HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 28, 1996
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1996
7:00 p.m.
I. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. CASE #96-098 KELVIN RETTERA TH IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT
YARD SETBACK OF 18.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-l
(URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED AS 16520 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE.
B. CASE #96-101 HOLIDAY STATION STORE REQUESTING MULTIPLE SIGN VARIANCES
FOR THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 16800 DULUTH AVENUE.
C. CASE #96-089 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 5 (ZONING REGULATIONS) AND TO
THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6 REVISING THE DEFINITION AND THE
ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT IN THE
SHORELAND DISTRICT
D. CASE #96-099 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-4-1 (C) OF THE CITY CODE
AND TO SECTION 4.1 (C) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 5' SIDE
YARD SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN THE
R-l AND R-2 DISTRICTS
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Appeal of Hillcrest Homes, Inc., for a decision of the Zoning Officer relating to setback
averaging.
B. Appeal of Dave Smith for a decision of the Zoning Officer relating to setback averaging.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 ~~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota ~172-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 1996
1. Call to Order:
The October 14, 1996, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Criego at 7:05 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Wuellner, Stamson and Criego,
Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording
Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Wuellner
Kuykendall
Stamson
V onhof
Criego
Present
Absent
Present
Absent
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Correct Jenni Tovar's name in the first paragraph.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECONDED BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996, MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Criego and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED.
4. Public Hearings:
Chairman Criego read the Opening Statement for Public Hearings.
A. Case #96-097 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONING OF
LAND FROM A-I (AGRICULTURAL) AND C-l (CONSERVATION) TO R-l
(SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) FOR THE MARK HYLAND PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3520 154TH STREET.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report
dated October 14, 1996.
The applicant is requesting a zone change to the R-l district to allow for future
development of this site. At this time, no specific plans for the property development
have been submitted, although the applicant has indicated a potential townhouse style
development. Two-family dwellings and townhouses are a conditional use in the R-l
district. The criteria for granting a zoning change include the following:
MNIOI496.DOC
PAGEl
1. There was a mistake in the original zoning.
2. Conditions have changed significantly since the current zoning was adopted.
3. The Comprehensive Plan has been amended.
Any of these criteria can be used to evaluate a request for rezoning.
The "Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan" for the City of Prior Lake, adopted in 1982,
designated this area as "Agricultural". The A-I and C-l districts are appropriate for
designation. However, with the adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan in June, 1996,
this area was added to the Municipal Urban Service Area and designated as R-L/MD.
The R-l district is an appropriate zoning district for the R-L/MD designation.
The Planning staff believes this request meets criteria #2 and #3. The addition of this
property to the MUSA is a significant change. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan has
been amended to include the area in the R-L/MD designation. Staff recommendation was
approval of the zone change as requested.
Comments from the public:
Timn Jacobs, 4883 Gettysburg Avenue, New Hope, represented Integrity Development.
Mr. Jacobs said he will be working with the Planning Staff very closely to make sure all
concerns especially the storm drainage, wetlands and tree preservation issues are met.
Kyle Schroeder, 15557 Highland Avenue, stated his concerned for the noise with the new
development. He would like some type of noise abatement with this development and
said he is willing to work with the City to resolve the noise problem. Mr. Schroeder is
not in favor of any additional development in Prior Lake until the noise issue can be
solved.
Mr. Rye said he was not aware of the process working through Scott County. (County
Road 83 is a county road.) If there is a noise issue it would have to be some type of
cooperative area with the residents, Scott County and Prior Lake. He suggested to start
with Scott County and then bring up the issue at a City Council meeting.
Tim Bothof, 15120 Foxtail Trail, said he would like to see the area remain a single family
development as opposed to a multi-family dwelling. He supported The Wilds
development and the future development of single family to the south. Mr. Bothof owns
6.4 acres and hopes his property would be changed to Rl in the future.
Tom Hoff, 15200 Foxtail Trail would also like to keep the area single family. Foxtail
Trail is a private road maintained by Mr. Bothof and himself. Mr. Hoff questioned what
will happen if his road goes public.
MNtOt496.DOC
PAGE %
Mr. Rye explained generally when someone is developing property, the developer is
responsible for the improvements to the property. If the road is not part of the
development they really can not do much with it.
Tim Bothof questioned if Wilds Parkway will come through this development. Rye
explained the proposal at this time is for a zoning change on the property.
The public hearing closed at 7:34 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. No comments
Wuellner:
. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
. Supports the request with adequate utilities and road access for the rezoning.
Criego:
. The 2010 Plan calls for residential area on that side of Prior Lake.
. The Metropolitan Council has approved the area for development.
. The City wants a well done development. RI is basically single family and does
allow for multi-family.
. Based on certain terrain, slopes and wetlands sometimes multi-family dwellings are
more appropriate.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON, RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL THE AFPROV AL OF THE 27 ACRE PARCEL ON COUNTY ROAD 82
ZONE CHANGE FROM A-I (AGRICULTURAL) AND C-I (CONSERVATION) TO
R-I (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Stamson and Criego. MOTION CARRIED.
s. Old Business: None
6. New Business:
A. LINKAGE OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AREAS.
Don Rye presented the information from the report.
At the September 23, Planning Commission meeting, one of the agenda items dealt with
the expansion of the Redevelopment Districts containing the Downtown area and
Priordale Mall. During the discussion, Commissioner Kuykendall expressed concern over
MN10I496.DOC
PAGEl
the lack of a direct visual connection between the two areas and the seeming lack of a
plan to deal with this issue. Staff indicated the issue would be reviewed and a
recommendation brought back to the Commission.
While the Comprehensive Plan contain policies relating to commercial development, only
one seems to address the concern expressed by Commissioner Kuykendall. That policy
states "Establish a theme for positive identification for redevelqpment of existina
commercial areas in focal locations includin~. but not limited to. Gateway. Downtown
and Priordale." While this policy does not speak to a direct physical or visual connection,
it does encourage the development of a common theme for the major commercial areas
which would serve to tie these areas together in peoples' minds if not visually. This
policy mayor may not be considered sufficient for the intended purpose.
Currently, there is not a Redevelopment Plan for the redevelopment districts. Staff
believes such a plan is necessary to provide more detailed guidance for the redevelopment
areas than is provided in the Comprehensive Plan. It would be appropriate for the
Commission to recommend to City Council such a provision be included in any
redevelopment plan for the Downtown and Priordale Mall areas.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PRIORDALE MALL AND
DOWN TOWN AREAS INCLUDING A PROVISION FOR VISUAL AND
FUNCTIONAL LINKAGES BETWEEN THE TWO AREAS.
Vote taken signified ayes by Stamson, Wuellner and Criego. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
. Park Nicollet Clinic is getting ready to submit a building permit.
. Send DRC status report to Commissioners.
. No word on the County Road 12 update.
. The work schedule on the Zoning Ordinance was handed out.
. Suggestion for annual training activities for commissioners. The idea is to increase
the level of technical understanding on planning commission issues.
The Commissioners met earlier with Pat Lynch, the hydrologist from the Minnesota
Dept. of Natural Resources and discussed the following topics:
. The duties of a hydrologist.
. Brief outline of the shoreland district.
. Impervious surface.
. Pat will work with city on combining lots of record.
MNtOI496.DOC
PAGE 4
· The problem with combining lots of records is that it creates numerous variances. It
is a bigger issue with unsewered areas. High impervious surface areas, storm water
drainage.
· Dock regulations - seasonal docks are not regulated. 5 or more boats on a lot is
considered a marina. The distance going out from the shoreland is not regulated.
Some rules are regulated by the County. Permanent docks require permits.
· Driveways to lake - have to meet standards. 12' on a private access - 10' wide.
· Boathouses
· Aquascaping: natural vegetation shoreland vs. turf and sand.
· Chemical applications for weeds are governed by the fisheries dept. Any chemical
treatment must have a permit.
· Septic systems
· Concern for building space - side yard variances.
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING.
The meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
MNIOI496.DOC
PAGES
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, FOR
DAVE YEARLING AND KARL YNN BENSON
(Case File #96-098)
16520 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER Jpr
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_ YES .lL NO
OCTOBER 28, 1996
The Planning Department received a variance application from Dave Yearling
and Karlynn Benson, who are proposing to construct a 22 by 48 foot residential
addition. The ground level of the proposed addition will be a garage and the
upper level will be living space consisting of a bedroom and bathroom. The
living area of the addition will be attached to the existing structure over the front
entry. The proposed addition has a 18 foot setback from the Inguadona Beach
Circle right of way rather than the required 25 foot setback (Section 4.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance) resulting in a 7 foot variance request.
DISCUSSION:
Inguadona Beach is a plat that dates back to 1924. This lot has 75 feet of street
frontage, averages approximately 162 feet deep, and has a total area of 25,670
square feet. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and
the SO (Shoreland Overlay) district. The lot width makes it a substandard lot
under the current Zoning Ordinance, however all other setbacks are being
maintained. The adjacent parcels on either side of this lot are developed as
single family dwellings. The property to the east is setback approximately 30
feet, and the property to the south is setback about 20 feet.
The purpose for the size of the addition is to provide a garage to accommodate
three vehicles. Because the lot will not accommodate this size of garage in lot
width, the applicants are proposing to accomplish this with a deeper garage, and
hence, the variance is being requested. The size of the garage area is within the
allowable accessory structure size. The total impervious surface with the
proposed addition is 16 percent.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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 55 feet wide and
approximately 46 feet deep. The size of the building envelope is adequate
for the addition. It is the existing location of the dwelling unit that brings
about the hardship. This lot is an inside corner lot with a curve of about 80
degrees. The building envelope reflects this curvature.
The hardship resulting from literal enforcement of the ordinance is that the
applicant would not be able to build as large of an addition a desired. To
remain in compliance with all ordinances, the applicant would have to reduce
the size of the addition by 7 feet in the front.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
Unique circumstances in this case are the substandard width of the lot which
was platted in 1924, its corner location, and the location of the existing house
which was constructed in 1900 and remodeled in 1991.
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 shape and width of the lot and location of the existing structure are
hardships over which the applicant has no control. The lot and dwelling were
existing prior to the adoption of 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. The existing structure is
setback 17.7 feet from the street right of way. Because of the corner
location, the addition will appear to be in line with the adjacent structure. A
variance in this case will not be contrary to the public interest.
96086pc.doc
Page 2
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. Staff recommends Alternative
No. 1 with no additional conditions.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 96-35PC.
96086pc.doc
Page 3
".'
1))rn @ rn ow rn ~
OCT I I 1996
,\
"./
Planning Case File No. j~.-- Oq~
Property Identification No. ::2.5 ~ 01.s--0/;)"d
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~) PJ20f05~D APDJTIOH O~ ~e-
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance AHt? e,W f2DDJ'1 I 8ArH -I- ~az{'/Se
o Subdivision of Land Sif7At~ .Ir;PO vf; . E.N~~().5/N 6 OF
o Administrative Subdivision (3,'/.ISTJHG f(),flL,ff feJl!- 6;"i1{1..Y rr- {,/II/N6.
o Conditional Use Permit SG~ Ptu;UrtINfrf'-Y {)F-JrwIN6S.
t'<;( F- 'rl..O )J i '{ 1It(2. () SeT P, t+c-/c 1/ tA- fl-{ -4 .vi C e
ICl Variance Applicable Orainance Secfion(S):
o Other:
Applicant(s):
Address:
Home Phone:
KaVIN fl-errt'flArH
~ 18 61"OvC L.N H ()()J..IfJ, MN S53 6 t..f
~) 1-31'7 7 Work Phone: 37/-f}15j
Property Owner{s) [If different from Applicants]: OAv6 Ye/rfLJ,JNb I KAR.L YNtI e~~tJJ{
Address: / (p 5). 0 ,1'1 bUAf} ()NA BOrt.-tf GjJ!(.,/..,t;
Home Phone: 4~7- e~/~ Work Phone: 8'1S- ,S5QD
Type of Ownership: Fee x Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement___
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
see SUJZ,vey
To the best of my knowledge the information provided 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.
J () -8 -9 (p
Date
to, 'I ,tj &,
Date
Tms SP ~E 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
lu-app2.doc
Date
RetterathIB ens onN earling Variance
Variance #96-09
to Allow Front Yard Setback of 18 Feet
"p.t..f-
~\O~
/'
3 4
6 5
2
7 8 I
- ~
.
3
.,-
.,
Neighborhood Location Map
w
,.
~
i:s:
~~
..,..,
~,..
CO
~~
1"_1"'1
~~
,.,,.,
<".
,."
~~
"''''
r>.:l ~..
",...
6i....
NU'
:'l
;V
~. - -~ :>
-:J
..z ...
~6 n
CIl
;: (')
:Jo..
r
r'l
~
.,...
:5
0 ,8
:n
:>
~
~::--..
~
I ~~~
~ -'- -::::--.
~~.
0--..
-..;::""-
- ---..
~~
'",7 -.~~...
~ '-~ ~-....._~
......~.......~
"'~
'" '~~
',,~ \~
'\ "
\, \;\
. '\'
\ ,\\
\'~
\ \\
\ \~
\
~
o
z
'"
-'-i
9. if :
~. ~
t:lg.:::!
0.'< ~
~ g "
fi~
Co~
f' ~
a,~
~. i
~r v.
i"?
~~
~ c..
'''''= ':T
e '<
~ -
" =
" ~
Q.-
~ -
: ~
ifa
b~
a .~
=,~
i~
nil
a~
~ ~:
= "
~ &.
p ~
z
a
~
~
:r.
...
=
..,
'"
'"
-;
.
! /
Q /
; '- /
:;;/-___ S08'31'S'
3 ---__!20002 W
---
--
/ --
,I
>'.
$,1//
/
//
/// ,,/
\, ,
,
\.
...~
.
i
Q
;
S.24,' ..........~:?o
:6' S. '.
56,93 ____ ~ /
/,.. '/' "--':' ~
~"'G:'<z -.. - ;
""~,. '-....
v~ .
~
: I
I
lD
,.,
Z
l""l
J:
<:
>-
"
"
~
"
i:
~
<:
,.
~
i<
,.,
..,
....
....
