HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 23, 1996
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23,1996
7 :00 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
5. Old Business:
A. CASE 96-081 RICHARD AND SHERRY CROSS VARIANCE (CONTINUED)
6. New Business:
A. CASE 96-086 JULIE AND PAUL YTTRENESS REQUEST THE FOLLOWING
VARIANCES: TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 50 FEET FROM TIlE
CENTERLINE OF A COLLECTOR STREET INSTEAD OF TIlE REQUIRED 85 FEET;
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE OF 31.6% RA TIlER
THAN THE MAXIMUM 30% IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED; A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 19.68 FEET RA TIlER THAN
THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING ON
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-l (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE
SO (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 2818 CENTER STREET.
B. CONSIDER APPROV AL OF RESOLUTION 96-33PC CONCERNING
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS 1 AND 2.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Discussion on Planning Issues
8. Adjournment:
16200 ~~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, MinnesotaJ59a72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 9, 1996
iWAFT
1. Call to Order:
The September 9, 1996, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Criego at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Vonhof, Kuykendall 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
Wuellner
Kuykendall
Criego
Absent
Present
Absent
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Chair Criego ordered the approval the August 26, 1996 Minutes.
4.
Public Hearings:
None
5.
Old Business:
None
6. New Business:
A. Case #95-080 ADRIAN AND ROBYN PORTER, REQUEST THE FOLLOWING
VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R-l (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SO
(SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT AND IDENTIFIED AS 3019 FAIRVIEW ROAD: A
32' VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 53' SETBACK FROM THE CENTER LINE OF CR 81
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85' SETBACK.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report dated
September 9, 1996.
Applicants 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 acce.ss
from Fairview Road. It has a 53' setback from the centerline of County Road 81 (Sunset Trail).
The hearing notice referenced a variance to impervious surface on the lot to insure all necessary
variances would be considered at the same time. The staff has since determined 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%. Therefore, a variance to
the impervious surface of the lot is not required at this time. It must be noted a variance to this
MN090996.DOC
PAGEl
provision will be required if the applicant wishes to pave the existing driveway. The staff
concluded the size and 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 other legal alternatives for
the location of the garage. Recommendation was to approve the requested variances.
The Commissioners discussed impervious surface.
Comments from the public:
Robyn Porter, 3019 Fairview Road SW, stated they had no intention of blacktopping the
driveway. The driveway is presently two-thirds covered with grass and applicants are not aware
of any water problems.
Comments from Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
. Applicant said they want the garage to store their car.
V onhof:
. The variance hardship standards are met in regard to the setback from the county road.
. The applicant attempted to impact the minimum size and utilize as much of the existing
driveway as possible.
. Access is not off Sunset Trail. The garage structure is below the road grade.
. No impervious surface issue.
. Support variance.
Criego:
. Agree with V onhof on variance request.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL ,TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE
REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT BASED UPON THE FACT THE FOUR VARIANCE
CRITERIA ARE MET.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall and Criego. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case #96-081 RICHARD AND SHERRY CROSS, REQUEST A 19 FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY mGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE OF
S6 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 7S FEET FOR TIIE 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.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report dated
September 9, 1996.
The applicants 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'. The applicant is therefore requesting a
MN090996.DOC
PAGE 2
variance to the 75' lake shore setback. The 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 of75' from the Ordinary High
Water level. Under Section 9.3 (D, 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.
Staff and the Department of Natural Resources recommends denial to the request.
Comments from the public:
Dick Cross, 3827 Island View Circle, stated their request for the variance was to add on
to a small home. Mr. Cross pointed out corrections in the report - Construction is a 16' x
18' room. The report also stated both houses on the adjacent lots are set back further than
the proposed addition. Applicant presented an aerial view of the peninsula and the
neighboring homes. The existing home has a 12' x 24' deck. The addition would be 4'
from the deck. With the addition, the impervious surface would be 18.6%.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
. Mr. Cross showed the neighbor's survey with their new deck addition.
. Side setbacks are 22.S' and the other side is 11'.
Kuykendall:
. Mr. Cross said it would be a full improvement and the addition would be 4'.
. No impervious surface issue.
. Sensitive to setback from the lake.
. No major problem with the request. There is a cement slab under the deck.
. There is reasonable cause for approval.
Criego:
. Applicant feels he might have 2,200 sq. foot living space.
. Not objecting to stay with the same deck space. Stay within the shell of what applicant has
now.
Open Discussion and Comments:
. V onhof: Setback averaging - Suggest applicant have surveyor indicate neighbors setbacks.
. Criego: Neighbors built within the existing shell.
. Kuykendall: The setback average is pretty reasonable. The encroachment is only 4'. The
actual square footing is the same. Criteria are met. Act in favor. Would like to see
applicant work something out.
MN090996.00c
PAGEl
. Mr. Cross said his neighbors' setbacks are 56' and approximately 70'. He will remove a
deck at the other end of the home as well.
. Criego: Stay within the 12' extension from the house.
. Rye: Survey did not indicate any existing decks.
. Kuykendall: Check and see if a building permit was issued for the deck. No legal argument
to go any further to lake.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996, TO SEE IF A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR THE
EXISTING DECK AND CONCRETE SLAB.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Vonhofand Criego. MOTION CARRIED.
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.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report dated
September 9, 1996.
The applicants 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'. 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.
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-l (Suburban Residential) and the SD
(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 comer 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 creek bed across the northeastern comer 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 of85' from the centerline of County Road 12. Since
the proposed structure does not meet this setback, a variance is required. There are also
several engineering concerns relative to any construction on this lot.
Staff concluded the size and physical characteristics of the lot are a hardship outside of
applicant's control. There are no legal alternatives for the location of the proposed
MN09Q996.DOC
PAGE 4
dwelling. Recommendation is to approve the requested variances finding the four various
hardships have been met.
