPOSED WALKWAY WOULD CAUSE
UNDUE HARDSHIP ON THE RETIRED PERSONS USERS OF THIS ACCESS TO THEIR
LIVING AREA OF THE HOUSE FROM TH FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
2. THE NEED FOR THIS WALKWAY RESULTS FROM THE SEVERE SLOPE OF THE
PROPERTY ( A 40 FOOT DROP) THAT WOULD NOT CONDONE MAKING A CONCRETE
SIDEWALK PRACTICAL
3. WE FEEL THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE CAUSE A HARDSHIP IN THAT
THIS ELEVATED WALKWAY IS CONSIDERED A STRUCTURE AND MUST MEET THE 10
FOOT SETBACK, AND THAT A CONCRETE SIDEWALK WITH STEPS WOULD NOT BE
CONSIDERED A STRUCTURE REQUIRING THIS SETBACK. THEY BOTH HAVE THE SAME
INTENT, TO PROVIDE AN ACCESS TO THE HOUSE.
4. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS REQUEST FOR THIS VARIANCE IS TOTALLY WITHIN THE
SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST. IN FACT IT IS TOTALLY WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
SINCERL Y,
DONALD J. KEMPER.
-
j~ I 5 1
I I I ~
-, I -I
i'"
--" I I I
~ i [ i
-
I
I I
I I I
I i I I
~ I i i
I I
L
~.. ~\
on
\
\
!
i
c
~
~
c=.
.L
m
r-
Ln"I
. . .
~
-I
-
o
z
, I
D
/1i : D
L ....
IL JjL ...
L ..
-
l
I
~
I
i
I
I' i I i
i I I I! ,i
I i I I
I' 'I
I~.~' ..1 1_.1
I' III i-Ii." .
I 1,1
1 I
----
i !
I I
I !
L__,...,~~~....,~,,,l
1I111I il
I I
I I
II II
! II ; !
II
II
I
I
, 1
1 !
Iml
;~; ~ ~
IC/)I 2Q
!::i! ;ti rn
i~i m m
i"'~::::'-_> ~
101 ,....,-
iml - Y
'('li -~
'A' - I ' C/)
I . i t, "'0
'i-'C~>
I i -lj.. Q
I "z
- -...----tp
I
t ! " /
I ! '
\
i i
I i
\
_. -....
- -...
-....
-...
-,..
,
,
Ii
'\
. -~"~~~~~-rrl r
. 'I : .1 I
; i i I
;.... . i i
III
II'
I I !
I I i
i II
" I ..
j I I I I
I I ,
I , ,
i I I
I i I ,
I I i
I I
i I I I I
j I ! 1
I
Ii
Ii
I!
II
I
I r ,
,
T
; I I
i j I
: III
; II!
, . I,
i
ij
'II, '/
ill, 'I i
~
s
)>
x
'\ \
f "
I ~ \
, i \ \
'; \
I f\ \,
I \ \
I \ \
; I! \, \
, ; , I.
: : ~. \
i II\~\
, I I "
j I' \
! i i I ~ \
! i I \ \.
i I I ~\ \.
, ! i Ii ! \ \
: I I I' I ~ '
, I ! 1\ ';
! I I I I I I' i
I . '. V.j
; r I j :
Iii i /
, , i V /
,. : 1 " I
IVi !
'II!/I, y/~
i I!'! / ~...~
, I i V / ~.:>
I,ll I il/ ~ ;=
11/ ;- C
'._'..'...1...' 1. ....... ", Ii/// R.'~
.~ .v. ~~ .:.:. ,,-. _. _..
'. -.
,I V II j;-; >
,I,il I ~~ ~
/ t~ ~I
'i i __
, / ,..",.,..; ,; ~
/, C:-
/.t -:~
/ 1/ r~, ~
I /,
T! Z=
I t z~
~l C; w.,
-....-
. ..
'-
/
'-4. __,.__
"
"
r jl
I I l I ; 1"1 ,
III
I i[
F4
!I~I
:/,
,j
'"
l"
III
:11
...l.",! .,,;......i ...1.
II
. .
A , ~ ~
I ~ ,
[ ,
i - I '"
- .L ~
~ .'
, 1 -- I
i , - i
- - !
I -- .L
,
S:(I)7~~
:r-;~-""
:,-,::=':l:
~ ~~!. j. ;
tHin
.=r ;: ~ ~-i ':r;
:i.:::~~::2-
.-;) .. - - :>>
:-::)i':
~ ~ :j! - .~
; :: :'- ';.. ....
3-0..1=:::
',~' c~=
.. :r ~"OIl
~ ~ ::
-....
--:.. -
~::;
- -
~~ ;;
,.. -
~ ,~
~) .=1
-= -1
- -
~~
- -
5-~
- -
-~
~;;
:5 -:'..":
~ ::2
... -
-= .>
~:=
~
T
~
,;,
II
.-
.. .
....
;0
m
)>
;0
m
I
m
~
-f
-
o
z
T
,
,
i
i
--.:..- ~
, I
I
T
I
I
-
(.II
~
!
I-.
u:!
.%. .%.