::l
:;;
t
---;-
oli
~'i
H.
g
3
"
\
\
I
I
~ ~!"':- ....oj
~~:I):.r.i'~
mm
"'d"~~
mw
1 Ii 1 i~'
II l'J. f
~~~
....e.;::
~ ="1':
1f~ ~
Pi
3
'"
mm~
~!i~i-~ ~
mr
.::... ~ ~ ~
?f;~
~m
~ ~~. ~
~;!f
itl~
~
..
..
~
t
..
c.
v.
F:
;;
-.
~
~
.~
[
c-
Co
~.
;;-
Co
~~~;
-,
\
/v /
/y
,// ,,<\.\
.,-,:1..c:::)' ~/ (;) I
1:>' \
\
\
\
\
.\
!, Vl
~\_e
\o.N
\0':::
\LT'tJ'I.
\ ::;
\
I
\
I
,
" ;;
,
"-
'"
i
:8 ~
... >-
"
-<
J:
"
J:
i
i
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
I
_____J
~J""--
:!l
'"
<
'"
-<
~~
;.~
.~
,~ ::t.:
~<
~~
~
~
~
j.
15
'"
~
,~
"
-=
i5'
~
~
~
t;;
~
~
~
~
~
>
:S
Ii
;::~
n::::
~ :II.::l
~~
~:s
..<:
,;.~
-~
~
i~
~<
~~
.......
~~
~
;;'~
~~
;~
~~
~:-'
~
~
...
i
=-
~;g
~~
~~
\,
lIlVl
,.,J:
"0
~~
~~
~~
."
-"
~Si
~
>-
"
,.,
>-
"
,.,
>-
<3
~
o
Z
>-
:c
-<
Q
~
OM
'"
<:
!;
'"
r~
'"
~
o
III
o
~
r
I
T - - _. ,- - ~!-
I ~-.w".~ --~--~'-5-----'JJ I
If' "Zl
I'
I==:#.:~g>p- J-
: 1--,.jf~ I_'..
, r
c...:.', I
-.:>. . t
t-:=: I
I
!
~
'.
C-r-
.-r
I
I ,
It. ,~:)..
1-' ...J .-,~' - j~"'''~f~
I \' ~_.=._:: -" \ '~-~
t- - - - -
. LV:I11
-----
,
L--------l
U f' p~ L--tX ~
11'"" . -- -
;ll"!
,I.p
-;0.0
..-.... .
...or' -
_-0
- -:1
.1
,
I
~ _--I
-~,j~.
"0:
GI\lVt&\; .- -. -I ·
~: - i ,- ---l' ~. ~
I! I P
I., I
i I . i
.. i i i
L._ __" (_ _ _~. I I
--I~
I
I
I
j.
.~.
I
I
~I Ii ~\{tL.
:~::7~'-:::-'===~::"'.'
'.~~-..""".--;-_.
- ..- ", .,;."
. .
'-"~
.ra
_-_f"
'JIlI:'Ci 'ID m
. l}l~ .;". i;5-::~!;,:
.'_ _ ',...~ .;.iI~ ~ ~ .4#'
. _ _ __' -. ." .i'it' .
$?:i'- r. V ~1...j
I
::r
~
~
BUILDING ENVELOPE
PRIOR
LAKE
~
/~~-
,;::::;:?:/ /
//~
#~;/
~
4
;
/II
=
~
,"
/ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
/ 904
--....;
1
I L
o
l~
J
/I
'/
/
'f
ON( $leRY
FRAIoIE "AlJliour
DM'WNG
//,'~E
/' ~
/ ~C
/ <9~
/
i
,: ~"
~
~"
#
~
~"'.~ ...- ,'AAI\!~;;~"'
:J.
GRAPHIC SCALE
,.
.
~-
, -
,.
,
~
..
I
00
( IN ~'EET )
1 inch;:!O fl.
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE:
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 18.00 FEET RATHER THAN
THE REQUIRED 25 FEET
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1
(URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED AS 16520 INGUADONA BEACH 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, October 28, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
Kelvin Retterath
2618 Grove Lane
Mound, MN 55304
PROPERTY
OWNERS:
Dave Yearling and Karlynn Benson
16520 Inguadona Beach Circle
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
16520 Inguadona Beach Circle, legally described as Lot 13, EXCEPTING
from said Lot 13 the following: Starting at the Southeast comer of said Lot
13 and running thence Northerly along the East line of said Lot 15 feet;
thence Northwesterly to the Southwest comer of said Lot; and thence
Southeasterly along the South line of said Lot 13 to the place of beginning;
AND the West half of Lot 15, AND all of Lot 14; INGUADONA BEACH, Scott
County, MN.
REQUEST:
The applicants are proposing to construct a residential addition with garage
on an existing lot which will have a front yard setback of 18 feet rather than
the required 25 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
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
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: 10/15/96
,
I
,
,
i'
2
96-082va\96082pn.doc
RESOLUTION 96-35PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD
SETBACK OF 18 FEET FROM INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE RATHER THAN
THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 25 FEET FOR A PROPOSED GARAGE
AND RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Dave Yearling and Karlynn Benson have applied for a variance from Section 4.2 of
the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a garage and living area
addition to existing 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;
16520 Inguadona Beach Circle, legally described as Lot 13, EXCEPTING from
said Lot 13 the following: Starting at the Southeast comer of said Lot 13 and
running thence Northerly along the East line of said Lot 15 feet; thence
Northwesterly to the Southwest comer of said Lot; and thence Southeasterly
along the South line of said Lot 13 to the place of beginning; AND the West half
of Lot 15, AND all of Lot 14; INGUADONA BEACH, Scott County, MN.
1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #96-098 and held hearings thereon on October 28, 1996.
2. 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.
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,
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
3. 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.
4. 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
addition without this variance.
5. The contents of Planning Case 96-098 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the
Ordinance Code this variance will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null
and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variance has failed
to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of
contemplated improvements.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and
approves the following variance for the proposed residential addition with garage;
1. A variance permitting a 18 foot setback from the Inguadona Beach Circle instead of
the required 25 foot 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 October 28, 1996.
William Criego, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\96var\96-098va\res9635.doc
2
~..
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4B
CONSIDER SIGN VARIANCES FOR OUTER SPACES,
INC. (SCOTT EGERER) FOR HOLIDAY COMPANIES
(Case File #96-101)
16800 DULUTH AVENUE SE If"
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER [>1
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES l NO
OCTOBER 28, 1996
'"2:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Outer Spaces,
Inc. (Scott Egerer) on behalf of Holiday Companies, who are currently building a
new station store and pump islands with a canopy at the southeast corner of
HWY. 13 and Duluth Avenue. The property is zoned General Business (B-3).
The current improvements to the site are permitted uses under the Zoning Code.
The proposed signage does not meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance,
thus the following variances are being sought:
ON THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE (STATION STORE):
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIGNAGE ON A WALL FACING A PUBLIC STREET
(HWY.13) OF 384 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIGNAGE
OF 200 SQUARE FEET;
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIGNAGE ON A WALL FACING A PUBLIC STREET
(DULUTH AVENUE) OF 208 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED
SIGNAGE OF 146 SQUARE FEET;
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT 208 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE ON A WALL (SOUTHERN
SIDE) NOT FACING A PUBLIC STREET. WHERE NO SIGNAGE IS ALLOWED;
ON THE CANOPY:
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIGNAGE ON A WALL FACING A PUBLIC STREET
(HWY.13) OF 392 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIGNAGE
OF 78 SQUARE FEET;
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIGNAGE ON A WALL FACING A PUBLIC STREET
(DULUTH AVENUE) OF 186 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED
SIGNAGE OF 37 SQUARE FEET;
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT 186 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE ON A WALL (SOUTHERN
SIDE) NOT FACING A PUBLIC STREET, WHERE NO SIGNAGE IS PERMITTED;
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT 392 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE ON A WALL (EASTERN
SIDE) NOT FACING A PUBLIC STREET, WHERE NO SIGNAGE IS PERMITTED.
DISCUSSION:
The Sign Ordinance defines a sign as "Any written or graphic announcement,
declaration, demonstration, display, illustration, insignia, illumination, or
message-bearing device used to advertise or promote the interest of any person
or persons when the same is displayed or placed out-of-doors in the view of the
general public, on a pylon, exterior wall, or building surface, or inside of a
building within three (3) feet of a transparent window. A sign shall be considered
as a structure or a part of a structure for the purpose of applying yard and height
regulations except as herein stipulated."
The permitted sign area is stated to be the following "...the total area of
permanent wall signs shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the area of the total
front; provided buildings over three thousand (3,000) square feet of floor area
may add one (1) square foot of sign space for each one hundred (100) square
feet of floor space over three thousand (3,000) square feet" and "...no individual
wall sign may exceed two hundred (200) square feet and no wall sign shall
project from the building line more than fifteen (15) inches."
Furthermore, the parcel has two fronts, one on HWY. 13 and one on Duluth
Avenue. Section 7.8 of the Sign Ordinance allows for "...permitted sign area for
each street frontage." Based on this information, the applicant is allowed 200
square feet on the building facing HWY. 13 and 78 square feet on the canopy
side facing HWY. 13, and 146 square feet of signage on the building facing
Duluth Avenue and 37 square feet on the canopy facing Duluth Avenue.
The applicant is requesting the following:
96086pc.doc
Page 2
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Such action is not contrary to the public interest;
Illuminated signs are very popular in commercial districts. They are a direct
way of getting the attention of the general public. The granting of this
variance may be contrary to the public interest because of the precedent the
variance will set. The sign ordinance was intentionally written to not allow
banding of walls with internal or external lighting. To grant the variance
would be to deviate from the intent of the ordinance.
2. A defined hardship exists due to unique characteristics of the property
that warrant special considerations;
A hardship resulting from unique characteristics of the property are those that
the applicant has very little or no control over such as topography, bodies
of water, natural vegetation, or even possibly an adjacent property's effects
on visibility. In regards to the Holiday Station Store, there exist no unique
characteristics to the property that warrant special consideration. The land is
not greatly sloping, nor is an adjacent property is blocking visibility of the
property, nor are there trees on the site which would affect the sign visibility.
Therefore, there is no defined hardship relating to the property to warrant
special consideration.
3. The property owner does not have reasonable sign display area without
the variance;
The applicant is allowed signage on both fronts of the building (facing HWY.
13 and Duluth Avenue). The applicant is also allowed signage on the canopy
walls facing these same streets. The total display area allowed is 461 square
feet. The amount of signage on the sight seems to be very reasonable
considering they have two front yards and two principle structures from
which to display signs.
96086pc.doc
Page 3
4. The variance is not being requested solely on the basis of economic
considerations.
The variance is being requested so that the illuminated bands on the building
and canopy are visible in the evening. The purpose of the extra lighting is to
attract more customers in the nighttime hours. This is an economic reason
for the request.
5. The variance will result in sign display area that is consistent with the
display area of signs on adjacent properties.
The adjacent properties are Dairy Queen and Marquette Bank. Both have a
free standing sign, no colored bands around the buildings, and no illumination
other than the signage that contains lettering and company logos. A recent
evening survey of the signage at existing gas/convenience stores produced
the following results:
NAME/LOGO SIGNAGE
If the applicant reduces the illumination to just the area behind the Holiday name
and logo, but not to the white, red, and blue bands, then the following area would
be the result:
96086pc.doc
Page 4
..(i.)i...U'~Oi~l1l.qgq~p!y
...
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 granting of the variances do not meet the intent
of the sign ordinance and are not in the best interest of the public. There are no
unique characteristics of the site, and the sign area allowed is reasonable given
that there are two fronts and two principle structures from which to display signs.
Signs on adjacent properties meet the current code and do not include
illuminated bands. Staff recommends Alternative No.3.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 96-36PC, denying the requested variances.
..
96086pc.doc
Page 5
OUTER SPACES, INC. (Scott Egerer)
Sign Variance for Holiday Station #96-101
to Exceed the Maximum Allow Signage
-t-
o
~~E CRE~I~8' JI '
. ~~, <ffi ~~.f.~ ~
PRIORy(OOD
I
'-
~ STREET
"
~ - r
---~' I<J J I ~
_ .- - - IS',,~ \1'l"'ri \~I" ,. .
-;__ Ifr~
~ .
fJr rsEJ f1EI c:m t8D.~~
i I I
7 a 9-1
. I ;
. . I
10
II
12
/3
6
~ 7"RA:IL
5
UNITED STATE~,
POSTAl. SEilVIC\
3 15
16
~
. I
I
I
I
!
m.
2 C
PR:CRDAL:: M<\L:"
'-
J. BROOKS HAUSER
, I . I
~ A :::\J!VI D
f <r
f.1 \-----
iCS I \...--~t..~ ____.
.
o
Neighborhood Location Map
612.339.3722
fax 339.2391
Suite 1204
810 Thornton Street S.E.
Minneapolis. MN 55414
October 11, 1996
Jenni Tovar
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Dear Ms. Tovar:
On behalf of the Holiday Companies, we ask the city to consider our request for variance
regarding the under construction Holiday Stationstore at 16800 Duluth Ave. SE in Prior Lake.
As illustrated in our approved building plans, the illuminated fascia wrapping three sides of the
building and four sides of the canopy is an architecturally integral design element.
Our desire to provide a clean illuminated, and safe appearance for our customers and for the
neighborhood is achieved by this design.
Please notice that our Highway 13 competitors (EZ Stop and Amoco), currently illuminate both
building and canopy fascia.
Weare proud of the design and function of our stores and believe that a favorable response to
our request would observe the spirit of your ordinance and would not be contrary to public
interest.
We ask for the opportunity to complete the construction of the new store as planned.
y~~-
Scott Egerer
cc. Joel Geil
. . ~ ~I. : ~\l:\l
-. t J <
SUOIII?^913 ; I i I
JOlJa~ I I m III Ii II
1\.- I ~ 91 I I I III
N~ '3>1\11 tJOU:Jd @iiil tili
m~ IIi!
86 ~ # 3l:101SNOl1 V 1S I\.~~R;:~I\.
if 14=1 ! I I @
ijll :1 isM\ I! ~I , I~
I.I~ ~ rlIW~ ,2 I- 'i I~
;UII; hi; i(1 Ii ~ii I~ :~f
Uh Ii ilii III !l hi d IiI
\ jl
'~ \ i '
h - ~~~7\ & 11
I ~ \...( - ------ ----,. /) ~ ~
u~ V :~
"~ .
. ni i~!
t 2 ~i~m~ _ "
Ij Iim!! Ill!