John Wingard, Assistant City Engineer, said he has asked for more information from the
applicant but feels the outlet for the 20 acre pond goes through the vacant lot and drains into a
culvert which would be the front yard area. Applicant needs to provide more information
showing the edge of the wetland and how the drainage will work. The storm sewer would have
to be extended along the side of the home to provide an outlet for the pond. The City will work
with applicant but the normal policy is to pay for storm sewer facilities.
Comments from the public:
Don Pavek, with College City Homes, represented the applicants. Mr. Pavek said there are a lot
of contingencies with buying this lot, the first being approved variances. The delineator verified
it was a wetland however, he felt there is a possibility an exception could be done if applicant
worked with the Engineering Department. Applicants would like to get through the setback
stage. Mr. Pavek explained why the home was placed on the lot as proposed. The wetland
prohibits from building north.
Jim Winegar, 2591 Spring Lake Road, said he lives adjacent to this property and has lived on
Spring Lake for 50 years. He is concerned the culvert issue is properly addressed. The culvert
drains not only the marsh land but the marsh land is a receptor for 200 to 300 acres of drainage
land in the area. Another issue is on the high water line. The property is a foot or foot and half
above the high water line for the marsh land. The ordinance requires the footings cannot be put
below the high water mark. He also feels there is a safety issue, hammerhead driveways are
necessary for property along Spring Lake Road.
Kuykendall:
. Wetlands are creating part of the hardship and the physical size of the property.
. The applicants are willing to work with the engineering department.
. Supports staff recommendation.
V onhof:
. Cannot build any other way.
. No objections.
. Hardship criteria have been met.
Criego:
. Issues in the engineering report have to be met.
. Agrees with Resolution 96-32PC as stated.
. Hardships met.
Open discussion and comments:
Kuykendall: The driveway issue could be included in the conditions. Recommend City
Engineer look at the traffic safety issue.
Wingard: The 1994 traffic volume on Spring Lake Road is measured at 1350 trips per day.
This is marginal. Some of the houses on Spring Lake Road do have turn arounds. This area
MN090996.DOC
PAGES
where the house is proposed is located on a fairly straight section of road with very good
visibility .
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE RES. 96-32PC,
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 63 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTER LINE
OF COUNTY ROAD 12 INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING WITH ALL THE INCLUDED
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS.
Commissioner Kuykendall recommended the City Engineer to revisit site.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall and Criego. MOTION CARRIED.
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.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report dated
September 9, 1996.
The applicant 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.
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 all
structures have a 10' side yard setback. Since the proposed deck does not meet this
standard, a variance is required.
Staff concluded there is no undue or unnecessary hardship and therefore the Ordinance
criteria had not been met. Recommendation was for denial of the requested variance.
Comments from the public::
Tom Lubansky, 14915 Timberglade Circle, submitted a list of neighboring properties stating no
objection to the variance.
John Osness, friend and builder for the applicant, said the proposed deck is for an entrance to the
upper level. The applicants are making an upper living space for the parents with the lower level
for their daughter and family. This is the entrance for the parents.
MN090996.00c
PAGEli
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
. The closest point to the side yard is 6.7 feet. We have granted a 5' side yard variance in the
past. It does not encroach on the lake.
. The problem is the size of the large lot. There is not a big encroachment on neighboring
property .
Kuykendall:
. Mr. Osness explained the ground clearance as the shallow area being 4' and the slope is 6 to
6.5 feet.
. The elevation of the land is not reasonable use.
. Multiple family dwelling opens up possible problems.
. Rye indicated the special exception portion of the ordinance states "In Rl districts renting
out of an accessory residential unit is considered a permitted accessory use." That allows for
a "mother-in-law apartment".
. Osness said this is a privacy issue. There is access through the home.
. Added safety benefit with another exit.
. Approve variance.
Criego:
. Mr. Osness explained the sharp drop on the property to the home. A sidewalk occupies the
current space.
. The commission in the past has issued side yard variances on substandard lots. This is
almost three-fourths of an acre. It is possible to enter the addition through the home.
. Agrees with staff there are other alternatives.
Kuykendall:
. As an alternative, build a retaining wall and have a concrete walkway. A way to work within
the system is to build another wall. Reasonable and less expensive and add grade structure.
It is practical, the structure needs an entrance.
. Mr. Osness explained the problems of going through the home.
Criego:
. The 4 hardship criteria have not been met. If the floor plan was changed it could be done.
There may be a hardship with the interior design or a second family coming into the home.
But there are logical alternatives if the floor plan was changed to accommodate.
Rye said the definition of hardship is denial of the reasonable use of the property. There is a
single family house there today, it is legal and that constitutes reasonable use of the property.
The circumstance is giving rise to the need of variance is due to the desire of the property owner.
It is not a condition that has existed for years and years. One of the criteria for approving a
variance is whether it arises from circumstances which are not the actions of the property owner.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL TO APPROVE VARIANCE BASED ON THE REASONABLE,
PRACTICAL RATIONALE FOR ONE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION VERSUS THE OTHER
RESULTING IN THE SAME IMPACT. NO SECOND.
MN090996.DOC
PAGE?
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO DENY THE VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 6.77 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING.
DUE TO THE FACT IT DOES NOT MEET THE HARDSIDP CRITERIA. THERE ARE
OTHER ALTERNATIVES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhofand Criego. Nay by Kuykendall. MOTION PASSED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Commissioner Kuykendall will not be present for the October 14, 1996 Planning Commission
meeting.
The City has hired a new planner, Jennifer Tovar.
Rye said his proposal for the zoning ordinance is to run concepts through the Planning
Commission and present them to City Council. Staff will work out a meeting schedule.
The Commission would like to receive variance notices before receiving their packets.
