HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-040 Variance - Denied
RESOLUTION 98-11PC
DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL)
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK AND THE MODIFIED
SETBACK REQUEST OF 13.00 FOOT VARIANT TO PERMIT A 72.00 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN
TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2% VARIANCE
REQUEST TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20%.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Eagle Creek Villas Inc. has applied for a variances from Section 5-4-1 of the City
Code on property located in the R-3 (Multiple Residential) District at the following
location, to wit;
160th Street, legally described as: Commencing at a point 25 feet east of
the northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 1, Costello's Addition to Prior Lake,
Scott County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the office of the county recorder; thence south parallel to the east
line of said addition a distance of 150 feet; thence east parallel to the north
line of Section 1, T. 114, R. 22, a distance of 300 feet; thence north
parallel to the east line of said addition a distance of 150 feet; thence
westerly along the right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 13; to a
point of beginning, Scott County MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case #98-040 and held a hearing thereon on April 13, 1998. The Planning
Commission tabled the discussion on the request to May 11, 1998.
3. The applicant submitted a revised plan on April 29, 1998, increasing the setback to
the centerline of Franklin Trail from 62.46 feet to 72.00 feet.
4. The Board of Adjustment continued discussion on the request and the revised plan on
May 11, 1998.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
5. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the requested setback and lot
coverage 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.
6. The granting of the setback variance and lot coverage variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
applicant has alternatives to eliminate the variances. The variances will serve merely
as a convenience to the applicant.
7. The Board of Adjustment contends the applicant has created their own hardship
through the design ofthe proposed structures.
8. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the ordinance cannot be met if
the variance is granted.
9. The Board of Adjustment has concluded reasonable use can be made of the property
without the variance.
10. The contents of Planning Case 98-040 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
following variances for 5255 160th Street, as shown in Exhibit A (survey and legal
description);
1. A 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a
county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback.
2. The revised 13.00 foot variance request to permit a 72.00 foot setback from
the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead ofthe required 85 foot
setback.
3. A 1.2% variance to permit lot coverage of21.2 percent rather than the
maximum allowed of 20%.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 11, 1998.
~
Allthony Stamson, Chair
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\RE981IPC.DOC
2
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\RE981IPC.DOC
3
<2:
....
-
co
-
:I:
X
w
~ :
- ~
e-g. 3:
r- "-Ill ~i !
o ~H fi!i
~ f"':- :1I;i it~~
f-I-11 ==1-= ~~..=
- ~~:ji J~~:
- ......~:
-
o
G)
-
ta
o
:;:
.-
-
~
G)
U
I-
QZ
..JLU>
W:EZ
-~<
u..5c..
O:w:s
~~O
QcQ
~~
o
.tl~
! ~ ~
iZ .. t'"
~ ~ .
,; r J
~i
f/l ~m ~ ~~ J
:.: .~~_ a 5- "
:i ~::~ ~ a~ ~
ill. ~ ,,~l ~
t;j 1~lU':ib
f/l 7~~~: i:~ ..:j!
. w~ ~Jg..
(.;i
;3 i!a
~~" !~::l
Fii "!~
,,~; :1~~
,;=3 iI'fW~
!~i ~~3S
!~i i;ii
hl~ lh.
~hj ~m!
oCD)> l*~ l U.
III
z
:
"
"""
/_.,
I"~-
.-
1(; :\
I'~-:
~j
I,r:=.'-
l=-=--~-
r~<:'
I
.ii
~~jL "
~=3~si::!
~;z.~;-i
-.i'~~-
~. =~ i
~g =ah
~~1I-~~
~~.,~i~!
=ia~'F
:i'!!~::~i-
. _...s~
~/:'~~:i
l~~i;~~
!b~i~~
~1;;~~a~
ei~~~:a
;ef";:t5S:
i iaa-=~Q"
~ ~..~~;;ai
~ d'~-f"
... c~i:~~"!I
~ Q =.o=g~
., ~;;o .;H=
~ 1=~=-~~~
~ a~~~i~~i
,
I
~\
,
0\
Z'
~Lt
01' !
a:::::
!
>-"
1-2
Z;
~'
01
0:
,
I----~-I
, I
r..: - ~',
1 dOa ~,n
,
I
i
.
:i
! ;'
__~,I
I \I I ~ ~'I "
I P I~ r-"~!
I t ......lI...~
-d I~ ~
, '" I:J" I
Iri ' I
. I' IF i
i i;!~' .
" ji 10.l:
.a 'V1 I
II! i I, I ,+1 : (.j
.' I ,,. \
,:ll' \~I ''i'
i : i " -+-' ~
t :1 I I !
~ ~ i: } i
I'!j' }--~
I r I \. !\.
'I -I' ','
: I ("t' i en
I !' I .,;."'t"' ''1;
_ ! Iii. €<i... (.',
CO.. I "./-,;- ......- '"
C')! ! "," .. 'I-,( -
",,-: 0: . ,1
~i' ~' 1/)'! rH
.., ! e I I Ii!! "-
"'i""' I i z of'
... i I /
It: ' i i 1-
0: ! i i I; /
Wi i { L!Y
I errl ,.rl')~ i I J
,-,! ~ ... ! 5 i L,
w I >_'_:" ; I
tti ;;OO'l i U'il
~; ~ i; -,! i f;: ,g i iC1f::l-..
., ' \" . j ,. J' ,U ~
, " I _-->-..' ! c.. ~).., 7
,d i I · _..J
L.J! , OJ .
r""";' I -. '<t '
_I . (~..... ,.:. '0'. \
liQi : "'I'~' ' I
_: i Oi'. + -I \
:E:' . ",7' ' '
I. ; \ ~ l . ~~L."( ('_.. L....... 25 r.,' LOG. 1SAC~ ' ' r~ 'l,
X"" )' \ '" '\;,' ; I .n ~(; .. J
, ,. .,,' .. ~, . I .~ ,-,;" . oJ'
'W' '\>, \ r\!" 'f" \.:~ \. ~,. , ...1Jb ,\00,"
\"'" '" C' ' . .' · ~ ,"'''' , ,.,
f' .',' " ........~. ". .
, ' .. ~ + I -,- ~~.~,
! '\ ~ "'" _'-"("'" '< ,:.._ \ ':; ", _....r.OI L \ ' .1:;.1"' I
" ...... ,"" ....,. ," .......... I
'.. .;".."" ,~(' .." I ~ "-.. I
,. ~...-..... <d'" \ '-.,.;. ~ ''', . ......
\ "'~ ' '.,' '-. . -' ......'., .-...".... ---' -'- .._>.;,'-' ..' -..' ....-' ..-" -' '" ....-'
! '" ...... ...._,.....-..- _.=-<..}-_.-....,....... ._, .. \0\ ,,24 2" ~,. I
..:' .. J . NS 0< SS VI.. ..,.. "
d\ """-~__":-::o~ _-_....-.~~~ ~~~-t;;;~:;;.~;)...-... .\~r..\-r.>- .. ,.-'- - ''''-'..--;'' c
\ l c . ,~ _ !.. -", --......-' -.-" - .-.-.-y:' ,,1,- ,..' :::~". ,.;;;,,'" .. ~,c;;~.dc';;"-' ".-
j 1 I . .. "" .._ ....._-....---......--.- - --..---..........- ...r. .' ..' I
W.,l;.:; ~ ~_... .--..-.-..,:;:~----.-.. .' "':- ~; \ \".i. .
t J!'\ .~~ .'. ., . \ I \ /10. 0
'.It ~>rl-' (\ C...... \, \ . C' . I
., \ '..!' , I ;'..,....,;.,i.Q'.!.".!~.,.
, " ,,,,'.. ....::..-:;.. :,,;':.:": : :, c .. ....:. ',! ...-'
.. .l ~ .,. ....._--..-_.._...--'~ :::::--:::: - ~
-=_.~- .~....! ~ - ~\,_.-::..-._.-....-. > ....--'
....-t ~ rRAN~l\N-(
I / '
\-4s:3"2.f' I_;~{//~,I
\ / /" '
\ ../ ' ,/ .I
I." y ,../ / i
i~/ ... ,I ,/ rftti':.
,. , ~
/' 1/" ;1 . -
,'// ,/ '(' l}~
r' '. l
" j
I '
I
-'
cJ
:~- (----.. ..
\c. .f..... ..is
( ,.~
.;. J--
.... . ...
I ..
'-oJ .. ~/ce
-~-..;
co::E
.... .~
en !,u
-
oo-os~
/
\ I
~ \
c:.J i
< \, ;
~ . (It
w
VI i
ci .
\
0 I
..J \
(C \
~ i
L.o. ;
on
Co,j
I
J
./
J
(
"
"'
:
I
I
MIl.
~l
Of
.
t-=
. , w..
.-
J
r
\
1R A \ l
I
I
I
-~
Staff Reports
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO,DOC
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
June 15, 1998
9A
Jenni Tovar, Planner
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98-XX
UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE
OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK AND THE MODIFIED
SETBACK REQUEST OF 72.00 FEET FROM THE
CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL)
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2 PERCENT
VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2
PERCENT RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF
20 PERCENT FOR EAGLE CREEK VILLAS, INC.
History
On April 13, 1998, the Planning Commission held a hearing to
consider a lot coverage variance of 1.2 percent and County Road
setback variance of 22.54 feet for Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. who were
proposing to construct two four-unit townhouse structures. Section 5-
4-I (M) of the City Code requires structures to be setback 85 feet from
the centerline of a County Road. Section 5-4-1 allows for a maximum
lot coverage of20% for townhouses in the R-3 zoning district. The
Planning Commission continued discussion to May 11, 1998 to get a
majority vote and input from an absent Planning Commission member.
On May 11, 1998, the Planning Commission continued discussion.
The applicant has revised the setback to 72 feet from the centerline of
the County Road rather than the original proposal of 62.46 feet. The
Planning Commission concluded the applicant has control over the
design of the structures and the elimination of a unit or reduction in
structure size would eliminate the variance requests. Reasonable use
of the property exists if literal enforcement of the ordinance is made.
On May 12,998, Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. appealed this decision to the
City Council. This item was originally scheduled for the June 1, 1998
City Council meeting, However, upon request of the applicant, it was
continued to this agenda.
162Cill<1&aWES(98lV0lR~4<fi9EQ,4~cfu:ake, Minnesota $5372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
FISCAL IMPACT:
Current Conditions
The site is located at the southeast comer of 160th Street and Franklin
Trail. Both ofthese roads are county roads, requiring an 85 foot
setback from each centerline. The property consists of33,220 square
feet and is the site of the old Ready Mix plant. The legal building
envelope is approximately 15,702 square feet. The ultimate
development ofthis site involves the construction of the two buildings.
The applicant has applied for and received a permit for the first of the
two structures. This structure, currently under construction, meets all
zoning requirements.
The Issues
The City Council must determine if it concurs with the Planning
Commission's decision that the proposed development does not meet
the four hardship criteria.
Franklin Trail is on the turn back list to be given to the city. If the
road were to become a local street the setback would be 25 feet from
the property line. However, this has not been turned over at this point
and has been on the list for at least two years. The city and county
have yet to work out the details and conditions upon which the city
will accept ownership of Franklin Trail. There is no timeline as to
when this will occur.
Conclusion
The petitioner argues that if Franklin Trail is turned back to the city,
the setback would not be an issue. They also contend that under the
proposed zoning ordinance, the centerline setback and lot coverage
limitations do not exist.
The proposed zoning ordinance eliminates the centerline setback from
county roads and lot coverage. The proposed zoning district for this
property is R -4 High Density Residential. The proposed ground floor
area ratio is 35%. Cluster housing (townhomes) with a minimum of 5
acres is permitted with conditions and multiple family dwellings
(apartment or condominiums) are conditional uses.
Staff and the Planning Commission are of the opinion that the
proposed development does not meet all four of the hardship criteria
and the variances are unjustified. The granting of variances based on
speculation of the proposed zoning ordinance or proposed turn back of
Franklin Trail to the city do not comply with the current hardship
criteria as set forth in City Code.
Future tax base could be lost if the variance is denied and the number
of units is reduced.
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\98-040CC.DOC
2
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
1. Adopt Resolution 98-XX upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny the variances requested by Eagle Creek Villas,
Inc.
2. Deny Resolution 98-XX and direct the staff to prepare a resolution
overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and grant the
requested variances.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
The staff recommends Alternative #1, adoption of Resolution 98-XX
upholding a decision ofthe Planning Commission denying a 22.54
foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a
county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback and
the modified setback request of 72.00 feet from the centerline of a
county road (Franklin T ) instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2
percent varianc eque 0 permit lot coverage of21.2 percent rather
the i all ed of 20 percent for Eagle Creek Villas, Inc.
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\98-040CC.DOC
3
RESOLUTION 98-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
62.46 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN
TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK AND THE MODIFIED
SETBACK REQUEST OF 72.00 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY
ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2
PERCENT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT
RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20 PERCENT FOR EAGLE CREEK
VILLAS, INC.
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, on June 15, 1998, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Eagle
Creek Villas, Inc, of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a
variance to setback from the centerline of a county road and lot coverage
maximum for the property legally described in Exhibit A (survey); and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variances do not meet the standards
for granting variances set forth in Section 5-6-6 (C, 1-4) of the City Code,
and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the
decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision
denying the requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should
be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
FINDINGS
1. Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. applied for a variance from Sections 5-4-1 of the City Code and
Section 4.1 of the Zoning Code in order to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of
a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback and the modified
setback request of 72,00 feet from the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of
the required 85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance request to permit lot coverage of 21,2 percent
rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent as shown in Exhibit A on property located in
the R-3 (Multiple Residential) District and as described in Exhibit A.
2, The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case File
#98-040, held a hearing thereon on April 13, 1998, The Planning Commission continued
discussion to May 11, 1998 and denied the applicant's request.
16200 Ek~~Jilei~~~r)\~~~~:~~~'~r1or Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612jg447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
3. Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance
with Section 5-6-3 (A) ofthe City Code.
4. The Prior Lake City Council was to consider this appeal on June 1, 1998, however, at the
request of the applicant, the City Council heard this request on June 15, 1998.
5. The City Council 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.
6. The City Council has determined the request does not meet all four of the hardship criteria.
There are not unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship, was
caused by the actions of the applicant through the design and placement of the proposed
structures, There are no unique characteristics to the property, which would constitute a
hardship.
7, The denial of the requested variances do not constitute a hardship with respect to literal
enforcement of the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the
vanances.
8. The contents of Planning Case File #98-040 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of the decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby:
1. Upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying a 22.54 foot variance to permit a
62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the
required 85 foot setback and the modified variance setback request of 13.00 feet to permit a
72.00 foot setback from the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the
required 85 feet and a 1,2 percent variance request to permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent
rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent for Eagle Creek Villas, Inc., as shown in
Exhibit A, which exhibit is incorporated into this resolution.
Passed and adopted this 15th day of June, 1998,
YES
NO
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
1: \98files\98var\98-040\ccres.doc
Page 2
<1:
I-
-
co
-
:I:
X
w
l
Q,II: .~
r- JHI ~i ~
o ...0 n Ii ~ ~
r-- i~' .{~;
~_('I ~iI!lt ~<5~
-~::!! iiS:
.-~
G)
>
~
~
(J)
-
o
G)
-
ta
o
:;:
:;:
~
Q)
U
I-
z
QW>
..J:E
UJQ..Z
-0<
u..-1c..
O:W:s
~~O
QcQ
W
::..:::
j
a:
o
CE
a..
..d
~l
O~
Jtl~
;~..9
i ~ t'"
~i! Cit'l
~i
f/l ~~~~ . ~~ J
:.: ~=.e · So "
~ ~,,~~ ; ~~ ~
illi!~::~~al ~
t;j1.~-~dUe "
f/l 7!~~ ill i;~ -r
& enS i; (.;i
I ! ~ i.
~w< ;i'"' ~; tIt~
2~~i"2.<"'~
!iiJCZC_;~!:E
o ,~5ii~~~35d
3 ,.- ~~
'"
W
...J
_? oS!
a~H !:!~
Fii jh
.~~ i~a~
~!i !~i!
'''fi iM
u~. ..-
~~aj .I~!+
i!"dS~
OCD)>x*~lU.
III
z
,
1
..t\
..t,
0\
z'
0\
<( i-\
0' e
~\~
>-'
1-'
z'
:;:)\
0,
o ~____~_
~~t ;'
~1Ii~a5~"
.~-~-~ii
:~~~~~.
;I~,,~~i
i~lI!2it;'
~~c~i~t
:;; gS~<l.~~
=~~~:~I
;~~~;i'
it~~.'":~~
*-~~-..<(
;~itn:~
~~'9~3~
~~~;~=a
~f~'f5tiai
~ !;;~U!I
a .~2U"~
lS a .z':loil=!~
~ ~S9;;!;-
im~m~
I
i
.
:l
~
, -
J
.
3-
.
=;
il
... '
f.d1~\i'~~1
" '. i ~ \" 0
'1. '!. il \ --. \" ~
~ \ .. \ \' \
~ '\~'i~,~I. -~--
-~-,~~>~"~
fRANKUN lRA\U
I '
I
-_,;J/
\
\ '
\ I
'-~--
"
111 I ~
.\ d I~' f.'1 j'
Ii 0 I~-,lt....
-\'l~ .
. I! ,:>' , ' " 1
ll!/F' ~-~---r'--"'(."'// i
, I \ ...5,.32/ l"":r-"
It' ~ ~i ' "
I I' 1':> " ,/ / ,. '
,,' 0.' I ~ \ / ' I!
I" ,<nil ., '" .. / / / / i
,i!1 itrl!~ \j'" / / rft-
11!! il-\ /</1"/(/ u~
'\ : i' }-v..t i' '
'II \. I\., ,,! I
'I ~. " .
I ;, I (~'t + i, . 72 1\. I \
_,j \ Ii ~-.. t .
..;;., l~' ~" :". !
0;1 i .... '- \ iT -
-s.... '0' · \ \ '
0, j gi ~' l' (',',. ! rtJ
""". , ' ~ I ' ,
~i i ~ i I II "
_, I i;- 1,)"-/
~ ,I, ' ,I
O'! " \ I
I, .: i I
WI . i I LfV
'(1)' i,'" I I I
...., "'\, cl' ,...:j) c.:~. ! I I
"""",, ) '0 ! ,
I ~ 1 . ~~,_ :.- ; I \-'
..... H cC'l '" i 1. "j
~ ~ i ,r"" g i (';:fJ""~'~
~l : 1;\ , '\" '10 )) ',., I (
, ! ~ -<, :,~ ~
,,' _.,. 'r-7
, ' ,Jo.., i '-. JO-'I . .