TT
, i
l"l
:al
i " ~
I 1
i~
I
, ,
, ,
i i
.;
,
t~
"->
CQ
-f
~
r-
^
~
-<
-
-
..
I'
I
I
!
,
I
!
i
, I
! I
.:
,,;
-
"t
~
,~
+-- 2'8" ~ f
~~'?
~ .,=:=--'
~~~ ..I. CCM2860-2W
. ~~
~rJf
~"
cP
"=
I
I
i
I
I i
i I I
I 11
/f'..J
. I I
I '
,4
Iii
I'i
~ !
: I
I I
I I
h
I I
, ,
I
, i
, ,
, i
...:. .:.... c
.
CCM2860-2W
22'
16'S"
2- 1 3/4" X 12" LAM BEAMS
i ,
I
I
,:
"
"
1;""'-:
-,
I :
.-1/.
,
,~
,'tI
!
CLOSET
f
t
! c
I
lA"
i
;1 :
,
;: :
;cn
I! i '
! /-1i
!.%. ,/ I'
--;. .-
---
_/
--
-:;...
-" /~
EXISTING BEDROOM
~
s::
M
I'
"2
F
E
p
~
\f;
~
o
I.
N\
"",'
iJ:
.,
t.
('
......
"
,
..
_~3'_
~~'~;"
..'
~
.
:.- ~'
-',
CCM2860-2W C"o~ ')
/660
~
'~
~......
.........
, , ---
,
"
,
I i ~ '6~
;'1
i
14
6~"
I
I
'''',
I I
i I
i - I-
t --
r" -
! - -- --
--
DISH
i ~\. ~~:~.;
"
,
----...........
.
...L
-: - I
,. !
.
i
i
. :
I
.
-
,
.
.
.,:
i
!
;
I
I
i
---,
I
T
-
Q
'i
!
i
i
I
,
i
I
I
I
.%.
I
i ::
i ,'i
::t
i I
; Ii S
:....
~
! ~
~
'"
.-
-
:..1/
:f..
2
i!
:!.!
==
~
-
T
"l
~
-f
A
"->
~
I-
!
i
CI.!
I
I
7
I
~
-
-
-
~
.,.
C
""U
""U
m
:::0
r
m
<
m
r
>
::!~
::::: '",,:l
...., .,. =>
>X<
:'"')c.J-
:::~~
c..,
~
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE:
A 3.23 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 6.77 FEET INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 10 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY)
DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 15097 MANITOU ROAD
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire
Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish
Point Road), on: Monday, September 9,1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT:
Donald Kemper
15097 Manitou Road
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
15097 Manitou Road, legally described as Lot 5, Kopps Bay Addition
REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to construct a deck addition to the existing
dwelling which will have a side yard setback of 6.77' instead of the required
1 0 feet.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the
following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the
property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of
persons presently having an Interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice
and is not contrary to the public interest
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing
should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between.the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or
written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and
requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: August 29, 1996
96083va\96083pn.doc I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNI1Y EMPLOYER
RESOLUTION 96-30PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD
SETBACK OF 6.77 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Donald Kemper has applied for a variance from Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
in order to permit the construction of a 4' by 20' deck addition to an existing dwelling
on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland
Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
15097 Manitou Road, legally described as Lot 5, Kopps Bay Addition
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case File #96-083 and held hearings thereon on September 9, 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 there are legal alternatives
available for the location of a deck and access to the new addition without variances.
5. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance would serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
6. The contents of Planning Case File #96-083 are hereby entered into and made a part
of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
requested variance to allow a deck addition to be located 6.77' from the north property
line.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 9, 1996.
William Criego, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
96083va\res9630.doc
2
SENT BY: DNR;
9- 5-96 10:45AM; 6127727573 :>
6124474245;
#1
Project Review Worksheet
DNR - Division of Waters I Metro Region
Project Name:
D 0""'
I(,,~~
Si~~
v (}..yo, 0.- CIf!.. tho l{"a h'a "-- .
Project Type (check all that apply):
[J Preliminary Plat
a Final Plat
)(Varlanc:e
o Subdivision
OPUD
CJ Other
DNR. Jurisdiction (answer all):
Yes No
Floodplain 0 0
(M.S. I 03F.l 0 I)
Ye5 No
Protected Waters a D
CM.S.I03G.l4S)
Yes No ~/)~
Shoreland J4 C]
(M.S.I03F.201) ~~1.
~ 0-
Yes Nn ~ i ~
Water Appropriation 0 [J Cl '" u
(M.S.I03G.255) ~ ~ ~
G:i
,... ~ }~
Comments M <:{J....~~ -:;Iuv-~/~ ~G24~.
et:;;~~~-I v;~~~~/~~~ -~'r jr:;.~~..-~-,
~-lt:..<"
Recommendations and Proposed Conditions
A., 'II,'
~Pf''''"..c.,P. Sr.... u_:"!j :_ ~...._ ~
r. - ~
~ f!.~ '" ,.. 7"~'.:>-_AI'!. .
.s~/.R
Reviewer ?~f. ~f.. Trtl.~hon. --/7;>'--"710 Oat. oS 0/ ~