As a body, the Commissioners would like to discuss policy and long range planning for 20 to 30
minutes at every meeting.
Any items submitted by applicants are the property and permanent record of the City. If
applicants walk into meeting and present different items than originally submitted to staff, the
applicants should re-submit an application.
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Vonhofand Criego. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
i!
MN090996.DOC
PAGES
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:,
SA
CONSIDER LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
RICHARD AND SHERRY CROSS (Case File #96-081)
3827 ISLAND VIEW CIRCLE
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATO~
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR .. U
_ YES --X- NO
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department considered this variance request on September 9,
1996. At that meeting, the applicant testified there is an existing 12' by 24' deck
along the back of the house, even though it is not shown on the survey. The
proposed addition would extend 4 feet beyond this deck. The Planning
Commission continued this item to September 23, 1996, to allow the staff to
investigate whether a permit had been issued for the deck.
DISCUSSION:
The house on this site was built in 1982. The site plan included with the permit
application does not show a deck. There are no other permits on file for this site,
except for a residing permit issued in 1995.
There was also testimony about the setbacks on the adjacent properties. The
staff also researched the permits issued for the adjacent lots. A variance and a
building permit were issued for the construction of an addition to the house to the
west of this property (3809 Island View Circle, or Lot 5) in 1995. This addition is
located 56' from the OHW, which is consistent with the location of the existing
deck on that house. In 1989, a permit to allow the construction of an addition to
the house to the west (3845 Island View Circle, or Lot 4) was issued. The
addition is located 76' from the OHW; however, the survey shows a deck located
about 70' from the OHW.
Section 9.3 (0, 2) of the Zoning Ordinance allows us to average the setbacks of
the structures on the adjacent lots. In this case, the average setback is 63 feet.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Since the proposed addition on this lot has a setback of 56', a variance is still
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. Furthermore, using the setback averaging
provisions, a smaller addition could be built without a 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 addition to the lake shore is inconsistent with
the intent of the Shoreland District to preserve the natural environmental
values of the existing lake shore.
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. The Zoning .
Ordinance requires the Planning Commission to act on this request within 60
days of receipt of the application. If the Planning Commission chooses to
table this item, we must bring it back for action on October 14, 1996.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
96081pc2.doc
Page 2
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.
Attachments:
1. Minutes of 9/9/96 Planning Commission Meeting
2. Building Permit Survey for 3827 Island View Circle (Lot 4)
3. Survey for 3809 Island View Circle (Lot 5)
4. Survey for 3845 Island View Circle (Lot 3)
5. Planning Report dated September 9, 1996
i'
96081pc2.doc
Page 3
~_~r:'utes of 9/9/96 Planning Commission Meeting
provision will be required if the applicant wishes to pave the existing driveway. The staff
concluded e size and topography of the lot, along with the location of the existing dwelling, are
a hardship 0 tside of the applicants' control. In addition, there are no other legal alternatives for
the location 0 the garage. Recommendation was to approve the requested v ances.
The Commissio rs discussed impervious surface.
Robyn Porter, 3019 Fa iew Road SW, stated they had no i ntion of blacktopping the
driveway. The drivewa 's presently two-thirds covered . h grass and applicants are not aware
of any water problems.
Kuykendall:
. Applicant said they want the g
V onhof:
. The variance hardship standards e t in regard to the setback from the county road.
. The applicant attempted to im ct the m imum size and utilize as much of the existing
driveway as possible.
. Access is not off Sunset ail. The garage s
. No impervious surface' sue.
. Support variance.
Criego:
. Agree with V of on variance request.
MOTION BY ONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL ,TO
REQUEST THE APPLICANT BASED UPON THE FACT
CRITERI ARE MET.
ROVE THE VARIANCE
OUR VARIANCE
Vote ken signified ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall and Criego. MOTION C
ED.
*
B. Case #96-081 RICHARD AND SHERRY CROSS, REQUEST A 19 FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY mGH 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-l (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND
OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 3827 ISLAND VIEW CIRCLE.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report dated
September 9, 1996.
The applicants 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'. The applicant is therefore requesting a
MN090996.DOC
PAGEZ
variance to the 75' lake shore setback. The 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 of75' from the Ordinary High
Water level. Under Section 9.3 (D, 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.
Staff and the Department of Natural Resources recommends denial to the request.
Comments from the public:
Dick Cross, 3827 Island View Circle, stated their request for the variance was to add on
to a small home. Mr. Cross pointed out corrections in the report - Construction is a 16' x
18' room. The report also stated both houses on the adjacent lots"are set back further than
the proposed addition. Applicant presented an aerial view of the peninsula and the
neighboring homes. The existing home has a 12' x 24' deck. The addition would be 4'
from the deck. With the addition, the impervious surface would be 18.6%.
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
. Mr. Cross showed the neighbor's survey with their new deck addition.
. Side setbacks are 22.S' and the other side is 11'.
Kuykendall:
. Mr. Cross said it would be a full improvement and the addition would be 4'.
. No impervious surface issue.
. Sensitive to setback from the lake.
. No major problem with the request. There is a cement slab under the deck.
. There is reasonable cause for approval.
Criego:
. Applicant feels he might have 2,200 sq. foot living space.
. Not objecting to stay with the same deck space. Stay within the shell of what applicant has
now.
Open Discussion and Comments:
. V onhof: Setback averaging - Suggest applicant have surveyor indicate neighbors setbacks.
. Criego: Neighbors built within the existing shell.
. Kuykendall: The setback average is pretty reasonable. The encroachment is only 4'. The
actual square footing is the same. Criteria are met. Act in favor. Would like to see
applicant work something out.
MN090996.DOC
PAGEl
. Mr. Cross said his neighbors' setbacks are 56' and approximately 70'. He will remove a
deck at the other end of the home as well.