, i!, , · .~t;-1L
LJ! I '!2 ~ '
,....., , , ' '
_I' ,". '0'. 1
ell'; ! (........-\-
. I , m"~' \
, . ~( . , '
_i ! "7' ~ ~ '
"P';i i U , ,,;,' " .
..., ' . "'<..-...... ~"L 25 ' ' :;~ ,.
X;\)' \ <O( ',',,' .,~!p "'" .. )
.. .n- , , · ' .,' )
Wi \\" ~\, .~ \:~
\ '." .. \. ,\( \\ ~,-.:. Q.... ~ \ ~~;~,,.?')
I.' ~). ,.' - I .1:.; 1:0" -
,I; \\'\"b~.' .....('. ..,.'- 'l.)>~' ,:"'.:.)':'. " ..
'. '.? <. . ..~ \ ':; -.. -,,'~"'" L \
" $' " . ";1- I gl ...... '
, .. ........l,' ,"'( . "..' .. . " -.. ...L.
!' ~ /--..... 'O"'~ ~.,'- "'" '/' ''\ ',. ....
I"" '. ~ '-. ."
i \ ."', ,..... -_...;..- -" - .'~d'''''---''''- ~8-ii4';;i?w'" .--''''. -\oI-~;' i'i.15 .
I d\""""~:'-'_::>--'/" ,,_..-_..~~~. ~~~-t;;~N ~-;,.;\~\._.. '\~cr/--" -,,"'''' ..-.~~ ./.,
. '.,..' ".. ! . . ,,_.-- ,,_' _..." .. ....,,_~,} .A,o- '..' .~"' ". ".,,=-'~~ --=.c;.;;,:,"",'''~''>
~ . =_ __ ......"".___..... _.._""=:- ...__..-"..... c."'''--' _.r. . .. .
, I ... nnn -----=-... -..---.....<".".--- ,,' \ " ",
j' <= I '. '.(,' ....
,_ I 0' ./. ., ..
":(, ._ _' ',' 'r...
, ,_ (C. c' , ' c'
." = - ' " \" I
> .., . . ... ". . ,. ......,.,,"
Mn ' ..! ,I h ..,r" ". ""'" ~.N'
~+ "i"'-.J ".'_"''''---''--'_..J.,,~ ..;:....:.:- :..::::::.;:C:;::'-'~
_ .._..... .?;._. . _=_--- _..' . , __.__.....~-...J :.::=- - ~. ,c-..::: ..::::::::::...-..-.... > --'"
"" ~. .......
,_~ ~ fRANKL\N 1RA\L
-'
(,~
T'l
-
-{J
I
I
_\
.
.
\
t- <......, .:-r:
("':... .t.....,ri
.... .+ >(_."
\. ,.lk
_)._1
v
o
N
I'-'~" .
,..... -:-,
\ W ..'
C/'l
\..~~-)
a..
co'?
..... ::J
CD h,J
'J'
:...i
J
::c
u
4:
~
l.aJ
VI
\
"
I
\
.
\
i
,
\
\
\
\.
\
)
!
at
\
.
,
J
i
j
{
".
"
:
,
I
~ll
~l
0\
\
.-:
: .J. w..
r
\
-
. -
OO'OS~
-~
May 12,1998
The City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variance Denial for Eagle Creek Villas, LLC
Case Number 98-040
Dear Sirs:
I am requesting an appeal before the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision May 11, 1998,
denying a 22.45 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the center line of a County Road
(Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance to lot coverage of 21.2 percent
rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent. I am requesting a change to a 13.00 foot variance to
permit a 72.00 foot setback from the center line of a County Road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required
85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance to lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the maximum allowed of
20 percent.
\
ohn Messenbrink
Eagle Creek Villas, LLC
7765 175th St. E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
~'"
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 13, 1998
;-
/'
/
,,/
//
/
//
;1'/
,/
The April 13, 98, Planning Commission meeting ~ called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:31 p. Those present were Commis . ners Cramer, Criego, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Dire or Don Rye, Planning ordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni
Tovar and Recording Secre Connie Carls .
V onhof
Kuykendall
Criego
Crame
St on
2. Roll Call:
3.
The M' utes from the March 23, 1998 Planning Commission meetin
pres ted.
ommissioner V onhof arrived at 6:34 p.m.
"'
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #98-040 Eagle Creek Villas, Inc., is requesting a 22.54 foot variance to
permit a 62.46 foot setback from the center line of a County Road (Franklin
Trail) instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance to lot coverage of
21.2 percent rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated April 13, 1998 on file in the office of
the City Planner.
Eagle Creek Villas is proposing to construct two.4-unit townhomes on the Apple Valley
Ready Mix site. A demolition permit has been issued for the structures existing on the
site. The property is zoned R-3 Multiple Family Residential and is designated as R-HD
Urban High Density in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The applicant is requesting
the following variances:
. A 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a county
road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback from the centerline.
. A 1.2% variance to permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the maximum
allowed of 20%.
I :\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\nm041398.doc
The lot is a comer lot approximately 223 feet by 150 feet. The total lot area is 33,220
square feet (0.76 acres). Section 5-4-1 (M) of the City Code requires structures to be
setback 85 feet from the centerline of county roads. Section 5-4-1 allows for a maximum
lot coverage of 20% for townhomes. The maximum permitted density for townhomes in
the R-3 is 14.0 units per acres. The applicant is proposing 10.5 units per acre. The
applicant will have to subdivide the property prior to obtaining a building permit for the
proposed townhomes. As the lot exists, only one building permit can be issued on the lot.
Staff has concluded that as submitted, the proposal does not meet the hardship criteria.
The site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance requirements.
Comments from the public:
Attorney Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, representing the applicant, gave a brief
overview on the proposed townhomes. The intention of the developer is to develop this
as a condominium which would address the 20% versus 30% impervious surface
coverage issue required for townhouses. Huemoeller explained the double frontage
creates additional issues. By combining the buildings and moving 10 feet to the east, the
setbacks would be met, but it would not be a reasonable use of the property. He feels
there is a hardship and the proposal is reasonable. It is a key intersection in the City and
the applicant would like to build an attractive, cost effective building. Moving the project
to the west allows the developer to do several things that are beneficial; enhance
appearance, allow for windows in the interior buildings, yet be cost effective. They do not
feel the movement of the building to the west will interfere with public health and safety.
It is an R3 project and allows adequate view for the intersection for access and safety.
Mr. Huemoeller quoted the Rowell case. He also feels these issues would not be a
problem under the new zoning ordinance. They also feel this meets the City's
Comprehensive PIan. Larry Gensmer, a partner in the development was also present for
any questions.
Pat Sotis, public housing manager for Scott County HRA, manages Prior Manor adjacent
to the lot in question. She said they do not have anything against the variance requestand
would like to work with applicants. She was also representing the residents of the Manor
and asked the following questions. Would there be fencing along the parking 10t property
line? And, because the grading has been changed would there be runoff on to the Manor
property? Kansier explained no fencing is required by the City and the developer has to
address the grading runoff to adjoining property. It is not allowed unless there is an
easement.
The public hearing was closed at 6:47 p.m.
1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\nm041398.doc
2
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
. Asked staff to respond to Huemoeller's question regarding the setback from the
county road under the new zoning ordinance. Kansier said they would have to go
through the conditional use process under the proposed zoning ordinance. Rye said a
potential ordinance does not provide legal basis to approve a variance.
. Regarding the setback from the county road, a hardship could be madedue to the
uniqueness of two county roads. That in a sense, might constitute a variance
hardship.
Criego:
. Question to staff. Because it is two buildings the lot would have to be divided in two.
If it was divided in two, would there be a variance on the side? Tovar explained the
applicant is planning to plat as a condominium. Kansier said they would not need to
go through the subdivision procedure even to create the envelope 10t. They could plat
one large lot. A variance would not be required if they create an envelope lot.
. Tovar read the definition oftownhomes.
. With 33,000 square feet one could still build 6 to 8 townhomes. The applicant is
creating his own hardship by splitting the building.
Cramer:
. Agreed with Criego. The hardship is created by what is being put on the lot as
opposed to circumstances being unique to the property. The building envelope is
very large. There are alternatives.
. The 20% 10t coverage should be met.
. Do not meet the variance hardship criteria at this time.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Cramer and Criego. The ordinance does not create an undue hardship.
There any number of reasonable uses that can be applied to this property. Just
because the ordinance does not accommodate this one particular design does not
create an undue hardship.
. Concurred with staff.
V onhof:
. Disagreed. Although the 10t size is substantial, in view of the spirit and intent of the
ordinance, one large building versus two smaller building, and the fact it is on two
county roads, if you 100ked at it without the roads, the setbacks would be met and
there would not be a problem. The hardship criteria have been met.
Stamson:
. By using a different configuration the townhomes could be built.
V onhof:
. Comer lots with dual setbacks are an issue. There are unique setbacks.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm041398.doc
3
"
Criego:
. Understands Vonhofs comments. In most cases, it was almost impossible to
construct a building without the variances, but here a suitable housing configuration
can be achieved without a variance. That is the difference.
. What are the new setbacks and coverages with the new zoning ordinance? Kansier
explained the new changes.
. Under the new ordinance it would be a conditional use permit, but the setbacks would
be met. This proposal was not reviewed under the new ordinance.
. When is the new ordinance going to be passed? Rye said it would be close to six
months.
. If the applicant wants to build under the new ordinance, he would have to wait.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-
IIPC DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE AND A 1.2%
VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20%.
Discussion:
Criego understood Vonhofs concern for two county roads creating a hardship. Criego's
concern is the building on the west side is five feet closer to the road than he would like.
The east side building is 15 feet from the property line. Criego would consider some type
of request if approved to move the building over. V onhof pointed out the Commissioners
could approve a variance for less than requested.
Tovar said the applicant has the choice to remove one of the units and still meet the lot
coverage.
Cramer noted in the past the Commission has asked applicants to reduce the coverage and
therefore not need the variance. By reducing one of the building units by one, the
developer could create what the developer is aiming for and meet the requirements.
Stamson feels this is a design issue. Not comfortable passing a variance on that basis.
V onhof believes there is an argument for hardship, as proposed.
Cramer feels the hardship is being created by the design.
Vote taken signified ayes by Stamson and Cramer, nays by V onhof and Criego.
MOTION FAILED
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT
AVAILABLE MEETING, MAY 11, 1998.
1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc
4
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Case #98-039 (Continued) David Berens requesting front
ge variances for the property located at 16345 Duluth Avenue.
5. Old Business:
Planner enni Tovar presented the staff report dated April 13, 1998 on file'
the City er.
The Planning ommission originally heard this request on Marc 3, 1998. The item
was continued allow the applicant time to revise the plan and ariance requests. The
applicant is reque ing the following variances:
. 12 Foot Front yar setback variance to allow front yar
the required 25 foof etback.
. 6.5% Lot coverage v . ance to permit lot covera of 28.5% rather that he maximum
coverage allowed of 22 .
The Planning Commission als directed staff t prepare a resolution of denial relating to
the applicant's original request. esolution 8-10PC was drafted.
The 10t is a comer lot 40.0 feet by 1 0 fi t. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code requires that
comer lots maintain the required fron. ard along each street of frontage. Therefore, the
required garage setback is 25 feet 0 the property line facing Duluth Avenue. The
requested variance is to allow a nt y setback of 13 feet rather than the minimum
required of 25 feet. The applic t is also equesting a variance to lot coverage for the
proposed garage. Section 5-4- of the City de allows for a maximum coverage of 22%
(structures only) in the R-2 ban Residential ning district. The applicant is proposing
building coverage of28.5~.
The survey indicates t revised layout of the gara and driveway. The applicant has
significantly reduce e size of the garage from 792 s are feet to 484 square feet. The
garage now faces outh, rather than west in the origin proposal, allowing for a turn
around and elim' ating the overhang of parked vehicles int the right of way.
Staff conclu d the revised proposal meets the four hardship c
I :\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc
5
uykendall: ./ .
. orts the two car garage because it is consistent with setbacks ~-~xisting
house no se they could not live adequately with a o!!~age.
-----
-
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECO RIE, 0 ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-13PC
GRANTING A 2 FOOT VARIANCE T AN 8 FOOT SIDE Y 1IQ,:,::.:...
SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE RED 10 FEET' A 1.65 F001*'VNlUANCE
, ..:.:.:.:.:.'
TO PERMIT DRIVEW A TBACK OF 3.35 FEET INSTE ..:.::::::1ltiF REQUIRED
5 FEET. ALSO AD HE AMENDED SURVEY DATED M1\X,::ffr9..:.::;:::;::~::}:::.. EXHIBIT
A. ..::::tm:?::::::::~:!:i:illlil;,. ..::::::t::::li:"l'l.lii::::::::::::::..
aken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRI.::.::::.::.E::.::.::.::.::..::.::.:::D::.,:::::."::.':::.:.:::.:.::::":::'::::.":::.':::::::::.:::::::':::.:':::::':::.:::::.::::.:::.:::.:::.':::::::.::.:::::.rr-:.. ~~.
5. Old Business: .................... .:("::::::1111:::::::::::::::::.:.
A. Case #98-040 (continued) Eagle Creek Villas, fttij~i::~~":requesting a 22.54 foot
variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the center Iln,:::p!.. a County Road
(Franklin Trail) instead of the require~:::"?:::I~~t and a 1.2 pefGi!1::x~riance to lot
coverage of 21.2 percent rather than th~iiIEi~_~:I:ii;~:~:::.~d..:~~:WP'::percent.
Planner J enni Tovar presented the Planning t\~P9t~ntatea:=N{ilfTt, 1998 on file in the
office of the City Planner............:.:.'.,::r:::r",::\/:::::::::::.::.::.::.::.:':.:.::.:'.:'.:..::..:.. \::::..::.:::::::::!,:::::,:'::'.::::." .=it:,,::.'
".:::::.:::.' '.:::::::::::;:::::
The Planning Commis~i41f'heard th~~i:irequest ori\l~\ppJ 13, 1998 and continued discussion
until May 11, 1998 )Y.~iR:.all ofth~h,.tanning Con.:Jii'ssioners would be present. The
original request inc1fideQ::::~,g2.5.:4::;::::.!n9!:"Mttb.!lr:setback from the centerline of Franklin
Trail, and 1.2% variance 1&:m~:::furodmuHr16Fcoverage requirement. The applicant has
since revise4J1i~"p!W?:s showH1i:::!:::~etback from the centerline of Franklin Trail at 72 feet
rathe~::::~0:,':tfM:BHgi&I~..~~:~:uest "6~:'i;:0":' feet.
AS.J:Wfyiously stated, tM;:::i~ff concluded as submitted and revised, the proposal does not
ntf~W'l1~:::hardship criteri~~::::::;rhe site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance
reqUirefitr~~~:~::t,,::. .."t:::::::.11:r::
Comments 'ltij~:.:~:~~:::phbliC:
Bryce HuemoeUef, attorney for the applicants, stated this parcel is unique because it is
bordered by two county roads. The problem is not the owners'. The setbacks are 85 feet
from the center line. It is a substantial increase in the normal right-of-way which turns
out to be a 25% reduction in building area. The County has offered to turn County Road
39 (Franklin Trail) over to the City. Once this is complete, the road will be a minor
collector street with setbacks less than 85 feet, therefore, a variance would not be
required. The applicants feel, with respect to the variance from County Road 39, the
County will tender the road to the City, and the Planning Commission should evaluate the
matter under that transfer. Under the lot coverage issue in the ordinance, townhouses can
1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\nm051198.doc
3
have 20% coverage, multi-family dwellings can have 30% coverage. These buildings
have townhouse qualities but will be considered condominiums. This lot would easily
conform to 8 townhomes. Huemoeller quoted Rowell vs. City of Moorhead case.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego: ...... . .....
. Questioned the County proposing to turn the road over to the City. .R<yi:r~M(f:h is not
a done deal and has been going on for a few years. ..::::~{:::Ir:::..
. Was there some discussion at the last meeting regarding the 9rq~~a:nBij,1:1\l}ye
~:~;~~ed one cannot evaluate a variance request based .:0:1:;~1~;::may 6F~'li:::::t
. Kansier said under the proposed ordinance, the setbaqk~~SH::a"'s'1ae street woula::6itlS~~?:'
feet and the ground floor area ratio would be 35%:.:{{J~f:::::" .:tt::.. ::::ji:::i:::::}::::"
. This is an adequate use of the property. Two b.*J.qID9:~ willll~:f. better look tcfihe
property. '.:.' ":<\::1:::::::\::::.. ..::~{::}::::::::::::::::t:~:::::.
. There is a future possibility Franklin Trail may becorrig@::~ny street.
. The proposed ordinance will probably.JP'~e this an accept~1J,n}.lse:.:
:ra:::~ the hardsmp to carry because ~y
. Agreed with Criego that it .!2.H~s like a gaqB:~geveloprrilf?::"
. However, the hardshipj,:::Jfasll]:m. the desii!. ..:::::.'
: ~::~o:::~:s~~e c.~:ii~,~Miade o'~:~'s propertYi:~!1i:~::1~::.unit townhome would be better.
.:;:~J~~:~:t(rrt~::::.. ..::::~~ff;;;::::::.:.:.:.:.;.............. _ ....::::/~f::..
Kuykendall:' "::::~~11::::::j:!::::::\:::(1~::::::r~~:~:~::~~~~~))~:::r1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i1i::ii::::}::::"
. Kansier ~~t:I9.yar explrti~il::lhe setbacks.
. Ifth~.::f9~tftFi$~ilnlTrailfl~:1:19~i:PWJo be a minor collector street, it is low volume.
. ItJ%JFFeasonable'::u&~~:::Rut note:~:i:~iit it has not happened yet (road transfer). There are
..::::ffl~onable altemativl~\:)}:"
.::({:::Tqi~tis no hardship. \:::::::::::
. Tli'~:~4,iMt:!oper shoulg:i'ait until the changes take place.
. Unfortuqi~f::!y the~!rJWe two jurisdictions.