~ -~;~ill a~ ~
, .z ~:..,
~ ::;;
l~!i: ~ ~
I ,! ,'! r
, I~I i!bU
~I! !;I lIIiII
~
\~ h
~~ 6'
:'lJ I ~
(/ u~
- Oil
~i ~ II ! I q!!!J
~i I ,~ ~ 5 ~ ~te (EI
t ~ t ~I i ~ & ~ i~ =~
U9 ? ~ 2 i ~U ~9
Id q~~~ i
JTj] ;U I~ ;
LbW,u Ii ~~ ~I/~ ill I
~~
J.
.' .
~ ~
~ s
!~ !
uL'
~ !l1~' I
; t i i "t' 'it!~ i
!I ;1; HUI;! n !d!
h !~! i rid- ~~! Blf
d J c : d& H~ Rh I:
e e 0 I & j U! 8 ~
I
I d t [
!!: il h
till ~o~ ~
I'll fT
II n~
n
0- "
.
"
,! H~ ~ l!~ II r
If ~o~ ir l,t
il ~f i ~I
II lilt I
1M; f
II!
ill
lit
b;
~~ I ? I
i i ?
. . ~: ~:
r f
~ ~~ f ~~
P i II - I II';
I r:t I r:t
Lll i .~ I .1I
-. ." .~ =':
.
~
~
~
eee
ot
i~~
:f5f~ ole
", tt
~ J' II:!
g88R~"
...~
::::,. I
! if . t
I.:lf 1I
IJ ,1.1,
ai'
.. if
In Ii ,-
j
I,U
_Nt
~iIila ',,' t
210. \ I a:
i ~ ~ '-,
!3; ~I\l \', .~
=_ I:N C'\1Il
i,Hf!! '" $
XiI ,.,ll!
11 .
!!i i
Ji' ~
IN~ '00
lIi~1ll i
N:~)t
i <:-q
Iii ~
~"11Il ~
j{ 1
_ c!
~
1
,8
I
j'
J
<-~., ," "~ +-
. .~.-.
I, ~ ~
~ 9!' i
ail1ill 1111 i I
Y!iPHHWHIi
r" ti Ii .... ! + 0
-/I.
N .c I '
..lca~
aN~
".....
Q ~ .:.
,I.': :; :;
:3 07 07 : I~
S \_, 1"'\
..' V " V
v Q e
~--------
-- -
-:-
-
-
-
..........
..........
.......:.
,.
..- "..
,
,--// \_",-
/
,~
' . '.
.
J
.
\ \ J
\ J
q~
f' r
1. ~~r~1
~L.
:'1191-'
en Rj..~
UIlld 9lIS _~.1 J III II! :~
)~bilh ~ ~'IIII ~I
t 11&:.1 '" J .... -...., V I ClUU::Id It! !Ill
~ ~ B6~# 3~OlSNOIIV1S I~!if:~
. ~ ~en ..IIi ~
1J f,f.'Y
5'Y~"
D
I~ I . r~,~ &
Ii f i ;111111
:,'! ;,1 t/!illl
~,r ',.j. i'."fil!i
d 'II ~~ If. II dl~~ ji
i i~s II a ~aJf,,~ d
~~
\Vli
/---
-....
/ ....
~// 1f ".....
/
/<1 (?
II 4'" p..
\ <I 7" <I
... ,...---
I --
I
I
I
I
,
\
c-'\
Q'
Q'
~\
,
,
\
\ .
,
\
, .
. ~
~------
----
------
1
.J,.
~ n
. - \:
~ f-
C :> ~
r -==;j
ltR
~ ,~
Vi "
\-- '-
VI-f?
"'f)
\I'J
- ...-
---- '266.l\-~
c.o7.e',tT'tlE
~ ,v Ar"t'l
soO'ftl
01
I()
LANE
"
~
r
d
s I ,
t ~ I
i ~ f ~
I Ii ! '" I I ,I
~ftl 1 I ~~! I ~~ ! t
Jif~ t i q ~a t p a I I
Iltl~ 'lit. i~ill ~ I I !:
lllll/llil'llll;i!,il' ill Ii I I
IlllIllllIII,IJII'II!!l!'lllllllll :
~
II
u
"
---~.;;-~
:.
t-i'~--- ~- --..
(3,
~i
b ,~:
!! i'g'
=,
,=,
9
:~
L_
..
::
I
I
i
1
LI
,
, '
L.~j
..
I
I
~
I
I
r
- J
..
z
o
i=
<
>
W
...I
W
~
(/)
W
~
.(
--1':~~ :- -"'-1
1(31
; I
:. I
~
I b gl
~ "!I
.. @I ~
l!l i=
LL] !
'-io--
,.,
z
o
i=
<
>
W
...I
W
:r:
~
::l
o
(/)
ci
f:11
L__,____ "
r-T- ;--
, ! ~
I
I
b
io>
...
b b
: ~
b
io>
...
: " !
U'I:
_L___
I
I
1
~I
01
-I
~I
~!
Wi
>-i
a.,
0'
zl
51
i
I
:-1:; ~.
f--- 1,-----1 1,
b : I
.. i i
L__ ;____ I
I I
L'X.J
~I
g,
~
=
~
g
;I;:
tli
I
I
z
o
i=
~ ~
~ ~
W
:r:
~
a::
o
z
U
z
o
i=
<
>
W
...I
W
:r:
~
::J
o
(/)
U
z
o
i=
<
>
W
...I
W
~
(/)
W
~
ai
!
(/)i
Z,
Oi
i=
~
W
...I
W
c:>
Z
0'
...I'
-'
::l'
m'
!
II~@ ~ !!i i
- i;ol I
.....J !;:: I <(
o I~lz
r. ~ I~I~
~I ~ ,!;Iil !
.~i <( 010' !
.............. a.. ': z! i
i-iI en I~ I~I' ~I
~~ tv' i< ~ I
., u.. -. >-,0
W W CDI W
I- ~ ~I~i
:J ,~~I~i
O !=j"la..i
iU. OJ <(I
r-------i=
i Ii>
, ' ~
I J~
[__I
en
a:::
o
-'
o
u
IIli
lit
g=
I~
IIli
en
-'
<(
I-
W
o
=:!;
u
en
<(
u.
I"
c.
II'
i~
~~
~'i
a~
.,
0':":
c"
a.:c
U:lJ
0;:
!cv
!i~
l~~
ltO
. .
K~~
~!
c'
-~I
,u.
v:~
"D'
!;~.
11:>-
C.I
'cE
~;~
..0.
'011
Ec.
~aO
'Ct!'
-,D
'-E
~I.
..VI
:01
o
z
j:aj
Iq:
o~=~
g ~~:a
~ cO!.!
; 01110'
~ ~~ a~
WI ~.I>_
IE co. c .
W 01E'0
II ll(,Z
~ 'l~j:
::l ~'"E
Z ~o?1I
.. ->})
~ ii!~
.. lIllVO
0.( iKJII
I .Z
. ~~=J
:i j;'Ol
~ !ic(
lICil
t m.
o "i~'O
01 ~;aa
O!!i
'l:::: Z:,,~
.c::: >iC~
W IB'i
I- ~i~:l
en .hi
iiC.
\... a.v(~
r o~ 'J
en ! o~ >
0.0_4
Building 52' X 96' )t l.-{ ~'\
Holiday legend on one side
\) with striping on four sides.
(;
~ Note: qnly three sides are illuminated
I
\
~
~
~
l'~
~
~
I.,,:
C
.~
~
~
'"
1"'/7
>-
as
:2
(5
J:
D
00
Holiday Prior Lake
ChileI' Spaces, Illc.
,{epIIOH C} I ~
"
Canopy 112' X 52' )<.. l.-J:1.
Holiday legend on three sides
with striping on all four sides
Note: All four sides are illuminated
>-
Cll
:2
"0
J: .
a~
HolidayC} I 'ia"
Holiday Prior Lake
()utcr Spacc~. Inc.
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
t1(o-tO I
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (61.2) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zoninl:) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zoninl:)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
~ance
ILL U H I tV A-rrtJ ( A1JtJ /J'y f-
~~, A-S(j~
Sl.=--r..-- ,,/; 7J1-YC
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
o Other:
Applicant(s ):
Address: 1,
Home Phone:
~c c 7/ E7;L,:p'--7'C
U/~ ;/::PI, CJ
Work Phone: c3' J , - 3 J ~.:2..
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address: HOLI.[)~ CONPJlrf-.JIc-3 J..jS(.7 t)" 8~[?-1 Sf IHrL<) f1JV 5S~/10
Home Phone: .J7)(: L- ('?l:-JL Work Phone: g- t?tJ - g-gg. '1
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 provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
additio~e read the vant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
apPlica~ ill not be oc sed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
---- ItJhtJ /9' V
.
Date
IUa ~J
~ Owner's Signature
Jojl9'9'~
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
lu-app2.doc
Date
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING SIGN ORDINANCE VARIANCES:
ON THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE (STA nON STORE):
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIGNAGE ON A WALL FACING A PUBLIC STREET (HWY.13)
OF 384 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIGNAGE OF 200
SQUARE FEET;
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIGNAGE ON A WALL FACING A PUBLIC STREET (DULUTH
A VENUE) OF 208 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIGNAGE OF
146 SQUARE FEET;
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT 208 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE ON A WALL (SOUTHERN
SIDE) NOT FACING A PUBLIC STREET, WHERE NO SIGNAGE IS ALLOWED;
ON THE CANOPY:
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIGNAGE ON A WALL FACING A PUBLIC STREET (HWY.13)
OF 392 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIGNAGE OF 78
SQUARE FEET;
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIGNAGE ON A WALL FACING A PUBLIC STREET (DULUTH
A VENUE) OF 186 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIGNAGE OF
37 SQUARE FEET;
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT 186 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE ON A WALL (SOUTHERN
SIDE) NOT FACING A PUBLIC STREET, WHERE NO SIGNAGE IS PERMITTED;
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT 392 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE ON A WALL (EASTERN
SIDE) NOT FACING A PUBLIC STREET, WHERE NO SIGNAGE IS PERMITTED.
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, October 28, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
Outer Spaces Inc. (Scott Egerer)
810 Thorton Street, Suite 1204
Minneapolis, MN 55414
PROPERTY
OWNERS:
Holiday Companies
4567 West 80th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55440
SUBJECT SITE:
16800 Duluth Avenue SE, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2,
BROOKSVILLE CENTER 2ND ADDITION and that part lying northerly of Lot
2, Block 2 and westerly of Lot 1, Block 2, BROOKSVILLE CENTER 2ND
ADDITION (also known as Dairy Queen Property), Scott County, MN.
96-082va\96082pn.doc 1
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
REQUEST:
The applicants are currently constructing a new building and canopy on their
existing site located at HWY. 13 and Duluth Avenue. As a part of the
project, new signs are being proposed. The applicants are proposing signs
that are larger than allowed, and are proposing signs on the site that are
otherwise not permitted, thus requiring several variances.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed signs and requested variances against the
following criteria found in the Sign Ordinance.
1. Such action Is not contrary to the public interest;
2. A defined hardship exists due to unique characteristics of the property that warrant special
considerations;
3. The property owner does not have reasonable sign display area without the variance;
4. The variance Is not being requested solely on the basis of economic considerations.
5. The variance will result in sign display area that Is consistent with the display area of signs on
adjacent properties.
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: 10/15/96
96-082va\96082pn.doc
2
RESOLUTION 96-36PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR OUTER SPACES, INC. (SCOTT
EGERER)/HOLIDA Y COMPANIES FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES
FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE:
ON THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE (STATION STORE):
1. A VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIGNAGE ON A WALL FACING A PUBLIC
STREET (HWY.13) OF 384 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIGNAGE OF 200 SQUARE FEET;
2. A VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIGNAGE ON A WALL FACING A PUBLIC
STREET (DULUTH AVENUE) OF 208 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIGNAGE OF 146 SQUARE FEET;
3. A VARIANCE TO PERMIT 208 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE ON A
WALL (SOUTHERN SIDE) NOT FACING A PUBLIC STREET, WHERE
NO SIGNAGE IS ALLOWED;
ON THE CANOPY:
1. A VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIGNAGE ON A WALL FACING A PUBLIC
STREET (HWY.13) OF 392 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIGNAGE OF 78 SQUARE FEET;
2. A VARIANCE TO PERMIT SIGNAGE ON A WALL FACING A PUBLIC
STREET (DULUTH AVENUE) OF 186 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIGNAGE OF 37 SQUARE FEET;
3. A VARIANCE TO PERMIT 186 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE ON A
WALL (SOUTHERN SIDE) NOT FACING A PUBLIC STREET,
WHERE NO SIGNAGE IS PERMITTED;
4. A VARIANCE TO PERMIT 392 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE ON A
WALL (EASTERN SIDE) NOT FACING A PUBLIC STREET. WHERE
NO SIGNAGE IS PERMITTED.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Outer Spaces, Inc. (Scott Egerer) on behalf of Holiday Companies has
applied for variances from Section 7.7 of the Sign Ordinance to permit
illuminated signage on three sides of the building and four sides of the
canopy exceeding maximum sign area allowed on property located in the B-3
(General Business) District at the following location, to wit;
16800 Duluth Avenue SE, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2,
BROOKSVILLE CENTER 2ND ADDITION and that part lying northerly
of Lot 2, Block 2 and westerly of Lot 1, Block 2, BROOKSVILLE
CENTER 2ND ADDITION (also known as Dairy Queen Property),
Scott County, MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as
contained in Case #96-101 and held hearings thereon on October 28, 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 currently exists and sign area is granted under the Sign
Ordinance.
5. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances
would serve merely as a convenience to the applicants, but are not
necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
6. The granting of this variance may be contrary to the public interest because
of the precedent the variance will set. To grant the variance would be to
deviate from the intent of the ordinance.
7. On the property, there exist no unique characteristics such as topography,
bodies of water, natural vegetation, or even possibly an adjacent property's
effects on visibility that warrant special consideration. Therefore, there is no
defined hardship relating to the property to warrant special consideration.
1:\96var\96-098va\res9635.doc
2
8. The applicant is allowed signage on both fronts of the building (facing HWY.
13 and Duluth Avenue). The applicant is also allowed signage on the canopy
walls facing these same streets. The total display area allowed is 461 square
feet. The amount of signage on the sight seems to be very reasonable
considering they have two front yards and two principle structures from which
to display signs.
9. The variance is being requested solely on the basis of economic
considerations.
10. The variance will not result in sign display area that is consistent with the
display area of signs on adjacent properties. The adjacent properties have a
free standing sign, no colored bands around the buildings, and no illumination
other than the signage that contains lettering and company logos
11. The contents of Planning Case 96-101 are hereby entered into and made a
part of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
requested variances.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 28, 1996.
William Criego, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\96var\96-098va\res963S.doc
3
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4C
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE
DEFINITION AND AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE (Case File #96-089) ~.
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
..A- YES _ NO
OCTOBER 28, 1996
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance to revise the definition of Impervious Surface. The second part of the
amendment is to allow an increase in the amount of impervious surface on a lot
of record with the use of special techniques.
BACKGROUND:
The current definition of Impervious Surface is "the portion of a buildable parcel
which does not permit water to percolate into the natural soil.. Subject to the
following exemptions, these structures and materials shall constitute impervious
surfaces: buildings; paved driveways and walkways of greater than three feet
(3? in width; paved patios; covered decks and other structures. The following
structures and materials shall be exempt from the calculation of impervious
surface; decks or patios which are open to the sky and have open joints of at
least one-fourth inch t 14') allowing percolation of water; paved walkways or other
structures of three feet (3') in width or less. All such structures and materials
shall be documented by a certificate of survey unless exempted from this
requirement by the Zoning Administrator. "
At a recent meeting, the Planning Commissioners discussed whether or not this
definition included gravel driveways. While gravel driveways will become
impacted and effectively impervious with frequent use, the definition includes
only paved driveways. The Planning Commission then directed staff to prepare
an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would include gravel driveways
96089pc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNI1Y EMPLOYER
as impervious surface. The proposed amendment is shown on the attached
draft ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed amendment revises the definition of impervious surface to include
"all driveways and parking areas, whether paved or not". This language
recognizes that gravel driveways become impacted with frequent use and are
effectively impervious. It also takes into consideration the fact that there are no
permits required for paving a gravel driveway, so a change in the driveway
surface does not change the amount of impervious surface on a lot.
The second part of the amendment changes the amount of allowable impervious
surface on existing lots of record to forty percent (40%) with the use of specific
stormwater management practices; These practices include the use of grass
filter strips, dividing impervious surface into smaller areas, and grading and
construction techniques which will encourage rapid infiltration of runoff.
The staff is proposing this change as a response to many of the variance
requests over the last two years. A survey of variance requests to the
impervious surface in 1995 and 1996 showed nearly all of the properties were
substandard lots. The Planning Commission approved variances allowing from
31.6% to 45% impervious surface coverage. The proposed language is
consistent with those variances, and sets specific standards for reducing the
impact of the increased coverage. This amendment will also help to counter the
effect of including gravel driveways in the definition of impervious surface on the
smaller existing lots.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendments as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendments.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendments.
96089pc.doc
Page 2
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Language
2. Summary of Impervious Surface Variance Requests
3. Hearing Notice
4. "The Importance of Imperviousness" Article
96089pc.doc
Page 3
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 96-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 5-1-7 AND 5-8-3 (B,1) OF PRIOR
LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTIONS 8.1 AND 9.3 (B,1) OF PRIOR
LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
Sections 5-1-7 and 5-8-3 (B,l) of Prior Lake City Code and Sections 8.1 and 9.3 (B,1) of
Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 5-1-7 and 8.1 are hereby amended by deleting the existing definition of
Impervious Surface, and adding the following definition:
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: The portion of the buildable parcel which has a covering
which does not permit water to percolate into the natural soil. Impervious surface shall
include, but not be limited to, all driveways and parking areas, whether paved or not,
sidewalks greater than 3 ' in width, patios, tennis and basketball courts, swimming pools,
covered decks and other structures. Decks open to the sky and having open joints of at
least one-fourth inch (1/4 '') and sidewalks 3 ' in width or less shall be exempted from the
calculation of impervious surface. The impervious surface of a lot shall be documented
by a certificate of survey unless exempted from this requirement by the Zoning
Administrator.
Sections 5-8-3 (B,1) and 9.3 (B,1) are hereby amended by adding (b) (1-4) as follows,
and renumbering the succeeding provisions:
(b) On lots of record, existing as of the date of this ordinance, impervious surface may be
permitted to a maximum of forty percent (40%) providing the following techniques are
utilized as applicable:
(1) Impervious areas should be drained to vegetated areas or grass filter strips through the
use of crowns on driveways, direction downspouts on gutters collecting water from roof
areas, or some other method approved by the City.
(2) Dividing or separating impervious surface area into smaller areas through the use of
grass or vegetated filter strips such as the use of paving blocks separated by grass or
sand allowing infiltration.
draftord.doc
PAGE 1
(3) Use of grading and construction techniques which encourage rapid infiltration such as
the installation of sand or gravel sump areas to collect and percolate stormwater.
(4) Install berms to temporarily detain stormwater, thereby increasing soil absorption.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of
. 1996.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
. 1996.
Drafted By:
draftonldoc
PAGE 2
95/96 Impervious Variance Requests
Case #- Impervious 0/0 I Lot Area Action
95-01 50.00010 6,686 Denied
39.00010 Approved
95-02 36.000/0 4,898 Denied
95-07 33.40% 7,513 Approved
95-012 32.90% 16,007 Approved
95-015 35.000,,'0 10,035 Denied
32.00% Approved
95-016 35.000/0 10,414 Approved
95-020 45.000/0 5,000 Approved
95-022 40.000/0 5,009 Approved
95-025 42.000/0 6,516 Withdrawn
33.00% Approved
95-030 30.800/0 9,579 Denied
96-017 37.000/0 5,198 Approved
96-071 34.00010 8,648 Withdrawn
96-086 31.600/0 6,166 Approved
Average Lot Area= 7821sq. feet
Average Impervious Granted= 35.90/0
770/0 of requests were on lots less than 10,000 sq. feet.
920/0 of requests were on substandard lots (less than 12,000 sq. feet).
620/0 of the requests were for impervious coverage at or less than 350/0.
920/0 of the requests were for impervious coverage at or less than 400/0.
Page 1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE
5 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE CITY CODE AND TO THE PRIOR
LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6 REVISING THE DEFINITION AND THE
ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON A RESIDENTIAL
LOT IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of
the intersection ofC.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, October 28,1996, at 7:00
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider
the following amendments:
1. An amendment to Section 5-1-7 of the City Code and Section 8.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance revising the definition of Impervious Surface to include gravel
driveways and other compacted surfaces as an impervious surface;
2. An amendment to Section 5-8-3 (B,l) of the City Code and Section 9.3 (B,l) of
the Zoning Ordinance to allow an increase in the amount of impervious surface on
a lot of record as of the date of this ordinance with the use of special techniques.
The specific language of these amendments is available at the City of Prior Lake Planning
Department. If you wish to be heard in reference to this item, you should attend the
public hearing. Oral and written comments will be considered by the Planning
Commission. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the Prior Lake
Planning Department at 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
Prepared this 9th day of October, 1996 by:
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON OCTOBER 12, 1996
1:\96zoamnd\imperv\96099pn.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
. .
.
.~'li"...~fi1iMr:t
.~
.ch :r-
.
Impervious cover is a powerful indicator affuture stream quality
The I.mportance of Imperviousness
T ~e emerging field of u:b~n watershed pro tec-
uon often lacks a umfymg theme to guide
the effortS of its many panicipants-planners,
engineers, landscape architects, scientists, and local
officials. The lack of a cornman theme has often made
it difficult to achieve a consistent result at either the
individual development site or cumulatively, at the
watershed scale.
In this article a unifying theme is proposed based on
a physically defined unit-imperviousness. Impervi-
ousness here is defined as the sum of roads, parking
lots, sidewalks, rooftops, and other impermeable sur-
~"",.:~~~~ faces of the urban landscape. Thisvari-
able can be easily measured at all scales
of development, as the percentage of
area that is not "green".
This research has yielded a
surprisingly similar conclusion-
stream degradation occurs at
relatively low levels of
Imperviousness (10-20%).
:f.Ill'll\"'~~~~""'"~~
Imperviousness is a very useful
indicator with which to measure the
. impacts of land development on
aquatic systems. Reviewed here is the
scientific evidence that rellltes imperviousness to spe-
cific changes in the hydrology. habitllt structure, water
quality and biodiversity of aquatic systems. This re-
search. conducted in many geographic areas. concen-
trating on many different variables. and employing
widely different methods. has yielded a surprisingly
similar conclusion-stream degradation occurs at rela-1
tively low levels of imperviousness (10-20%). Most'
importantly. imperviousness is one of the few vari-
ables that can be explicitly quantified, managed and
controlled at ellch stage of land development. The
remainder of this paper examines in detail the relation-
ship between imperviousness and stream quality..
The Components of Imperviousness
Imperviousness represents the imprint of land de-
velopment on the landscape. It is composed of two
primary components-the rooftops under which we
live, work and shop. and the transport system (roads,
driveways, and parking lots) that we use to get from
one roof to another. As it happens, the transport com-
ponent now often exceeds the rooftop component in
terms of total impervious area created. For example.
transport-related imperviousness comprised 63% to
70% of total impervious cover at the site in 11 residen-
. tial, multifamily and commercial areas where it had
actually been measured.^ This phenomenon is ob-
served most often in suburban areas and reflects the
recent ascendancy of the automobile in both our cul-
ture and landscape. The sharp increases in per capita
vehicle ownership. trips taken. and miles travelled
have forced local planners to increase the relative size
of the transport component over the last twO decades.
Traditional zoning has strongly emphasized and
regulated the first component (rooftops) and largely
neglected the transport component. While the rooftop
component is largely fixed in density zoning. the
tranSport component is not As an example. nearly all
zoning codes set the maximum density for an area,
based on dwelling 'cinits (rooftops). Thus. in a given
area, no more than one single family home can be
located on each acre of land, and so forth.
Thus a wide range in impervious cover is often seen
for the same zoning category. For example. impervi-
ous area associated with medium density single family
homes can range from 25% to nearly 60%, depending
on the layout of streets and parking. This suggests that
significant opportunities exist to reduce the share of
imperviousness from the transport component.
Imperviousness and runoff
The relationship between imperviousness and run-
off may be widely understood. but it is not always fully
appreciated. Figure 1 illustrates the increase in the site
runoff coefficient as a result of site imperviousness.
developed from over 40 runoff monitoring sites across
the nation. The runoff coefficient ranges from zero [0
one and expresses the fraction of rainfall volume that
is actually converted into storm runoff volume. As C:l.n
be seen. the runoff coefficient closely tracks percent
impervious cover, except at low levels where soils and
slope factors also become important. In practical terms
this means that the total runoff volume for a one-acre
parking lot (Rv = 0.95) is about 16 times that produced
by an undeveloped melldow (R v = 0.06).
To put this in more understandable terms, consider
the runoff from a one-inch rainstonn (see Table 1). The
total runoff from a one-acre meadow would fill a
standard size office to a depth of about two feet (218
cubic feet). By way of comparison, if that same acre
was completely paved, a one-inch rainstorm would ~
completely fill your office. as well as the two next to it. v
~
The peak discharge. velocity and time of concentration ~
of stormwater runoff also exhibit a striking incre:l.Se
after a meadow is replaced by a parking lot (Table 1).
Because infiltration is reduced in impervious <1reas.
one would expect groundwater recharge to be propor-
tionately reduced. This. in turn, should tranSlate into
lower dry weather stream flows. Actual data, however.
that demonstrate this effect is rare. Indeed, Evett et :11..
could not find any statistical difference in low stream
100
.1.;;~~~:....;;r;'T." 1r;r;:~,r:;~~~~~'~i:~~4
~;:E.'II:..f';':!~~
Figure 1: Watershed imperviousness and the storm runoff coefficient
Runoff Coefficient (Rv)
,
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
aJflI
0.4
0.3
0.2
O. ,
o
o
aJ
=
8
Qll
Ii
aJ
lID
aJ
10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Watershed Imperviousness (%)
90
'00
flow between urban and rural watersheds after analyz-
ing 16 North Carolina watersheds. Simmons and
Reynolcfs>> did note that dry weather flows dropped 20
to 85% after development in several urban watersheds
in Long Island, New York.
It should be noted that transport-related impervi-
ousness often exertS a greater hydrological impact than
the rooftop-related imperviousness. In residential ar-
eas, runoff from rooftops can be spread out over
pervious ~, such as backyards, and rooftops are not
always directly connected to the storm drain system.
This may allow for additional infiltration of runoff.
Roads and parking lots, on the other hand, are usually
directly connected to the storm drain system.
Imperviousness and the Shape of Streams
Confronted by more severe and more frequent
floods, stream channels must respond. They typically
do so by increasing their cross-sectional area to accom-
modate the higher flows. This is done either through
widening of the stream banks, downcutting of the
stream bed, or frequently. both. This phase of channel
instability. in turn, triggers a cycle of streambank
erosion and habitat degradation.
The critical question is at what level of develop-
ment does this cycle begin? Recent research models
developed in the Pacific Northwest suggest that a
threshold for urban stream stability exists at about 10%
imperviousness3'. (Figure 2). Watershed development
beyond this threshold consistently resulted in unstable
and eroding channels. The rate and severity of channel
instability appears to be a function of sub-bankfull
floods, whose frequency can increase by a factor of 10
even at relatively low levels of imperviousness..".9.D
A major expression of channel instability is the loss
of instream habitat strUctures, such as the loss of pool
and riffle sequences and overhead cover, a reduction in
the wetted perimeter of the stream and the like. A
number of methods have been developed to measure
the strUcture and quality of instream habitat in recent
-
.,
.
i
1
,
j
)
Table 1: Comparison of one acre of parking Jot versus
one acre of meadow in good condition
Parking
Lot
Runoff or Water Quality' Parameter
Meadow
Curve number (CN)
Runoff coefficient
Time of concentration (minutes)
Peak discharge rate (cfs), 2 yr., 24 hr. storm
Peak discharge rate (cfs), 100 yr. storm
Runoff volume from one-inch storm (cubic feet)
Runoff velocity @ 2 yr. storm (feet/second)
Annual phosphorus load (Ibsjac.jyr.).
Annual nitrogen load (Ibsjac.jyr.).
Annual zinc load (Ibsjac.jyr.)
98
0.95
4.8
4.3
12.6
3450
8
2
15.4
0.30
58
0.06
14.4
0.4
3.1
218
1.8
0.50
2.0
NO
,J
-I
I
I
-i
.!
=!
~
~
iJ
t
o.
e
Key Assumptions:
Parking lot is 100% impervious with 3% slope, 200 feet flow length,
Type 2 Storm, 2 yr. 24 hr. storm = 3.1 inches, 100 yr. storm = 8.9
inches, hydraulic radius = 0.3, concrete channel, and suburban
Washington 'C' values.
Meadow is 1% impervious with 3% slope, 200 foot flow length, good
vegetative condition, B soils, and earthen channel.
.~Ip.;~"~~loi~.r..t:llr:f._
:0:
" '.
Figure 2: Channel stability as a functio-n of imperviousness
(Booth and Reine/t, 1.993)
...
%
:!
'"
::l
U
'"
>-
$.
::l
..:
o
...
'"
>-
e
r;;
~
o
...I
... 0.5 0
II.
o
o
i=
< 0.0
'" 0
2.5 6
..:
.5:
.;.
..;,.
~~
..€i:<
~:
Q.
.-:
o :TAIIU~
x UN:T AIIU OtAHHI!U
· I..AltOI!'LA~! SU8CA TO/UEN'n
o.
2.(')
o
1.5
1 O-yr forested discharge.
2-yr current discharge
CENI::RALLY STABLE CHANNELS
.
1.0
.
.'S1C~
w~ x
~ ~ \x x
CENER,JLL}l<UNSTAELE CHANNELS
10 20 .30 40 50
PERCEN7' IMPERVIOUS AREA IN CATCHMEN"r
years.lo.1J":/ Where these tools have been applied to
urban streams, they have consistently demonstrated
that a sharp threshold in habitat quality exists at ap-
proximately I 0 to 15% imperviousness}.ll..:5 Beyond
this threshold, urban stream habitat quality is consis-
tently cl:1SSified as poor.
Imperviousness and water quality
Impervious surfaces collect and accumulate pollut-
ants deposited from the atmosphere, leaked from ve-
hicles or derived from other sources. During storms,
accumulated pollutants are quickly
~....,..;~~.;,;:=.....~
washed off and rapidly delivered to
aquatic systems.
Monitoring and modeling studjes
have consistently indicated that urban
POllutant loads are directly related to
watershed imperviousness. Indeed,
imperviousness is the key predictive
variable in most simulation and empirical models used
to estimate pollutant loads. For example, the Simple
Method assumes that pollutant loads are a direct func-
tion of watershed imperviousness:z:J. as imperviousness
is the key independent variable in the equation.
Habitat assessment tools have
consistently demonstrated that
a sharp threshold in habitat
Quality exists at approximately
10 to 15% imperviousness.
~'''':a~~,~~
Threshold limits for maintaining background
pollutant loads
Suppose that watershed runoff drains into a lake
that is phosphorus_ limited. Also assume that the present
background load of phosphorus from a rural land use
amounts to 0.5 Ibslac/yr. The Simple Method predicts
that the postdevelopment phosphorus load will exceed
background loads once watershed imperviousness (I)
eXceeds 20 to 25% (Figure 3), th.ereby increasing the
risk of nutrient overenrichment in the lake.
102
Dlllf(~~r.i'r.l~_
Urban phosphorus loads c~n be reduced w
urban best management practices (B MPs) are inst4lI;
such as storm water ponds, wetlands, filters or infi/:
cion'practices. Performance monitoring data indic::
that BMPs can reduce phosphorus loads by as muc:-:
40 to 60%, depending on the practice selected. T
impact of this pollutant reduction on t
postdevelopment phosphorus loading rate from t
site is shown in Figure 3. The net effect is to raise t.
phosphorus threshold to about 35% - 60% imperviol.;
ness, depending on the performance of the BMP ....
install. Therefore, even when effective practices a:
widely applied, we eventually cross a threshold c
imperviousness, beyond which we cannot maintai
predevelopment Water quality.
60
Imperviousness and stream warming
Impervious surfaces both absorb and reflect heat.
During the summer months, impervious areas can have
local air and ground temperatures that are 10 to 12
degrees warmer than the fields and forests that they
replace. In addition, the trees that could have provided
shade to offset the effects of solar radiation are absent.
Watertemperature in head Water streams is strongl y
influenced by local air temperatures. Galli' reported
that stream temperatures throughout the summer are
increased in urban watersheds, and the degree of warm-
ing appears to be directly related to the imperviousness
of the contributing watershed. He monitored five head-
Water streams in the Maryland Piedmont over a six-
month period. the streams having differing levels of
impervious COver (Figure 4). Each of the urban streams
had mean temperatures that were consistently warmer
than a forested reference stream, and the size of the
increase (referred to as the delt4l- 1") appeared to be a
direct function of watershed imperviousness. Other
factors, such as lack of riparian cover and ponds, were
also demonstrated to amplify stream warming, but the
primary contributing factor appeared to be watershed
impervious cover. 9
Imperviousness and stream biOdiversity
The health of the aquatic ecosystem is a strong
environmental indicator of watershed quality. A num-
ber of research studies have recently examined the
links between imperviousness and the biological di-
versity in streams. Some of the key findings are sum-
marized in Table 2.
Aquatic insects
The diversity, richness and cOmpOSItlOn of the
benthic or streambed community has frequently been
used to evaluate the quality of urban streams. Not only
are aquatic insects a useful environmenml indicator,
but they also form the base of the stream food chain in
most regions of the country.
.'F-i~~~
1~""J~~if.l~
Figure 3: The effect of impervious cover on urban phosphorus load under several scenarios, as computed
by the Simple Method
o
ctS
-
(t)
..c
::::.
j
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
o
o
P Load Scenarios
- Post-Dev
"BMP-HI
-+ BMP-Lo
- Background
I
1
-c
ctS
.9
0-
m
::J
c
C
<(
5 10 15 20 25 30 354045 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 9510
Impervious Cover
j
;!
I
l
~
Figure 4: The effect of impervious cover on stream temperature (Galli, :1.99:1.)
20
- 16 .
u..
- ,.
Q
....
::J
-
as 12 ,.
....
CD
c.
E ,.
CD 8 ,.
I--
E "
as Stream Delta- T "
CD ! .'
.... 4 t
- ... Mean
CJ) ~
... Maximum ~
,~
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
Impervious Cover
Delta-t is the difference in mean or max stream temperature from a
developed stream, compared to an undisturbed stream.
Watershed Protection Techniques . VoL L No.3. Fall 199~
103
.~....~:.r;.r.;~
Figure 5: Impacts of imperviousness on macroinvertebrate communities in the headwater
streams of the Anacostia River {Schueler and Galli, ~992}
Metric Values
40
a
a
30
a a
20
10
o
o
GOOD
10 20 30 40 50
% Imperviousness
l a Metric Values I
Melric: Values arc based "l'O'l the sum or scores usipd for lbe roUowiJlC c:aICJOrics: EPTC baJuce. EPT Index. AvenI"
Cicacric Diwrsiry. CtinInomid AbundaDce. TaXllllOmic Richness (Family and CiCllCl'ic)
Klein IA was one of the first to note that
macroinvertebrate diversity drops sharply in urban
streams in Maryland. Diversity consistently became
poor when watershed imperviousness
~~,,;,,""""'''',.:;::.aIl::lJ~!''''-1~'''...,~ exceeded 10 to IS percent. The same
basic threshold has been reported by
all other research studies that have
looked at macroinvertebrate diversity
in urban streams (Table 2).
It is clear that few, if any,
urban streams can support
diverse benthic communities at
moderate to high levels of
imperviousness (25% or more).
In each study, sensitive macro in-
~'''''-;~~'''''''~~~~ vertebrates were replaced by ones that
were more tolerant of pollution and
hydrologic stress. Species such as stoneflies, mayflies,
and caddisflies largely disappeared and were replaced
by chironomids, tubificid worms, amphipods, and
snails. Species that employ specialized feeding strate-
gies-shredding leaf litter, grazing rock surfaces, fil-
tering organic matter that flows by, and preying on
other insects-were lost:
A typical example of the relationship between
imperviousness and macroinvenebrate diversity is
shown in Figure 5. The graph summarizes diversity
trend for 23 sampling stations in headwater streams of
the Anacostia watershed.:c While good to fair diversity
was noted in all headwater stre:lI1lS with less than 10%
imperviousness, nearly all stations with 12% or more
impervious cover recorded poor diversity. The same
sharp drop in macroinvertebrote diversity at around 12
..""....
_v-
.11;.0..."'1"". .41.":0'" .... :.;..,..
to 15% imperviousness was also observed in streams in
the coascal plain and piedmont of Delaware. ~
Other studies have utilized other indicators to mea-
sure the impacts of urbanization on stream insect
communities. For example, Jones and Clarki' moni-
tored 22 stations in Nonhern Virginia and concluded
that benthic insect diversity composition changed mark-
edly after watershed population density exceeded four
or more individuals per acre. The population density
roughly translates to half-acre or one acre lot residen-
tial use, or perhaps 10 to 20 percent imperviousness.
Steedman:7 evaluated 208 Ontario stream sites, and
concluded that benthic diversity shifted from fair to
poor at about 35% urban land use. Since "urban land"
includes both pervious and impervious areas, the ac-
tual threshold in the Ontario study may weII be closer
to 7 to 10% imperviousness.c Steedman also reported
that urban streams with intact riparian forests had
higher diversity than those that did not. for the same
level of urbanization.
While the exact point at which stream insect diver-
sity shifts from fair to poor is not known with absolute
precision, it is clear that few, jf any, urban streams can
support diverse benthic communities at moderote to
high levels of imperviousness (25% or more). Four
different studies all failed to find stream insect commu-
nities with good or excellent diversity in any highly
urban stre:im. 1.:.J.I~
'.. . .~Na;..~'.'~~~
iiI~"lt...:.fi;r;;~
Table 2: Review of key findings of urban stream studies examining the relationship of
urbanization on stream quality
Ref.
Year
Location
Biological Parameter
Key Finding
3
1991
Seattle
Fish habitatj
channel stability
Channel stability and fish habitat
Quality declined rapidly after 10% imperv.
.'IIF-!;::rj:i1ji::r.I;,"'lo!;::r.;'9(:!:iI!ir.,lr.:.._
105
i
"
. ,
~
,
~
.
,~
1
j
i..
,
i
I. '
l
,
, .
! .
';
1
j
J
,
"
r
i
.(
l
..~F-h 11'''1.lIi1olr.:ll
Fish Surveys
The abundance and diversity of the fish community
can also serve as an excellent environmental indicator.
Surprisingly, relatively few studies have examined the
influence of imperviousness on fish communities in
headwater streams. The results of one study is illus-
trated in Figure 6. Four similar sub watersheds in the
Maryland Piedmont were sampled for the number of
fish species present. As the level of watershed imper-
viousness increased, the number of fish species col-
lected dropped. Two sensitive species (trout and sculpin)
were lost as imperviousness increased from 10 to 12%
and four more were lost when impervious Cover in-
creased to 25%. Significantly, only two species re-
mained in the fish community at 55 % imperviousness.
Sensitive species, defined as those with a strong depen-
dence on the substrate for feeding and/or spawning,
showed a more precipitous decline. Klein1tl found a
similar relationship between fish diversity and water-
shed imperviousness in several dozen headwater
streams in the Maryland Piedmont.
Salmonid fish species (trout and salmon) and
anadromous fish species appear to be most negatively
impacted by imperviousness. Trout have stringent
temperature and habitat requirements, and seldom are
present in mid-Atlantic watersheds where impervious-
ness exceeds 15%.11 Declines in trout spawning suc-
cess are evident above 10% imperviousness. II In the
Pacific Northwest, Luchetti and FeurstenburglA sel-
dom found sensitive coho salmon in watersheds
yond 10 or 15% imperviousness. Booth and Rein~
noted that most urban stream reaches had pOor quai
fish "habitat when imperviousness exceeded 8 to l:;:
Fish species that migrate from the ocean to Spa '.
in freshwater creeks are also very susceptible to i,
pacts of urbanization such as fish barriers, poIJutic
flow changes. and other factors. For example, Limbu
and Schmidtl7 discovered that the density of anadr,
mous fish eggs and larvae declined sharply after a J 0<
imperviousness threshold was Surpassed in 1
subwatersheds draining into the Hudson River.
The influence of imperviousness on other urbar
water resources
Several other studies point to the strong influence
of imperviousness on other important aquatic systems
such as shellfish beds and wetlands.
Even relatively low levels of urban development
yield high levels of bacteria, derived from urban runoff
or failing septic systems. These consistently high bac-
terial counts often result in the closure of shellfish beds
in coastal waters and it is not surprising, that most
closed shellfish beds are in close proximity to urban
areas. Indeed, it may be difficult to prevent shellfish
closure when more than one septic drain field is present
per seven acres-a very low urban density.7 Although
it is widely believed that urban runoff accounts for
Figure 6: Fish diversity as a function of watershed imperviousness in four subwatersheds in the
Maryland Piedmont (Schueler and Galli, 1.992)
Number of Species
14
12
10
a
6
4
2
o
Good Hope Trib. Nursery Run
(Paint Branch) (NW Brancn)
Hollywood Br. Wheaton Branch
(Paint Brancn) (SHgo Creek)
- Sensitive Species
- Total No. of Species
e
Humbers in brackets represent Inel. 01
water.lI.el imp.rvlou.n....
Source.: 1) MdDNR. 1983 2) MdDNR. 1986 3) lePR8. 1989
106
_rr.;i~~i:r.
.~Ijll:.&"~~~
many shellfish bed closures (now that most point
sources have been controlled), no systematic attempt
has yet been made to relate watershed imperviousness
to the extent of shellfish bed closures.
Taylor-" examined the effect ofwatershed develop-
ment on 19 freshwater wetlands in King County.
Washington. and concluded that the additional storm-
water contributed to greater annual water level fluctua-
tions (WLF). When the annual WLF exceeded about 8
inches. the richness of both the wetland plant and
amphibian community dropped sharply. This increase
in WLF began to occur consistently when upstream
watersheds exceeded 10 to 15% imperviousness.
Implications at the Watershed Level
The many independent lines of research reviewed
here converge toward a common conclusion- that it
is extremely difficult to maintain predevelopment
stream quality when watershed development exceeds
10 to 15% impervious cover. What implications might
this apparent threshold have for watershed planning?
Should low density or high density development be
encouraged?
At first glance. it would seem appropriate to limit
watershed development to no more than 10% total
impervious cover. While this approach may be wise for
an individual "sensitive" watershed. it is probably not
practical as a uniform standard. Only low density
development would be feasible under a ten percent
zoning scenario, perhaps one-acre lot residential zon-
ing, with a few widely scattered commercial clusters.
At the regional scale. development would thus be
spread over a much wider geographic area than it
would otherwise have been. At the same time, addi-
tional impervious area (in the form of roads) would be
needed to link the community together.
Paradoxically, the best way to minimize the cre-
ation of additional impervious area at the regional scale
is to concentrate it in high density clusters or centers.
The corresponding impervious cover in these clusters
is expected to be very high (25% to 100%), making it
virtually impossible to maintain predevelopmentstream
quality. A watershed manager must then confront the
fact that to save one stream's quality it may be neces-
sary to degrade another.
A second troubling implication of the impervious!
stream quality relationships involves the large ex-
. ;:lanses of urban areas that have already been densely
jeveloped. Will it be possible to fully restore stream
~uality in watersheds with high impervious cover?
Some early watershed restoration work does suggests
:hat biological diversity in urban streams can be par-
:ially restored, but only after extensive storm water
'errofit and habitat structures are installed. For ex-
ample, fish and macroinvertebrate diversity has been
partially restored in one tributary of Sligo Creek.
Maryland. I I In other urban watersheds, however, com-
prehensive watershed restoration may
not be feasible, due to a lack of space, ~"':..~~~",<..~"",~
feasible sites, or funding.
Paradoxically. the best way to
minimize the creation of addi-
tional impervious area at the
regional scale is to concentrate
it in high density clusters.
;r.l!llI'J~;li~~~"..=--;;m.m,
A proposed scheme for classifying
urban stream quality potential
The thresholds provide a reason-
able foundation for classifying the
potential stream quality in a watershed based on the
ultimate amount of impervious cover. One such scheme
is outlined in Table 3. It divides urban streams into
three management categories based on the general
relationships between impervious cover and stream
quality:
1.
.L
.
-
i
.
~ f
Stressed streams (1 to 10% impervious
cover)
2. Impacted streams (11 to 25% impervious
cover)
3. Degraded streams (26 to 100% impervious
cover)
II
i!
if
The resource objective and management strategies
in each stream category differ to reflect the potential
stream quality that can be achieved. The most protec-
tive category are "stressed streams" in which strict
zoning, site impervious restrictions, stream buffers and
BMPs are applied to maintain predevelopment stream
quality. "Impacted streams" are above the threshold
and can be expected to experience some degradation
after development (I.e., less stable channels and some
loss of diversity). The key resource objective for these
streams is to mitigate these impacts to the greatest
extent possible, using effective BMPs.
The last category, degraded streams. recognizes
that predevelopment channel stability and biodiversity
cannot be fully maintained, even when BMPs or retro-
fits are fully applied. The primary resource objective
shifts to protect downstream water quality by remov-
ing urban pollutants. Efforts to protect or restore bio-
logical diversity in degraded streams are not aban-
doned; in some priority sub watersheds intensi ve stream
restoration techniques are employed to attempt to
partially restore some aspects of stream quality. In
other subwatersheds, however, new development (and
impervious cover) is encouraged to take place so as to
protect stressed and impacted streams.
!
Q
..
~
E
,.
i
, :-
f ;-
,
~ .
;
1
~
.
,
i
,
J
Watershed-based zoning
Watershed-based zoning is based on the premise
that impervious cover is a superior measure to gauge
the impacts of growth, compared to population den-
sity, dwelling units or other factors. The key steps in
. Watershed Protection. Tedmiques II: Vot..LNa;. 3.. a FalU9g4~.:~. :~
1.07
. l." ..
.1~1.4Il:4':' ~ ;;:1'3
Table 3: A possible scheme for classifying and managing for headwater urban streams
based on ultimate imperviousness
Urban Stream
Classification
Stressed
(0-10% Imperv.)
Channel stability
Stable
Impacted
(11-25% Imperv.)
Degraded
(26-100% Imperv.)
Unstable
Highly Unstable
watershed-based zoning are as follows. First, a com-
munity undertakes a comprehensive physical, chemi-
cal and biological monitoring program to asses the
current quality of its entire inventory of streams. The
data are used to identify the most sensitive stream
systems and to refine impervious/stream quality rela-
tionships. Next. existing imperviousness is measured
and mapped at the subwatershed level. Projections of
future impervious cover due to forecasted growth are
also made at this time.
The third step involves designating the future stream
quality for each sub watershed based on some adapta-
tion of the urban stream classification scheme pre-
sented earlier. The existing land use master plan is then
modified to ensure that future growth (and impervious
cover) is consistent with the design:l.Ced stream classi-
fication for each sub watershed.
The final step in the watershed-based zoning pro-
cess involves the adoption of specific resource objec-
tives for each stream and subwatershed. Specific poli-
cies and practices on impervious cover limits, BMPs,
and buffers are then instituted to meet the stream
resource objective, and these practices directly applied
to future development projects.
Watershed-based zoning should provide managers
with greater confidence that resource protection objec-
tives can be met in future development. It also forces
local governments to make hard choices about which
streams will be fully protected and which will become
at least partially degraded. Some environment::
and regul:ltors will be justifiably concerned abou
streams whose quality is explicitly sacrificed U~
this scheme. The explicit stream quality decis:
which are at the heart of watershed-based zon.
however, are preferable to the uninformed and ranc
"non-decisions" that are made every day under
present zoning system.
A cautionary note
While the research on impervious cover and sere:
quality is compelling, itis doubtful whether it can se~
as the sole foundation for legally defensible zoning ::
regulatory actions at the current time. One key re:lS
is that the research has not been standardized. Differ::
investigators, for example. have used different me:
ods to define and measure imperviousness. Secor:
researchers have employed a wide number of tee
niques to measure stream quality characteristics tr-
are not always comparable with each other. Thir
most of the studies have been confined to few ecoregio;
in the country. Little research has been conducted
the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and semi-ar
Western regions. Lastly, none of the studies has '!
examined the effect of widespread application of EM I
on impervious cover/stream quality relationships. Un:
studies determine how much BMPs can "cheat" tr
impervious cover/stream quality relationship. it can t
argued that structural practices alone can compensa
for imperviousness effects.
108
./llf.i~i\;!:~:iiOi':-::;;""1 <I(:,-ii'i1t"I!:...-o.T{oi ~~~r.a:~
.~I'tt:..l'~fi""'~
On the positive side. it may be possible for-i'-
communicy to define the impervious cover/stream qual-
ity relationship in a short time and at relatively low
cost A suggested protocol for conducting a watershed
monitoring study is presented in Table 4. The protocol
emphasizes comparative sampling of a large popula-
tion of urban subwatersheds of different increments of
imperviousness (perhaps 20 to 50).
A rapid sampling program collects consistent data
on hydrologic, morphologic, water quality. habitat and
biodiversity variables within each sub watershed. For
comparison purposes, series of undeveloped and un-
. disturbed reference streams are also monitored. The
sampling data are then statistically and graphically
analyzed to determine the presence of imperviousness!
stream qualicy relationships.
The protocol can be readily adapted to examine I
how BMPs can shift the stream qualiCY/impervious_
ness relationship. This is done by adju~ting the sam-
pling protocol to select two groups of :r.o-'-''''~~~''':':~~'~JmI
study subwatersheds-those that are
effectively served by BMPs and those
that are not
Site designers can use a wide
range of techniques to minimize
impervious cover by 1.0 to 50%.
Minimizing impervious cover ~.....~~~...~~
Reducing impervious cover can be an effective
element of the overall BMF system for a development
site. As noted earlier, imperviousness need not be a
fixed quanticy. A site designer can utilize a wide range
of techniques to minimize impervious Cover at devel-
opment site (Table 5) that collectively can reduce
imperviousness by 10t050%. (See Technical Notes 38
and 39 in this issue.)
11
I
I
~
Table 4: Proposed protocol for defining functional relationships between watershed
imperviousness and stream quality
. General study design
A systematic evaluation of stream quality for a population of 20 to 50 small subwatersheds that have
different levels of watershed imperviousness. Selected field measurements are collected to represent key
hydrological, morphological, water quality, habitat and biodiversity variables within each defined
subwatershed. The population of subwatershed data is then statistically analyzed to define fun~Jonal
relationships between stream quality and imperviousness.
. Defining reference streams
Up to 5 non-urban streams in same geo-hydrological region, preferab/yfuUy forested, or at least full riparian
forest coverage along same length. Free of confounding NPS sources, imperviousness Jess than 5%,
natural channel and good habitat structure.
. Basic Subwatershed Variables
Watershed area, standard definition and method to calculate imperviousness, presence/absence of
BMPs.
. Selecting subwatersheds
Drainage areas from 100 to 500 acres, known level of imperviousness and age, free of confounding
sources (active construction, mining, agriculture, or point sources). Select three random non-overlapping
reaches (100 feet) for summer and winter sampling of selected variables in each of five key variables
groups:
1. Hydrology variables: summer dry weatherfJow, wetted perimeter, cross-sectional area of stream, peak
annual storm flow (if gaged).
2. Channel morphology variables: channel alteration, height, angle and extent of bank erosion, substrate
.embeddedness, sediment deposition, substrate quality.
3. Water quaOtyvarlables: summerwatertemperature, turbidity, total dissolved solids, substrate fouling
index, EP toxicity test, wet weather bacteria, wet weather hydrocarbon.
4. Habitat Variables: pool- rittle ratio, pool frequency, depth and substrate, habitat complexity, instream
cover, rittle substrate quality, riparian vegetative cover, rittle embeddeness
5. ecological Varfab/es:fish diversity, macroinvertebrate diversity, index of bio logical integrity, EPA Rapid
Bioasessment Protocol, fish barriers, leaf pack processing rate.
Watershed Protection TedmiCIUCS .. Vol. 1-Na. a .. FaI11.994. '
109
. '
'-:'*'.'11: ~.:.ri if;r::II
Table 5: Twenty-four strategies to minimize impervious area at the site level (adapted
City of Olympia, 1.994; Schueler. 1.995; and PZC, 1.992)
1. Narrower residential road widths
2. Reduced road lengths
3. Hourglass streets
4. Cluster development
5. Shared driveways
6. Angled parking with one way traffic flow
7. Smaller Parking stalls
8. Reduced parking space ratios for some uses
9. Shared parking facilities in commercial areas
10. Shorter residential driveways
11. RedUCed cul-de-sac radii
12. Cul-de-sac donuts
13. Vertical parking structures
14. Two and three story buildings
15. Stream buffers
16. Grass swales rather than CUrb/gutters
17. Open space requirements (residential)
18. Open space landscaping requirements (co~
19. Sidewalks only on one-side of street
20. Reduced side and rear yard setbacks
21. Decrease distance between lots (frontage)
22. Hammerhead-shaped tumarounds
23. Rear yard grading to buffer
24. Permeable spillover Parking areas
Conclusion
Research has revealed that imperviousness is a
powerful and important indicator of future stream
quality and that significant degradation occurs ar rela-
tively low levels of development The strong relation-
ship between imperviousness and stream quality pre-
sents a serious challenge for urban watershed manag-
ers. It underscores the difficulty in maintaining urban
stre:lm quality in the face of development
At the same time. imperviousness represents a
common currency that can be measured and managed
by planners, engineers and landscape architects alike.
It links activities of the individual development site
with its cumulative impact at the watershed scale. With
further research. impervious Cover can serve as an
important foundation for more effective land use plan-
ning decisions.
References
1. Benke. A. E. WilIeke, F. Parrish and D. Stites.
1981. Effects of urbanization on stream ecosys-
tems. Completion report Project No. A-055-GA.
Office of Water Research and Technology. US
Dept of Interior.
2. Black and Veatch. 1994. Longwell Branch
Restoration-feasibility study. Vol 1. Carrol
County. MD Office of Environmental Services.
220 pp.
3. Booth, D. 1991. Urbanization and the natural
drainage system-impacts, solutions and prog_
noses. Northwest Environmental Journal. 7(1):
93-118.
HO
4. Booth, D. and L. Reinelt 1993. Consequence
. Urbanization on Aquatic Systems._ measL
effects, degradation thresholds, and correc:
strategies.pp. 545-550 in Proceedings Wa
shed '93 A National conference on Waters:
Management March 21-24. 1993. A1exand~
Virginia.
5. City of Olympia, 1994(a). Impervious Surfa
Reduction Study: Technical and Policy Anal
sis-Final Report. Public Works Departmer
Olympia. Washington. 83 pp.
6. City of Olympia, 1994(b), Impervious Surfac
Reduction Study. Draft Final Report Publi
Works Department City of Olympia, Washing
ton. 183 pp.
7. Duda, A and K. Cromartie. 1982. Coast:1J poilu
tion from septic tank drainfields. Journal of lh,
Environmental Engineering Division (ASCE
108 (EE6).
8. Evett et al. 1994. Effects of urbanization and lane
use changes on low stream flow. North Carolin~
Water Resources Research Institute, Report No.
284. 66 pp.
9. Galli, J. 1991. Thermal impacts associated with
urbanization and stonnwater management best
management practices. Metropolitan Washing-
ton Council of Governments. Maryland Depart-
ment of Environment Washington, D.C. 188
pp.
10. Galli, J. 1993. Rapid Stream Assessment Tech-
nique.Metropolitan Washington Council of Go v-
emments. Washington, D.C.
. .
1:'~111I~~\'i.
I I. Galli. J. 1994. Personal communication. Depart-
ment of Environmental Programs. Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments. Wash-
ington. DC.
12. Garie. H and A. McIntosh. 1986. Distribution of
benthic macroinvertebrates in streams exposed
to urban runoff. Water Resources Bulletin
22:447-458.
13. Gibson. G.,M. Barbour. J. Stribling and J. Karr.
1993. Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance
for Streams and Small Rivers. US EP A Assess-
ment and Watershed Protection Division. Wash-
ington. D.C.
14. Hollis. G. 1975. The effect of urbanization on
floods of different recurrence intervals. Water
Resources Res. 11(3): 431-435.
15. Jones. R. and C. Clark. 1987. Impact of Watershed
Urbanization on Stream Insect Communities.
American Water Resources Association. Water
Resources Bulletin. 15(4)
16. Klein. R. 1979. Urbanization and stream quality
impainnent. American Water Resources Asso-
ciation. Water Resources Bulletin. 15(4).
17. Limburg. KandR. Schimdt. 1990. Patterns offIsh
spawning in Hudson river tributaries-response
to an urban gradient? Ecology 71(4): 1231-1245.
18. Luchetti. G and R. Fuersteburg. 1993. Relative
fIsh use in urban and non-urban streamS. pro-
ceedings. Conference on Wild Salmon.
Vancouver, British Columbia.
19. Macrae. C and J. Marsalek. 1992. The role of
storm water in sustainable urban development.
Proceedings Canadian Hydrology Symposium:
1992-hydrology and its contribution to sustain-
able development, June 1992. Winnipeg. Canada.
20. Pedersen. E and M. Perkins. 1986. The use of
benthic in vertebrate data for evaluating impacts
of urban runoff. Hydrobiologia. 139: 13-22.
2 I. Plaflcin. J. M. Barbour. K. Porter. S. Gross and R.
Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
for use in streams in rivers: benthic macroinver-
tebratcs and fIsh. US EPA Office of Water.
EPA-444(440)/4-3901. Washington. D.C.
22. Planning &: Zoning Center. Inc. 1992. Grand
Traverse Bay Region Development Guideboolc.
Lansing Michigan. 125 pp.
23. Schueler. T. 1987. Controlling urban runoff-a
practical manual for planning and designing
urban best management practices. Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments. Wash-
ington. DC 240 pp.
24. Schueler. T. and John Galli. 1992. Environmental
Impacts of Stormwater Ponds. in Watershed
Restoration SourceBook. Anacostia Restoration
Team. Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments. Washington. DC. 242 pp.
25. Shaver. E.. 1. Maxted. G. Curtis and D. Carter.
1995. Watershed Protection Using an Integr:1ted
Approach. in S tonn water NPDES .Related Moni-
toring Needs. Engineering Foundation. Ameri-
can Society of Civil Engineers. Crested Butte,
CO. August 7-12.1994.
26. Simmons. D and R. Reynolds. 1982. Effects of
urbanization on basetlow of selected south-shore
streamS. Long Island. NY. Water Resources
Bulletin. 18(5): 797-805.
27. Steedman. R. J. 1988. Modification and assess-
ment of an index of biotic integrity to quantify
stream quality in Southern Ontario. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
45:492-501.
28. Steward, C. 1983. Salmonid populations in an
urban environment-Kelsey Creek.. Washing-
ton. Masters thesis. University of Washington.
29. Taylor, B.L. 1993. the influences of wetland and
watershed morphological characteristics and re-
lationships to wetland vegetation communities.
Master's thesis. Dept. of Civil Engineering.
University of Washington. Seattle. W A.
30. Yoder C.. 1991. The integrated biosurvey as a tool
for evaluation of aquatic life use attainment and
impairment in Ohio surface waters. in Biologi-
cal Criteria: Research and Regulation; 1991.
I '
I
.
,
.'lrF-i~~;tliji:;r;;_
1"
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
40
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO
REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR EXISTING
DWELLINGS (Case File #96-099)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATO~
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR U- -.
..x.. YES _ NO
OCTOBER 28, 1996
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance to revise the required sideyard setback for an addition to an existing
dwelling.
BACKGROUND:
On October 7,1996, the City Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning
Commission decision to deny a variance request for a reduced sideyard setback.
The variance involved an addition to an existing dwelling. The Council approved
this variance on the basis it was consistent with the recent amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance to allow one sideyard setback of 5' on substandard lots. The
Council then directed staff to draft an amendment to the ordinance which would
allow a similar setback for additions to existing dwellings.
DISCUSSION:
In May, 1996, the Council adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
allowing one 5' sideyard setback for substandard lots, as long as a minimum
separation of 10' is maintained between structures on the lot and on the
adjoining lot. The proposed amendment is very similar to this language;
however it goes one step further. This amendment will allow an addition to any
existing structure to have a sideyard setback of 5 feet. The proposed
amendment reads as follows:
96099pc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Existing Residential Dwellings: In the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the R-2
(Urban Residential) Zoning Districts, an addition to any residential dwelling
existing on the date of this ordinance may have one side yard setback of no less
than five (5) feet, as long as a minimum separation of ten (10) feet is maintained
between structures on the lot and adjoining lot.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendments as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendments.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendments.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Language
2. Hearing Notice
96099pc.doc
Page 2
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i:::::::::::::::}::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 96-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-4-1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 4.1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING
ORDINANCE 83-6.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
Section 5-4-1 of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 4.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to read as follows:
Title 5, Section 5-4-1 of the City Code and Section 4.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance 83-6 is hereby amended by adding (D) as follows, and renumbering the
succeeding provisions:
D. Existing Residential Dwellings: In the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the R-2
(Urban Residential) Zoning Districts, an addition to any residential dwelling existing
on the date of this ordinance may have one side yard setback of no less than five (5)
feet, as long as a minimum separation of ten (10) feet is maintained between
structures on the lot and adjoining lot.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of
. 1996.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
. 1996.
Drafted By:
Jane Kansier. Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
draftord.doc
PAGE 1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 5-4-1 (C) OF THE CITY CODE AND TO SECTION 4.1 (C) OF THE
PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK
FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN THE
R-l AND R-2 DISTRICTS
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of
the intersection ofC.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, October 28,1996, at 7:00
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider
an amendment to Section 5-4-1 (C) of the City Code and to Section 4.1 (C) of the Zoning
Ordinance which will allow an addition to a residential structure existing on the date of
the ordinance to have a 5' side yard setback, subject to certain conditions.
If you wish to be heard in reference to this item, you should attend the public hearing.
Oral and written comments will be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have
questions regarding this matter, please contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at
447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Prepared this 9th day of October, 1996 by:
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON OCTOBER 12, 1996
1:\96zoamnd\sideyard\96100pn.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
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
6A
CONSIDER APPEAL OF HILLCREST HOMES FROM A
RULING OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO
SETBACK AVERAGING (Case File #96-0106)
5600 FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNERJ}~
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES -X- NO-N/A
OCTOBER 28, 1996
Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of
the Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake.
The attached letter dated October 18, 1996 was sent in response to a meeting
with Hillcrest Homes regarding the setbacks of a proposed single family dwelling
with attached garage. A letter of appeal was received October 21, 1996 and a
copy is attached.
DISCUSSION:
Section 9. D (2) of the Zoning Ordinance relating to placement of structures in
the Shoreland District states "On undeveloped shoreland lots that have two
(2) adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such adjacent
lots, any new residential structure may be set back from the average
setback of the adjacent structures from the ordinary high water mark of
fifty (50) feet, whichever is greater, provided all other provisions of the
Shore/and District are complied with. In no instance shall a principal
structure by located in a shore impact zone or bluff impact zone."
On October 11, 1996 the Building Department received an application for a
building permit from Hillcrest Homes for the construction of a single family
dwelling with attached garage on property located at 5600 Fairlawn Shores Trail.
The proposed structure has a setback from the Ordinary High Water Level
(OHW) of 60 feet. The applicants used setback averaging to determine the
lakeshore setback.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. {612} 447-4230 / Fax {612} 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Upon review by Planning Department, it became apparent that the adjacent lot to
the east was vacant. A structure on the westerly adjacent lot is setback
approximately 54 feet from the OWH. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that
setback averaging cannot be used because at the time of application for a
building permit, there was no structure on the lot adjacent to the east to use in
calculating a setback average.
Upon consultation with the applicant, the rationale for the proposed reduced
setback became known. This lot and the lot to the east were once under
common ownership. The previous structure was placed such that the residence
was primarily on Lot 25, with the entryway/foyer being located across the
common lot line onto Lot 24, and the garage was on Lot 24. The applicant
demolished the existing structures on both lots earlier this year. Lot 24 and Lot
25 are vacant and currently being developed as two separate lots with proposed
dwellings. The applicant has proposed to use the setback averaging based on
the setback of Lot 23 and the setback of the previously existing structure on Lot
24/25 or by using the setback of Lot 26 (two lots over).
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend to the City Council that it uphold the staff interpretation of the
ordinance.
2. Recommend to the City Council that it accept the appeal and find that
setback averaging using previously existing structures is in compliance with
City Code provisions.
3. Defer action on this request for specific reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff has concluded that at the time of building permit application, Lot 25
was vacant and setback averaging for Lot 24 cannot be used. Staff
recommends Alternative No.1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second expressing the opinion of the Planning Commission.
96086pc.doc
Page 2
, .. .
f." . .. ~.. ~ r
October 18, 1996
Mr. Chris Deanovic
Hillcrest Homes
16714 Jaguar Ave.
Lakeville, MN. 55044
Dear Mr. Deanovic:
At our meeting today, we discussed the issue of whether setback averaging could be
applied to the lot you are developing on Fairlawn Shores Trail. I have reviewed this issue
further and I have concluded that, because the original structure is gone and there are not
principal structures existing on both lots abutting the subject property, setback averaging
cannot be applied to the house in question.
You have the right to appeal this decision to. the. City Council, Such an appeal should be
in writing and directed to my attention. Please call me if you have any questions.
d~'fJ 0
DonaldR;I~
Planning Director
cc: Gary Staber
16200 ~~~.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
SURVEY FROM BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
PROPOSED SETBACKS
SURVEY PREPARED FOR
HILLCREST HOMES
16714 JAGUAR AVENUE
LAKEVILLE. MN 55044
Valley Surveying Co., P A.
SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570
I
.~
. . "~-'''r'r~ ~" ....
"
j
. l
;, /
/
I
/
P/Yto/y
f".
7,.. I~ :)\..'<2
::;J,.,
~ 1..41(e-
904
'.
i
-J
'-- -S
I
" .1.t.J
1I)Cl)
"'-
Q)':'"
II)Ir'
-"
.11)
!~
0C"
-:.. ~)
fr;----. ;>-.
I;
I. GIl'MGf
r SLAt' f.l
~9.1&.J
--...::.-..
_.~
..,70
- --.,.
"
A'"
,0 loA
-
--- -
'3$.i
10..",
1",
I_...,i
~
~.e.n.
..... .
~~----
......
.
~~RLAWN
'. SHa
-. "- "If!! ~ ....~'!AI L
-..
_.s
.
DE:',cRIPl'ION :
Lot 2-1: ~'Anll~A\'i<. Slklll~'::;. S(.:ott county. ninn.,s"ta. A!:'lo sh""ir>j ~he locatiO!' o(
all cnstlng lIiOpL'ov........nts a" sUL'vev..d thin Uth day ot ,11J1y, 1'1),., Lot Area above El. 904.0 .7,~l4oft,
NlJ'l'est Bel1~n.ilul..'h LL~Vdt.i()n JJ'i .t;b t.O't' IIlJt (11. hyd. ...t ;....}Ln ;'J'~ ....i NET IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CCNIIMII-28.11%
93'(,3.6 i)f..!IU1.:.':.~~; ,"xistillq l)1."'"de .;!If-,,o':.ltlc..YI
':t~ii~'b~ - -.........
~. 7131/96 To '''ow /0' ANa . .1..
10 904.0 on adJOl."IlCJ I.... .
I~'" .....", ,It,. .",. _... "'--'
by......""'....., -rl_____
lomll""'",_ _~_..
~ '" ",. s._ '" 111-.....
.....~..r /
Is.-- ~ /.. f,,-"*, -' ,. .......~~..
IN
FEET
4~ DE"O~ES PROPOSED FINISHED GRAOE ELEVATION
I' _ DENO~ES PRCPOSEO OIREC~ION OF SURFIlCE DRAINIlGE
SET PROPOSED GAR4GE SLAB Il~ ELEVATION 936 ZO
SE~ PROPOSED TOP OF' BLOCK A l' ELEVATION 936.53
SET THE LOWEST FLOOR AT ELEVATION 92B34
o
I
SCALE
20
o Denaf..,~ lncIIol4_iroIl
_ .., _ .-Ired by
I .........",,. In,. .
HHI
HILLCREST HOMES, INC.
16714 Jaguar Ave., Lakeville, Minnesota 55044
(612) 898-7663 Office (612) 898-3364 Fax
~
"A Builder Driuen By Quality Crqttsman.s1Up and Value."
October 21, 1996
Donald Rye
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mr. Rye:....
At our meeting on Friday, the planning department rejected our proposed use of setback
averaging to determine the rear setback on one of our projects. We wish to appeal this decision
t()the City Council based upon the fonowing reasons:
1. Prior to the purchase of this property and the adjoining property, we had numerous
meetings with the planning department going over codes and procedures. The purpose of this
was to ensure thatthe project was solvent, and that the plans we had would work on these lots
without having to apply for a variance. During these meetings we were informed that setback
averaging could be used to determine the rear setback to the lake. With that information we
prec~eci to purchase the property and tear. down the existing structure. After the structure had
been removed we applied for a building permit on the adjacent lot, and were told at that point that
setba~k averaging could not be used, since there was an empty adjacendot" Had web~ .
info~<t~at the llriginal structure on the property had to remain iIl~rd~Jouse set~~~~<"
aver~~g,we would have removed only the entry ",aythat encroachedtheadjacent,prllpet'ty and
left ~~~~lIining.~cture. Accor~ing~()the pll1nnl11g department this vvollId have~<
adeq\tate~ . However, we acted upon the iDformationprovided to us by the City ofPrij)r~e, and
nowfi'lld ourselves in this situation.
.2......Theuse of setback averaging as we understand is to ensure a cohesiv~1in~of site
from the lake~<Oui goal all along has been to conform to the rest of the homes ontlielake,imd
ensure continuity with the existing structures on either side. If setback averaging is not used in
this situation it drastically reduces the value of these parcels, as wen as creates a void in the line
of sight from the lake.
As I mentioned during our meeting, we spent a large amount of time prior to purchase and
demolition to ensure we would not run into a situation that we are faced with today. We acted
upon information provided to us by the planning department. We should not be penalized for
Builder License # 20036544 · Member of the Builders Association of the 1Win Cities
acting on this misinformation, especially since we could have acted differently upon the correct
information had it been given, and we would not be in the situation we are today.
I have enclosed a copy of the survey for your review. If you have any questions, or need
additional information please give me a call. I await your reply.
Sincerely,
SURVEY OF PREVIOUSLY EXISTING STRUCTURE
AND GARAGE ON LOTS 24 AND 25
SURVEY PREPI1RED FOR:
HILLCREST HOM E 5
16714 JAGUAR AVErlUE
LA1{EVI LLE. rv:N 55044
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SIJITE /20-C, ISG70 FRIlNKLiN TRIl/L
FRIlNKLlN TRIl/L OFFICE CONOOI.I/NIIJM
PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (G12) 'H 7 _ 2570
DI:::5;.;Hlf"':'ll)l'J:
t.ot ?~, FI\II.:t..'\Wtl SIIC.J1~J';~-i. :;t;r.'l.:.~ ':;t>1I1lt:)'. ~1iru:!'!':;ot:i'\. ^IlU t;.h.,t
I)'-:lt"t at l...."'t,. ,~t:u 01. .s.,id (.Jl~'t I.yi.llq wf..!;tl?C'ly (JI: till,! 1.r.11lo.....i,IFI
(}f.!~t.:I:it...ed L i;h':
I"!f~lil1nillq .1t :.1:
"QCt:h'!,;1~t.~~C 'l :.
Ih, "H.:.;!:.lll!: L
CO('ru!'r: oj :.<l id
t.11"~ irx:il'': lor. O(
li.r.h d,1y ',II ./11,1...
, S':)I.lthwp-:;lf::r.ly r.orl1f'?r:' of. :~o!'id l.ot ~\(;: t\lN1C~
it point: Ofl l:hf? 1I('lL'"~Il(~eiy I ill'.! oj; :;;dd (.Qt
. /..) (f~~t :",I'.Jul:h!!':\:":.tel"I y ot I:h"" I:{:l.t:hwr"':;r:'~l'.t y
Lot. II.. imd U~l'~r.n t:'~cn1in..)tirl'l. i\l!m :~h(;,,,,'illrJ
.,'ll exist iny i.m-r)c"('IVI!n~rll::; tl;. :;IJCVf?Yi~ th j n
,.,q(.. Lor Areo al1<lve EL. 90-1.0= 0,055 ,q.r!.
f:J r:r /0 f?
~i.
,.." I 90<:" S
< "n
'G
1..-4i(~
.1"4,. G'J1I1"'la"..
~c. to.
'.1.1
'.
I .~~> ~'"
,'" "...
~:-..,'n:.:~' 1''':II':It;U..u-, i'~Jcv.-~ticlI t-}T/.t~~lJ top lIut
-!o :!.ll
'.j)~. ,.'~ I.h''!UI)tr!:i (-~x i1':t inq ~JC"adt? r,dt!VlIt.iOll
<
<,,0
..-
t'O""(\ol
,) "''''n
'--
2 r:;
.:~J "
~v)
'>-
'''Ol....S(
--~
~
~..-...~
'Jc., ,
------- -.q9
--- 5o'SSm
,r... ;;----"N ~s P'o, eo, .'
.1$.10' ~~ ~4~..3.:W --....'..0. .r....,.,~
--------- ' '., ~:~.,.
","" r:~~ --
-". ~ -------
~ IT L4 W .~'"
---'--"!_~E:S
--..~
IN
40
-J
FEET
RfV. 7/31196 To .haw iOI Ar~o a. dill,
10 904.0 on od)olninQ lols.
t h<<~br Ctr,Ur IIWI' ,..... 'kITYCr lPG' ",porf'd
by mt' or VItd", mr dirK' NI",i,iOft orw:J tho,
~G tNI, littftlH Lcrnd S~ Ul'fdw Ih.,
,. '" , 'h, S'G)~ """".'010.
. , .',,/ /--:r 1/
~/ . /" ",/,.','/
, ~'1;::'f:!" _~"'".?&-'4.."
604.' ., .......,.~~; ...
:'1czr, - - r -' L;Cln" No.tOlDJ
o
[
SC"LE.
20
o Ofnol" I/l irIch JI 14 inch iron
mG"UIN"' HI Of'td """bd by
LI~"""'- No ,oro J
. ~"rt'~ Ir"n m"nu,"l!'"' tOttrf/
~ n.....,'...~" "" "-.',til ~..,
"
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
6B
CONSIDER APPEAL OF DAVE SMITH FROM A
RULING OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO
SETBACK AVERAGING (Case File #96-0105)
2590 SPRING LAKE ROAD
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_ YES -X... NO-N/A
OCTOBER 28, 1996
Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of
the Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake.
The attached letter dated October 22, 1996 was sent in response to an inquiry
made by Dave Smith regarding the front yard setback his proposed garage
addition. A letter of appeal was received October 22, 1996 and a copy is
attached.
DISCUSSION:
Section 4. 1 (F) of the Zoning Ordinance relating to lot and yard requirements
states "Where structures on adjacent lots or parcels have front yard
setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback
shall be the average of the existing structures. "
On June 10, 1996 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Dave
Smith regarding the front yard setback from the centerline of a county road at
2590 Spring Lake Road. The Planning Commission unanimously approved an
18 foot variance to permit a setback of 67 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake
Road for the proposed garage addition (34 feet from the property line). The
granting of this variance established exactly what the setback would be On
September 30, 1996 the applicant received a building permit for the garage
addition.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
On September 9,1996 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from
Tina and Chad Pavek regarding a front yard setback of a proposed house from
the centerline of Spring Lake Road located on a vacant lot at 2610 Spring Lake
Road (adjacent to Dave Smith's property). The Planning Commission
unanimously approved a 12 foot variance to permit a setback of 63 feet from the
centerline of Spring Lake Road (31 feet from property line). On October 10,
1996 the applicants received a building permit.
As the Pavek's home is being built next door to Dave Smith, he notices that the
new house is being constructed 4 feet closer to the road than his proposed
garage addition. He has recently approached the Planning Department
requesting permission to move his garage addition closer to the street (see
attached letters). He wants to use setback averaging to achieve this.
The Planning Department has affirmed that we cannot use setback averaging if
one or both of the adjacent parcels are vacant at the time of application for a
building permit. In this case, when Dave Smith received a building permit the lot
to the east was vacant. When a permit is issued the ordinances and conditions
in effect at the time of reviewing the permit are considered. Generally, future
conditions are not and cannot be considered. Therefore, staff is of the opinion
that setback averaging cannot be used because at the time of application for a
building permit, there was no structure on the lot adjacent to the east to use in
calculating a setback average. Furthermore, the variance granted to Dave Smith
by the Planning Commission determined exactly what the front yard setback
would be. The Planning Department cannot authorize any setbacks to be
different from those in the City Code, unless a variance is granted.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend to the City Council that it uphold the staff interpretation of the
ordinance.
2. Recommend to the City Council that it accept the appeal and find that
setback averaging using current constructionlfuture development is in
compliance with City Code provisions.
3. Defer action on this request for specific reasons.
I
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No.1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second expressing the opinion of the Planning Commission.
96105pc.doc
Page 2
PAVEK VARIANCE 2610 SPRING LAKE ROAD
.Ji1266
COLLEGE CITY I-OES
PAGE B2
~
. ,
//'. '.
0It111&a11J
f'..-r,.:: ...~~~ ~~~t' "
L_....... Lo~,:2~"'~"'In", RACII, City of Prior Lake, Scott Count.y,
t ' ,"1 ,Hlnneliot.a arid rel!l.1:V1D~ easement. of record.
;
"
~ .
POND
-..-.
u_. ._1
.. ., .........
"'-.,
a;:l
\:''':
--.:......, .
1iI1O't1.. I ,II
.... r
-'~~.~j
...
co
.,;
-
f!!E
DO. 00
, <Ullio
~
~.
CO. . ROAD
~
NO.
12
LOT sa. . FQOTAGE = ~, .357:J:
b
: ~:f'T"'
2./"Z-1 3. " "f&. 2.t.. Ii' "/0 OF ::r"".pEcz..~IDU~ S", oa. FAc.5"
JUt
'II
'Fl
...
leI
,(I
q!1
P.lIJPOD ELEYA TlOMS ,
'.,af, ~IIII ~ciH,5
~ Floor ' .... ~ct2s.&
II .....ittFt..,., . -,qu.A.
~ .ox.'. Stiel' sar.lw- II.... .. 0
Ex Pro,...' EI.,., -,
!~~ r:::: ~:~:Ct I OftS : ==
If. Deno.tn .,r..t stlt. - 0
BENaIMAAK.
.~
j
1C.lU: I ,_ . 111'.'
MIN. SET8ACK REQUIREMENTS
Front - Hous. SId, -
ReiI' - Str. SI,o' -
-
" ,..,..
, ,
. -. -'
.~. Of-I;'" , . ...,_'...., .;,..;."...
- ----"-----
""'--.1'" ____
I ...,. CIII1'IF'Y TllAT THIS II A TU _ ClIIIIICT IIJlRIICJIrATllIf
\IF TIE ~ IF TIlE AIM llUl:ArB RlRIIJy AS SUMYEll
If IE GA '" DIRECT SlRIWIS'''' IIIl lID lilT P\IIIaIn". TO
SIIIII I JIIIIlIVBDJS III DICIl\lAClllENTI, DaPr AS -. '
Oatl ~, Z1 ,~!.t _~ f). -i.- ~ .f..
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
DAVE SMITH VARIANCE 2590 SPRING. LAKE ROAD
101. 70
. ~'i'18.0/) f.9/7. Zy'
,
,
,,'
tq:
'"
\~ ~"O ,
OJ!!cK..S
.0
4(/0 ~.
...
III P~P~SfU} ~
., ONE: S{1JA Y MAHS I
\Ii .. qAaA'!_ I'i
III ~ o wEUf,Jq on
't" Z590 .. III
'" <i
O(t.te.."\,~ l III
L9z,y. Zo;:l .' ,
'0.~5
'11'-0
,
,
\Ii
m
~ '7,.
/Ip. ~9'E #,.-
J
IS'TV""" #<-'5
13/7:
~
-,
,
f; ~'! .
,_9.-Z.
COllNTY ROAD NO. 12
(SPRING LAKE ROAD)
! 13'7:
) 5'Z'.'8'
.,- '
PROPF.RTY DE~CRIPTION
Area of existing house & garage 1496 sq. ft.
Area of concret~ drive aftec
removal of 4 feet of width 474 sq. ft.
Area of proposed gacage 624 sq. ft.
Total impeC'vious area 2596 5'1. ft.
Total lot arca 8648 sq. ft.
Lots 27 & 21\
'BUTTERNUT BEACH"
According tn the recorded plat thereof
Scott Countv. Minnp-sota
lnlf>ervious areas 3S a percentage
of ~he lot area. 30.
.
Denotes iron monument set
D"notes iron monument found
a,. Denotes concrete slab
n"not.es existing !'lpot elevation
Denotes proposed elr,vatiun
t
-N
~
o
{9"Z/. 811,1
[ ]
\~ 109~ rfI
~~->7
14243 Mi,oka Circle N.E,
Prior Lake. Minn60la 55372
612.44~-91~4
SCALE
I
o /fJ
IN
B~:NCIIMARK
Spike in power pole locat,," in the
northwf'st quadrant of NorLhwood
Road .)nd Spr i ng l.ak<.> Road
~levation 922.45 N.G.V.D.
~fJ
BOERHAVE LAND SURVEYING. (Nt:
.
r~by rertify th3t this survey. plan or report
~r~~3red by me or und~r my direct supervision
that I am a duly R~ltistered Land Surveyor
r the law~ of the State of Minnesota.
,) 7 /2 /J .
~~,J,~
.lamp< EA' !loerhaY~ RI.S
IIMl' _P~/L /"1. / 9~6 R~lt. No. 70q~
October 22, 1996
Dave Smith
2590 Spring Lake Road
Shakopee,~ 55379
Dear Mr. Smith,
On October 21, 1996 you made a requesttobuild your garage addition 63 feet from the
centerline of North wood Road, rather than the 67 feet as approved under Variance #96-040 (June
10, 1996). Your purpose for wanting your garage addition to be closer to the road is that the
property to the east is currently under construction, and with approval of a variance (#96-082),
this house will be setback 63 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road. Your desire is to
have your garage addition line up with this new house, 4 feet closer than what your variance was
approved for.
The Planning Department cannot approve of your addition to encroach upon the required
setbacks any more than what your variance was approved for. The variance granted was for 67
feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road (34 feet from the property line). If you wish to
build your garage closer, then you must apply for a new variance.
Section 4.1 F. states "Where structures on adjacent lots or parcels have front yard setbacks
different from those required, the minimum front yard setback shall be the average of the
existing structures." At the time of your applications for a variance and a building permit, there
was not a building on the property to the east of yours. Therefore, you could not and cannot use
the setback averaging.
You can appeal our decision to the Planning Commission by written request. Your appeal will
be placed on the next available Planning Commission meeting. There is no fee for an appeal. If
the appeal is over turned then you must submit a new survey and site plan to be approved by the
Planning, Building and Engineering Department prior to issuance of a revised building permit.
Please call the Planning Department if you have any questions on our decision or the process of
appeals.
~~~
Don Rye
Planning Director
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQl;AL OPPORTl;NlTY EMPLOYER
. .'~ro -- ~o;J
;;:t: cUd?!/A L'ke 70 ~??e.-fLf4C-
frArVl;rzj P~rl 'pjf1I;''s'~) t:? f ~L-I.2:2-
-'10 ,///.f a//t:?N />tL. TP ---"'#? .Y'.A/'~ Y rf
c.Lt15er -rO S?,,,.~ ~ ;2;{ < -rk/'t:.. /s
;A- ;-I/v.5'- pt:?v.J gz-J'7' 8.?r.~1- /,~~j- ~~
{.
par rO j"?c:. -p{c/,c s ~ S ;Y 4
L L~5-e- jGl )0c;J\ ;0 gc:.
C c);v.s ,s -Ie "'+ w- I (.; 4 -;'.4e /Vl ;:r: ~ 1'1-7
pcgt1csl-.~ (he SAP7c Sc+ BALI::
~5 /4e/Y? Ji 0- .fcx7;/~Y ;-!S
5;-J ~r(~~
~/~-
~
------
~