. Criego: Stay within the 12' extension from the house.
. Rye: Survey did not indicate any existing decks.
. Kuykendall: Check and see if a building permit was issued for the deck. No legal argument
to go any further to lake.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE MA TIER TO
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996, TO SEE IF A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR THE
EXISTING DECK AND CONCRETE SLAB.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Vonhofand Criego. MOTION CARRIED.
C. e #96-082 CHAD AND TINA PAVEK, REQUEST A 22 FOOT V ARI CE TO
PERMI FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 63 FEET FROM THE CENTE E OF THE A
COUNTY OAD INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET FOR THE C STRUCTION OF
A DWELL ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RE ENTIAL)
DISTRICT THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT I NTIFIED AS 2610
SPRING LAKE AD.
Planning Coordinator ane Kansier presented the information fr the Planning Report dated
September 9, 1996.
The applicants are propos' g to construct a 28' by 6 dwelling on the vacant lot located
at 2610 Spring Lake Road. e proposed dwellin as a 63' setback from the centerline
of County Road 12 (Spring L e Road) instead the required 85'. The applicants are
requesting a variance of 22' to e required se ack. Based on the survey submitted by
the applicant, the impervious s ce of the t, with the proposed dwelling and driveway,
is 28%, which is less than the max um i pervious surface of 30% allowed by the
Zoning Ordinance.
Lot 29, Butternut Beach was origi ly tted in 1926, prior to annexation to the City of
Prior Lake. This lot is approxim ely 83' ep by 100' wide, for a total area of 8,357
square feet. The property is 10 ted within e R-l (Suburban Residential) and the SD
(Shoreland Overlay) district. e area and fro tage of this lot make it a substandard lot
under the current Zoning dinance. This lot is so considered a corner lot since there is
a platted road on the eas rn boundary of the lot. physical feature of this lot includes a
wetland and a creek a across the northeastern co r of the property.
Section 4.1 K of e Zoning Ordinance states the minim setback requirement for
county roads i easured from the centerline of the exist! traveled roadway. This
section req . es a minimum setback of85' from the center e of County Road 12. Since
the propo d structure does not meet this setback, a variance required. There are also
sever ngineering concerns relative to any construction on lot.
St concluded the size and physical characteristics of the lot are hardship outside of
plicant's control. There are no legal alternatives for the location the proposed
MN090996.DOC
PAGE4
f
I
!
~ 2 -'1 c..
r
~~ro?.'"
Building Permit Survey - 3827 Island View Circle (Lot 4)
- O~ v~
~~~/
..<,~/
~~f.~~/~ /
L \5:-,,"'0 -- ~ ..
----- 00
, '\\ ~t.
,.so ~o
~. \ ~ ~ 1-
~ ~.
+.
\
N
...-
, r, \
, '-,
1.-
-'7
-
_I
"'"
...- ~ ,
, r,,,
, 'J
..-
'\ Dc
\.... 0 ,~p..c,t
... 0 9,.P- 'i''-~ l'
... \\.,"'t"i i" 'i't?
\l ' ""E:.~
t",o;t
..~
LEGAL UESCRIPTJON
------ ~ --- /'
-~ ~ \.IE.
~ ~ 0 \..~"
~t\\Ol"' S\7.p~.."~90
t'" . .,00.& '
t\.E.\!'
;
, LOT of . BLOCK 1 '. ISLAND VIEW 2ND
tADD'N. ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT
7HEREOF. SCOTT COUNTY. MINNESOTA
, '1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TUIS SURVEY.
~LAN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR
;JJ.:DER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
A~ A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
I MTNNESOTA.
,'DATED THTS ~DAY OF ~. 1980
SCALE: 1 INCH. 40 FEET
~
INC.
*EXISTING CONTOURS ARE SHOWN
*100.0 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION
*(100.0) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATTON
*PROPOSED GARACE ELEVATION
*PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION ·
*PROrOSED LO~EST FLOOR ELEVATION-
HET
FEET
FP.ET
o
BOOK I PAGE
PROJECT NO.
80212
JAMES R. Hill, INC.
,
.
I
..;
Planners I EngIneers I Surveyors
8200 Humboldt A..nu. South
1/47
FILE NO.
:.
1;'1'\' !IF''-
""-,
,
I
I
I
j
f
f
f.)
I
I
I
I
SURVEY PREPARED FOR'
HOWARD OLSON
3809 ISLAND VIEW CIRCLE
PRIOR LAKE. MN. 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570
Survey for 3809 Island View Circle (Lot 5)
ft. Re". 2/20lfifJ To sIIo",'- _....01 odd'n
/0 IIIHt ~_ on wut .... oIto.-
ft'fI:'~24/95 To shown_ ~Iedadd'n
a se_".
, 1Ie,.II, cU"" ,...., """ _ wal prepared
by me or under m, direct sup..".... and Htat
, "'!l....pul, "........ L_ s.....,or _. ,,..
~f'" the S'o'. pf-M,nne.ofa.
/
,
----
---- -------
--- -------
----=.,5 LAND---VI EW--CIRCI.&----
,so.le
.
o
...
.~...
r.c..~.
N'. ...
e7"30'. !
_.85.30--
...., .- -
.,r.
DalVC
.... ~ ~..~,
EXI. TIN.
HOUSt:
IXlln".
HOU'.
VlIO IL. 9Z8.4
_.0
..I.T....
OOCK
~.
\..AI<E
PRIOR
gOZ6
DESCRIPTION:
EL.
5 1 IZ 1 94
Lot 5. Block 1, ISLANU VIeW 2ND ADDITION, Scott County, Minnesota. Alao ahowing
the location of all visible improvements and encroachments if any, and the
location of the proposed improvement.