. Support stl~IJ::~(;96inmendation.
Tovar pointed oUt under the proposed ordinance this would not be a permitted use.
Stamson:
. Does not believe the existing ordinance denies potential development.
. There is plenty of space to create other designs that would work.
. Opposed to granting variances.
1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\mn051198.doc
4
Open discussion:
Criego:
. Other applicants have had two frontages and this is no different.
. What would be better, apartments or townhomes?
Cramer:
.................
.......................................
....................
: ~:: :~e:=:~t~~:~~:~~~~~~:~:~ission today. ..::::~:~::::::::::il:I:IIII!::::::::::':.............:':::::::'
MOTION BY CRAMER SECOND BY KUYKENDALL TO ~{HIRr" OV..::::~Et:~~::i:i:::::t~::::..
, , ~!: ..::tttt~::::..
RESOLUTION 98-11PC DENYING A 22.54 FOOT V ARlAiNc:.e.:::;rO PERM!W:::!A.62.46
FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A cgPNf=Y:::ROAD (F~if:::)::'
TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT ~.13ACI~}t\ND THE MODyttfgD
SETBACK REQUEST OF 13.00 FOOT V ARIANQIJtQ PERMlt1I::..A 72.00 FOOT'
SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A CdUNTI:RP!\p:~~~IN TRAIL)
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2o/~':V'~CE REQUEST TO
~~~~bi~':).'RAGEOF21.2 %f~~
Vote taken signified ayes by Cramer, Kuyk'dal(~~:::&!mn~R!h::::.Nay by Criego.
MOTION CARRIED. \)\ :,:::ff::" ....:::::::::::::::::::~:::rf::..
Kansier explained the:A-e. ~
B. Case #98-0ij~:::::~'R!ltinue41:~j~onsider al!::::;M~ndment to the Zoning Ordinance
relating to the perfuitteq:i:=~:~:~~Jj:::tli:~:IM~~I~J/Park Zoning District.
Planning C99fW!OO!9IJenn~:::'l.iir::presented the Planning Report dated May 11, 1998 on
file i~:.:~:~@:::prfi2e=='6Nlj,I.il~:~~ Plaiffi~~l:~:::::r::)::'
OI.1:~,iP'l 27, 1998, the Pl,lning Cbmmission reviewed a request to allow gymnastic
sdKo81~::JRthe B-P (Busirl,~~s Park) District. It was the consensus of the Planning
Commls~~9J,:l::~hat this us:~:::~hould be permitted as a conditional use in the B-P district.
The Planrilfii::B2mmi~~t&h continued this request to allow staff to address the conditions
proposed by ln~:il~:~,pb.1g Commission.
The applicant's''6nginal proposal would have included gymnastic schools as a permitted
use in the B-P District. However, the Planning Commission felt this use was more
appropriate as a conditional use. The Commission also suggested the standards for
maximum floor area occupied by the use, hours of operation and required parking must
be addressed before the amendment proceeds to the City Council.
Maximum Floor Area: The Planning Commission suggested the maximum floor area
for these uses be limited to 3,000 square feet. The effect ofthis limitation is that any
1:\98files\98plcornm\pcmin\rrm051198.doc
5
RESOLUTION 98-11PC
DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL)
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK AND THE MODIFIED
SETBACK REQUEST OF 13.00 FOOT VARIANT TO PERMIT A 72.00 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN
TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2% VARIANCE
REQUEST TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20%.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Eagle Creek Villas Inc. has applied for a variances from Section 5-4-1 of the City
Code on property located in the R-3 (Multiple Residential) District at the following
location, to wit;
160th Street, legally described as: Commencing at a point 25 feet east of
the northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 1, Costello's Addition to Prior Lake,
Scott County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the office of the county recorder; thence south parallel to the east
line of said addition a distance of 150 feet; thence east parallel to the north
line of Section 1, T. 114, R. 22, a distance of 300 feet; thence north
parallel to the east line of said addition a distance of 150 feet;, thence
westerly along the right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 13; to a
point of beginning, Scott County MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case #98-040 and held a hearing thereon on April 13, 1998. The Planning
Commission tabled the discussion on the request to May 11, 1998.
3. The applicant submitted a revised plan on April 29, 1998, increasing the setback to
the centerline ofPranklin Trail from 62.46 feet to 72.00 feet.
4. The Board of Adjustment continued discussion on the request and the revised plan on
May 11, 1998.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
5. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the requested setback and lot
coverage 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.
6. The granting of the setback variance and lot coverage variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
applicant has alternatives to eliminate the variances. The variances will serve merely
as a convenience to the applicant.
7. The Board of Adjustment contends the applicant has created their own hardship
through the design of the proposed structures.
8. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the ordinance cannot be met if
the variance is granted.
9. The Board of Adjustment has concluded reasonable use can be made of the property
without the variance.
10. The contents of Planning Case 98-040 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
following variances for 5255 160th Street, as shown in Exhibit A (survey and legal
description);
1. A 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a
county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback.
2. The revised 13.00 foot variance request to permit a 72.00 foot setback from
the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot
setback.
3. A 1.2% variance to permit lot coverage of21.2 percent rather than the
maximum allowed of 20%.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 11, 1998.
A~
Anthony Stamson, Chair
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\RE981IPC.DOC
2
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\RE981IPC.DOC
3
~ i
! ;:
roo.! ~-
_ ::Il. 1 !
':; ..QI'1 }-a.7
\.... J.i as....
r::;- r: :11 ii H g
,.-1' FoJ'J ;.'-
-:::!i i~~;
.. .....~.:
<2:
....
-
CO
-
:I:
X
w
~
-
.J
(J')
-
o
G)
-
ta
Q
.-
-I
._,
t:l
~l
I-
:z
QL.:.!
..J:E>
UJ~Z
-0<
u....JQ"
o:w~
~~O
QcQ
~~
0.,9
tl~
1"4.s
fr'l" t'"
'"
J
"
~
<1:
.-
! .
:
iZ
a
j~
~ ~i
~ JUS i ji
~ I~_~ ~ ~l
~ 'f~;:; \It: !I.Q
l.W t- .. .-=-~ "
f/l 7~~J:!l i:~ -r
.~~ ~~gl' Vi'
-- ~i~.~
ai" J.a
;~ '"
~:a il~
..~; ,-;&
;~3 ;.i;r"i
!~i ~~3;,
hj i;i~
lii1 ih~
~hi ~m!
oCD III
.)>l*~ -, ::.
III
I r ..o~..=:.. +' '
I
I
I
I
.q-I
.q-I
I
0
i ;
~
I .
.. !
.
:
. \
0,
z'
01
<( ....~
O'l
a:;: I ;
I 1
r\ ·
l-l
z:
::J'
01
U;
I----~-,
I
~
: ~
. \\
. /'
\\.
~~\,
~
O~
, ;
r--~: I
~~<.", 1
_I I\.~
i '
!- \E:::: ~-
I ' ,'~
I ,- , ",,'
, ., '. ' "' ' " '
, ;. I" >, \ '.y '., i' \
~'ll \ \, --"'~~~--
, ' ' -~ -~~==-~'~"
\ " fRANKliN WAIL!
'''~--
--
__~I'
z
-~L -
a~~:6~~
~~='i-~i
_%...~'a)o
;n~~~i
~~.-i::;-
~~:~'i~1
::;a~"':!.(
:;....::4!i
_ .,=~s:t..
ir5~;!j
:::::~..~.~:
~o'~-~~
;;:i:~~: ~
:~.!~3~
=ia~.,:i
~!ii"'~.~
_ ':"053:-i~
! !i;~~;il
a _ ......'lI'....3
i ..:1,i:~:;:~
~ !~,,~;~;~
t -_._--~~
i ~!~!ijii
"""
1--"
(:c: i
II~:: -
~!
I'r:=.'.-
~- -_.:::.
:
I Il I '" ~'I '
Il.t I~ t..~ !
It .....l!....
-;1 I~ ~ I
I Ii i'" i ~-----rl ~ ,/ A'
I" ;: \ 45.32/ -;"i';:' '- i
{ :; r!:;:' . II.' i' ..
" Ii 0 l: I /
Ii! i ""J." \./ y' ./ I !
, :1 Ii;., L . v' .... ,/ ,/ m~i
i Ii I I -,' ../ 1"'/ // I: -
",' ' ' / ~
i :i i h. \ /,/ ( I I 7'1,.:.
I !. Ii' )- i' L-V
,..1 I ('t' . I CfJ I
i: >f - . ;;; \. I
_: I I, . ,'i.... (',
COI ) J-' :-" !
(7) 1 ! ..... \. \ IT -
~1 gjj ;" \ \ '
~! "I ~ l'/',.! r-tt
-;-;... i i ~ ! I 1/ '"
~; :'1 i! I
0: ! I ! li~
~~ '~I'~) ~ ! ( LfV!1
_ I ~ + 0; \I, '
>!: '; ) c, ~i ; -'
w! : ~';;':~ :... I l~"
c:;z:'F,i ,! i (0 g i (~
l." '1,. ! ( ,J',).~
, 'i i ->.:1' ,t 1\.'1 '7
. .1 I I ' ...._~
L.....: I I <0 ~
,....., . I '" '
-I I (.........., ," \
GJ; I "'/'~' o' \
-" ~." '
....-: . f5 ....t. ~ ') I
...: i j .,. ,
\',! l ~~L..' (....~'5 ' ' (~., .
x;, ) \ '" ' ..' ,"" ~, ; ,. )
W; \\,. \ 5((. .....\.J. \"\ ~'.,.', ~- ""b.'O I;;]; , ")
\ ' ...,,' I 0. '..\ :I "; ....
, '.'. . _ oX ' ".! ~ ..--
,", , .' ,--,~., '0" '. ;;; , -.. :;;,.>.
. \\b~ ti",.. i,/ ~ ,-~,.........\ \ ':; ~" -...... ,-. '-.. 1 \ -- I
. ... . . .r' ,,' ... .. ..
;., .~" I U (' ..,~\ \ :!; ..... ""... \ .. ,...:t .;
, .......--.... ..,- ". I' , .;. ~'''' ....... ..' " ...
i \ '.~, '<__:. --.-,'''-' ---- :"!;,,J-" -=,:"',,;;--0.-'5.""" --' -!~\~:i':2' - .--.-.:- .. '-'IC:)
d'. ~~.:-~~-~ '. -_..-_..~s~. ~~~-t;;,:;;;~:..;;,~)...- '\~n-7:"" .. -' ..-'.' . ..----\(:
: w \"".' j~ . ""~""L,~,:.="-,O:: ="f,;;:;.J.;=, oC"'=- ,,,,,,,~"",, · ."".~~~-'~"~';- ,.,. ~~'. ,.' ,,,,,,, . ,?"..:::.:,.-;!.~"-.,,. ""-j
00, ,- I .. .. '. -" , ' ' '
""c--.. ., ' .j:' .,
, ......"1 .' '
....,.... .. .,' A-
..'.... ->r- . ~.. :: ~", 0;', \, \ c'
.~ "'" ' ". \, ' .. ,. . -' ". , " "
_.::_...~.- . _~_.-.-. ~.. , ~_::-~:-:~~~==~:i:;.s
IOJ: ~
,__~ ~ fRAN'r<L\N
:-~
l..;
(- ,......, ..
.~ .f..... ..;S
( \-"
..... + l(~
I ..
" .. 1/~~
-,,,..I
J
~
(.)
-<
~
!.oJ
VI
\
i
i
\
,
,
,
\
1
\
\
\
;
.-'
\
,
,
I
.i
i
{
'-
..
:
I
I
Mjl.
~r
0'
\.
....
IRA\L:
--
OO'O'i~
d
o
...J
Q
I
-J
--
'(
~.
~
.
.
61598.DOC
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. There were no public hearings.
9.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-77 Upholding a Decision of the Planning
Commission Denying a 22.54 Foot Variance to Permit a 62.46 Foot Setback from
the Centerline of a County Road (Franklin Trail) Instead of the Required 85 Foot
Setback and a 1.2 Percent Variance Request to Permit Lot Coverage of21.2 Percent
Rather than the Maximum Allowed of 20 Percent for Eagle Creek Villas, Inc.
.
City Manager Boyles introduced the item and reviewed the agenda report. A letter from the
petitioner's attorney was received by the City at 3:30 p.m. today, June 15th. The City
Attorney has not had the opportunity to research the case law cited in the letter.
.
Councilmember Schenck said with the issue of the setback, there would not be an issue if
Franklin Trail were currently a City street.
.
Planner Tovar said that is correct. There would be a lot coverage issue. But for setback, if
Franklin Trail were a City street, the required setback would be 25 feet.
.
Councilmember Schenck asked about the distance between townhomes.
.
Planner Tovar said 15.24 feet off the original proposal. They have pushed the buildings
together to be 10 feet apart and pushed it further to the east. The modified request is that the
setback be 72 feet.
.
Councilmember Wuellner asked how could the lot coverage issue be considered a hardship?
.
Planner Tovar said Mr. Huemoeller could answer that. The staff and Planning Commission
review hardship criteria with respect to the property and reasonable use rather than financial
considerations.
.
Bryce Huemoeller, Attorney for Eagle Creek Villas LLC, asked that a copy of his letter be
made part of the record. He said city staff reported the variance was denied because the
developer can use the land without a variance by building seven units instead of eight. He
said staff is wrong with its concept of reasonable use. Staff has identified hardship to mean
there is no alternate use of the property. He cited several cases from his letter regarding
variance appeals and said a government has the power to grant a variance despite the
possibility of alternate use. He said the petitioner was asking the Council to consider the fact
that literal enforcement ofthis ordinance would result in undue hardship.
Councilmember Schenck verified that the setbacks are met with the exception of the
townhomes in the southwest quadrant and that seven units is a possibility without variances.
Councilmember Schenck asked if phase 2 was offset forward would it encroach on the
setback on 44 and bring the southwest phase 2 townhomes within setbacks?
3
.
.
61598.DOC
.
Planner Tovar said the current setback of proposed building number 2 is 89.37 feet from the
center line. So it could be moved forward but it would not totally eliminate the need for a
variance request. No matter where the buildings are the lot coverage is still an issue unless
the four units are made smaller.
.
Councilmember Schenck said in the lot coverage issue what impact would the elimination of
the eighth townhome have?
.
Planner Tovar said there would be no variance necessary with seven units.
.
Councilmember Wuellner asked what is the hardship if building seven units is a viable
option?
.
Mr. Huemoeller said eight is a reasonable use. Seven is a reasonable use under the current
ordinance according to staff. To keep the units at the $99,000 price there has to be eight
units. If eight is a reasonable use and it is precluded by the ordinance, these cases and the
state law would say that they are entitled to the variance.
.
Councilmember Wuellner said any of these cases could be used to defend any variance. Just
because a use is reasonable does not mean a property owner is entitled to it. He asked why
the rush if the developer knows that Franklin Trail will become a City Street and then there
will not be a need for the variance?
.
Mr. Huemoeller said when trying to keep costs at a certain level the developer needed to be
efficient and maximize use of people and equipment. Being able to build through and finish
is essential.
.
Councilmember Wuellner asked why was the development started before Franklin Trail
became a City street?
.
Mr. Huemoeller said the developer felt he should be allowed a variance.
.
Councilmember Petersen asked when the street gets turned over to the City from the County
will it increase the area of the developable lot?
.
Mr. Huemoeller said there would still be a 40 foot easement, and there would not be a
recalculation of lot coverage ratio. So even though a turnover would solve the setback
variance it would not solve the lot coverage unless the City would vacate a portion of it.
.
Councilmember Kedrowski asked City Engineer Ilkka about whether there was a policy on
road easement with turnbacks, if such a large easement would be maintained.
City Engineer Ilkka said there is not a policy because the issue has never been addressed.
The existing right of way and easement would be maintained.
Councilmember Kedrowski asked Planner Tovar whether setbacks to County roads were
determined by City.
4
61598.DOC
.
Planner Tovar said yes.
.
Councilmember Kedrowski said if there were a comer lot on two city streets would it be two
front yard setbacks or one.
.
Planner Tovar said the current ordinance states that comer lots maintain two front yards on
the sides facing the street. Then there is no rear yard. The interior yards are considered side
yards.
.
Councilmember Kedrowski said the City was looking for an equitable arrangement with the
County for turnbacks. What is the projection for this to happen?
.
City Manager Boyles said he spoke with Dave Unmacht, Scott County Administrator
regarding County Road turnbacks. Maintenance of the roadway is an important issue for
taxpayers. That is something that needs to be talked about before the roadways are turned
back.
.
Councilmember Kedrowski agreed the roads should not be turned back until maintenance
was discussed. He said it was clear that Franklin Trail did not meet the criteria for a county
road. It would be a minor collector forever. The Eagle Creek issue should be looked at from
a perspective that this is a City street.
.
Mayor Mader said both an earlier letter and the letter received this evening speculation on
whether the streets would be turned back to the City. He asked Mr. Huemoeller if he felt the
Council should act on speculation? In addition Mr. Huemoeller claimed that criteria which
staff has used in the past is all faulty. Does this mean staff should throwaway years of past
practice and begin with new criteria?
.
Mr. Huemoeller said yes based upon the cases he cited. The language says it is the intention
to give governments flexibility to avoid hardship.
.
Mayor Mader said he would interpret that to mean flexibility, not that variances should be
automatically granted.
.
City Attorney Pace said she disagreed with Mr. Huemoeller's representation that Council
must grant the variances. It should be based on Council interpretation of facts. The statute
does not say that the property owner must be allowed any reasonable use of the property.
Council does have the right to determine whether or not it would be a hardship to have a
variance. Reasonable use exists under the terms ofthe ordinance.
.
Councilmember Schenck asked how essential was it to sell the units at $99,000? There is a
reasonable use with seven units.
.
Mr. Huemoeller said as it is currently laid out, it creates equality, which is easier for the
association to administer, and it is better and more marketable with eight units instead of
seven units.
5
· Councilmember Wuellner said he would not support turning over a decision of the Planning
Commission in this instance because the ability to hold up the zoning ordinance could be
undermined if this argument was accepted.
· Councilmember Schenck said he agreed with Councilmember Kedrowski that Franklin Trail
is as much a City street as any other except for its deplorable condition. Turnback is
inevitable, but it should be under the City's terms. There are other options here for the
developer and they will come up with a viable alternative.
MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-
XX UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A
22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE
CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT
SETBACK AND A 1.2 PERCENT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT LOT
COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20
PERCENT FOR EAGLE CREEK VILLAS, INe.
Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Schenck, and Wuellner, nays by Kedrowski and Petersen, the
motion carried.
B. Consider Approval of Request of Extension of Adelmann Street, Storm Sewer, Water
and Sanitary Sewer by Deerfield Development, Inc.
.
City Manager Boyles introduced the item and reviewed the agenda report. The request was
for the City to extend Adelmann Street in the amount of approximately $72,000, which
would include the extension of storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water. The options are to
deny the request, participate on a cost share at $38,000, or assume the entire cost of
approximately $72,000.
.
Mr. Huemoeller said it is Deerfield's position that according to the Comprehensive PIan and
Subdivision Ordinance, developers are required to extend sewer and water to the property
line. Some of it is oversizing which the City has to pay anyway. Any other developer would
have had to run the lines to the Deerfield property line.
.
Mayor Mader asked if the property line was the same for Deerfield and the business park.
.
City Engineer Ilkka said there are two parcels in the 260 acre Deerfield. Part is residential
and part business park. Therefore there is more than one property line for Deerfield.
.
Mayor Mader asked whether Deerfield and Mesenbrink are one in the same?
.
Mr. Huemoeller said they were not the same.
.
Councilmember Kedrowski said he will support the second option, which is splitting the
cost with the developer. He said the City Council chose intentionally not to extend the road
to the property boundaries. Any other developer would have had to extend the road to the
property line. This is an attempt to meet the developer half way. It is pro-development and
good long term development for the community.
61598.DOC
6
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5A
CONTINUED DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER COUNTY
ROAD SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES
FOR EAGLE CREEK VILLAS, INC., Case File #98-040
5255 160TH STREET
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES l NO
MAY 11,1998
The Planning Commission heard this request on April 13, 1998 and continued
discussion until May 11, 1998 when all of the Planning Commissioners would be
present. The original request included a 22.54' variance to the setback from the
centerline of Franklin Trail, and 1.2% variance to the maximum lot coverage
requirement. The applicant has since revised his plans showing a setback from
the centerline of Franklin Trail at 72.00 feet rather than the original request of
62.46 feet.
The applicant is currently requesting the following variances:
. A 13.00 foot variance to permit a 72.00 foot setback from the centerline of a
county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback from the
centerline.
. A 1.2% variance to permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the
maximum allowed of 20%.
A more detailed discussion of this request is included in the attached Planning
Report dated April 13, 1998.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-040\98040PC2.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. Permitted uses in the R-3 zoning district
include townhouses and multiple family residential structures. The building
setbacks are the same for either use, but the lot coverage is different.
Townhouses are allowed 20% lot coverage and multiple family units are
allowed 30% lot coverage. The density is the same. The legal building
envelope is approximately 15,702 square feet. Reasonable use of the
property exists without the approval of the variances.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are no unique characteristics of the property that warrant hardship.
The lot is over 33,000 square feet. The layout or number of units could be
modified to meet the ordinance and eliminate the variance request.
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 lot, as it exists, is conforming to the dimensional and area requirements
of the R-3 zoning district. The hardship is caused by the applicants number
of units and proposed layout of the units. Reasonable use can be made of
the property without the variances.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of lot coverage is to provide open space and separation between
structures on lots. The intent of lot coverage can be met with the requested
variance. However, the intent of the setback from the centerline of county
road is to provide adequate spacing and front yards on lots adjacent to roads
that are typically wider and carry more traffic than a local street. The intent of
the county road setback cannot be maintained as proposed. Therefore, as
proposed the variance requests do not meet the intent of the ordinance and
are contrary to the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded that, as submitted and revised, the proposal does not meet
the hardship criteria. The site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance
requirements.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this
L:\98FI LES\98V AR\98-040\98040PC2.DOC
Page 2
case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purposes.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria as in attached
Resolution 98-11 PC.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 98-11 PC.
L:\98FI LES\98V AR\98-040\98040PC2.DOC
Page 3
RESOLUTION 98-11PC
DENYING A 22.56 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL)
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK AND THE MODIFIED
SETBACK REQUEST OF 13.00 FOOT VARIANT TO PERMIT A 72.00 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN
TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2% VARIANCE
REQUEST TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20%.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Eagle Creek Villas Inc. has applied for a variances from Section 5-4-1 of the City
Code on property located in the R-3 (Multiple Residential) District at the following
location, to wit;
160th Street, legally described as: Commencing at a point 25 feet east of
the northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 1, Costello's Addition to Prior Lake,
Scott County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the office of the county recorder; thence south parallel to the east
line of said addition a distance of 150 feet; thence east parallel to the north
line of Section 1, T. 114, R. 22, a distance of 300 feet; thence north
parallel to the east line of said addition a distance of 150 feet; ,thence
westerly along the right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 13; to a
point of beginning, Scott County MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case #98-040 and held a hearing thereon on April 13, 1998. The Planning
Commission tabled the discussion on the request to May 11, 1998.
3. The applicant submitted a revised plan on April 29, 1998, increasing the setback to
the centerline of Franklin Trail from 62.46 feet to 72.00 feet.
4. The Board of Adjustment continued discussion on the request and the revised plan on
May 11, 1998.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
5. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the requested setback and lot
coverage 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 PIan.
6. The granting of the setback variance and lot coverage variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
applicant has alternatives to eliminate the variances. The variances will serve merely
as a convenience to the applicant.
7. The Board of Adjustment contends the applicant has created their own hardship
through the design of the proposed structures.
8. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the ordinance cannot be met if
the variance is granted.
9. The Board of Adjustment has concluded reasonable use can be made of the property
without the variance.
10. The contents ofPlanning Case 98-040 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
following variances for 5255 160th Street, as shown in Exhibit A (survey and legal
description);
1. A 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a
county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback.
2. The revised 13.00 foot variance request to permit a 72.00 foot setback from
the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot
setback.
3. A 1.2% variance to permit 10t coverage of21.2 percent rather than the
maximum allowed of 20%.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 11, 1998.
Anthony Stamson, Chair
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\RE981IPC.DOC
2
<
I-
-
cc
-
:I:
><
w
G>
>
'-
~
CJ)
-
o
G>
-
to
'->
:;:
:;:;
'-
G>
()
I-
Z
ow>
irl:Ez
_0.<
LLgQ"
O:W:::t
ttl~o
QcQ
-'
. c.
~
a:
Q
a:
a..
ul
o
.tl's
~. r6 ~
~ .. t'"
I~ ~
l
.. ; J
~ a~~~ ~!i "
:i ;~~~ ; ~~ ~
ill ~~~~ ~ ~a' <1:
t;j ~Nh ~d i~~ ~.
f/l 7h~:~~~~ -
. ~i!i~8h :r
v1
5 "
~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~$~2~~~
x::: <( a:: a. ~ ~
a~/:!B:~loo!;~I-~
o $:ltj~~~~<~~::l
~ II.. ~ III:;; ~
<.?
w
...J
;3 ~~a
~~~ ~~~
F~ i~~
d> i~5:e
~~~ ~"!O!;;:
.~i ~~~S
J~~ im
~iil ,~~:
bh ~~m
OOD)>x*~lU.
III
z
\ \ (( 1--
, \ \ \ \ 7
x
/
,
I
.q-!
.q-,
0\
2,
~lL
0'1
er:: \ ·
>-1
1--,
51
0,
0\
r --~-
"~
-'~~" -'
i~g~~;~
...,,~~~-!l
s!~~~~>
~I~~~il
l Il!~~li::
~~/:-H
a!~.a
~I~~~~~
~ =...aiSi!i
;ga~:f3i
~m~.~~
~o",~i!~~
.,.~c'ii= l!I.
:~.~~~'
~~~~~=~
Nf.~5~~
~ ~~~~~~Xl
. .~~~~~.z
~ ~~ifW~~
~ ~~~sei!:~~
~ ~N~~w~
l hh:n;
~
~
~
~
ill
;:i
,
L<<
1 ~~ .ZL
,
\
\
-~~=--"\\
fR,t\NKUN
\ '
\ I
'-~- - -
\ I '
T-----il--r ~<l~ /~ i
'V 45.32/ ("':J-"
\ 'j' '..
\ / " ,
\ ,/ . .I:'
\ ..' I ,.... / '
\/ ... / " ~
, , .. .. I I ~ ~
,/>t/ ( / Ur~-
I '.. I
I j
I \
I
\ [7-
rt1
I
\ II "
n~
LiY
/ I '.
; I-
i , , ~j I
: ,.. t,
j (--,;-rtt-..
. '< .~"
! ( ~':.'~ -7
,(' ---.
!......~~),/
~ "_J';'
(rl '.
,.j. ..,,;. \
t,""'''. ~.J... ,
! I
. ,
,
,
III 1- i'l I
I 11\ 1:5 f..,~ I
'1\ I .......Jl....
-d l~ .
, Ii .:::1' I
I . I
,1,\ l~ i
I f IF \..- .
! Ii'::) d .,,-, ). m
i Ii 10 .~: : <{
III : VIII . \ LY.
: I ~~ "i : ()
I l! I' '.'I.i)'~'
I .. 1-'1'-
I ))1 I \
, : I: i ~
'I :t' I (I.....,... \
I I \' "'1\.
: II (~; ,r en
I !'! ~ti'"' .~'r.
,__1\ Ii ,0-'..
I'. I I ,Y-'. "'~
,I "
. i t
J I llJ
1:t--'. : 8' in
~I""; -
.,,;. i i jl:
~1I! I m
I "'h--- i 1 z
~\ !
I~\
I ~.\ ~~I~;"~) ~
-...u l!; .> u
'I ~ ~il'~~;~ (.~~- ~
....: l \. (.-.
. 'I;-!-'- ('Jt.5
1 ;; I '.. -I- ') ~
I' ~\ I \....'-;...~.r ,"
! i! i I
Wt1
!:::J: !
, 59' ,I i ('''''''-'
I.. j! I $?( ,-T'')
^" .~. -!" '"
~:' Ill'
_' i : : '~Y-oy J'
i\ ' ,.. - .-.,.... 2S
X\.i )' \ ::c ( '\"\"
.. ,~,'< .. ,
W. '\1" Q':! 'r \'0(
. ~, u~ 0
I ",' · '-. .~')
I \ \' .', '-:J.~'-!"'
! " . ~ c?,.. I,
i '.' .$'-; "" .
, \,~ ' '6$'~C" · .
I ~ ~.---...... .o."'~ \'. 'j' "\ 'of .,
\.." ..... ~ .-. . . -, , ,. .,. - .-. --....-...--..-..' ,-'-.-'
, ".,;-, '., .__1----..- ."'.~.}.....-....-;;'-...'<8..;.;.j..-. ....----.' ,._-,,;:::;\-"'j" .-2....~ 2.'8. '0,...
, ,'" _ ' ~ _ . ,,8"000 n ,~ ,'" "
I d' ."''- _., 1 ! ",~'.....\_."'.>n. ..n...-.-.- ,.n---- .n_.,'
I . \ "Z,;";:/-.;O-<- ----..--.~~~ ~;~..t;-;~.. ~;:;.~;::5'.-- -\~f ;/ /
~\ c. :~_ _- _.....-. _----.... ...-j----.:.""'''";;.''"~~'''' .~ .,,;,d.",-'Fco';- ...: _,,:c-. ;."",,;. -;,7;;;;;C::"":~'>
i . --"'".. -.........---- - ~........-' -,. .. ,..' · " .
I \ nnn ----I ':" .' '. \ v \.
, ' =. . -..
'i ,_ ,;;. '':: i \ \ "':>"
, ,7, . ?:' (I' I . . 6
~1" CI " '1\ \ \ "
. > . C> .\ " .'. . ,. . ,. - . " .,
! nnn " .. \ ,\ ,., ...)., d.'" \ {. '" \ ~;.
, """ "" ' ....---"...'. _-._~."._~\c~' ; \ -. ..-.=:.-::.:::::----:::'~.-:.;..::.~-.:-.:.:--:::..-\\ ~
...~_._.._.. . ,.------........---...' ' ~ .
_~....' _- :.__--.~-...: :.::=- _.; ".n:::..------......- > ..-"
Icr. :;;: ~ '--'
....._~ ~ fRAN\<L\N 1RA\l
(
\.
..
.
\
11
I
i
\
!
i
i
i
i
f
-
-'
.
..:
_J
l..j
(- <-..... .
,\'" .f' ~
( . \;':
... J-"
~ ' ;...
\..... 1"!t.l
_~'w_-"
I
i
I
I
!
i
,
.
1
I
;
i
\
.
.
,.
c;,
o:"ol
I'-'c<,r I
..1. 'r",
( ~ ,!
\....~~..J.
a..
J
I' (-" .~..
LD~; ". )
I --: lj , ')'
'~'" '>>.
I 0. ..:~.._/,:".' :~r
I -!t.:.J. -
OO'OS~
\
,
I
\
.
i
\
,
\
\
\
\
\
;
)
\
.
,
}
.I
i
t
"
"
:
I
I
)tll
~l
o \..
\
-~
----"'--
~,..,,/
,/
-;--/
/
".../
,,///~
/
/
(
\
c:;'
,.:;-,
<'\
(~:.
,~;l
, :~
..
':x
6'
,
:'~"
\
"-.
I"
II)
~
i
/j z
I~
>-
~
, I~
t:
, ;t'"
\
\
---
-.---:::;...- -
, \
//.
,(,/
.~;/
,/
/,/:/
/)'
"'<~.~/
((o'
I
~
9
~
>
Z
~
~
Q
~
~
~
~
\~ ~
l\ ~
\ ~~
\\
i\ ~~
<5' ~
\ "~,
\. .
.......
/
(
I
i
I
I
il
~
I~
~
~
~
~
~.
Kuykendall:
· Supports the two car garage because it is consistent with setbacks from the existing
house not because they could not live adequately with a one car garage.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-13PC
GRANTING A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN 8 FOOT SIDE YARD
SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET; AND A 1.65 FOOT VARIANCE
TO PERMIT DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 3.35 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED
5 FEET. ALSO ADD THE AMENDED SURVEY DATED MAY 4, 1998 AS EXHffiIT
A.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #98-040 (continued) Eagle Creek Villas, Inc., is requesting a 22.54 foot
~ variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the center line of a County Road
, (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance to lot
coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated May 11, 1998 on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The Planning Commission heard this request on April 13, 1998 and continued discussion
until May 11, 1998 when all ofthe Planning Commissioners would be present. The
original request included a 22.54' variance to the setback from the centerline of Franklin
Trail, and 1.2% variance to the maximum lot coverage requirement. The applicant has
since revised his plans showing a setback from the centerline of Franklin Trail at 72 feet
rather than the original request of 62.46 feet.
As previously stated, the staff concluded as submitted and revised, the proposal does not
meet the hardship criteria. The site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance
requirements.
Comments from the public:
Bryce Huemoeller, attorney for the applicants, stated this parcel is unique because it is
bordered by two county roads. The problem is not the owners'. The setbacks are 85 feet
from the center line. It is a substantial increase in the normal right-of-way which turns
out to be a 25% reduction in building area. The County has offered to turn County Road
39 (Franklin Trail) over to the City. Once this is complete, the road will be a minor
collector street with setbacks less than 85 feet, therefore, a variance would not be
required. The applicants feel, with respect to the variance from County Road 39, the
County will tender the road to the City, and the Planning Commission should evaluate the
matter under that transfer. Under the lot coverage issue in the ordinance, townhouses can
1:\98files\98p1comm\pcmin\mn051198.doc
3
have 20% coverage, multi-family dwellings can have 30% coverage. These buildings
have townhouse qualities but will be considered condominiums. This lot would easily
conform to 8 townhomes. Huemoeller quoted Rowell vs. City of Moorhead case.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Questioned the County proposing to turn the road over to the City. Rye said it is not
a done deal and has been going on for a few years.
. Was there some discussion at the last meeting regarding the ordinance? Rye
responded one cannot evaluate a variance request based on what mayor may not
happen.
. Kansier said under the proposed ordinance, the setback on a side street would be 15
feet and the ground floor area ratio would be 35%.
. This is an adequate use ofthe property. Two buildings will add a better look to the
property.
. There is a future possibility Franklin Trail may become a city street.
. The proposed ordinance will probably make this an acceptable use.
. Allow the hardship to carry because of the dual county roads.
Cramer:
. Agreed with Criego that it looks like a good development.
. However, the hardship is based on the design.
. Reasonable use can be made ofthis property - a 6 unit townhome would be better.
. Deny request.
Kuykendall:
. Kansier and Tovar explained the setbacks.
. If the road (Franklin Trail) is going to be a minor collector street, it is low volume.
. It is a reasonable use, but notes that it has not happened yet (road transfer). There are
reasonable alternatives.
. There is no hardship.
. The developer should wait until the changes take place.
. Unfortunately there are two jurisdictions.
. Support staff s recommendation.
Tovar pointed out under the proposed ordinance this would not be a permitted use.
Stamson:
. Does not believe the existing ordinance denies potential development.
. There is plenty of space to create other designs that would work.
. Opposed to granting variances.
1:\98files\98p1comm\pcrnin\rnn051198.doc
4
Open discussion:
Criego:
· Other applicants have had two frontages and this is no different.
· What would be better, apartments or townhomes?
Cramer:
· There are apartments next door right now.
· Make a decision on what is before the Commission today.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 98-11PC DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46
FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN
TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK AND THE MODIFIED
SETBACK REQUEST OF 13.00 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 72.00 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL)
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2% VARIANCE REQUEST TO
PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 % RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED OF 20%.
Vote taken signified ayes by Cramer, Kuykendall and Stamson. Nay by Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier explained the appeal procedure.
B. Case #98-043 (continued) Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
relating to the permitted uses in the Business Park Zoning District.
Planning Coordinator Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated May 11, 1998 on
file in the office ofthe City Planner.
On April 27, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed a request to allow gymnastic
schools in the B-P (Business Park) District. It was the consensus of the Planning
Commission that this use should be permitted as a conditional use in the B-P district.
The Planning Commission continued this request to allow staff to address the conditions
proposed by the Planning Commission.
The applicant's original proposal would have included gymnastic schools as a permitted
use in the B-P District. However, the Planning Commission felt this use was more
appropriate as a conditional use. The Commission also suggested the standards for
maximum floor area occupied by the use, hours of operation and required parking must
be addressed before the amendment proceeds to the City Council.
Maximum Floor Area: The Planning Commission suggested the maximum floor area
for these uses be limited to 3,000 square feet. The effect ofthis limitation is that any
1:\98files\98plcornm\pcmin\mn051198.doc
5
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER COUNTY ROAD SETBACK AND LOT
COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR EAGLE CREEK
VILLAS, INC., Case File #98-040
5255 160TH STREET
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER J/tiJ
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES .lL NO
APRIL 13,1998
Eagle Creek Villas is proposing to construct two 4-unit townhomes on the Apple
Valley Ready Mix site (Exhibit A). A demolition permit has been issued for the
structures existing on the site. The property is zoned R-3 Multiple Family
Residential and is designated as R-HD Urban High Density in the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The applicant is requesting the following
variances:
. A 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a
county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback from the
centerline.
. A 1.2% variance to permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the
maximum allowed of 20%.
DISCUSSION:
The lot is a corner lot approximately 223 feet by 150 feet. The total lot area is
33,220 square feet (0.76 acres). Section 5-4-1 (M) of the City Code requires that
structures be setback 85 feet from the centerline of county roads. Section 5-4-1
allows for a maximum lot coverage of 20% for townhomes. The maximum
permitted density for town homes in the R-3 is 14.0 units per acres. The
applicant is proposing 10.5 units per acre. The applicant will have to subdivide
the property prior to obtaining a building permit for the proposed townhomes. As
the lot exists, only one building permit can be issued on the lot.
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. Permitted uses in the R-3 zoning district
include townhomes and multiple family residential structures. The building
setbacks are the same for either use, but the lot coverage is different.
Townhomes are allowed 20% lot coverage and multiple family units are
allowed 30% lot coverage. The density is the same. The legal building
envelope is approximately 15,702 square feet. Reasonable use of the
property exists without the approval of the variances.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are no unique characteristics of the property that warrant hardship.
The lot is over 33,000 square feet. The layout or number of units could be
modified to meet the ordinance and eliminate the variance request.
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 lot, as it exists, is conforming to the dimensional and area requirements
of the R-3 zoning district. The hardship is caused by the applicants number
of units and proposed layout of the units. Reasonable use can be made of
the property without the variances.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of lot coverage is to provide open space and separation between
structures on lots. The intent of lot coverage can be met with the requested
variance. However, the intent of the setback from the centerline of county
road is to provide adequate spacing and front yards on lots adjacent to roads
that are typically wider and carry more traffic than a local street. The intent of
the county road setback cannot be maintained as proposed. Therefore, as
proposed the variance requests do not meet the intent of the ordinance and
are contrary to the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded that as submitted, the proposal does not meet the hardship
criteria. The site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance requirements.
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\98-040PC.DOC
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this
case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings.
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 as in attached
Resolution 98-11 PC.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 98-11 PC.
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\98-040PC.DOC
Page 3
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES:
A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK FROM
THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2 PERCENT VARIANCE TO
LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RA THER THAN THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED OF 20 PERCENT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FUTURE TOWN HOMES ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R-3 (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS
5255160TH STREET.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE
(Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday,
April 13, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS: Eagle Creek Villas Inc.
7765 175th Street
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PROPERTY AVR Inc.
OWNERS: 6801 150th Street W.
Apple Valley, MN 55124
SUBJECT SITE: 5255 160th Street, legally described as follows:
Commencing at a point 25 feet east of the northeast corner
of Lot 1, Block 1, Costello's Addition to Prior Lake, Scott
County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and
of record in the office of the county recorder; thence south
parallel to the east line of said addition a distance of 150
feet; thence east parallel to the north line of Section 1, T.
114, R. 22, a distance of 300 feet; thence north parallel to
the east line of said addition a distance of 150 feet; thence
westerly along the right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway
No. 13; to a point of beginning.
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040PN ,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
REQUEST:
The applicant is intending to construct eight townhome units.
Townhomes are permitted in the R-3 zoning district. The
proposed setback from the centerline of Franklin Trail is
62.46 feet, rather than the required 85 feet and the
proposed lot coverage is 21.2%, rather than the maximum
coverage allowed of 20% for town homes.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested
variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions
related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department
by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written
comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed
construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-
listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: April 2, 1998
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040PN .DOC
2
I
I
,/
~'
11 ~l
\~
-mt\
\
I~ \
~ \
VI \
I~ \ I
;T ) I
_dlo \. I r'
~ \ i
~ J ~Ii r
"S'~ ~ e
I \ I.
J '~
t"l.
,i~\
'-C
.:i;
,~.; \
'":\
(;1
\..{
i.-;\;
\
."
\
\
\
\
\
!
"'\
OSI \
~
~
.
o
21
~l!
0, ~
13
0::::=
~
::I
>-~
r- I Z
2
nn'n~1
fl'
,//
I (
I
i
I
I Ii
I
I ~
~
I
I~
~ I
Z~\
"\
~\
:,~\
\ \.'
) \
(
\
\
\
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 13, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The April 13, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni
Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof
Kuykendall
Criego
Cramer
Stamson
Absent
Absent
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 23, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner V onhof arrived at 6:34 p.m.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #98-040 Eagle Creek Villas, Inc., is requesting a 22.54 foot variance to
permit a 62.46 foot setback from the center line of a County Road (Franklin
Trail) instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance to lot coverage of
21.2 percent rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated April 13, 1998 on file in the office of
the City Planner.
Eagle Creek Villas is proposing to construct two 4-unit townhomes on the Apple Valley
Ready Mix site. A demolition permit has been issued for the structures existing on the
site. The property is zoned R-3 Multiple Family Residential and is designated as R-HD
Urban High Density in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The applicant is requesting
the following variances:
. A 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a county
road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback from the centerline.
. A 1.2% variance to permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the maximum
allowed of 20%.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm041398.doc
The lot is a comer lot approximately 223 feet by 150 feet. The total lot area is 33,220
square feet (0.76 acres). Section 5-4-1 (M) of the City Code requires structures to be
setback 85 feet from the centerline of county roads. Section 5-4-1 allows for a maximum
lot coverage of 20% for townhomes. The maximum permitted density for townhomes in
the R-3 is 14.0 units per acres. The applicant is proposing 10.5 units per acre. The
applicant will have to subdivide the property prior to obtaining a building permit for the
proposed townhomes. As the lot exists, only one building permit can be issued on the lot.
Staff has concluded that as submitted, the proposal does not meet the hardship criteria.
The site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance requirements.
Comments from the public:
Attorney Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, representing the applicant, gave a brief
overview on the proposed townhomes. The intention of the developer is to develop this
as a condominium which would address the 20% versus 30% impervious surface
coverage issue required for townhouses. Huemoeller explained the double frontage
creates additional issues. By combining the buildings and moving 10 feet to the east, the
setbacks would be met, but it would not be a reasonable use of the property. He feels
there is a hardship and the proposal is reasonable. It is a key intersection in the City and
the applicant would like to build an attractive, cost effective building. Moving the project
to the west allows the developer to do several things that are beneficial; enhance
appearance, allow for windows in the interior buildings, yet be cost effective. They do not
feel the movement ofthe building to the west will interfere with public health and safety.
It is an R3 project and allows adequate view for the intersection for access and safety.
Mr. Huemoeller quoted the Rowell case. He also feels these issues would not be a
problem under the new zoning ordinance. They also feel this meets the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Larry Gensmer, a partner in the development was also present for
any questions.
Pat Sotis, public housing manager for Scott County HRA, manages Prior Manor adjacent
to the lot in question. She said they do not have anything against the variance requestand
would like to work with applicants. She was also representing the residents of the Manor
and asked the following questions. Would there be fencing along the parking lot property
line? And, because the grading has been changed would there be runoff on to the Manor
property? Kansier explained no fencing is required by the City and the developer has to
address the grading runoff to adjoining property. It is not allowed unless there is an
easement.
The public hearing was closed at 6:47 p.m.
I :\98files\98p1comm\pcmin\nm041398.doc
2
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
. Asked staff to respond to Huemoeller's question regarding the setback from the
county road under the new zoning ordinance. Kansier said they would have to go
through the conditional use process under the proposed zoning ordinance. Rye said a
potential ordinance does not provide legal basis to approve a variance.
. Regarding the setback from the county road, a hardship could be madedue to the
uniqueness of two county roads. That in a sense, might constitute a variance
hardship.
Criego:
. Question to staff. Because it is two buildings the lot would have to be divided in two.
If it was divided in two, would there be a variance on the side? Tovar explained the
applicant is planning to plat as a condominium. Kansier said they would not need to
go through the subdivision procedure even to create the envelope lot. They could plat
one large lot. A variance would not be required if they create an envelope lot.
. Tovar read the definition oftownhomes.
. With 33,000 square feet one could still build 6 to 8 townhomes. The applicant is
creating his own hardship by splitting the building.
Cramer:
. Agreed with Criego. The hardship is created by what is being put on the lot as
opposed to circumstances being unique to the property. The building envelope is
very large. There are alternatives.
. The 20% lot coverage should be met.
. Do not meet the variance hardship criteria at this time.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Cramer and Criego. The ordinance does not create an undue hardship.
There any number of reasonable uses that can be applied to this property. Just
because the ordinance does not accommodate this one particular design does not
create an undue hardship.
. Concurred with staff.
V onhof:
. Disagreed. Although the 10t size is substantial, in view of the spirit and intent of the
ordinance, one large building versus two smaller building, and the fact it is on two
county roads, if you looked at it without the roads, the setbacks would be met and
there would not be a problem. The hardship criteria have been met.
Stamson:
. By using a different configuration the townhomes could be built.
V onhof:
. Comer lots with dual setbacks are an issue. There are unique setbacks.
I :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm041398.doc
3
Criego:
. Understands Vonhofs comments. In most cases, it was almost impossible to
construct a building without the variances, but here a suitable housing configuration
can be achieved without a variance. That is the difference.
. What are the new setbacks and coverages with the new zoning ordinance? Kansier
explained the new changes.
. Under the new ordinance it would be a conditional use permit, but the setbacks would
be met. This proposal was not reviewed under the new ordinance.
. When is the new ordinance going to be passed? Rye said it would be close to six
months.
. If the applicant wants to build under the new ordinance, he would have to wait.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-
IIPC DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE AND A 1.2%
VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20%.
Discussion:
Criego understood Vonhofs concern for two county roads creating a hardship. Criego's
concern is the building on the west side is five feet closer to the road than he would like.
The east side building is 15 feet from the property line. Criego would consider some type
of request if approved to move the building over. V onhof pointed out the Commissioners
could approve a variance for less than requested.
Tovar said the applicant has the choice to remove one of the units and still meet the lot
coverage.
Cramer noted in the past the Commission has asked applicants to reduce the coverage and
therefore not need the variance. By reducing one of the building units by one, the
developer could create what the developer is aiming for and meet the requirements.
Stamson feels this is a design issue. Not comfortable passing a variance on that basis.
V onhof believes there is an argument for hardship, as proposed.
Cramer feels the hardship is being created by the design.
Vote taken signified ayes by Stamson and Cramer, nays by V onhof and Criego.
MOTION FAILED
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT
AVAILABLE MEETING, MAY 11, 1998.
I :\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc
4
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #98-039 (Continued) David Berens requesting front yard and lot
coverage variances for the property located at 16345 Duluth Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated April 13, 1998 on file in the office of
the City Planner.
The Planning Commission originally heard this request on March 23, 1998. The item
was continued to allow the applicant time to revise the pIan and variance requests. The
applicant is requesting the following variances:
. 12 Foot Front yard setback variance to allow front yard setback of 13 feet rather than
the required 25 foot setback.
. 6.5% Lot coverage variance to permit 10t coverage of 28.5% rather that he maximum
coverage allowed of 22%.
The Planning Commission also directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial relating to
the applicant's original request. Resolution #98-lOPC was drafted.
The lot is a comer lot 40.0 feet by 130 feet. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code requires that
comer lots maintain the required front yard along each street of frontage. Therefore, the
required garage setback is 25 feet from the property line facing Duluth Avenue. The
requested variance is to allow a front yard setback of 13 feet rather than the minimum
required of 25 feet. The applicant is also requesting a variance to lot coverage for the
proposed garage. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code allows for a maximum coverage of22%
(structures only) in the R-2 Urban Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing
building coverage of28.5%.
The survey indicates the revised layout of the garage and driveway. The applicant has
significantly reduced the size of the garage from 792 square feet to 484 square feet. The
garage now faces south, rather than west in the original proposal, allowing for a turn
around and eliminating the overhang of parked vehicles into the right of way.
Staff concluded the revised proposal meets the four hardship criteria.
Comments from the public:
No comments from the applicant.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm041398.doc
5
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
i;~ (!ruJe- tJ iYh.c;
~7/tntJnk-1t~
'-/-/3-7&
18.- Be{{)
c.; 14 ~
The Planning Commission selcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who
choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once, you allow everyone else to speak
before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to clairification or
new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input
on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further tesitmony or comment will
not be possible except under rare conditions. The City Council will not hear
additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you.
ATTENDANCE.PLEASEPRlNT
ADDRESS
PHLIST.DOC
PAGE I
Correspondence
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
K~~ei'/.(jJ ~ / 1:::/98
7; 30?W1. FrS
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
166170 FRANKLIN TRAIL
"
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
JAMES D. BATES
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
June 15, 1998
Telephone (612) 447-2131
Telecopier (612) 447-5628
Prior Lake City Council
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: Appeal of Eagle Creek Villas LLC from Decision of Planning
Commission Denying Setback and Lot Coverage Variances for
Hillsbury Townhomes
Dear Council Members:
We would ask that this letter be made part of the record for this appeal.
Eagle Creek Villas LLC (ECV) owns land at the intersection of 160th Street and
Franklin Trail in Prior Lake. 160th Street is also County 44 with a road easement 40
feet wide; and Franklin Trail is also County 39 with a 40 foot road easement. Scott
County has, in addition, a small triangular road easement in the northwest corner of the
land. Although the land is 300 feet by 150 feet, or 45,000 square feet, for zoning
purposes, which excludes public road right-of-way, the area of the land is reduced to
33,220 square feet.
Since the land abuts two public roads, front yard setbacks apply along both the
north and west boundaries. Because the public roads are also county roads, the
required setback is 85 feet from the centerline of the road (versus normal 25 feet from
row).
The county has proposed turning over Franklin Trail to the City, in which case
Franklin Trail will become a minor collector street into a 25 foot setback. The
turnover has been delayed while staff negotiates responsibility for outstanding
maintenance items on the road.
ECV proposes to build an 8 unit townhouse project (2 buildings each with 4
units) on the land. Each unit will be approximately 902 square feet and have a base
sale price of approximately $99,000.00.
Absent the requested 13 foot setback variance from Franklin Trail and the 1.2 %
lot coverage variance for the 2 proposed townhouse buildings, the project must be
reduced to 7 units.
City staff has reported to you that the setback and lot coverage variances were
properly denied because ECV can make use of the property without the variances and
that the variances were self induced by ECV's design of the project. The view of Staff
with respect to "reasonable use" is simply wrong; and there are 3 Minnesota Court of
Appeals cases since 1989 that give the City Council authority to evaluate the proposed
use and grant the variances if the proposed use is determined to be reasonable, even if
the land has other possible uses without the variances.
Minnesota cities have authority to grant variances in cases of "undue hardship" ,
which under Minn. Stat. ~462.357, Subd. 6(2), exists where:
"[T] The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance."
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has stated 3 times, in Rowell v. City of
Moorhead, 446 N.W. 2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989), Minnesota DNR v. Cottonwood
Board of Adjustment, 1992 WL 333585 (Minn. App.), and Sagstetter v. City of St.
Paul, 529 N.W. 2d 488 (Minn. App. 1995), that the reference in the state statutes to
"cannot be put to a reasonable use" should be construed to mean that the landowner
would like to put the land to a reasonable use but that the proposed reasonable use is
prohibited under the strict provisions of the zoning code.
The Sagstetter and DNR cases show how the statute is applied. In Sagstetter, St.
Paul wanted to build domed softball fields in a city park and needed a variance from the
maximum allowed height under the zoning ordinance. Although the park could have
been used for other public and recreational purposes without issuance of a variance, the
court found that the domed softball fields were a reasonable use and upheld the
variance. In the DNR case, a landowner owned a lakeshore lot with a house and
boathouse. The owner wanted a building permit to construct a second floor storage
area on his boathouse, but needed a variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback. The
owner could have constructed the storage area within the house without a variance.
The court upheld the grant of the variance on the basis that the proposed improvement
was a reasonable use stating:
"The provision defining "hardship", which requires that the property cannot be
put to a reasonable use, does not mean the property cannot be put to [any]
reasonable use without the variance. The intention of the statute is to give local
governing boards flexibility."
Based upon the principles set forth in the Rowell, Sagstetter and DNR cases, we
believe that the City Council should find as follows:
1. Literal enforcement of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance will result in undue
hardship with respect to the ECV land because it will preclude construction of the
proposed 8 unit townhome project, which project is a reasonable use of the land.
2. The undue hardship results from circumstances unique to the land, because
the land abuts 2 county roads, each having a 40 foot easement and requiring a setback
of 85 feet from the centerline so as to unnecessarily reduce the building envelope of the
land and the gross area used in calculating the maximum coverage ratio.
3. The undue hardship is caused by the provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance and is not the result of actions of the owner, because the owner's proposed
use of the land is reasonable and the literal application of the ordinance precludes such
reasonable use.
4. The variance preserves the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest,
because the proposed 8 unit townhouse project is consistent in all respects with the
existing and proposed land uses in the neighborhood, is equitable in light of the
proposed conversion of Franklin Trail to a city street; and provides additional moderate
income housing for City residents.
In conclusion, if the City Council determines that the proposed 8 unit townhouse
project is a reasonable use of the ECV land, it has the authority to approve the
requested 13 foot setback and 1.2 % lot coverage variances needed to construct the
project.
Sincerely yours,
f~~
Bryce D. Huemoeller
BDH:ab
cc: Suesan Lea Pace, Esq.
Frank Boyles
"
JUN 15 '98 03:33PM HUEMOELLER & BRTES
Not Reported in N,W.2d
(Cite as: 1992 WL 333585 (Minn.App.))
NOTICE.: THIS OPlNION IS DESIGNATED AS
UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BB CITED
EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED BY MINN. ST. SEC. 480A.08(3).
In the MBtter of the Grant of a Variaote by the
Cottonwood County ;Board of
Adjustment to Carlton B. TR01TER and JelUl E.
Trotter.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOlJRCES, AppeUant,
v.
COTTONWOOD COUNT~ BOAll]) OF
AD.nJSTMENT, Carlton B. Trotter, et. al.,
ReSpOndents.
No. C4-92.881.
Court of Appeals of MimlesoUl..
Nov. 17, 1992.
Appeal from District Court, Cottonwood County;
Broce F, Gross, Judge.
Hubert H. H.umphrey, 111, Atty. Gen., Jerilyn K.
Aune, Sp, Asst. Ar.t:y, Oen., St. Paul, for appeUant.
L. Douglas Store)' . Cottonwood County Atty, ,
Windom, for Cottonwood County Bd. of Adjustment.
Carlton B. Trotter, pro se.
Considered Ilnd decided by NORTON, P.1., and
KALITOWSKI and HARTEN, 11.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HARTEN, Judge.
!Jo1 Appellant Minnesota Depal'llnent of Natural
Resources (DNR) appeals from a trial court order
sustaining II grant of variance from a zoning ordiIlaD.ce
by respondent Cottonwood County Board of
Adjustment to respondents Carlton B. and Jean E.
Trotter, The DNR contends lbat the board acted
arbitrarily and. UlU'ellllonably. We sus tain thl:\ gl1Ult of
variance,
FACTS
'I'bJ.: Trotters own property on The shore of
Cottonwood Lake in Oreat Bend Township,
P.5/11
Page 1
Cottonwood County. They applitd. for a varianl.le
from the ordinary higb,water mark 75.foot setback
requiremeDt of the Col:lonwood COUllty zoning
ordinance in order to comtruct a flecond story addition
to en existing boathouse. They would use the addition
to store bUlliness records.
Boalhouses are exexnpted from the ordinance. At the
time of the grant of the varianCtl, "boathouse" was Dot
defined.
The Trotters' house is an L-sbaped rambler with an
attached garage. It has no basement. The boathouse
is located at the water's !!dge apart from the house.
Tlwre are no bui.b:'lin8s on the shoreline ift1?l1....1;..My
to the north and south of the Trotrer property. There
is, however, II 2-story- boathouse 200 ya:rds to the
north. There are some other single family houses set
back from the shore.
The board bearing began at the Trotters' property
BDd finished at the courthouse. A DNR area
hydrologist, Jim SehI, atteDded the hearing. He said
that storage for items other than water~riented
equipment would meet the s&back requireJneDts. He
said that aellthetic considerations are a naotor in
shoreline laws md. suggellted that the Trotters could
add onto the house or garage for storage splLce_
The Trotters said that a second stoIY on the
boathouse wouId be easier ami cheaper. They also
lnade odler statements which could be reasonably
construed to mil81'l the Trottets thought that adding to
the boWIe or garage, or building II. ftee.standiDg
building would require removal of vegetalion aud.
trees .
The board issued its findings and conclusions
immediately after I:h8 hearing. It fouod that the Great
Bend Township Board, the I...a:bIside Township Board
and the City of Windom were notified md -made no
recoIDIJWJdations. It also found that me owners of the
adjoiniDg property ",ere notified., appeared at the
hea.ring and favored the variance. The board fw1her
found that the DNR ",as noQfied and recommended
deniaJ of the varianCe.
In addition, the board found that the site; is wUform
.....ith the neighborhood and the construction will not
necessitJlle additioaal landscaping. It fOUlld that the
proposed use will Dot generate noise, odor, dust. toxic
materials or traffic. It found that no olher mote
Copr. @ West 1998 No Claim to Olig. V,S, Govt. Works
JUN 15 '98 03:34PM HUEMOELLER & BATES
NOl Reported in N.W.2d
(Cite as: 1992 WL 333585, *1 (Minn.App.))
suitable location thAt compllell with the ordiIumce is
available 011 the property, The boud concluded that
the varianCQ complies wirh the zOnUlg ordinance. It
granted the variance, conditioned on the following
provisioDll: that all c;:onstruCdOll be ill compliance
with the ZOIriDg ordinBllce with the exception of the
setback requix-ement; tbat the addition not exceed 17
feet; that the secoIJd story only be used for storage;
llDd that acceSs to the second SlOry be by stJUrway 011
th~ side of the boadlouse opposite the lake.
"2 The DNR aPPBaled the board's decision to the
Cotrouwood County Disb:'Wt Court pursuant to
Minn..Stat. ch. 116D (1990) [FN1] ami Minn,Stat. 9
394.27, subd, 9 (1990). After reviewing photographs
of the site, the minutss of the board bearing and a
tramcript of a tape recording of dle beadns, tbe trial
court sustained the decision of the boud. The DNR
appeals .
DECISION
Our review is conducted independently of the
decision of the trial court. Northwestern College v.
City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865, 868
(Minn. 1979). This court detennines "whether the
[board)'s decision was unreasonable, arbitTa.ry or
capricious" and focuses on whether the reasons the
board gave have a factual basis and whether they are
legally sufficient. Swanson v. City of Bloomington,
421 N.W.2d 307. 313 (Mim1-l988).
The board did not have to Il.IlIke formal fmdings of
fa.ct, but, at II minimum, ba4 to record or reduce to
writing "the reasons for its deci.~ion · '" '" lIDd in more
than JUSl a cnnclusory fashion." Honn v. City of
Coon :Rapid.~, 313 N.W.2d 409, 416 (Mim1-l9Bl). If
the proceeding was fair and the rllCord is "cieu and
conll,lele, review should be on the record." Swanson,
421 N.W.2d at 313. Here, rhe matler hu been
submitted on the record.
A local governing authority has broad discretion
wbeo deciding whether to grant a variance.
VlIIIUondlilchoot v. City of Me.udota Heights, 336
N.W.2d 503, 509 (Minn. 1983). The cow-Is afe "to
exercise restraint and accord appropriate defereJ1ce to
civil authorities in the perfoIIWlJ1ce of their duties,"
White Bear Docldng & Storage v. City of White Bear
LAke, 324 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Minn.1982), quoted in
Swanson, 421 N.W.2d at 311,
Tlw board's "authority to grant variances clUmot
P.6/11
Page 2
exceed the powers granted by MimLStal. ~ 462.357,
subd. 6(2) (1990)." Rowell v. Board of Adjustment,
446 N.W.2d 917, 921 ((Minn.App.1989), pet. for
rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 1989). In this case, the
parties have put into issue the authority grallted in
Minn.Stal. ~ 394.27, subd. 7 (1990). Minn. Stat. ~
462.357, subd. 6(2) aJJd Minn.Slat. fi 394.27, subd. 7
Are nearly identical in substance. Also, the
Cottonwood COUalty otdinance is almost identical. If
the variance is allowed under the statute, it is allowed
Wlder the ordinance. Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 921.
Minn.Stat. ~ 394.27, sub,!. 7 provides:
Variances shall only be permitted ... ... * when there
are practical difficulties or particular haniship in the
way of carrying out the strict letter of any official
control'" '" "'. "Hardship" '" '" '" means tM property
>to ... 'F Cl\IlIlDt be put to II :reasonl.lble use if used under
the cOnditioDll allowed by the official controls; the
plight of the landowner is due ro ciroumstauces
unique 1:0 the property nol created by the landowner;
and the variance, if ~, ",ill not alter the
essential characrer of the locality. Economic
considerations alone shall not constitute II hardship if
a reasonable use for the propertY e,ust!i wxler the
terms of Ille ordinance.
*3 The provision defining "hardship," which requires
lbat the property CBllIlDt be put to a reasonable use,
does not mean the property "C8DllOt be put to (any]
reasonable us~ wilhout the variance." Rowell. 446
N.W.2d at 922. The intantion of the smb1te is to give
local governing botuds flexibility. Rowell, 446 N. W
,2d at 922. MinD.-Slat- ~~ 462.357 and 394.27
therefore require "a sbowjng that the [Trotters) would
like tD use the property in II reasoDllble lIlIUlDer that is
prohibited by tlw [setback] ordinance." Id.
Section 462.357 does nut plOvide II "sraudani for
duterminiDg reasonableness." Id, Nor do section
394.27 or the Cottonwood County ordinllnce.
Nonethelsss, "MiDDesoca oourts distingujsb between
area aod use variances.. rd. (citing In re Kenney, 374
N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn.. 1985)). "PractWal
difficultius IIlAY justify an i1I1t& variaxlce." Rowell, 446
N. W.2d al 922 (citatioos omitted).
Here, the TrotteD do not have a basement.. As a
practical matter , it would be easier amd cheal*~ to put
II second stQry OJl the boathouse than add auto the
house or garage or build II frce-standin& buildiD&-
Furthennore, the board. received evidence that any
other actiOIl would CllWle more tmvirODDlDlltaI harm
Copr. e West 1998 No Claim to Orlg. u.s. Govt. Works
Not Reported in N.W.2d
(Cite as; 1992 WL 333585, *3 (Minn.App.))
dwa the minor alteration of the e,wting boathouse.
Th* T1'Qtten' ~ituation is unique to their propertY and
not created by them- The DN'R doei not dispute dJat
the lUe location fO(eCloses a basement; and, again.,
the board had evidence that any other action would
cause mori:l r;nvirom:nental harm.
Nor does it appear that the variance ~i1l alter !he
locality's e.sSlmtW character. There is another two.
story' boathouse on the lakeshore. The Trotters seek
only to modify .n existing structure. The board also
was antitled to believe that an addition to the house or
garage would be more aestheticall)' displeasing than
an addition to the boathouse. The boaEd also
conditioned the variance to guard against a change jn
the cbB./:,lLCter of the locality.
The DNR argues that the board iRve only lip service
to tbe DNR's concerns. We disagree. The DNR
cautioned that vtsgetatiol1 should not be removed froUl
Wceshore property. the DNR also pointed out the
role of aestbilltiCS. The record can fairly be read to
sho.,.., that the boatd took those concerns into account,
'Paae3
that there is a factual basis for the b:Iard' s reasons and
that they are legally sufficient. We I;ustain the
I!;tllnUng of the variance,
Aftirmed.
FN 1, The le:Si.sJatuN hu $el out Il11 cnvilonmental
policy designed Lo . ctMte and mainltlin conditions
under which hUffillJl beings and natl.lJ': cllII oxist in
PlQducuY'o hannony." Minn. StAt. ~ 1160.02, Ilubd.
1. The: legis1atu~ hu wo cbar,c:d. alllle
governmental BgChlliea with a duty to act in
'accordance with Lbe poli.c:ies let forth" in ehAptor
1160, Minn,Stat. ~ 1160.03, subd. 1. The board'l
power to zone is derived from .. "legilllDl:ive grant of
authority by the stale.. Costlgy v. Cllromin lIouse,
Inc., 313 N.W.2d 21, 27 (MintL.1981), ciled. in
R.o\llell v. BoJUd of Adjustment, 446 N.W.2d 917,
921 (Minn.App.1989), pet. Cor 1'IllV, denied (Minn,
Doc, 15. 1989). The.rcfo~1 Ibe baud of adju;une:nl
had a statutory duty to give "Ilt lcul equol
conSideration" Lo "envilQnmcntlll lUIlCDiticlJ aIId
va\Utl8" as to "economic and technical
coJ1sjde:rations,' MiJm.Stal. ~ 116D.03, liUbd. 2(c),
END OF DOcUM:ENT
COpJ'. @ West 1998 No CllIim to Orig, U.S. GoVl. Works
JUN 15 '98 03:34PM HUEMOELLER & BATES
529 N.W_2d 488
(Cite as; 529 N.W.2cJ 488)
'Richard SAGSTETTER, et aI., AppeUlUlts,
v.
ClTY OF ST. PAUL, a Munkipal Corporation,
Respondent.
No. CS.!)4-2170.
Court of Appeals of .Mimlesota,
April 4, 1995.
Cily reqU$l.:ted variance to build domed softball neld.
The Boud of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted request.
O.....ners of apar~ut buildings next to proposed dome
site appealed. The cily council first reversed BZA's
decision, but then reconsidered its decision and
afflJ.'roed grllllt of variance. Owners appealed. The
District Court, Ramsey County, George O. Petersen,
J.. affim1ed, Owners a.ppealed. 'J'lul Court of
Appeals, Randall, J. , held that city council acted
within its discretion. 81>4 il:5 decision to grant zoning
variance was reallonable and complied with statute and
eil:)' ordinance.
Aft1rmer.l.
[ll ZONING AND PL~G $=:>745.1
414k745.1
In reviewing zoning action by city council, Court of
Appeals gives nO deference to district court's findings
and conclusions,
[2] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ~63.1
268k63,1
Where municipality proceedings are fllir and
complete, review is on the record before th~
municipal agency, and. Court of Appeals is reluctant to
interfere with the management of municipal affairs.
[3] ZONING AND PLANNING ~610
414k610
Reviewing court will set aside city's decision in
l:oning variance n\lltter if the decision is unrea$onabl~;
reasonableness is m.ellln,lIed by standards set out in
cilY's ordinances.
[4] ZONING AND PLANNING e=607
414k607
ReViewing court will not invalidare cily's zoning
variance decision if city acted in good faith and witbiu
the broad discretion IlCcozded it by statutes and
ordinances, lIDd itll decision will only be reversed if its
stated reasollS are legally insufficient or without
P.7/11
Page 1
factual basis.
(4] ZONING AND PLANNING (!;:;:>623
414k623
Reviewing court will not invalidate city-'s zoning
variance decision if city acr.ed in good faith tmdwithin
the broad discretion aceotded it by statuteS and
ordinllnceS, aJJd its decision will only be reversed if its
stated reasons are legally insufficient or without
factual batlis.
[5] ZONING AND PL.\NNlNG €=485
4J4lc,485
City's authorit.y 10 grant zoning variances cannot
exceed the powers granted. by statute. M.S.A. ~
462.357, subd, 6.
[6] ZONING AND PLA.NNING ~48S
414k485
City ordinance regarding zoning variances gnmts
zoning a1.libority the same power to grant variances as
is allowed by stal:ulS $uch that if varianr::e is petm.itted
by stature, it is also permitted by ordinance. M.S.A.
9 462.357, subd. 6; St. Paul. MinD., Legislative
Code ~ 64.203.
(7) ZONING AND PLANNING <P686
414k686
Butden is on party challenging grant of zoning
variance 10 sbow that city was UIII'eI1Sonable b1
granting variance,
(8) ZONING AND PLANNING ~610
4141c610
Because 2:oning laws are II. restriction on t1w use of
private property, butdeo of proof 1(1 show
arbitrariness is lighter for landowners challengi1\g
denial of special use penDit than for objectors
questioning approval of pennit.
[9] ZONING AND PLANNING ~SOS
414k50S
City council acted within its discretion, and ils
decision to grant zoning variance allowing
construction of domed softball field was reasonable
and complied. with statute and city ordinance~ city
wanted to put laDd to reasonable use of placing dome
over field to enable y~round use, soil conditioDil
and sewer main prohibited excantion that would
allow field to comply with height limitation in
ordinance, plm alleviated pnrking problems and, if
ltifferent design was used, plan would nol provide as
many perldng spaces, dome ~ould not unduly
Copr. \0 West 1998 No Claim to OriS. U.S. Govt. Works
JUN 15 '98 03:35PM HUEMOELLER & BATES
529 N.W.2d 488
(Cite as: 529 N. W.2-d 488)
interfere with light or air to aparunents next to
proposlld site, provision for year-round activities
\lVol,l\d not alter e8seolial character of surrounding area
and would not unreasonably ditniDisb property values,
determination that plan WI\S permitted use and 'Pould
not alter zoning district clusifioatiou was reasonable,
IIDd, although incr~sed revenues likely playlld a role
in city QQuncil's decision, it also oonsicle~ otlwr
factol'$ supporting d~ision. M.S.A. ~ 462.357, sub:l.
6; St. Paul, Minn., Legislative Code ~ 64,203.
[10) ZONING AND PLANNING €:=618
414k618
Absent indication of atbitJ'ary and capricious conduct
or manifest injusUCIi', appellate courts can, but do not
readily, substitute lbeir judgment for that of city
council's in zoning decisions.
:1489 Syllabus by the Cowt
The city council's d~ision to grant a zoning variaDCe
allowing the coDlitrUction of a domed softball field
was reasooabllo'- and complir.ld s490 with the state
statutes ami city ordinanC88.
John B. Daubl.loy, John E. Daubnsy Law Office, St.
Paul, for appellants,
Timothy E. MllIX, St. Paul City Atty., Jerome J.
Segal, Assto City Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.
Considerlld and decided by RANDALL, P.1.,
HARTEN and MINENKO, [FN*J JI.
FN* Retiro;:d judj;8 of the diRtritlt court, IICrv~ng. as
judge of the Minnesota COlJrt of AppCllls by
appoinlment pursuanl to Minn. Conlll. I1lt. VI, ~ 10.
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
The M8.11ager of St. Paul Sociai Services, Division of
Parks and Recreation, requested II. variance to build a
domed softball field, The Board of Z01Ung Appeal.s
(BZA) granted this request. Appellants challenged the
variance before the St. Paul City Council (city
council). Tb.e city council first reversed the BZA's
decision, but then rl5Considered its decision md
affirmed the aZA' s grant of the varianclo'-. Appellants
then appealed to the district court, which affumed.
Appellants ara nOW before tbiIl court.
FACTS
P.8/11
Page 2
The city wanted to redesign a group of softball fields
in a city patk. As part of dIe project, tIw number of
lloftball field.~ would be reduced from nine lO five_
This reduction would allow tbe city to add off-str9l:
parking, food concessions, and public restrOOlDS. As
part of the project. I:he city planned to build IL
structure uound one of the fields that would suppon a
dome duriug the winter mDDt.h/l.
Tile dome would be 90 feel at its peak, witb an
average height of approximately 3S feet. The
maximum allowlld height under the lQuing ordinanU
is 30 feet. The dome would be inflated during the
91inter months. but removed during the sumtnli'r
months.
Awellan,."l own apartment buildings located. ne",t to
the proposed dome sits and claim the donwcl field will
reduce the value of lheir properties.
The city wanted to provide year-roWKi activities.
Further, the new desip allowed the city to add off"
street parking. Par1ci.ng on the $tIeet by park patroDli
was citild M a SOUl'Ctl of complaints from area
rellid$.01S. The plan also providlid for public
rSlltrooms. Residimt& IIlso comp1aio.ed that park
patrons left ths park grounds to urinate in the
rll8idenl:s' yards. Finally, the plan provided for food.
concessions.
As part of its plan, the city explained that it
cOllsidered exca\l.ting in order to reduce the dome's
height above ground level, but that the soil conditio~.
togetl:1er widl the presence of sewer pipes, did not
allow thl'Ol to exca"ate-
The BZA granted the city's request for a vilriance.
Thll appeUants appealed to me city council. At its
first bearing on the is.sue, the city council reversed the
BZA. and dtmied dle variance. One week latar, the
oity council reconsidered the issue, affirmed the
BlA's decision, and granted the variance.
The partie.~ stipulated to the facts as contained in the
record. The record is comprised of transcripts from
before the city council, and documents presented to
the BZA and the city cOWlCil.
Appellants are before this coUlt claiming the trial
court erred in aftiIminS dle city council's del;ision to
grant a variance to allow the domed $1:rUctu1'e to be
built.
Copr. @ West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U,S. GOVI. Works
JUN 15 '98 03:35PM HUEMOELLER & BATES
529 N.W.2d 488
(Cite as: 529 N.W.Zd 488, *490)
ISSUE
Wa., the city council's de.cision to "'fanl the zoning
variance reasonable and did it comply with die law?
ANALYSIS
[1](2) In reviewing II. zoning action, this court gives
no deference to th8 district court's fmdings and
conclusions. Rowell v. Board of Adjustment, 446
N.W.2d 917, 919 (Minn.App, 1989), pet. for reV.
dlmied (Mum. DI;IC. 15, 1989), Where the mUDicipal
proceedings a.re fair and complete, xeview is on -491
the recQrd before the mwricipal agency, and this court
is reluctant to interfere 9'ith d1e management of
municipal affairs. Id.
(31[4] A reviewing court will set aside a city's
d~i8ion in a zoning vlIX'iance matter if the decision is
unr~onable. Id. at 921 (l,\iting VanLandschoot v,
City of Mmdota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503, 508
(Minn.1983)). :Reasonableness is meaSured by the
stalldants set out in the city's ordioances. !d.
ReaSonableness Cl\Il be stated in terms of what is not
arbitrary and capricious. See Honn v. Cily of Coon
Ra.pids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 415 (Minn, 1981). The
rl!\I'iewrog court will not invalidate a city's zoning
variance clecision if the city acted in good faith and
within rhe broad discretion accorded it by statul:ell and
ordinances, and. itil decision will only be reversed "if
its stated reasons are legally insufficient or without
factual ballis. . Rowell, 446 N. W .2d at 921.
[5) 1w. power of municipe.lities and dleir zoning
boards to grant area variances is' gonmed by
Minn.StAt. ~ 462,357. subd, 6 (1992). [FNIJ A city's
Il.ulhority to gI1lnt vuiances CiUUlot exceed the powers
granted by this section. Rowell. 446 N.W.2d at 921.
FN I. That section provides
Appc:a1& to tbe board of appellls Iud ad,i\ulLmenlS may
be taken by any affected penon upon eompliartce
with llnY lCQQooble conditions imposed by the
~onin~ ordinllncc. The board of IWcals and
adjulltments hils the foUowing POWCTll VOIith respect to
thc :tOning ordinance:
* * * * * "
0.) To heM rcquCBllI for VarimCCll from the literal
provisiolls of the ordinance in instaucca whl:nl thoir
l;l.ricl enfolCCmenl would ClI.Ulle unduo hardahip
beQlP,W1e DC citoumsto.nces uniq.ue to lhe individulI.l
property unde;r: considollltion, llnd to gIant such
P.9/11
Page 3
variances ollly when it is demonsuatcd thol: such
/lcLions will bo in keeping with the spirit IUld intent of
the ordinanco. "Undue hardship.' lIlI used in
conocction with tho panLinS of II. variance mctJJU the
property in question cannot. be put to a. I\'WIQnll.ble
uso if uaed under eonditiona allowed by th~ o{{jcial
cantools, the plight of the. landowner' iR due to
~UlTlstancca unique to the property not. ClQIltcd by
the landowner, IlI1d the variance, if ltI1llll:ed I will not
a~r the eallential ohan.ctc:r: of the ~a1il:y .
Economic cClIuiderations alone ahall not constitute 1UI
undue lvudship if fOUO~J&, use for tho plOpeny
e:s,illts under tho tertM of !.he ordinance. * * '" The
board of II.ppoals Illld adjustments or the 'QVeming
body liS the cue may be, may not peJrnil as a
varillllce any ~ that ia not penni~ under the
ordinance for propert)' in the zone where the affeoted
person's land is laca1ed. ... '" '" The board or
governing body ILlI the case lllAY bo RULY impose
conditions in the granting of Vllrianoell to j~re
compliance a.nd to pTolccllldjacOllt propcrtiCti.
[6) The St. Paul City Ordinance regarding variances
closel)' tracks I:be language of the state statute. [FN2}
As in Rowell, by IlQOpti1Vl the Jan&Uage of the
enabling statute, the SL Paul orditJanoe grants the
zoning authority the same power to grant variances as
is allowed by Mion,Stal ~ 462.357, subd. 6(2).
Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 921. Therefore. if the "'492-
variance is permittad by statute, it is also permitted by
the ordinance. Id.
FN2. Tho ordinunce pmvidoa
(Il) An application for varill.ncc l1lII.y be filed by any
penon hAving an o\llnen:bip or ICWlChold intercllt in
land and/Dr building (contingent ind\ldcd), oC tbe
affected plOporty At any time. Such applicaLion shall
be rUed with Il Bite plan meeting nMluiremenls of
llection 64.lOZ.
(b) The board of zonin(. Ilppenls shall have the power
to granl: variances from the &\.ricl enfotcement of the
ptovisionil of this cod~ upon 11 finding tMr.:
(1) The property in question ClUII10t be put to a
reuonablto use under the strict provisiona of the
code;
(2) The. plight of the lal1do1lll1)CJ" is due lD
circumstances Uniq,UI;l lQ his plOpctIY, IlPd Lhese
circurn~1Ances were not CJ'CllI1/od by the landQwner;
(3) The pJ:t>posed v&riancc '" in lceep2ng with the
apmt and intent of the code, IIDd is consilJlcnt with
the health, wely, comfort, monUa and lIr.lflJ.l'C of the
inhllbit6nts of tho City of St. Paul:
(4) The proposed voriance will not impair an
adequl1le supply of light and air to J4.i-ccnl ptopetty,
nor will it alte.r the ~nUal chAn.c;ter of the
IUITOl,mdiltS Iltoa or unr88S0nably diminish
calILblished property values \IIithin the llurroundin2
areai
Copr. CO West 1998 No claim to Oris. U.S. Govt. Works
JUN 15 '98 03:35PM HUEMOELLER & BATES
529l't.W.2d 488
(Cite as: 529 N. W.2d 488, "'492)
(5) The variance, if granted, would not pennit any
use tlMd is not penniW:d und~ the 1'I'Ovillions oC the
code for lhe property in the district when': the
affected Jund is laca.tcd, nor would it alter Dr chunge
the zoning district clAssification of the propcny; /1J1d
(6) The request for vannnce is not buoo prirnllrily on
a deau. to incrca.,c lhe vllluo or income potential of
the pa.rcel of land.
. * * ;1\ * *
(d) In granting a variance. the ~ may attach
thereto lIuch conditions BlI it deems rcaso(lllble to
prot~t adjacent properties, to cnllure a compliance or
to further the purposes of the cOde, In grunting a.
vllrinnce, the boIad shall statc the srounds upon
which it justUJ.&:.! the ,l1lnting of l\ variance.
St. Paul, Minn., Legislative Code ~ 64.203,
[7][8) Appellants argu~ that the burden is on the city
to show the vuiancl:iI is justified, citing Tuclcner v.
Township of May, 419 N.W.2d 836, 838
(Minn.App.1988). We BrtJ not persuadlld. In
Tuckner. this cOurt beld that the landowner had me
butden to sho.,., that the count)' was unreasonable. ld,
Here the variance was granted, and the burden ill still
OD appellants to show the grllIlt wa.~ umeasonable.
Becawe zoning la~s are II. restriction 011 the use of
private property. the burden of proof to show
arbitr~s is lighter for landowners cl.1alLmgins
denial of a Ilpec:ial use peJUJit than for objectors
questioning approval of a pennit. Boan1. of
Supe~isors v. ClltYer COWlty Bd. of Comm.'rg. 302
Mum. 493, 499. 225 N.W.2d 81S, 819 (1975).
Reasonable U s~
[91 Appellants construe the $tal.ut.e and ordinance
sections, which state that the property .cannot be put
to II. reasonable use" under the Iltrict provision.~ of the
code, to mean that if the properly can be put to any
re&..;ocable use, then granting a variam:e is
uureasoDll.ble. This court has plllviously consr.rued
this lllIlguage to ID5lID. that the landowner would like to
put the IatId to a reasonable use, but tbat the proposed
reasonable U8~ is prohibited under the strict provisions
of the code. Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 922. The
Rowell court stated that if II laDdowner could not put
the land to allY reasonable use Wlder 811 ordinance,
that th~ constitutioll would compel a variaDce
resardless of the stal:Ul'e. Yd. (citing Holasek Y.
Village of Medina, 303 Minn. 240, 244. 226 N,W.2d
900, 903 (1975)).
P.10/11
Page 4
Here, the cily wants to put tile land to a reasonable
use: placing II. doma over the field to enable year.
round use. The design of the entire park results from
the city's desire to ameliorate local problems by
adding parking spaces, concession facilititss, llDd.
public resUOQD1S. These are teallonable reap0n8es to
valid concerns.
Unique Circums&llnces
E\1idence was presented tbat lleil couditions IUld a
Ils't11er main prohibited excavation that would allow the
field to comply with the 30 foot height limitation in
full otdmance. The plan alleviated parkinB problems.
and if a. different design \IIere used. the plan would not
provide 8.8 many puJciDg spaC8$. The evidence
supports the city council' 5 determination that unique
conditioDll justifY a variance in this situation.
Spirit and Inbmt of the Zoning Code
Appellants argue the neighborhood. petitions show
that the domed field is Dot in keeping with the spirit of
the code or consisteDt with health, safety. comfort,
morals and welfare of the inhabitants uf the City of SL
Paul. The dome would allow local residents to tab
part in year-rowd activities Ijuch as playing softball
on lighted fields. and Ii golf driving range. These
factors sho~ the city QOum:il's detemUnation was
tea$ocabhl.
Interferellce with Light and Air or Diminish
Properly Values
App$11ants argue that the dome will inletfere with
light and. air to their prapertie8. The city council
found that the (lome, with an average height of 35
feet. but II. height at its ~ of 90 feet, would Dot
unduly interfere with light Or air. This fmding is not
unreasoOll.b]e. A d.iagram in me record sOO9's that the
edge of the dome is 49 feet from Ibe nearest structute,
the ga.rages to the apartmltnt buildings. 1here is then
space bel:loleen the gftJ'ase8 aod the apartments. 'Ibis
diagram supports a finding that the dome will not
really interfete with light 81.v:I. air to the apartments.
Joseph Coppersmith presented expert testimony that
lhe dODle would have an adverslt economic impact on
the apartment8, testifyhtg that the dome would have a
negative impact on the hmdlords' abilily to charge
Ilppropriate rents. Coppenmith also testified that the
dome would cbaDge !he neighborhood by maltiDg it
mote commercial.
COpl'. e West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Gavt. woIks
JUN 15 '98 03:36PM HUEMOELLER & BATES
529 N.W.2d 488
(Cite as: 529 N, W.2cl 488, "'492)
The city council noted that the provision for yelir-
rQund activities would 110t altar the essential character
of the surrounding area, and 9'ould oot unreasonably
diminish property val\lflS. 'Ib.e plan was presC(lUld in
respOnse "493 to area resident compJaint.'l, and
appearS to address complaints of tb1l llIl:Ill rosidcnts.
The city cOWlcil's determination was not unreasonable
based on the colljectural factQr of how much n:IIlts in
the future could reasoDa.bly be charged.
Pemritted Use
Under the city's zoning ordinance, specified Well
ioclude "Publicly owned and operated * * * recreation
facilities" and "Municipal buildings and uses, without
outdoor storage." St. Paul, Minn., Legislative Code ~
60.412. Appellanls argue t1180t because Inside Sp<JrL~
will invest between $300,000 and $500,000 and will
then luse the domed field, that the field is not
.publicly owned and operated." We disagree. The
city has investtld $3,000,000 senerllt.ed through a
municipal baud offer. The city's inveslment, as much
as ten times Inside Sport'l" investment, shows the city
maintains a significant ownel1lhip interest in the
property. Inside SportS .....ill manage dle field as a
public facility, and this we complies with the 11IIe
ordinance.
The Manager of Social Services for the Division of
Parks and Recreation, filed thSl il1itial zoning
l\pplication at Ibe request of Inside Sports. Appellants
stAte this fact som~bow shows the city does not own
the properlY. Because "any affected person-including
a person holding a "leasehold intet'CSt" may apply for
a va.riam;e, appellant's argument is unpersuasive. See
Minn. Stat. fi 462.357, subd. 6; St. Paul erd ~
64,203(a). Inside Spotts will rnaDIljJe th~ tield, but
will have to comply with a lease from the city.
The city cO\lDcil' s determination that the plan W/Ul a
permitted use and would not alter the :zoniDg district
P.11/11
Page 5
classification of the property was reasonable.
Increase of Value or In.come potential
Finally, IlWCllimts argue that the basis for the city
coua.gil's decision ",as ouly economic. The ordinance
provides that variance should not be hued "primarily
on a desire to increase the "alue or income potential
of the pa:rc81 of land." St. Paul, Minn., Legislative
Code S 64.203(b)(6) (empbas.b add.!). TIle statum
provides lhat II [e]conomie consideratioDB alone shall
not constitute an W1due hardship if reasonable Wie for
the property exists Wlder the larms of the ordinance."
Minn.Stat, ~ 462.357, s\lbd. 6(2). Although increased
revenues likely played a role in the city couneil's
decision, it also considered other factors supporting
the decisions, The plm respo11d/l to several valid
concemil. We conclude the city councU's decision
Willi reasonable.
110] Under the standard of review of zoning
decisions, so lung as the municipal proceedings are
fair and COJllp]MIa, this court is reluctant to interfere
with the management of mUDicipal affairs. Rowell,
446 N.W.2d at 919. Absent indicatioD of arbitraxy
and capricious conduct or muiifest injustice, appellate
C01.l1'IS can, but do not readily, substitute their
judgment for that of a city cOWlcil's. The subjective
bltlllJlcing of factors in gl'lIDting or tllllDyrog variances
is a classical /lte& wh.re jul:ijcial deferenoe is extended
to tlw executive branch.
PECISlON
On the.~e facts. the St. Paul City Council acted witbin
ita discrelion, and its decision to grant a ZODing
variance was reasonable and complied with the law.
Affimled.
END OF DOCUMENT
Copr. CC> West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Go\ll. WoJk!
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Frank Boyles, City Manager
Jane Kansier, Planning COOrdinatOC()V
May 28, 1998
Eagle Creek Villas Appeal (Item 9A on 6/1/98 Council Agenda)
As you know, item 9A on the City Council agenda is an appeal by Eagle Creek Villas,
Inc., of the Planning Commission decision to deny a setback variance on the property
located at the intersection of Franklin Trail and County Road 44. Today we received a
letter from the developer requesting that this item be continued until June 15, 1998.
There was no published or mailed notice of this item, so continuing the matter should not
pose any problems.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
1:\9 8fi1es\9 8var\9 8-040\continue.doc
FROM MESENBRINK CONSTRUCTION
PHONE NO.
6124475036
May. 28 1998 12:38PM Pi
p1;one 447-5056 Fax 447-5036
7786 175'h Street East. prior Lake. MN 55372
Fax
To: City of Prior Lake Attn: Jane
Fax: 447-4245
From: John Mesenbrink
Pages: 2 iJ'lcluding cover
Date: May 28, 1998
Phone=
Re:
. Comments:
~
FROM MESENBRINK CONSTRUCTION
PHONE NO. 6124475036
Ma~. 28 1998 12:38PM P2
EagD~ Cuek
_rVd[o-;, ~
May 28,1998
The City of Prior Lake
16200Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variance setback for Eagle Creek Villas
5255 160th St., Prior Lake, MN
Dear Sirs:
I am asking that a request for a setback variance scheduled to go before the City
council on June 151 to be continued to June 15th.
,....
John Mesenbrink
Eagle Creek Villas
7765 175th St. E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
.,.,cO!: 4'7-=:+1. ~.r..""t I=a.t Prior Lake. MN 55372 . phone (612) 441~SOS8 Fax (612) 447-5036
FROM : MESENBRINK CONSTRUCTION
PHONE NO. 6124475036
Ma~. 12 1998 12:51PM P2
May 12, 1998
The City of prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: variance Denial for Eagle Creek Villas, LLC
Case Number 98-040
Dear Sirs:
I am requesting an appeal before the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision May 11, 1998,
denying a 22.45 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the center line of a County Road
(Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 feet and a 1,2 percent variance to lot coverage of 21.2 percent
rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent. I am requesting a change to a 13.00 foot variance to
permit a 72.00 foot setback from the center line of a County Road (Fn;lnklin Trail) Instead of the required
85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance to lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the maximum allowed of
20 percent.
\.
ohn Messenbrink
Eagle Creek Villas, LLC
7765 175tn St. E,
Prior Lake, MN 55372
FROM : MESENBRINK CONSTRUCTION
PHONE NO.
6124475036
May. 12 1998 12:50PM Pi
7765 17511\ Street East, Prior lake, MN 5537:?
Fax
To: City of prior lake Attn: Jane Kansier
Fax: 447 -4245
F,o",~ John Messenbrink
Pages; 2 including cover
Date: May 12, 1998
Phonec
Its: Change in variance
. Comments:
Phon!'! 441-5058
~
Fax 447.5036
111
~ l) Engineers. Surveyors · Landscape Architects
~-13 _QO
Date: ...:.J -, 0"
Hansen Thorp
Pellinen Olson Inc.
Steven L. Pellinen, P.E.
Laurie A. Johnson, REo
Ted W. Anderson
Jan Wager Anderson, L.A.
Paul A. Thorp, L.S.
Lloyd E. Pew, L.S.
D. Daniel Thorp, L.S,
Dennis B. Olmstead, L.S.
Job No:
Cjf.()//
Attn:
Re:
C;~~ ~Dr ~~~
. lit' _ .!-(1. .!I C - _ 1'.5C
Pn or Lfl X /; m () , S,'^J' 7;r
J
,,-.t:\J\.-c \~ C-t..ftc';\e y
~\\~hll. VI ~t)l 'J~lh()vvu5
LETTER
OF
TRANSMITTAL
To:
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
VIA:
o Mail
o Fax
~ Messenger , -3
Fax No.
o Overnight
No. of Pages (Including Cover Sheet)
Copies Date
~
Description
P reA.., ih i (~i 6rruiu:j 0-LVl
~ ;g/(~ /qf?,
"i'
Copy to:
From: l () lDW C))~ : r11S
(612)829-0700.7565 Office Ridge Circle. Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3644 · FAX (612)829-7806
111
~l)
Hansen Thorp
Pellinen Olson Inc.
Steven L. Pellinen, P.E.
Laurie A. Johnson, P.E.
Ted W. Anderson
Jan Wager Anderson, L.A.
Paul A. Thorp, L.S,
Lloyd E. Pew, L.S.
0, Daniel Thorp, L.S.
Dennis B. Olmstead, L.S.
Engineers. Surveyors · Landscape Architects
Date: .::j - I [p - q )J
Job No: qf-Df /
To:
Attn:
Re:
(1 +tl oLfJrlCJr-- l D.-~e....
/ (o~;4 ~~ CruX 4.1,-. S-1~ .
t)ri mV, S53'ldl
Un-€- KG.Il~'lex"--
Defv-HeJd
LETTER
OF
TRANSMITTAL
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
VIA:
Copies
9
I
Remarks:
D Mail
D Fax
l2Sl Messenger 15
Fax No.
D Overnight
No. of Pages (Including Cover Sheet)
Date
Description
Cerf ~
(' erli r; S(1)'^V:j
!;j 1/
MAR t 6 199
- - --- -_.;--
---~--~!
Copy to:
From:
LCLlJ.j1' e , Joh ns Dn: ms
(612)829-0700.7565 Office Ridge Circle. Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3644 · FAX (612)829-7806
FILE COpy
March 23,1998
Eagle Creek Villas Inc.
Attn.: John Messenbrink
7765 E 175th Street
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variance Application
Dear John,
The City is in receipt of your variance application for the proposed townhouse
development (Hillsbury Townhomes) at 5255 160th Street. The following information
needs to be submitted prior to continued review of your application:
. The property owner of record in the Scott County Auditors office as of March 23,
1998 is AVR Inc. Therefore, they must sign the applicaiton. I have enclosed a blank
copy of the variance applicaiton. Please complete and have them sign it as the fee
owner. You can then sign the applicantiona as the applicant.
. City Ordinance allows for a maximum building coverage on a lot not to exceed 20%
in the R-3 zoning district for town homes. Based on my calculation your lot is
approximately 33,248 square feet. The maximum allowed lot coverage is 6,650
square feet (20 percent). The proposed lot coverage with the two buildings is 7,040
square feet. Therefore, you will need a variance to lot coverage to proceed with the
project. Please indicate the existing lot area on your survey so an exact
determination of the variance needed can be made. I have called your surveyor, but
have not been successful is reaching anyone.
We have tentatively scheduled your item to be on the April 13, 1998 Planning
Commission agenda, All items must be received no later than Wednesday, April 1,
1998 to remain on this agenda. Please call me if you have any questions.
~J;~~ ~a1
~~i Tovar
Planner
16200 E~glt8m~'A&~~?iOA~\Il:!W~ 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zonin~) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zonin~)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Pennit
o Variance Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
o Other:
Applicant(s ):
Address:
Home Phone: Work Phone:
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone: Work Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement ----'-
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
To the best of my knowledge the information 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.
Applicant's Signature Date
Fee Owner's Signature Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date
lu-app2.doc
Miscellaneous
I
. i
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
t
111'
~l)
Hansen Thorp
Pellinen Olson Inc.
Steven L. Pelllnen, P.E.
Laurie A. Johnson, P.E.
Ted W. Anderson
Jan Wager Anderson. L.A.
Paul A. Thorp, LS.
Lloyd E. Pew, L.S.
D. Daniel Thorp, L$.
Dennis B. Olmstead, LS.
,
.
Engineers · Surveyon; · Landscape Architects
Date: ~ 4''zB'''?8
Job No:
To:
C~;/ ~tfP ~
/~~/J g4.Ah~ /IiN'o f6=.
ft/ ()J' k..~ -"'IV.. 55:$ 7;::;
LETTER
OF
TRANSMITTAL
Attn:
Re:
< bn 1'\ ~ Toy.:."
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
VIA: ~Mail 0 Messenger
B'" Fax Fax No. 44-7- 4e45"
o Overnight
No. of Pages (Ineluding Cover Sheet)
Copitl~
7--
Date
Descriction
'"B'J l lJ Li-tc. 1>eu*~ L c:; VVIJ'~"
\. ,
~d.4Jd-K - J~d 7d..oO lid jum Cl 1; ~~.
. Remarks:
Copy to:
From: ?1uJ,- ~
(612)829-0700.7565 Office Ridge Circle. Eden Prairie, MN 55344.3644 · FAX (612)829-7806
~3
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.:J.:;--qOI- {)Da-O
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zonin~)
to (proposed zoning)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
Variance
o Other:
sheets/narrative if desire<!l J /)
T..P_1'1 Y) {.k).t.vn 0 l~
Pt&J!..1 fl1 {r p~~ EYp~.If-
R V Ill/J} ':;A LJ /"'11 I ~c/-- &,,1/+
01-, FXI5/~_SI'k.,
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
Applicant(s): EJt6/~ ~"'~~.. [/} ,1~
Address: 770/L7 ~ E J7r ~ V--
Home Phone: Work Phone: '-/e)",/_ ~!"-QS c.9
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership:
'" Work Phone:
Fee ~. Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement ---"
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
.3d-55 I bO 'fh S-1;
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
appli ions . not be processed nti et the Planning Director or assignee.
3.- I /-- erg
Date
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
FROM : MESENBRINK CONSTRUCTION
PHONE NO. : 6124475036
Mar. 24 1998 05:26PM P2
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S,E./ Prior Lake, Minnesota .55372-1714/ Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Bl'ief description of proposed project {attach additional
o Rezoning. from (llresent 2:onin'l) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proppsed zoning)
o Amendment to City Code, Camp. Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
[] .Vari~~~'-.
D Other:
Applicable Ordinance Section(5):
Applicant{s):
Address:
Home Phone:
Work Phone:
Property Owner{s) [If different from Appli~ants]:
Address:
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee
Work Phone:
Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this applic:ation and other material submitted is correct. In
addition. I have read the relevant sedions of the prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applications wiD not be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
Date
~ ~ d-4 - 9 S
Date
Tms SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DA TE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
lu-app2.dol;
Date
-- -
i";;':;'-~.1~..~~._";"-~~"'~~- .~." --.,---...-..-._...~.~ -----.
__.~~...- ,*-. ;."..."___,....-_.-.-_~_---.......4. ~<
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE SE
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
(612) 447-4230, (612) 447-4245
RECEIPT # 32409
DATE: 3/1/ Jqf
I
C1 r7 /i L
Received of ,/ uQ.X...G (ALLK)
o ,1
the sum of --L.r! Yl ,I) j /'Y'd Met
for the purpose of ( h ,Uti' /1- JU
( ),"lhCl-J LLC
.
q- (10.-0// ~c
''? 'l'.V(JJ ! r >, -ru~.
( I
dollars
$:)CO c;y.
/"'.
(--, ' !
. -'~'.'...I2__ f i.. r< {z/I'j.1.. U /~
: Receipt Clerk for the City of Prior Lake
',.--1
, ,I
BUILDING PERMIT #
BUILDING PERMIT #
1 ,200.00
700.00
1,500.00
Building Permit Fee
Plan Check Fee
State Surcharge
Park Support Fee
SAC
Plmb Pmt pp#
Mech Pmt mc#
Mech Pmt mc#
Swr/Wtr Pmt sw#
Pressure Reducer
Water Meter
Tree Preservation Deposit
Swr/Wtr Connection Fee
Water Tower Fee
Builder's Deposit
Other
Total
Building Permit Fee
Plan Check Fee
State Surcharge
Plmb Pmt pp#
Mech Pmt mc#
(Heating only - $65.00)
(Htg & Air - $100.00)
(Fireplace - $40.00)
(Air - $40.00)
Swr/Wtr Pmt sw #
Other
Total
~,~""",..._...~-.,,",,,,....._--&...,.,.,,-~-=~~.'.,....~"..~..'''''' ,-.,.... -.,'","_.', ...'"..,..~,...-,,,. ........__.,,~......'...._,-._...'....- _.~'.....~.~
6994
\r-
EAGLE CREEK VILLAS LLC
7765 -175TH STREET EAST PH. 612-447-5058
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
NEW MARKET BANK
NEW MARKET, MN LAKEVILLE, MN
75-872-919
~
~
~
.0
C
C
Vi
.~
t
c
DATE
Mar 11, 1998
AMOUNT
**************$200.00
~
."
E
PAY
TO THE
ORDER
OF
Two Hundred and 0/100 Dollars
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
c
~
U";
Memo:
'on for Variance
m
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
)ss
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
Cbr\J1AL Cw~
of the City of Prior Lake,
Minnesota, being duly sworn, says on the :2!Jl. day f 19 , s served
th~ p.ttached list of persons to have an interest in the
-:f;f ~fb -0 V D , by m 'ng to them a copy thereof,
enclosed in an envelope, postage prepaid, and be depositing same in the post office at
Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties.
Subscribed and sworn to be this
day of , 1998.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MAILAFFD.DOC
PAGB
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOllOWING VARIANCES:
A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK FROM
THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2 PERCENT VARIANCE TO
LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RA THER THAN THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED OF 20 PERCENT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FUTURE TOWNHOMES ON PROPERTY
lOCATED IN THE R-3 (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS
5255 160TH STREET.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE
(Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday,
April 13, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS: Eagle Creek Villas Inc.
7765 175th Street
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PROPERTY AVR Inc.
OWNERS: 6801 150th Street W.
Apple Valley, MN 55124
SUBJECT SITE: 5255 160th Street, legally described as follows:
Commencing at a point 25 feet east of the northeast corner
of Lot 1, Block 1, Costello's Addition to Prior Lake, Scott
County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and
of record in the office of the county recorder; thence south
parallel to the east line of said addition a distance of 150
feet; thence east parallel to the north line of Section 1, T.
114, R. 22, a distance of 300 feet; thence north parallel to
the east line of said addition a distance of 150 feet; thence
westerly along the right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway
No. 13; to a point of beginning.
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040PN.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
REQUEST:
The applicant is intending to construct eight townhome units.
Townhomes are permitted in the R-3 zoning district. The
proposed setback from the centerline of Franklin Trail is
62.46 feet, rather than the required 85 feet and the
proposed lot coverage is 21.2%, rather than the maximum
coverage allowed of 20% for town homes.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested
variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. . Questions
related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department
by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written
comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed
construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-
listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: April 2, 1998
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040PN .DOC
2
..~ ~
.~,
.,;
~,:..
,51
..
Cl:'
....
~,
(~.....
..:~
".~
..;~.
(j.
\
......
..; ~.
.~;\
.'.
"-
\
I
! I
~ .,;/
~ .I I
-Ll ~l
~t~ d
.
0 \ I
21 \1 ~
~
\ I
~l! \
4'\
I~ \ IN
o I ~ \
G & \
et:= ~ \ I
I~ \
~ ,
i
>- i5 N \ I
3 )
r z =:T ~
r,,-.., &
2 h~
t. ~hJ (
)' \ I \\\
::::> .~ \ l"
., II,I,
r
; li\
~l \ \\
I! . I'
m \ ,.
-< I I
'" ;
t.'
>-
~
, I~
'. Q
t
. .
r
~ I \
i5
~
~ i
l!l !
nn-nr.t
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
-
-iSCvr.- ~CJ1Ca- d _
ILtlrD LA). ~~c.~ llC;*f r.f-l
~I/W-U~ 11\.A~'5~ 30~
Scott County HRA
16049 Franklin Trail SE #104
Prior Lake, MN 55372
AVR, Inc.
6801 150th St. West
Apple Valley, MN 55124
\--,
William J. Schmokel
4151 Grainwood Cir. NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Hattie L. Blakeborough
5280 160th Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
~ (!;rt~ V~
n~ Cz I II $'~ S~.
~ \AlACt,lV\;tJ ~1;)
\
\
I
! ~
03/12/98
15:38
KoHLRUSCH RBST ~ 6124474245
NO. 922
[;102
J
:~
I
I
.J
~j
';1
II
,q
;1
~
i~
.~
d
J
.~
I).
W
~
:1
1\1
;
')
':1
:I
.~
.j
~
Q
o
~
1j
: .~
~
"J
.,
1
1
I ,~
'j
"
11
it
'I
il
'!
l
I
"Ii
~1
:A
~
~
~
~
,j
,j
1
"~
;).
II
::~
i (1
I ~
I
I
,
KOHLRUSCH
SCOTT/CARVER ABSTRACT CO., INC.
128 West 3rd Avenue
P.O. Box 35S
Shakopee, Minnesota SS379
UrB.ESENTING;
ra Commonwealth
I5iiI Land Title I~sura~ce Company
According to the records of the BRC Tax System in the Office of the County Treasurer 0 Scott
County, Minnesota. the following is a list of primary tax payers of property lying within 100
feet of the following described property:
All that part of the North Half of the Nonhwest Quaner (N1h of NW 1,4) of Section 1, Township
114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at a point 25 feet East of the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Costello's
Addition to Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on me and of record in the office of the
County Recorder; thence South parallel to me East line of said Addition a distance of ISO feet;
thence East parallel to the North line of Section I, Township 114, Range 22, a distance of 300
feet; lhence North parallel to the EasI line of said Addition a distance of 150 feet; thence
westerly along the right of way ot" Minnesota Trunk Highway No, 13, to the point of beginning.
--------_.._----------------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------~--
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
William J. Schmokel
4151 Grainwood Cir. NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Scott County HRA
16049 Franklin Trail SE #104
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Hattie L, Blakeborough
5280 160th Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
AVR,Inc,
6801 150th St. West
Apple Valley. MN 55124
DATED:
March 12, 1998 at 8:00 a.m,
KOHLRUSCH SCOTT/CARVER ABSTRACT CO., INC.
File No. 54154
NOTE:
This search was prepared with due diligence: and every effort was made: lU ensure the accuracy of this
searc:h. however, Koblrusch Scott/Carver Abstract Co., Inc. accept'l no liabililY for errors and/or
omillsions herei.n.
J
1:1
o
;1
'1
~
'I
\1
~j
(I
~
"
~
~
Page 1
03/12/98
15:38
KoHLRUSCH REST ~ 6124474245
NO. 922
~01
'j
(I
..1
I
1
,~
,~
I
i
I
j
.~
.~
I
il
1
KOHLRUSCH
SCOTT/CARVER ABSTRACT CO., INC.
128 West lrd Avenue
P.O. Box 355
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
REPUESBNTING:
ra Commonwealth
~ Land Title Insurance Company
I
I
.,
;~
\
"
-1
~
-'"
J
~
~
~
:1
',1
.~
i
~
~
1
i
1
,1
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO:
Jane Kansier
FAX NO: 447-4245
FIRM:
City of Prior Lake
DATE:
March 12, 1998
FROM:
Janae M. Larsen
RE:
100' Owners & Address List for John Messenbrink
.Labels to follow in the mail *
:~
(~
:1
j
,
i
i
i
I
I
J
~
~
~
~
'~
'.~
~
;1
'f
i
'!
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER LETTER: ~,
KOHLRUSCH
SCOTT/CARVER ABSTRACT CO., INC.
128 West 3rd Avenue
P.O. Box 355
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
REPRESENTING:
IiiI Commonwealth
~ Land Title Insurance Company
Ptiane; (6~~~:~!f~oo:lOSO ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.........................
........................
....................... ..
....................... .
. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................
.........................
..................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..................
..................
....................................
..................
..................
..................
::t::::::t::::)t::}i.:::::":....:..F~~::;:~~:~~r'*?~~~~
............. ......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .............. ...........
According to the records of the BRC Tax System in the Office of the County Treasurer, Scott
County, Minnesota, the following is a list of primary tax payers of property lying within 100
feet of the following described property:
All that part of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter (N Ih of NW 'A) of Section 1, Township
114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at a point 25 feet East of the Northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 1, Costello's
Addition to Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the
County Recorder; thence South parallel to the East line of said Addition a distance of 150 feet;
thence East parallel to the North line of Section 1, Township 114, Range 22, a distance of 300
feet; thence North parallel to the East line of said Addition a distance of 150 feet; thence
westerly along the right of way of Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 13, to the point of beginning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
William J. Schmokel
4151 Grainwood Cir. NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Scott County HRA
16049 Franklin Trail SE #104
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Hattie L. Blakeborough
5280 160th Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
A VR, Inc.
6801 150th St. West
Apple Valley, MN 55124
DATED:
March 12, 1998 at 8:00 a.m.
Di
~
JOW~
,.~
KOHLRUSCH SCOTT/CARVER ABSTRACT CO., INC.
./'-
"
J-ae M. Larsen, Licensed Abstracter
File No. S4154
NOTE:
This search was prepared with due diligence and every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this
search, however, Kohlrusch Scott/Carver Abstract Co., Inc. accepts no liability for errors and/or
omissions herein.
Page 1
........,~...._~_.~-"-~.,.--'--_.~
, ',': I~ (~ .' U~ ..._,Yi --f II)
',,' i l\ ':.\' J1
~ I ! i : I
.... \. i.\\~1 'L1 3 1998 ' ; JI'
ill\ 1L/
:U -
i
l.