~
NOTES'
Benchmark Elevation 914.41 top nut of the htdrant @ 3877 Island View
Circle.
92~.3 Denotes existing grade elevation
(9~.,J:!) Denotas proposed finish grades
---- ~ Denotes proposed direction of finished drainage
Proposed porch to match the existing house elevation
Net lot area above elevation 904 = 14, 106 sq. ft.
Total area of existing impervious cover
3,029 sq.
Total area of proposed impervious cover
3,818 sq.
o
I
SCALE
30
60
I
Net area of coverage will be 27_ 10 ~
IN
FEET
o Den". '/2 incll. '4lftcll rron
l1IOIlu_nt ..t _ morIl.d IIy
Llc..... No 10183
. Oeno'tt "on lftonUrnetlt Iound
. Oenot.. P K. Nail I.'
r /-
If- .;;,_. - ?
001. !-'8-t-i
FILE No
l) If-t
,J;tOJl U
O'fr ~"I).lb IYI ~y
p~J IJ/.Id (0
(If;l1f{\1 fl-?' t
fP .9- /
- J' ~,~ ~.
Lic.n.. No 10183
7972
BOOK~"AGE~
BUILDING PERM/r SURVEY
PREPARED FOR:
LAKELAND REMODELING
C/O PAUL MARKSTROM
/7730 LANGFORD BLVD
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
Survey for 3845 Island View Circle (Lot 3)
rr'lJ~p~~~f.' (.~',:;9)1. 4.;; 7~ Z570
447 - .~?41
/
/
/
-t,
/,/"
/"
/'
~/'
//
//
/ '
/' ,/
~V~ .11/7
CJ\~
/,
///
, ,/
/
/
~...,
."t/J'
. 11.",0 ",~f.\ 'bt.'J;'b
\5V" -:. ,," ',/ '" ,~, \'\ )-
~ ~.:;.:, \ // ('~~ .~, v'
,X ~ /
~~. /~A\ ~'" ~""".
.., ".-- .. \ /( '\ "'-, , ,,~!: '."'", 'fto '" /
_~ './I\",,-t PIS""" \,X V
____.... /( Y NOIISl -, \.-.:.....6' O~,
./r' wlO rL. . '" ..." ~.. "'6>+
\ ":; GARAGE 9'980 ",V' . ~" ',,( ~
. \ SlAII fL 9Z8. rG ,)" " . '"
\ '{ -...Y'l.0 " . .f. .
\ \ vy~ \ <J-o~ A" ,~, ;~,)
~,}< ';......~") " ,/ <\:"
~. \":. "J,. ,-:,.". '"
.; .... v /,<. '<..'
...\o.\}-../-!.., ,
~ ~<!'Ol ..,-:0\ "
'~:"1. \~~) ,
".0 \ . ... ,.,
. .p ~ \', \ :;
~.i.~ \"'-~ '\\ \ . 1
o..l. 'l"" ~:.
~P' ~~. "'~. / i ~~~t. J ./
)<3>:\ "'-\ :ft"'~l '~~",!~~o'/'
~ \'" '\ // //
,I. ///
'r/'" / ~
"'>~.Y
EX..TIIHI
_sr
(..
~
fJ?
,r/Y
pRIOR LAKE
EL 895.9
9/ 25/89
DESCRIPTION:
(.at 3. BLock 0...., ISI.AND 2NI) AIIIWI'WN, Bcott County, IlinnesutA. Also showing
th.. locatloll uC the 1','ul'o$IId ..ddltlon au ,,!;skud thlu 25l.h dut ut' Sept..mbe... 1989.
NO'l"~:,):
B.M, ~;L. 91/'.3'1 '1'01' d.. "I' aanita..y IIlftnhole II! s.~;. corne..
01' p..up"..ty.
.'! z denot..s existllll; g....d.. al..vatlon
, ... o~; denut.." l'"opulJed t'lllhlhed g..ade ..levatlon"
_- d..lIut.... l'''o(>08e<l dL....ction 01' u..rCr.ce drai..8ge
fi, ~i,
o 30 60
1.-_ -,
SCALE IN FEET'
o Denote. Iron morlUINf'If Ht
. Denotes Iron monumenf bJrld.
I ..,.., .,.f1fy 19ICIt "". -Ye1
-- prwpared by me or undw my
1Ir<<t ...,.", 'ttorl and IIIot I am
a eMy Llce...d L.ond Swwyor
undw !tie lawI at Itle Sta.. of
M1nnwota , .' '/)i ;
..~ ,. ~
J- 4' .0.. (~'t'''I(t-. "
Dot. ' '.. U-.. NO 10183
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 /J
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR '1JIr1L
_ YES ...L 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. .
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 9629PC.
-2-
SEC. 34 T: //5 R 22
nn: IS A C:::i:ut:.::t Df mow u
1:::1 Ifr::: 11 r:: s:m c=m
OFn::: t.i~::l;:"~ r.:I c:1 ~L
r.::: t:~:::::: ;~ r:; t! t::1 C:!of FU
r.:;:;:; E f_:::S ':;J T:i c.oi.:Io
1'1 I: ';:1 L;..i.;:.;~: '':'J ~~ La.
l:-:::;&:'..i6.J L;:'::3 C:::tf:J:::L
REPLAT OF'LOTS 1,2,3,4,5,&&
BLOCK 3 ISLAND VIEW 1ST ADO N
R A
sa
330
161 .437
..
. ft, KOHOUT
IS2 . 521
..
;
aT TO Ko..aUR.
,11.5.!
'Z.
LOC1{fl1)lJ.
..':r
-;;~?
La:..MJON MAP
L1<rD55 VAR1~E (q~-D81)
WILLIAIA J. SCHIiIOKEL
COUNTY SUIlVEYOR
SCOTT COUIITY. ".UOTA
S 34
L-
N
Q
'"
o
'"
..
i
"C
_.-
'u ....
MAY "'7
"All 1"7
OCT. I...
...... I'"
115 - 22
AUG-14-1996 17:22
JAMES R HILL. INC.
612 890 6244 P.03/03
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
For: DICK CROSS
TOTAL IMPERVlOUS= 2808 SQUARE FEET
(EXIS11NG AND PROPOSED)
LOT AREA= 15117 SQUARE FEET ~ /
PERCENT OF LOT COVERED: 0 C \; "
~~. E l8.6l1: ~ C ~ -a.
D \j\~;';-~
\ ~--- 0.:.0 "~a ~:'l--
- - '\ 1 ~ ~9~.
trQO ~~ '0
~ ~ 92.
./
931.7
- --
./ ~~v.:,.~
/' ..-&1.
~t-6-~ ~-
~~
-, L~
-
t,) \
()"'
U>>
~
d)o '"
~~
to. .0
~
~
~.
904 CONTOUR AS LOCATED
IN lHE FIElD ON 7/10/96.
Scale: 1-=30' Page 2 01 2
James R. Hill, Inc...
TOTAL P.12l3
Plaoomg Case File No. ~~ I .
Property Identification No. - - DaEO
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
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Penn it U'1\
Variance
Applicant(s): R-.\ChLLt~ L. L\.j~* ShOf(\-f K. Cf6:"<":.
Address: ~~d:7 lsla.nti \r~ ew C:"rvk. Pr,~ L AkA. :
Home Phone: Lf-t.! 0 ~ _<5 L/- 0)1 Work Phone: 0Z1.- 7 fc ( 5
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 611:x:.k. i Islaivl View ~hd A:A.~~t-\;()0
(Z 2.-5 I 5 q) 00 4-0 /
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
ap c tions will e proces ed until d ed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
g-u>-C?~
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
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
Date
Richard and Sherry Cross
3827 Island View Circle
Prior Lake I M N 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%.
~ ~
"1 ,
1" ,)
l ~j
.0 ..i~
l\ Ii;
S Nil
F -)'
~ f
i~l !
~il'~
~ ~L~
,)..~
~" , N~~
il ~ :
2
~ J ~
~ ~ I f ~i l)
~Ui~ .f ~~
f[~ ~ i& ~l
~~~~~ ~ ~
~~,~~ ~.li
~~
~,;[
:;>
~,~ :~ 'J
~: l~ -=rn~_-
ii ~~ ~,~
Bill
I__.~
;: Q
"
~
'~
?f
t
~
..
!:)~
I:-;~
.~
~
~
~
i
t
I
I
-,
- ,.1
I
--
I I
. I
; I
, I
, .
I
I
I
: I
,
; I
, I
, I
: I
---;:1
t
:
01 i
S:!.
i'l: 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.
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 OPPORTUNIlY 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-I (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 I, 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.
I,
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.
I
I,
I
S. 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.
i
I,
I
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 OPPORTUNITY' 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
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
96081 va\res9629.doc
2
SENT BY: DNR;
9- 5-96 10:46AM; 6127727573 =>
6124474245;
#3/4
Project Review Worksheet
DNR - Division of Waters / Metro Region
Projei::t Name
C ;e'IJS5
.s~c.-,'=::.
~N~
Affl.1C' A71o..u
Project Type (check all that apply):
o Preliminary Plat
OPUD
o Final Plat
~ariance
o Subdivision
o Other
DNR Jurisdiction (answer all):
Floodplain
(M.S.I03F.I01)
Yes No
o CJ
Yes No
SbardaDd .Ji{ Cl
(M.S.I03F.201)
. Yes No
Water Appropriation a Cl
(M,S.I03G.2SS)
PruIa:lJ;d Waters
(M.S.I03G.24S)
Ycs No
a 0
Conunents
Recommendations and Proposed Conditions
~ -k, ~- ,~-_~ ~4T~~'-
~:~~ =;;~ -5<~~~~ 'A;:./&._k -:=__~
~~I~~~ .m-w~~'c..
-4 J'C,..~~~ -1;_
is h-~&~:J ",/~ ~tfM'~
R..'6-r- L~.
Reviewer ~ ~ Titl. A.... ~"j.phon. .,.,...-~y 10
S .s-I '9.' ~
Date r' '"
.,.
, r
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:.
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
6A
CONSIDER FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE,
IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, AND
FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM CENTERLINE OF A
COLLECTOR STREET FOR JULIE AND PAUL
YTTRENESS (Case File #96-086)
2818 CENTER ROAD
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_ YES -X- NO
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996
The Planning Department received a variance application from Julie and Paul
Yttreness, who are proposing to construct a 67 by 23 foot dwelling with a 21 by
12 foot deck on the vacant lot located at 2818 Center Road. The proposed
dwelling has a 50 foot setback from the centerline of Northwood Road (a
collector street) instead of the required 85 feet (Section 4.1 K of the Zoning
Ordinance). The applicants are requesting a variance of 35 feet to the required
setback. The dwelling has a proposed front yard setback of 19.68 rather than
the required 25 foot setback (Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance) resulting in a
5.32 foot variance request. Based on the survey submitted by the applicant, the
impervious surface of the lot, with the proposed dwelling and driveway, is 31.6
percent, which is greater than the maximum impervious surface of 30 percent
allowed (Section 9.3 B ofthe Zoning Ordinance) in the Shoreland District. A
variance of 1.6 percent of impervious surface is being requested.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 4, Block 22 of Spring Lake Townsite is a plat that precedes the incorporation
of the city. This lot averages approximately 123.32 feet wide by 50 feet deep, for
a total area of 6,166 square feet. The property is located within the R-1
(Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. The area and
width make it a substandard lot under the current Zoning Ordinance. This lot is a
corner lot, with the front of the proposed structure (and thus the lot) facing
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Center Road. The adjacent parcel along Center Road is developed as single
family. The adjacent two parcels along Northwood Road are vacant.
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 20 feet wide and
approximately 84.5 feet long. The size of the building envelope limits the
architectural style of the proposed structure to be long and narrow. Given the
required setback from the centerline of the right of way of Northwood Road,
the building envelope is located towards the northeastern portion of the lot.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
Unique circumstances in this case are the substandard size of the lot (5,500
square feet) which was platted before the incorporation of the city, and its
corner location along a collector street.
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 location of the lot are hardships over which the applicant has no
control. The lot was created before the Zoning Ordinance.
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 on the lot 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.
MINIMIZED VARIANCES
The variance to setback from the centerline of Northwood Road can be
minimized by moving the proposed structure 9.23 feet towards the
northeastern portion of the lot (deck side). This reduces the variance request
to 40.77 feet rather 50 feet which is being asked for. This also would bring
the structure beyond the minimum of 25 feet setback from the front yard,
which would be the requirement if the lot was cornered on two local streets.
96086pc.doc
Page 2
The impervious surface variance can be eliminated if the applicant removes
approximately 98 square feet of lot coverage. This may be accomplished by
reducing the amount of pavement on the driveway. The front yard setback
along Center Road can only be eliminated if the applicant chooses a dwelling
with a smaller footprint.
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:
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. However, the variance to
setback from the centerline of Northwood Road can be minimized by placing the
house 9.23 feet towards the northeast corner of the lot, making the sideyard
setback along the deck 10 feet. Also, the variance to impervious surface can be
eliminated if reductions to the driveway are made. The staff recommends
Alternative No.1, with the minimized variances as discussed.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 96-34PC.
96086pc.doc
Page 3
, ,
Plann;ng Cas. F;I. No. iJ..&-DKh .
Property Identification No. - J 33 - ~ -/
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~)
to (proposed zonin~)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
sheets/narrative if desired);-, . ~
d/AJ6-LE ~LY OWez.LIAlt5 ; ~/4N'ceS
.
~erx..l/R6t) : kk12r/J'au.s G(/~~
t5 /fT JI,~ /0
der,(fMC{L 6I<J AJ"~~l>
MLJ (J,c ~~ ~ee-r.
Variance
Applicable Ordinance Section(s): 1-.1 ~-~ ,~.~
~~ ~ ~ I
vi . ../) b I
Property Owner s
Address:
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee
'5V/ u..t:r
ff/ - 269/ .
le ( ~,
Applicant(s):
Address:
Home Phone:
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
Lor "f/ .lJL.f)U 22 ~ S~kA6- ~ 'njuJAls",.n:r-
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
appli tions will not be processed until deem complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
CO I ~ 'l \ ~ l-f)
Date
g-;p-%
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
',~,I
I iT. I
, I
~
~i,lt-
:~I ~I
5 I
i
\
8J
! ~
--------'
,
~--j ~-;-~
,
~i
~ Ii ~
I i II ; i >
, I F'~--
II! ijl" I '
I:t--T- -- L -L:1
, ,
'~
-)
-,1.;~ ,1': ' ,
,_I.
~
\JJ
~
4.
J
,~.-.>.
..
z.-
a..
c(
:e
z
o
-
~
o
9
~
~
<
~
~
~
8:
Cf.)
r-
r-
o
(,)
(/)
lL.
o
>-
L.....
(
I
SURVEY PREPARED FOR
KEN WILLIAMSON
23476 FRANCE CIRCLE
LAKEVI L LE I MN 55044
~
o
L
SCALE
30
f.ot4, l~k).;k /.;..
!()Cdt.:"OC' !'"'l'
Valley SurveYIng Co., P. A.
SUIT/: /20-C, 'i', -" FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE 16..:: I 447 - 2570
910.7
~..4
_.5
IXIS"N8
-.or
W/O EL.
"',00
~
":...:.'"!.'~.::_:.'"
...0
NlYl'E:i' r\(~,,"'''' ,"., , '''''"U0I' '11',.'1" tnfJ "'It hyd ::il'; wad NOt'thwnod 10 Center :.ltreet
:';Pt-tING L I\i'\ I'; l'OWN~';l'i'''~, ;,;('ott COllnty, Minnesota. A!~ shewing the
..I.'iJl.:,:;P(1 i-lu(i;tl()I1 ~l~i ::t.tkt~J thi.:i 'LIth da')' 01 '\l~ust, 19<Jb.
911. oQ I )f':!Int~.'! FIX i stinq (It:''ttc1e t.? ~ ('~'l03t i 01'1
~
( (J~'LD "~!U()t".:; plq.o.Qef1 l tlll:~hkJ jl."l\J~ .~Jeviltion::
60
I
IN
FEET
o 0.""'.. 1/2 .,eI.. 14 mcll .,on
_, Nt _ _.d by
llc..... No .0183
. Otonot.s IrOft mOllumeft' fOUltd
. Denol.s P tc NQt' s.'
I~r;;..t..~:-; L.)l'''.I(JVSf.x.ll,jlr.~~ctl'jl' Ii . .lllShl!d surtal:e draifla<j~
3et tho> p"o(JOsed gat''''ln "~ab 'It "lcvatlon 914.54
ejet th" .,..oposed top block at elevation 914.87
iL.-O Idwe:.c :-l()l,)t" l.~lf~""citl,...11 \oJll! L"JIt". dt 'Jll.b!>
N~ t. 1..;L .'\[~<.'
\\, Ibb :kJ. tt.
",;..t ~A.):.~,...Xi 1iHl:'Pl"\,i,o,lI;> .OO,''''f,hlt' 31.6 'to
........
~
\-..
~I-
"~~...
,t,."
'jl
J:
o~o 10:
O~
\
'4',
'i<J
""..H
~:~
_t.t2
~
:.....by cert,fy _ ,,,.. ....., _ ",...,
by me ,., _ my direct .......... __
, - 0 liJIy ,'c......, ..- _ tilt
bW81lf tilt S'","'"
/'./
0..,. 1!> - "30 - ~c.. llc..... No, 10183
"'Il! No
8393
800K
211
....6E~
BUILDING ENVELOPE
~ )
; i 11
~ .:
I
I
. I
"'I
~I
, I
! 89'6S
\
\ \
\
\ \,
\ '\,
~ \
\
~ \ \
\
\ \
~ \
~o
- \,
\
\
\
~ \
\ y~ \
'\ ~v /
," \\ /~O'
// ..0
\
\
\
\
\.
\
\
)A.
",
... .
...
co /--""'"
~<?~ /'<\
,/ / \
~~~- - / ~
~y / \\
~P~/ ,/,/
,,,,,,
/
///'
\
\
z~ -
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES:
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 50 FEET FROM THE
CENTERLINE OF A COLLECTOR STREET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET;
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE OF 31.6% RATHER THAN
THE MAXIMUM 30% IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED;
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 19.68 FEET RATHER THAN
THE REQUIRED 25 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 2818
CENTER STREET.
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 23,1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
Julie and Paul Yttreness
13150 Harriet Avenue South #396
Bumsville, MN 55337
PROPERTY
OWNERS:
Daniel J. Karg
16940 Lyons Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
2818 Center Street, legally described as Lot 4, Block 22, Spring Lake
Townsite, Scott County, MN.
REQUEST:
The applicants are proposing to construd a dwelling on an existing lot which
will have a front yard setback of 50' from the centerline of the Northwood
Road instead of the required 85 feet, a front yard setback of 19.68 feet rather
than the required 25 feet, and the total impervious surface of the lot will be
31.6% rather than the required maximum coverage of 30%.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construdion 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.
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 OPPORTUNI1Y EMPLOYER
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: September 13. 1996
96-082va\96082pn.doc
2
RESOLUTION 96-34PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 59.23 FOOT
SETBACK'FROM THE CENTERLINE OF NORTHWOOD ROAD INSTEAD OF
THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD
SETBACK OF 19.68 FEET FROM CENTER STREET TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Julie and Paul Yttreness have applied for a variance from Section 4.1 K , 4.2, and 9.3
B of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family
dwelling with attached garage and deck on property located in the R-l (Suburban
Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following
location, to wit;
2818 Center Road SW, legally described as Lot 4, Block 22, Spring Lake
Townsite
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #96-086 and held hearings thereon on September 23, 1996.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
5. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property,
and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located.
The unique circumstances applicable to this property include the substandard lot size,
the fact that the property was platted prior to the incorporation of the city.
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 proposed
structure 'without variances.
7. The contents of Planning Case 96-086 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 for the proposed single family dwelling with attached
garage and deck;
1. A variance permitting a 59.23 foot setback from the centerline of Northwood Road
instead of the required 85 foot setback.
2. A variance permitting a 19.68 foot front yard setback from Center Road instead of the
required setback of 25 feet.
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 23, 1996.
William Criego, Chair
A TIEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Directoro
1:\96var\96086va\res9634.doc
2
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
6B
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 9633PC
CONCERNING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS 1 AND 2
SEE ATTACHED
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES ...x NO-N/A
SEPTEMBER 23,1996
0tZ
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION: The City Economic Development Authority has set a public hearing
for October 7, 1996 to consider modifications of Development Districts 1 and 2. The
details of these modifications are spelled out in the attached report. Minnesota Statutes
449.126, Subd. 1 requires that the Planning Commission make a finding that the proposed
expansion is in conformance with the " general plan" of the City. The general plan for
these purposes is the Comprehensive Plan 2010.
DISCUSSION: The issue is whether the proposed modifications of the two development
districts is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Both areas are commercial and
industrial in nature and are designated for such use on the Land Use Plan element of the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition, staff believes the modifications are consistent with the
following policies:
. Encourage a mixture and diversity of industrial and commercial land uses that will
remain relatively stable under changing economic conditions.
. Establish and maintain an economic development and redevelopment program
through support of the Economic development Authority and its goals.
. Encourage and provide for the revitalization of the City through the development or
redevelopment of existing and new commercial and industrial facilities.
. Increase employment opportunities.
. Strengthen the City tax base.
. Support broad-scale community development activities USIng available and
appropriate financing to fund the public redevelopment cost.
In addition, the Plan by Neighborhood section of the Plan for the Prior South area states
"Encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses and upgrade the uses that were
developed before contemporary design standards were adopted."
16200 891~~~l S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Resolution 9633PC
2. Deny Resolution 9633PC
RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 1
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to approve Resolution 9633PC
REDEVCH.DOCIDR
2
RESOLUTION 96-33PC
RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE PLAN FOR MODIFICATION OF
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS NOS. 1 AND 2 CONFORMS TO CITY PLANS FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOCALITY AS A WHOLE
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, the plan for Development Districts Numbers 1 and 2 Modification ( the
"Plan") has been submitted to the City Planning Commission pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 449.126, Subd. 1; and
WHEREAS, the Prior Lake Planning Commission has reviewed the Plan to determine
conformity of the Plan to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the municipality as a whole (the Comprehensive Plan
2010)
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA that the Plan for Development
Districts Nos. 1 and 2 conforms to the general plan for the development of the
municipality as a whole and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Plan
to the City Council.
Passed and adopted this 23rd day of September, 1996.
William Criego
Chair, Planning Commission
Attest:
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
16200 ~e~Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER