HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 16, 2001
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-072 (Continued) Holiday Station Stores are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a gas station/convenience store and carwash for the property located north of Fountain Hills
Drive at the southwest quadrant of the intersection ofCSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail.
B. Case File #00-089 Jane Crosson is requesting a Variance to permit a deck structure with a rear
setback less than the minimum required.
C. Case File #00-084 The Vierling property owners are requesting an amendment to the City of Prior
Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan for 320 acres located in Sections 23 and 24, Township 115,
Range 22. The proposal is to amend the Land Use Map from the current R-HD (High Density
Residential) designation and the C-BO (Business Office Park) designation to Rural Density.
D. Case File #00-082 Gary Matson is requesting a preliminary plat consisting of a total of 0.96 acres
to be subdivided into 2 lots for the existing single family dwelling and one new single family
dwelling for the property located on the north side of Centennial Street, west of Candy Cove Trail
and south of TH 13.
E. Case File #00-00-086 The Church of St. Michael is requesting a variance to the maximum
building wall length to building height for the new addition to St. Michael's School on property
zoned R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) District located at 16280 Duluth Avenue.
s. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case File #99-086 Mark Liesener is requesting a one year extension of the approved Variance
Resolutions 99-025PC and 99-026PC for the property identified as Lot 13, Block 2, Titus Second
Addition.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjonrnment:
.J..:\O ~liIes)Q I plan~onup\O 1 pca~<Jol\agOJ..! 60 I.DOC
16200 cagle CreeK fWe. ::>.c., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2000
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the December 11,2000, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
V onhof, Planning Director Don Rye, City Engineer Sue McDermott, Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
Vonhof
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the November 27, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Chair V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the first public hearing.
Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-072 Holiday Station Stores are requesting a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a gas station/convenience store and carwash for the property located
north of Fountain Hills Drive at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of CSAH
42 and Pike Lake Trail.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated December 11, 2000, on
file in the office of the City Planner.
The City of Prior Lake recently received an application for a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) to allow the construction of a gas station, convenience store and automatic car
wash on the property located at the southwest comer of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail.
This site is zoned C-4 (General Business). The applicant has not requested any variances
for this project.
The site in question was platted in 1999 as Lot 2, Block 1, Fountain Hills Addition. This
lot is 2.13 acres in area, and is bounded by CSAH 42 on the north, Pike Lake Trail on the
east and Fountain Hills Drive on the south. The proposed development includes a
5,404.4 square foot convenience store, a 1,439.1 square foot automatic car wash, and 5
pump islands located under a 4,080 square foot canopy.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\mn121100.doc 1
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
At this time, staff felt there were several outstanding issues to be addressed in order to
ensure the proposal meets the ordinance requirements. The plans must be revised to
address the following issues:
1. The site grading and drainage issues as outlined in the memorandums from the
Engineering Department.
2. The Building Code issues listed as items 1-5 in the attached memorandum from the
Building Official.
3. The parking plan must provide the minimum parking spaces.
4. The driveway widths must be reduced to 36 feet. In addition, an access easement for
the shared driveway must be submitted.
5. The landscaping plan must be revised to meet the Ordinance requirements. Also, an
irrigation plan must be provided as part of the landscaping plan.
6. The signage plan must be revised so the signs do not exceed the maximum size. The
site plan must also be more specific about the location ofthe freestanding sign. Signs
must be located at least 10' from any lot line, and may not be located within the
traffic visibility triangle.
7. The lighting plan must be revised to ensure the illumination does not exceed 1.0 foot-
candles at the property lines.
8. Drainage and surfacing plans for the car wash must be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
Due to the number of outstanding issues, staff recommended the public hearing be
continued to January 16,2001, to allow time for the applicant to submit revised plans and
for staff review.
Staff received a letter from Kevin and Barb Lilland dated December 11, 2000 requesting
certain conditions be imposed on the project including buffering/landscaping and hours
of operation.
Comments from the public:
Victor Sacco, representative and manager for the Holiday Companies, said they have
reviewed the staff report and concur all changes and conditions meet with their approval.
Holiday Companies will work with staffto make the necessary changes. Sacco asked if
the Commissioners would consider approving the request.
Mike Vierling, 13985 Pike Lake Trail, stated his family owns on the adjacent land and
have a fence dispute with Wensmann (property owner) on the northeast side of the
property. He would like to have the issue settled up before the project is started.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\rnn12I lOO.doc 2
Planning Commission
December n, 2000
V onhof asked Rye to address the issue. Rye said this particular property is an approved
lot of record. The preliminary plat covered the entire 38 acres. The final plat only
included about half the site. The remainder ofthe site includes the property Mr. Vierling
is referring to. At the time final plat is brought in for approval the title issue has to be
resolved.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Questioned if there would be an issue of swapping the pumps and store locations.
Mr. Sacco said they would need to expose the pumps to the main access. The
public is looking for a location that looks attractive from the street level. It makes
a better presentation. He also pointed out the higher elevation in the back.
. When was Fountain Hills graded? Rye responded it was last week.
Stamson:
. The overall proposal is consistent with the goals and commercial plans for the
area. There are no real design issues.
. A gas station was specifically stated for this site last year with the rezoning. It is
a good plan.
. Supported - stating no hesitation to forward on to the City Council with the
understanding the revisions are to be made.
Rye pointed out in switching the location of the pumps and station there would be a fair
amount of noise with the carwash. Ifthey were to switched it, the carwash would be on
the Pike Lake Road side closer to the residential properties.
Criego:
. Questioned the shared/common driveway. Sacco said they would have common
access with the adjoining west property, which would keep down the number of
accesses into Fountain Hills. The utilities will have to be relocated. The cost
benefit has not been determined.
. Ifthe cost was out ofline would the applicant put the driveway on their own
property? Sacco said they would, but did not see a problem.
. Not practical to swap the pumps and store but there should be some buffer.
. Questioned how the applicant would buffer. Sacco explained the wrapped
canopy. The neighbors are on a higher location. The south side of the canopy
would not be illuminated. The northeast side could be softened by light.
. Someone should take a look at the buffer zone. Maybe trees. Sacco said they
would consider it.
. Rye pointed out the landscaping plan could be addressed with Criego's concerns.
. Atwood questioned if the neighborhood could be involved. Sacco said they
would try to meet those conditions.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\mn121100.doc 3
Planning Commission
December J J, 2000
Lemke:
· Questioned ifit is the store's policy to be open 24 hours a day. Sacco responded
it was the intent, but not all stores are open 24 hours. If they are open 24 hours
and not doing any business they will shut it down. The time is used for stocking
and general maintenance. It is important to be open 24 hours to be available and
help people.
· Questioned the zoning on this property. Rye said the Comprehensive Plan
designated this area commercial in 1995. The actual zoning was about 2 years
ago.
V onhof:
. The entire building will be brick.
· Questioned the elevations. Sacco explained the residential elevations are higher.
It is above Pike Lake Trail and Fountain Hills Trail. The site will blend in.
· When the Commissioners fIrst looked at this site, they did consider a gas station.
· There should be some buffering and the other conditions need to be in
compliance.
Open Discussion:
Atwood would like to see more on paper and believed the buffering issue should be
addressed.
V onhof felt the plan should be more concrete. The canopy gives off a lot of light.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO JANUARY 16,2001.
Criego stated he felt this is a good location for a gas station but the buffering has to be
addressed with the neighbors.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #00-078 Robert Jader is requesting variances for a minimum
structure setback, less than allowed combined side yards, and encroachment less
than 5 feet of an adjoining lot for the property located at 14962 Pixie Point Circle.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 11,
2000, on file in the offIce ofthe City Planning Department.
On June 28, 1999 the Planning Commission granted Robert Jader a 33 foot variance to
permit a 24 foot setback from the top of bluff to construct a single family dwelling at
14962 Pixie Point Circle. On June 20,2000, Mr. Jader's builder, Charles Cudd Co.,
LLC, was issued Building Permit #00-0478 for the proposed structure as surveyed by
Brandt Engineering & Surveying.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\mn121100.doc 4
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
UpQn cQmmencing cQnstructiQn, the fQQting CQntractQr apparently mistQQk the wrong
side yard setback mark and placed the frQnt sQuthwest CQrner Qf the building 1.17 feet
clQser to' the side property line fQr a 3.83 fQQt side yard setback rather than the required 5
fQQt setback. On OctQber 13, 2000, the prQperty Qwner made applicatiQn fQr the
fQllQwing variance: A 1.17 foot variance to permit 3.83 foot structure setback from
one side lot line rather than the required minimum 5 foot setback.
On NQvember 27,2000, the Planning CQmmissiQn deferred actiQn Qn this Variance
request, at staffs recQmmendatiQn, to' gather additiQnal infQrmatiQn regarding the
building's dimensiQns. After permit approval the Qriginal building plans were revised in
the field, but the revisiQn was nQt accurately reflected Qn the as-built survey submitted by
the applicant fQr this Variance request.
Staff cQncluded the variance request met the nine hardship criteria required fQr variance
approval, because Qfthe narrQW lQt dimensiQns at the building setback line. In additiQn,
the builder inadvertently erred in the placement Qf the structure Qn the lQt.
The adjQining prQperty Qwners submitted a letter expressing nO' QPPQsitiQn to' the
requested variances. In additiQn, anQther resident submitted a letter in QPPQsitiQn.
Comments from the public:
RQbert Jader, 14962 Pixie PQint, stressed this project has been a twO' and a half year
prQcess with variances. Jader explained the mistake with the stakes and it is actually 41
square feet. It was a discrepancy between the surveYQr and the masQnry CQntractQr.
Jader nQtified the City and his attQrney. His attQrney and Mr. Rye felt the easiest way to'
remedy the situatiQn was to' get a variance. Jader indicated his neighbQr had nO' problem
with the situatiQn. He went Qn to' explain swapping prQperty with the neighbQr, but his
attQrney suggested getting a variance.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· The Qverriding issue is that it was nQt an intentiQnal actiQn by anYQne. It was a
mistake.
· FQr the mQst part the hardships have been met.
· It is Qnly a little Qver a fQQt alQng the property line. TO' make the Qwner adjust to
the prQperty line is nQt justified.
. Grant the variance.
Criego:
· Why is the building 6 feet lQnger than the Qriginal plan? And ifit wasn't 6 feet
lQng, hQW far WQuld it be frQm the sideline setback?
· JQhn SQntag frQm Charles Cudd CQmpany (the builder), stated they had a survey
Qut at the site that was red-stamped by the City when they added Qn the 6 feet.
They actually changed the hQuse a cQuple times after that to' fit Qn the site. It
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\nm121100.doc 5
Planning Commission
December ll, 2000
would not fit on the original site. Part of loosing the closet and foyer adjusted the
garage. He was sure the survey he had was stamped by the City.
. If the 6 feet was not added what would the setback be? Sontag responded it
would probably be one foot.
. Horsman ran calculations. It did not make a difference - 8/100 of an inch.
. By adding 6 feet, the applicant's house sticks out in front of his neighbors. The
original intent was to keep those houses on a plain and now yours sticks out.
. Questioned if there is a setback requiring 84 feet on one side.
. Horsman explained this variance was submitted under the old ordinance and so it
has been applied. The applicant still met all the required setbacks. There was no
setback averaging applied.
. The applicant did not meet the 5 foot setback in the beginning. Horsman
confirmed they did not.
. Question to Sontag: Why did you continue building when you knew it was
wrong? Jader replied when the builder noticed it was incorrect the first thing they
did was call the homeowner (Jader). The builder and surveyor met with the City.
The City said there were two options: Swap property with neighbor or apply for a
variance. After talking to the neighbor the plan was to swap. Jader explained
they later determined ifhe swapped land with the neighbor, the neighbor would
loose his impervious surface area.
. Questioned applicant why the City allowed him to continue building without a
variance. Jader responded the City notified the builder ofthe problem and to
continue would be done at his own risk.
. Jader said he felt he had an option of swapping land. Changing the foundation
would cost $40,000 to $50,000. They still can swap the land. Nothing was done
to avoid any responsibility. He did not want any problems with the City.
. The Commission has seen this property many times and thought the problems
were solved.
Lemke:
. The Planning Report stated the building inspector approved the location.
Horsman confirmed he did.
. Under those circumstances the request is not out of line.
Criego:
. Maybe the Planning Commission should state the liability as it relates to
inspectors and the City when approvals are made.
. Rye responded the City is obligated to enforce the ordinances. If a permit was
issued in error for whatever reason, that does not negate the need to comply with
the ordinance.
Atwood:
. Inclined to vote for the variance.
. Agreed with some ofCriego's thoughts. In viewing the property, the additional 6
feet is a big difference and is not attractive.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\nm 121 lOO.doc 6
Planning Commission
December J J, 2000
· Surprised it got to this point with the builder and City.
· Inclined to go ahead with granting the variance.
· Horsman said the original survey submitted by the builder and approved by staff
was correct. The as-built survey added the 6 feet and was not part ofthe original
submittal material. The City has copies ofthe same survey the builder is referring
to and it does not show the 6 foot addition at the time the permit was issued. At
the time the materials were submitted it showed a garage depth at 26 feet, not the
32 feet they have today.
· Is it correct the 6 foot expansion came after that and was blue-lined and signed off
by the City? Horsman said that was not correct. The revisions were never
brought to the City for approval to his knowledge. It was done in the field.
· Jader said it was his understanding everything done to the house was passed by
the City. He was not familiar with the conversations between the builder and the
City. His discussions were with the builder. They discussed extending the garage
because they had room based upon the required setbacks.
· John said he would get the survey and present the notes. The senior draftperson
has a lot of experience and would not add something that was not approved by the
City.
· Horsman stated the City has a copy ofthe survey. The Plans Examiner who
reviews the survey said he had no knowledge of changes.
Sontag said he would not try to get anything past the City. He will speak with the
draftperson imd get more information. He felt there are two different issues. The
variance is different from the additional 6 feet added to the garage.
Atwood felt there was some intention and quoted the staff report. Sontag responded they
met with City Staff and found there was a solution. After leaving City Hall he felt there
were two good solutions.
Stamson:
· The additional 6 feet to the garage is not part of the problem.
· Criego said the intent is the issue, not the 6 feet. Movements were taken place on
the development that were not approved by the City.
· They did not intentionally go into the setback. The stake was placed in the wrong
spot.
· Would there be an issue with the City ifthe 6 feet were added? Horsman said ifit
met zoning ordinances - it would be an issue between the builder and building
department.
Atwood asked Criego for background on the property.
Criego explained the Commission and applicant had a number of go-arounds with the
bluff setback. When this was approved, it was the intent that the three homes would
come together. That is why the house was 6 feet further away from the street. The
Commissioners assumed if the variances were approved what was presented at that time
would be developed. And it was not. It is distressing.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\mn 1211 OO.doc 7
Planning Commission
December 11.2000
Criego went on to say there is no hardship for a variance. There are no financial
hardships. The hardship criteria is to the area, the community, the lay of the land, etc.
The reality is this will probably pass tonight. It is sinful it got this far. The Commission
is rubberstamping something he does not agree with. A lot of time was spent on this
property, it should have never happened. Everyone knew this was a sensitive issue.
V onhof:
. It is disturbing a professional contractor would misplace the foundation when the
lot had several variances.
. It is disturbing the City Inspector did not find that.
. It is disturbing the Commissioners go through the process of granting or denying
variances apparently with different structures going up as built. Perhaps the
process has to be looked at. There is a level of trust being extended out that is
not occurring.
. When people walk out of a meeting with a variance, the assumption is the
applicant is building what we allowed them to build with regard to the variance.
Apparently our inspection department is not checking and going off assumptions
what is being built is on the paper. There is a significant problem. Agreed with
Criego this is disturbing.
. Questioned the variance standards being applied. Will support the variance
request but it does lead to much greater issues and not pleased.
Atwood:
. Would it alter the process if the Commission obtained the paper trail? Vonhof
said it sounds like a lot of this was verbal and did not have a paper trail.
Conversations were on site.
Stamson:
. It should be pointed out this was not intentional. There was a mistake. In
general, supports the variance.
. Don't like being pushed into a comer.
. Concurred with Criego' s feelings.
MOTION BY STAMPSON, SECOND BY LEMKE APPROVING RESOLUTION 00-
019PC GRANTING A 1.17 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 3.83 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM ONE SIDE LOT LINE INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED SETBACK OF 5 FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\mn 1211 OO.doc 8
.
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #00-077 Angie Cawley Variance Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 11,
2000, on file in the office ofthe Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Angie Marie Cawley for
the proposed construction of a detached accessory structure (garage) on a lot with an
existing single family dwelling. A public hearing was convened on November 27,2000.
After review of the applicant's proposal with respect to the hardship criteria, the Planning
Commission directed staffto draft a Resolution approving the variances.
The Commissioners agreed the Resolution was consistent with the variances granted.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, GRANTING RESOLUTION 00-
020PC APPROVING A 3 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 22 FOOT ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM A PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING A STREET; A 4
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK
6 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE; AND A 582.6 SQUARE FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF
2,847 SQUARE FEET (37.7%).
Commissioner V onhof abstained from voting.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Centex Homes presentation of concept plan for development of 40 acres
located at CSAH 83 and CSAH 42.
Steve Ach of Centex Homes presented a concept development of approximately 40 acres
of property located on the west side ofCSAH 83, about 1/4 mile south ofCSAH 42. This
property is presently vacant land. The property is designated for Low to Medium Density
Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and is presently zoned
A (Agricultural). A portion of the property is also located within the Shoreland District
for Mystic Lake. Centex is proposing 65 townhomes and 60 single family lots. Base
prices begin at $150,000 to $160,000.
V onhof:
· Make sure there is adequate buffering along County Road 83. The
Commissioners commonly have county road residents come before them
indicating there is not enough buffering. That includes berms, vegetation,
fencing, multiple layers. This is high traffic area.
· There is a maximum cul-de-sac length, which would be exceeded.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\mn121100.doc 9
.
Planning Commission
December II. 2000
. Too many driveways.
. Look at the feeder roads. Discourage commercial traffic.
. Rye said the County spoke favorably for the entrance off County Road 83.
Basically from the north end ofthis property. From the City's standpoint, that
would be the primary entrance to the commercial area, rather than this road.
Criego:
. Asked Mr. Ach to give the Commission a little background on Centex Homes.
Ach gave a brief history. They are in their fiftieth year.
. This would be a two year project.
. Prior Lake loves trails, especially around the wetlands.
. Recommend some type of trail to the commercial area instead of a road or some
system for emergency trails.
. McDermott said Engineering's concern was the way the property was laid out,
one-way in and out.
. Concern for the layout and snow disposal. Can't push it on the neighbor's
property.
. McDermott said the Engineering Department would probably require a temporary
cul-de-sac at that location.
. Rye confirmed it met the R-I density.
. Like the idea of single family and townhome combination.
. The cul-de-sac length should be able to be worked out.
Stamson:
. It is definitely single family price range.
Lemke:
. Questioned the park area. A trail should be designed so the neighbors can easily
get to the park.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\nm 1211 OO.doc
10
"
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
~(j<:ti:e. t-F
~~V(A~& vU~1-ot ~
PLANNING REPORT f\.\'t~ '
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A GAS
STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE IN THE C-4
ZONING DISTRICT (CASE FILE #00-072)
LYNDALE TERMINAL CO. (HOLIDAY STATION
STORES)
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF CSAH 42, IN THE NORTHWEST
QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF PIKE
LAKE TRAIL AND FOUNTAIN HILLS DRIVE.
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
JANUARY 16, 2001
The staffhas completed review ofthe revised plans for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
to allow the construction of a gas station, convenience store and automatic car wash on
the property located at the southwest comer of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail. This site is
zoned C-4 (General Business).
The issues identified in the December 11, 2000 staff report are listed below. The
developer's response to each item is shown in bold italics.
1. The site grading and drainage issues as outlined in the memorandums from the
Engineering Department.
2. The Building Code issues listed as items 1-5 in the attached memorandum from the
Building Official. The developer has addressed each of these issues satisfactorily.
3. The parking plan must provide the minimum parking spaces. The minimum number
of spaces for this use is 38 spaces. Only 10 of those spaces may be located at the
pump islands. The revised site plan includes a total of 35 spaces. This issue has
not been addressed.
4. The driveway widths must be reduced to 36 feet. In addition, an access easement for
the shared driveway must be submitted. The width of the driveways is within the
maximum allowed. The developer has not submitted an access easement document.
c:\my documents\OO-072p"c3.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.t., Prior Lak~, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
5. The landscaping plan must be revised to meet the Ordinance requirements. Also, an
irrigation plan must be provided as part of the landscaping plan. The revised
landscaping plan includes the minimum number of plantings. In addition, all
plantings meet the minimum size requirements. An irrigation plan has not been
submitted at this time.
6. The signage plan must be revised so the signs do not exceed the maximum size. The
site plan must also be more specific about the location of the freestanding sign. Signs
must be located at least 10' from any lot line, and may not be located within the
traffic visibility triangle. The revised sign plan meets the Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
7. The lighting plan must be revised to ensure the illumination does not exceed 1.0
footcandles at the property lines. The plans have been revised so that the
illumination at the property lines does not exceed 1.0 footcandles.
8. Drainage and surfacing plans for the car wash must be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
REVIEW PROCESS:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit should be reviewed in accordance with the criteria
found in Section 1102.1203 and Section 1108 of the City Code. Section 1102.1203
includes the specific conditions for the proposed use. Section 1108 includes the general
CUP criteria.
(1) The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Two of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are to encourage a diversified economic
base and to promote sound land use. The proposed use provides additional
commercial development in the City. The location of the use is also consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan in that it has good access from collector streets.
(2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare
of the community as a whole.
In general, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community. The access to the site is from a collector street;
and will not direct traffic through any adjacent residential areas.
(3) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and
the Use District in which the Conditional Use is located.
The site plan meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of
the number of parking spaces. There is room on the site to accommodate the
required spaces.
(4) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
services, or improvements which are either existing or proposed.
c:\my documents\OO-072pc3.doc
2
The streets and utilities to serve this development are in place. This use will not
adversely affect those services.
(5) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties in close proximity to the conditional use.
With the required changes, the use will be screened from the adjacent roads, and will
not have an adverse impact on the nearby properties.
(6) The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape
plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect,
or civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, approved by the City
Council and incorporated as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the
City Council.
The revised site plan is generally consistent with the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance. There are some minor changes required to the site plan in order to ensure
the development is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
(7) The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a professional civil
engineer registered in the State of Minnesota which illustrate locations of city
water, city sewer, fire hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and cable lines,
natural gas mains, and other service facilities. The plans shall be included as
part of the conditions set forth in the CUP approved by the City Council.
As noted earlier in the report, the grading and drainage plans do not reflect the
existing conditions. These must be changed and resubmitted for review.
(8) The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the City Council
may find necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety and
neighborhood character. Such additional conditions may be imposed in those
situations where the other dimensional standards, performance standards,
conditions or requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to achieve the
objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these circumstances, the City
Council may impose restrictions and conditions on the CUP which are more
stringent than those set forth in the Ordinance and which are consistent with
the general conditions above. The additional conditions shall be set forth in the
CUP approved by the City Council.
Once revised plans have been submitted, the Planning Commission and Council may
determine additional conditions are required.
Other Requirements: There are other requirements specific to this use that must be met.
These include the following.
1) Outside Storage and Display: No outside sale or display shall be permitted except
gasoline and other goods consumed in the normal operation of a car and limited to the
following products: oil, gasoline and oil additives, windshield cleaner, windshield
wipers, tires and batteries. No products shall be sold or displayed in any required yard
c:\my documents\OO-072pc3.doc
3
nor shall the total display area occupy more than 150 square feet in area or be more than
5 feet in height. No other vehicular parts and non-automobile oriented goods shall be
displayed or sold outside.
2) Public Address System: No public address system shall be audible from any property
located in an "R" Use District.
3) Car Wash: Drainage and surfacing plans for a car wash shall be approved by the City
Engineer. The plans shall describe the wash water disposal and sludge removal
facilities to be employed to accomplish dust, salt and other chemical and mud
abatement on the premises and prevent the accumulation of surface water, wash water
or sludge on the site or in the vicinity of the premises.
The first two requirements should be included as an ongoing condition ofthe operation of
the facility. The last condition should be included as a condition of approval. This
information must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
CONCLUSION
At this time, there are still some outstanding issues to be addressed in order to ensure this
proposal meets the ordinance requirements. However, these issues are not so significant
that the proposal could not be forwarded to the City Council, with some conditions. The
staff would expect the plans to be revised prior to the Council meeting.
The staff recommends approval of this CUP, subject to the following conditions:
1. The site grading and drainage issues as outlined in the memorandums from the
Engineering Department.
2. The parking plan must provide the minimum parking spaces.
3. An access easement for the shared driveway must be submitted.
4. An irrigation plan must be provided as part ofthe landscaping plan.
5. Drainage and surfacing plans for the car wash must be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
6. Outside Storage and Display: No outside sale or display shall be permitted except
gasoline and other goods consumed in the normal operation of a car and limited to the
following products: oil, gasoline and oil additives, windshield cleaner, windshield
wipers, tires and batteries. No products shall be sold or displayed in any required
yard nor shall the total display area occupy more than 150 square feet in area or be
more than 5 feet in height. No other vehicular parts and non-automobile oriented
goods shall be displayed or sold outside.
7. Public Address System: No public address system shall be audible from any property
located in an "R" Use District.
c:\my documents\OO-072pc3.doc
4
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the CUP with conditions as recommended or
any other conditions the Planning Commission feels are warranted.
2. Recommend denial of the request. In this case, the Planning Commission should be
specific about findings of fact.
3. Continue the request. In this case, staff should be directed with specific information
to bring back to the Planning Commission for further review. If continued, this item
should be scheduled for the January 29,2001 Planning Commission meeting in order
to meet the 120 deadline for action.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second recommending the City Council approve the CUP subject tot eh listed
conditions.
c:\my documents\OO-072pc3.doc
5
..
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW A GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE IN
THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT (CASE FILE #00-072)
LYNDALE TERMINAL CO. (HOLIDAY STATION
STORES)
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF CSAH 42, IN THE NORTHWEST
QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF PIKE
LAKE TRAIL AND FOUNTAIN HILLS DRIVE.
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
JANUARY 16, 2001
The City of Prior Lake recently received an application for a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) to allow the construction of a gas station, convenience store and automatic car
wash on the property located at the southwest comer of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on December 11,
2000. Due to the number of issues pertaining to the application, the Planning
Commission continued the public hearing to January 16, 2001, to allow the applicant
time to address these issue.
The applicant submitted revised plans to the Planning Department on Monday, January 8,
2001. The staff has not had the time to review the plans as of the writing of this report.
Our comments will be available at the Planning Commission meeting.
The revised plans are attached to this report. Also attached is a copy of the minutes of the
December 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. These minutes outline the issues
pertaining to the proposed development.
1:\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-072\OO-072pc 2.doc I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2000
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V oOOof called the December 11, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
V oOOof, Planning Director Don Rye, City Engineer Sue McDermott, Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V oOOof
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the November 27,2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Chair V oOOof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the first public hearing.
Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-072 Holiday Station Stores are requesting a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a gas station/convenience store and carwash for the property located
north of Fountain Hills Drive at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of CSAH
42 and Pike Lake Trail.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated December 11, 2000, on
file in the office ofthe City Planner.
The City of Prior Lake recently received an application for a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) to allow the construction ofa gas station, convenience store and automatic car
wash on the property located at the southwest comer of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail.
This site is zoned C-4 (General Business). The applicant has not requested any variances
for this project.
The site in question was platted in 1999 as Lot 2, Block 1, Fountain Hills Addition. This
lot is 2.13 acres in area, and is bounded by CSAH 42 on the north, Pike Lake Trail on the
east and Fountain Hills Drive on the south. The proposed development includes a
5,404.4 square foot convenience store, a 1,439.1 square foot automatic car wash, and 5
pump islands located under a 4,080 square foot canopy.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\mn121100.doc 1
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
At this time, staff felt there were several outstanding issues to be addressed in order to
ensure the proposal meets the ordinance requirements. The plans must be revised to
address the following issues:
1. The site grading and drainage issues as outlined in the memorandums from the
Engineering Department.
2. The Building Code issues listed as items 1-5 in the attached memorandum from the
Building Official.
3. The parking plan must provide the minimum parking spaces.
4. The driveway widths must be reduced to 36 feet. In addition, an access easement for
the shared driveway must be submitted.
5. The landscaping plan must be revised to meet the Ordinance requirements. Also, an
irrigation plan must be provided as part of the landscaping plan.
6. The signage plan must be revised so the signs do not exceed the maximum size. The
site plan must also be more specific about the location of the freestanding sign. Signs
must be located at least 10' from any lot line, and may not be located within the
traffic visibility triangle.
7. The lighting plan must be revised to ensure the illumination does not exceed 1.0 foot-
candles at the property lines.
8. Drainage and surfacing plans for the car wash must be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
Due to the number of outstanding issues, staff recommended the public hearing be
continued to January 16,2001, to allow time for the applicant to submit revised plans and
for staff review.
Staff received a letter from Kevin and Barb Lilland dated December 11, 2000 requesting
certain conditions be imposed on the project including buffering/landscaping and hours
of operation.
Comments from the public:
Victor Sacco, representative and manager for the Holiday Companies, said they have
reviewed the staff report and concur all changes and conditions meet with their approval.
Holiday Companies will work with staffto make the necessary changes. Sacco asked if
the Commissioners would consider approving the request.
Mike Vierling, 13985 Pike Lake Trail, stated his family owns on the adjacent land and
have a fence dispute with Wensmann (property owner) on the northeast side of the
property. He would like to have the issue settled up before the project is started.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\nmI21100.doc 2
Planning Commission
December II, 2000
V onhof asked Rye to address the issue. Rye said this particular property is an approved
lot of record. The preliminary plat covered the entire 38 acres. The final plat only
included about halfthe site. The remainder of the site includes the property Mr. Vierling
is referring to. At the time final plat is brought in for approval the title issue has to be
resolved.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Questioned if there would be an issue of swapping the pumps and store locations.
Mr. Sacco said they would need to expose the pumps to the main access. The
public is looking for a location that looks attractive from the street level. It makes
a better presentation. He also pointed out the higher elevation in the back.
. When was Fountain Hills graded? Rye responded it was last week.
Stamson:
. The overall proposal is consistent with the goals and commercial plans for the
area. There are no real design issues.
. A gas station was specifically stated for this site last year with the rezoning. It is
a good plan.
. Supported - stating no hesitation to forward on to the City Council with the
understanding the revisions are to be made.
Rye pointed out in switching the location ofthe pumps and station there would be a fair
amount of noise with the carwash. Ifthey were to switched it, the carwash would be on
the Pike Lake Road side closer to the residential properties.
Criego:
. Questioned the shared/common driveway. Sacco said they would have common
access with the adjoining west property, which would keep down the number of
accesses into Fountain Hills. The utilities will have to be relocated. The cost
benefit has not been determined.
. Ifthe cost was out of line would the applicant put the driveway on their own
property? Sacco said they would, but did not see a problem.
. Not practical to swap the pumps and store but there should be some buffer.
. Questioned how the applicant would buffer. Sacco explained the wrapped
canopy. The neighbors are on a higher location. The south side ofthe canopy
would not be illuminated. The northeast side could be softened by light.
. Someone should take a look at the buffer zone. Maybe trees. Sacco said they
would consider it.
. Rye pointed out the landscaping plan could be addressed with Criego's concerns.
. Atwood questioned if the neighborhood could be involved. Sacco said they
would try to meet those conditions.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\nm121100.doc 3
Planning Commission
December 11. 2000
Lemke:
. Questioned ifit is the store's policy to be open 24 hours a day. Sacco responded
it was the intent, but not all stores are open 24 hours. If they are open 24 hours
and not doing any business they will shut it down. The time is used for stocking
and general maintenance. It is important to be open 24 hours to be available and
help people.
. Questioned the zoning on this property. Rye said the Comprehensive Plan
designated this area commercial in 1995. The actual zoning was about 2 years
ago.
V onhof:
. The entire building will be brick.
. Questioned the elevations. Sacco explained the residential elevations are higher.
It is above Pike Lake Trail and Fountain Hills Trail. The site will blend in.
. When the Commissioners first looked at this site, they did consider a gas station.
. There should be some buffering and the other conditions need to be in
compliance.
Open Discussion:
Atwood would like to see more on paper and believed the buffering issue should be
addressed.
V onhof felt the plan should be more concrete. The canopy gives off a lot of light.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO JANUARY 16,2001.
Criego stated he felt this is a good location for a gas station but the buffering has to be
addressed with the neighbors.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #00-078 Robert Jader is requesting variances for a minimum
structure setback, less than allowed combined side yards, and encroachment less
than 5 feet of an adjoining lot for the property located at 14962 Pixie Point Circle.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 11,
2000, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On June 28, 1999 the Planning Commission granted Robert Jader a 33 foot variance to
permit a 24 foot setback from the top of bluff to construct a single family dwelling at
14962 Pixie Point Circle. On June 20,2000, Mr. Jader's builder, Charles Cudd Co.,
LLC, was issued Building Permit #00-0478 for the proposed structure as surveyed by
Brandt Engineering & Surveying.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\nm 1211 OO.doc 4
B~ rt.Ul
~tilJ
~
e II Ii P Un
I .i II! ~ Ilq
I I~ Ii! I hi'
= · !llia: ihi
~I I dlllilt it' I
I. Ig n, "ld:!U 1'1
I. e I "i itl I! ~
ill f I~' 111:11 !~I D
~ !. ~( IIlili '1. ~,
!II !I ! ~I~ ~i!1I1I !Ii ~I
'1-1
I
\ F=
II
I ~
\
i II j
e i' I
I I II I
t I;, i !
! . . I ,l f
t 11111I1
~ II I i hi I
.= ql nl!1
II i ,I P, I' I,
- 1.1&:11 11.11. !
Illhu II I~n! f
II.. f . ~ iU.,
... ......
f -.:-~
I '~ .--... --
Iii ._
~lIllli =1 .: ~
i1-l-l I I iI ~.
! ;. '''-""., en
I 1,-: i'. i' '''.
I fill ! I ! I II I I ~ \ l~"::';\
I I. I I '1= 'I ~: fl. f.,; I ' (d) ~
I! . f I =1 If! Ii ~ ~e ;1"-' :lIJ
I 'I' II I II Ii I Ii : 'I .: I:L q \ ~i'l,
! P f I' ~ II! ~ d = II dlllEI ; In ! I \ (?-:--~I
: Ii! In I I P II~ III II~ I d I h iiil 'I! L,:,..-:=~:::=-
I =. I III III I I !II ~ i f J, I .il i
I f Is 1ft ;1 ~ q~ II UIII i. d! P U' I ill I. I
I II; 11111~li i P IbPiii p~ IIIIIUI pll III !
I. h!l,u I~;~I . i 'I' iddl .1, q.,11I Jllsll'. el i
.1i.iI .. i.... ~ n !II.... I . h. III III. I Ii h
YJ.OBN1 ':DIY1 HCJIHd .j I
Ztt OVOH AllflOO !1i~1 III
t'~g# 3t:IO~S NOLL V ~S !ilil :I;;!
..... s..... &a
..::&l:Illlaa
r"'\,
\." J
.", ..,
h <~~I
Iii I
III 8
L_________________________________ ~----
!P <l:l&w:m~_ ~:" _"""....IllIl
<- <-<-<-< <-<-<-<-< <--0....
,.
L_~
..-
I
I
I
I
I
Ii'
II
..
Ii)]
" 'I ill. III t
: ~Il i~pl ,';11{' 111
. 'I I 'Ii "t I
I Itilll:H illf ~f I
I ~l 1i)'1 ,It 1 "
Ii)".' :111: fiN 11 f I
fh.1J1t tI, ·
11 il~f! :1;1:19ul'~ 1 !
~ It ~!tb IIHt fall I. t I
: f! b~llll;f'l '1111111 If ~
. n 1111 CI . fll 1 f 1
= It h lilM llfif J I"
: Ij dIu It~Ul :(&1 III 1 J
.t.. .. 4 tI....c
V.l.08BM 'aWl YOIIcI G,~ I
M OVOH A.UIlOO j~:~
3HO~S NOI.LV~S Ir f
I 1 I I 2)' " 1 f I 'I
, .;1' Itl") II f H'h 1
; 1 ~~!IR) 1; 'I !il h!q IIDii'.!
: I I bIh~lllilil !s;ll' !! Iti ~~!I 1 Jf!~~~;II;fl
w ~ '~I UI'jJI I 11"11111 JI8 i 1
: , i IlfJlli'llaii I', "I It I I IHllt'I'1
." ,! J'lrlll I'f ~ ,I 1~1"lll 'n:1 IoJ
=: 'i ~IJ In I", .,,,It 'I II! 'h.lj ~ ~i!1tJ!I)
;~ II iIH:!m ~m~1 I. i:" liij Ii ~ 111;li!~h
:~ i ~ 11~;i~JI~IIJf4!tl III !If !IIJ!! : ," 'ld!~l'l
:" I I -dJII~J I &11 'IPil1 'Ill. I .t1111J
~: '. i ' ,.) I.;, I ~ '. j I' It
:: I 11.llIlill.1 IliJU II, Ill. !I,I . I dlIllt~
..... .. .. tI...,r tI .. ,
I~I~II!
.' I
II~ 1111
!kll :~;:
h <~il
Iii J
YfI ~~_ ____________________________________
I ~ lIalOJ'I...._ .............
L < < < < < < < < <-<-<-<--0.....
- <II I ohp ohp ~. dIp--
\
'1 i
\/
i.
~
4t
~
~
oJ.
. .;~::::~;~~--l
8 I !
;: I!
I
\
~ \
., i i
! . ---___1 !
----~'.~::~~::.::::-~ '
____ .::-:::.:=-==---===-_J
r-....,
~-~J
f ,. '"
~~~
,tf." ;.':;-~'\
'"",} .)
\-...
>
. ~ ~
..
~~
cr.:
\.
I
a
I
iJ" a li
:1 ~:I
~r 0
if :c
V.Los:NM 'aW1 YOIfd .' I
m: av~ AUflOO ;1;11 II
t'~g# Eft:K)~S NOU. V ~S 1111;I.ll'!1
dl .1 II
I, i i ~ hi I j!
if r {1ft 't1
i ;f! I IIi 1 ~ H
1 i Ii I 1 lye t I II
~. I II: f It I 1 i .I
II I It! luf~ r I!l I.
I J 1 !i Ii :! j;id!f:i ~I
iliff !. [f tli 11'.111 i ,:
I C f,Jl it f ,If r, L Ii
l ! 11 I' II 1.1 II Ij I .1:11:
I i II If It It i! 1m J: a h! I!
~I
! ~IIU
I f. H
i I HUI
! Ii!
hi!
lun.,
Hili"
II at
:;1 l.tlU
"
Ip r
i '''1
it ii!l !I
I .ill
hilll II ~
t
"
l-
Z
"
Z
"
i
tie
81
l
I
.1 .
1\
~
-m~
:! ............" J-'>
....-1 ---
zi
;~
~I
"l
"
.....1$
~
~
~
C5
C)
C"J
CO
~
f- ,- ..
-''T-' ~'
E',;.....,.,..
"-,...
. .,.;..)
v_....
..'~,,:;;;..~
':J..
"
ro",'. 11
. ,I g. I' 1=' ! i · I II~ I'
:ii I I '.'uU ~I~'III,I! I'
l ' I' I I ,. I~ I !, ~
iP II J I. t lil-I!:I'II ~ ; "
II Ii i. f e I " ill1 'Il, ~ 3 I. i ,
If! i. , ; iii' !I'I~ ;111 II J ;.1, III
~PIII I .g I I .! I' f j ill, ~~
Ii I .II! il; I i h; il;! I; d I. !; Iliillli
I. III; 1 II ~. ellll; 1 .1 ,. !~ II .Iilllll
I~ I; Iii IIII! ; II~: -II III! I! ii edlll;
I It Ii ;11 ~I ;~I~! ~ II ilil II!i II I; II ;um; Iii
f~
v
~ i
I i
I I
,. ,.
. I I
II ~~J
.' r
II : .
ih I i, N
V
. III I, II c:i
Ck:
I ci
I <.)
. i
. i
~ I
J Iii
I. 'I.
Iii i I
II! Pi
III ;
V.LOSEtN'f '3W1 tDkI 1".1
ztt OVotl A.OOOO !IJII hi
ER:IO~S NOU. V.iS 1111;1':1'11
iU 1111
C5
C)
C'l
ex:>
~
....,
...', ....:~ -~._-,. _..
.'
i ;-.
( "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L___
\~'-&.-'
~";)
(~il
,~.
... :~ ....\
.~J._..i:' ....
.....,f'"
'...J.,..,
--1--- ----
, /-----
. ,..-7'
P/
I
! /.'
I /.''-
!,/ /
I :
\ \
\ ~
\ \
i:
\ I
i :
\ L_
\..._---
'.
,----
i
i
I
I
-.-
/
'f
( I
. ,
I'
'I
! I
,
JlIlI
'd!~11
o
I
I
r-----------------------------------------------------~-,_
i ~
. \
! Ii
I .
. I
I .
, I
I .
. I
I '
, I
, '
, I
i .----T--~----f---~- . j
i i I i
i ~ ~ ~
i ~:! :l
i ;
I
i
i
!
I
i
I
i
i
I
L_________________________________________
aN,. 'allY' HOIHd IJ ~ ~
_ 3110.LSNOI.LYJ.S AI.S:J~~
~
~-----_._._._._.~
I
I
i c
i
i
I c
I 5
i !!!
I '"
'"
en
z
~i
,W Oll
...L:i
en
5 ..
CL
~ i i; I: II II ~
0
~ ~ i E ;~Ii i ha il: ~!~ I
!! -'
~ ! II iOl~lll W ~!I !I ~
c
'"
~
~i
~ll
..,L:i
en
8< ...
..
L.._______________..l
I III I ;e
~ ~ m IlIldl~
It. ~ I fI I I I II ~I~
~
5
CL
~
Vi
g
it:
t;
~
'"
I. .. i I
1 II t !
II I 5 ~ !i =,!
il IIi .. III 5!~
II ~ II I ! a!1 i~!
!a ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~a
III" 5 gig ~ !i 1'1!
~l!I
Ii II ~! II i d! ..~
~ h I ill ~~i
II! 2i ~II ~
I il I ~d i~ ~1I .1 i~.
~~ i~~! ~~! I i~1 n:
.... eese e e
a
c::>
C'.J
ClO
~
. .'" ,
.,'.J' r
.' '.
._...I....._..-._~_.___J
.-- .::_=:,>.,~ ~ .-:-:-~...:J
----.."-..> .--------
,:,1" $
':\d::~ .
\~"
.....",.
^ ..-'
)-:;;..
"
,,,",,,,,,..:
;, )
,~~
J~n"ILM
IH:: a.2 i
'.Jf n 0
Jt~!I~! :I:
~"
~
, r -
"-....: :
~/
-- .--.
) ~
i ~
v v
Nn Ie., JOIJd iJ I
t<:S, 3~OlSNOUVlS ,.I~E,.
III!Id JlJOI:I vI:.; J I ilr~
I IIIIII II
,. 11ll1I111.
; t
1 'I U
I I I I ell
h! diU ;n
I/~y ..----.. (U@ 9 UG~~~ I~~
#11- -"\J 1- ~
'f o.~ et7~-) nB-.....m..: I
:....~:...: D i i J -". i
. .'g:. I .;I~~~;,~:~
~;. .11'\ r:::H - ~,,=JI.!.:;l~.G:Ia~ ,
~.._..' ~! :_ ...... -.. oM....
: ! ...
~ J ,I:! ~ IT ~ II 0
~,I J~ ~a = 111 'd!] ~
~ t I' ~N I L/'-.J II " [.../0
S~ ~.:~ ~~~I~l'
lJJ III =~ .1 ."W'~
II ~! =~ ,,;1, 11;1 -tI
d ~~ - "f"! l . ~ j 0
~ l~ ~~ = ~ = = ~ "-
~u ~~ _ ~ \\
~~ : ~:~ \\
b en I-- ~: !
~ I-- i"=: ~. r.---
~ I-- i"=:: -:__(
(1)~ ~ fljj 11,----
1ij)5d IC:.I ... lid -- I
~ I [.------1 ~u~ [=1 _~ Lj 0 '
I '._m..' m__m~.. --:
_____m.. l
l-rN
- : I....
! I;
I t i
, t
F .--
,-
tt4~=--= ----j
\LIj.--- :
~~ \J ~m.
...
-
~
~
~
- ---!
~
~
~EB
Iii ~W01
j Vf//~
/~~
~~
---
---=:=:.;-=
..
.._=:::> 1
:--::~-=_...:~ i
"~l'" I t
- I:
~ i I
~ ! j
j CIl) 1 I
~
. "
, .
- ~ :----~.-. ..~. -_. - _.. ..,.-
"\
,.
C.-,I :!-r'
~_.:,
""'"
. ...~..
.'-
;t-~'.9L":
; l
:;';'->;,~
~
.
~
-
i
j~n"l
~ J'SU
.!J IJ--
.... l: ~~
..c:< ~
~H t
a: c:J Ii;:
ao~i~~~
81
Vf Vf
N1^J 'S)tBl JOPd i;ill!1i
17G€ # 3CJOISNOll \f IS 1:1;I.bli
I\. ~i:jU ill! I\.
I I ;
'I tl ~ !
!~ g~ I~ I
~ ~ I~. . ~ & i X & k
g , it. ~ ~~! ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ i.
s > ~ t I ~I' a ';;. ~ <lB . <I-
I ~ ~ ~&Ml ~~ I! ~~. g~k. X~R.
Ii t ai1d ll~' '. ~ ~a.1 ~~.I
<( ~i ~ I~i~ ~~t; I~; ~ ~ ~.. H~X nx
~ i~I-~I~!i~h!uh~ 'I !I Hi hQ
~ !1!!i~~;!m~nH~' ~li~lh 1111 ~
t"
HI
,..
Hi
,"
.H
~ I,
a h
I i 1 i
lil~hub~9
I i ;i= If E III 'I!
i
s
i
~
.
.
~
~
<
~
I
I ~ t
i III il ih
~I it i. ;1 fU
aln I if! ~! bi
I q I ;1 'I ult
I~I In! ~l! lni
SUOllBA913
JOP9lX3
III I !~
~I mill III, !I?
~ ii-I I I I air
I r : t
;!I' I, h'
i I ~~ ;u ~~ i!l
s g I'd I'd d r~ ~r
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
h
Ti T
II!! h'. !l
.~ Iln~
I'd l:i ~'d
I' I
i \ i
t
~,
l
l'"
Old
,
I
~ z ~ ~
0
~ ~. I- ~
~y ~ . ~~
>'? ~9
..- :I': ;I;; ;I;;
~ . 'to
h I~ ~ ~~
!! -
..~ I~ l~ -~
h III
-~ "~ .. ~
~5j
",
r'"
-=..1
~ ~ r
r-t~"r.!
P'fP
';..;J '"
l.::.!'JII,~
''''"'',..
~~U"I
.z 1)11
~! ~
lii~
i~lJ:I~
~. ...
el
n
If
Il
v v v ~]I ~ I\~
NV'J la>fSl JOPd IiI pl~ a6l!u6!s l39[OJd I'; ~ I i < /:~~=,~,'::-.:=~~:.>
VG€# 3H01SNOI1'V1S iJ.! liD ~SUO!l2^913 U!~<d J.I ! II .~ -:~T:C:'=::-:"" .
lllil!~ AdOUl!:) ~I~. mill III ~ !' ::1i . ~
#<.4:th~h#<. #<.- Mia 11-1111\ I ~ .. ...\ is
01( :' ':) \ C'oJ
~.-::\ ~
; . ~ j' ~ \
\.
QVOl!I "''''VI ;!)lId
,(".,: ~
J
II
If
Il
r---]- --.-- --.--.
. - r
I .-
I S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~- -- --.--.---
..........
III
..l
..l
Z
Z
<(
!z
~
\l.
(")
~l:'Jl:..i
"t t" :
~:;~~J
-SO ;.-:;~'\
.) .,i
~,.~;T!.
I
I
I
I
i;
. ,
.
-,-;,
tmt
auua
iima
· ,~ll~ 6
I' I ~
~h~z I~d' , i , illn: I~
lil))1 6lndp~ I~ S blul ~ .
hit II!Jiauhh B
r~ t I
~ ; I
lat I . i
I I · 'ffi'
I ii a'"
I 1 ~ I' l
~) I r~t
I I a ~ ~i
.
.r! i.
I IIflIIll!I ~ ~I
.....- ~ II @)l
. :0 ~
I I , 10 ' I I ~ I
a:=~ 1 . Q~
t II =i; I. II
h :c ti Iii i
~ a: ~ ·
. ~jl (~-J i ~5 : . !C ~
i lJl ~ I . ~ I
B I ~ I : I II I i ~ I U I Z Q !
c- ~ i
5~ C!~! 1111 f'
__ iI t~
i~ ~ ~ !-,.,,--! ~ J..".J.! Ii
..ll 8 ~ @ ~ @)
.
" z:;r==
_..iSS'5l
!
i
1I~
~-
5~
i~
..ll
-i-_'
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4B
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO GRANT A 12 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF
13 FEET RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 25
FEET, Case File #00-089PC
LOT 16, OAKLAND BEACH, SCOTT COUNTY, MN
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
JANUARY 16, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from Jane Y. Crosson
for a deck addition to be added to a single family structure recently approved
under Building Permit #00-983, to be constructed on the vacant lot at 14624
Oakland Beach Avenue (Exhibit A Survey). Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, is the
current owner and builder of the subject property, and Ms. Crossen has
purchased the property contingent on securing this variance to construct the
deck addition on the main level.
On September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 00-12PC
granting variances to lot area and lot width for this subject lot, an existing
substandard lot of record (Exhibit B Copy of Resolution). The original building
plans and variance request did not include a main level walkout door or deck
addition to the house, only a lower level walkout door to a ground level platform.
The following variance is requested:
1. A 12 foot variance to permit a 13 foot structure setback to the rear
lot line rather than the required minimum 25 feet (City Ordinance
Subsection 1102.405 Dimensional Standards).
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
..
.~
DISCUSSION:
Lot 16, Oakland Beach, was platted in 1926. The property is located within the
R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts. The lot
is riparian by dedicated waterfront access to the shoreline as granted to the
collective property owners in Oakland Beach. The applicant does not own the
subject property or either of the adjacent parcels. The applicant has purchased
the property subject to approval of the variance for the deck addition.
The lot dimensions are 39.71 feet by 100.09 feet by 39.99 feet by 99.94 feet.
The total lot area of 3,978 square feet is 3,515 square feet less than the required
minimum of 7,500 square feet to be considered a buildable lot. In addition, the
lot width at the setback line is 39.76 feet or 10.24 feet less than the required
minimum of 50 feet wide to be a buildable lot [City Ordinance 1104.902:
Nonconforming Lot].
The front setback of 21.56 feet was determined by setback averaging the three
properties within 150 feet along the same block front as the subject property.
The rear yard setback to the building is currently 25 feet [City Ordinance
1102.405 Dimensional Standards (4)]. The original building plans depicted a
basement level walkout and ground level platform, but no main level deck. The
proposed deck addition is setback 100 feet from the 904 foot Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM), and within the required minimum 75 foot setback. The
rear lot line is separated from the lakeshore by approximately 85 feet of
dedicated waterfront, this area is common property shared by the respective lot
owners in the Oakland Beach subdivision [City Ordinance 1104.302 (4)
Setback Requirements].
The proposed principal structure is 24 feet wide and 52 feet long for a total of
1,248 square feet. It includes a two-car tuck under garage with a driveway slope
of 6% to the street. The floor plan depicts a main floor walkout and attached
deck dimension of 24 ft. wide by 12 ft. deep, and a second story walkout with
deck dimensions 12 ft. wide by 12 ft. deep (Exhibit C Building Plans). The
design of the house and lot accommodate access to the lakefront via a lower
level walkout and platform deck.
The proposed impervious surface coverage area of 1622 square feet includes
the building and driveway. Decks and platforms are not defined as impervious
surfaces provided the deck boards are spaced at least ~ inches apart as
provided under Code Subsection 1101.400: Definitions: Impervious Surface.
The total allowable lot area used to determine impervious surface was calculated
by adding the actual lot area of 3,978 with a portion of the dedicated waterfront
area between the projected lot lines to the ordinary high water elevation. The
combined total area available for impervious surface coverage equals 5,547
square feet. Based on this calculation, the proposed impervious surface area is
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\00-089\DNY -089.DOC
Page 2
equal to 29.2% of the lot area. The use of additional non buildable dedicated
waterfront outlot areas has been a standard practice on previous variance
requests (Exhibit D Impervious Surface Area).
The Department of Natural Resources was notified of this variance request and
submitted a no comment response to the rear yard setback.
Finally, the Planning Department received a faxed letter from a neighboring
resident on Oakland Beach Avenue expressing their opinion on the requested
variance (Exhibit E Letter From Resident). This letter states, in part, If an
exception is made in this case, ALL other residents in the area will gain legal
precedent to build closer to the beach, closer than has ever been permitted. It
is important to note this variance request proposes a 100 foot setback to the
OHWM, and is greater than the minimum required 75 foot setback.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
Lot 16, Oakland Beach, is an existing lot of record platted in 1926. By reason
of lot dimensions, 100 ft. deep by 39.9 ft. wide, it is nonconforming by today's
minimum standards of 90 ft. wide by 139 ft. deep. However, in this case, the
lot accommodates a lower level walkout door, which provides lake access
from the rear of the dwelling without the need for a variance to accommodate
the requested main level deck.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
The lot area and lot width are somewhat peculiar in that most lots platted at
the time where at least 50 feet wide, the subject lot is 40 feet wide.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\00-089\DNY -089.DOC
Page 3
The owner (buyer) has a substantial right to reasonable development. Staff
believes that right exists with the previously approved variance for lot area
and lot width, and the walkout capability of the proposed dwelling.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The granting of the requested variance will not unreasonably affect these
conditions or values.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the requested variance will not unreasonably affect these
conditions or values.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the proposed variance will be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, to maintain minimum structure
setbacks to property boundaries.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
The requested variance is not necessary to alleviate undue hardship.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of
the owners of the property.
The application of the provisions of this Ordinance on the affected property
does not result in hardship.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Increased development costs are not a condition of this variance request.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-089\DNY -089.DOC
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff believes that the hardship criteria has not been met with
respect to the Ordinance requirements and the subject lot in relation to the
proposed development plans, including the previously adopted variance
resolution. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following
resolution denying the applicant's variance as requested.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance 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 approving the Variance.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the variance request because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-001 PC denying a 12 foot variance to
allow a structure setback of 13 feet to a rear lot line rather than the required
minimum 25 feet.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-089\DNY -089.DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION Ol-OOIPC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 12 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 13 FEET FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Jane Y. Crosson has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of an attached deck addition to a single family dwelling on
property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) District and the SD
(Shoreland) District at the following location, to wit;
14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as
follows: Lot 16, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota, according to the
recorded plat thereof.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case #00-089PC and held hearings thereon on January 16,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance 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 variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property, such as, a proposed principal structure
with a lower level walkout and platform for an alternative site, and the proposed
decks location with regards to the surrounding property, the proposed variance will
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed attached deck addition increases the encroachment into the rear yard
setback. The applicant has an alternative site for location of a platform at the lower
level walkout door, as such, the applicant has created the hardship.
1:\00files\00var\00-089\dnyrsO 1-01 pc.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
6. While there is not an existing structure on the lot, there is no justifiable hardship
caused, and that reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the
variance. There is a legal alternative location and plan design for construction of a
detached platform on the walkout level without the requested variance.
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure
to be permitted without the need of a variance.
8. The contents of Planning Case #OO-089PC 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 variance for an attached deck structure (as shown in attached Exhibit A):
1. A 12 foot Variance to permit an attached deck addition to a principal structure to be
setback 13 feet from a rear property line rather than the required 25 feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 16,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\00files\00var\00-089\dnyrsO 1-0 1 pc.doc
2
EXHIBIT A SURVEY
PLAT OF SURVEY
Scale in
feet
FOR: MESSINBRINK CONSTRUCTION
LOT 16, OAKLAND BEACH
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
,
L____________
,
,
,
, ,...
, /,
1-------;7.-~----_1
, .. ~ ,
\ro IP FD ~P
L_______~n~. J
, h..'<. 24.88 \
, 13. / I
, ,
I \ \
90 , ,
~
I
o
30
60
"
L_J
<:(
,,--
'--'
~--
14
I -
I J
\ (
/ )
I
/ /
I
I
I
\
\
\
LEGEND
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
LOWEST FLOOR 909.9 FT
GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT
o IRON MONUMEIOT
-<> POWER POLE
m TELEPHONE BOX
m GAS METER
'cf HYDRANT
l><l WATER VALVE
- OE - OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
I I PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF
* 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING WALL
APPROX. 50 FEET '::AST OF SE CORNER
LOT 16. ELEVATION - 928.00
____ DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE
EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION 00-12PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3,522 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A LOT AREA OF 3,978 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE
REQUIRED MINIMUM AREA OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET, AND A 10.24 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT WIDTH OF 39.76 FEET AT THE BUILDING
SETBACK LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
OF 50 FEET.
BE IT RESOL YED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in
order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling located in the Rl (Low
Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue,
Prior Lake, MN, and legally described as follows:
Lot 16, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case File #00-071PC and held hearings thereon on September 25,2000.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance 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 variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The pre-existing lot of record does not meet the current Ordinance for minimum lot
size and lot width in the RI District. This situation creates an unbuildable lot and a
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-071 \aprsOO-071.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY El'-1PLOYER
hardship with respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the owner.
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the minimum lot area and width required today
and the platted lot of record. Reasonable use of the property does not exist without
the granting of the variance to permit a buildable lot for a single family dwelling.
7. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant,
and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #00-071PC 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 approves the
following variance for the proposed structure as shown in revised survey dated 10/10/00:
1. A 3,522 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 3,978 square feet rather than the
required minimum area of 7,500 square feet, and a 10.24 foot variance to permit a lot
width of 39.76 feet at the building. setback line rather than the required minimum lot
width of 50 feet.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. The lot must be developed as shown on the attached revised survey dated
10/10/00. Including a minimum side yard setback of 10.33 feet on the north side
lot line.
2. The permit IS subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable agency
regulations.
3. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. The resolution must be recorded and proof of
recording submitted to the Planning Department. An Assent Form must be signed
and, pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null and
void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within
one year after adoption of this resolution.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-071 \aprsOO-071.doc
2
PLA T OF SURVEY
~
Scale
in
feet
I
I
I
I
13
I
I
I
\
I
;~ \ ;/
~ V6' ;It
C~ dol
I It
I
o
30 60
I
90
~--
--~
~:.-
1"....
....J
0':
tJ._
,...,-
r ~~i
)r-'~
. ) \:s:
\\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \,\...~"\
\...!'
AT
LEGEND
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
LOWEST FLOOR 909.9 FT
GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT
o
00-
II]
1m
'cf
C><l
IRON MONUMEIOT
POWER POLE
TELEPHONE 80X
GAS METER
.
HYDRANT
WATER VALVE
- OE - OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
8ENCHMARK:
Te? NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF
tI 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING WALL
APPROX. 50 FEET EAST OF SE CORNER
LOT 16, ELEVATION = 928.00
____ DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE
I hereby certify that this survey
wa'" p~"!,ared ~y..m~ ,or under my
1.17 t1ansen "'harp
Drown Checked
I ~J nQn
-
--
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
__~._o._.._o.._-_._--Mt)N))AY;'SEPTEMBER-~5;-2000_..--..-
.._0'.- ....-..___
---~.---C~ - -~
~ember 25 20Q.Q.P.lanning.Commi . . led to order by Chairman
L~;;~;f6:"30'p.m~- Those present were GQ..mI!li~J?iom~rs AwoQd Stamson V onhof,
Planning Direct ye,-P1iTIningCoordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator
S orsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
Vonhof
~
::::::::--- Atwood
Stamson. -
~
3. ~:p~iD..t..: .... _ --------------
Th. Mb,ute~ lh: September II, 2000, Plamung ~SSion meeting were approved
as presente~ _
Chairman V onhof read tlie Pl:lbIiG H@ar-Rg atJiI Appeal statements and opened the first
hearing. -
. ---- -.-'--
~resen:
::::
~
2.
Roll Call:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-071 Eagle Creek Villas is requesting a variance to lot area less
than the minimum of 7,500 square feet, a variance to lot width less than the
minimum 50 feet, and a variance to permit over the maximum allowable impervious
surface area of 30 percent for the property located at 14624 Oakland Beach.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Eagle Creek Villas, LLC,
for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on an existing lot of
record. The following variances are being requested:
1. A 3,522 square foot variance to permit a lot area of3,978 square feet rather than
the required minimum area of7,500 square feet.
2. A 10.24 foot variance to permit a lot width of39.76 feet at the building setback
line rather than the required minimum lot width of 50 feet.
Lot 16, Oakland Beach, was platted in 1926. The property is located within the R-l (Low
Density Residential) and the Shoreland Overlay Districts. The lot is adjacent to dedicated
.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN092500.00c 1
. >>>>>>>>>?/>:>;>..>.>.>.>'>.>>'~>'J
, " '. . . .
. ," , . . ',' .
. . .
~,:...- <:~,:.:. /
> >, .:/
,/1
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25. 2000
waterfront access to the shoreline as granted to the collective property owners in Oakland
Beach. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels.
The Department of Natural Resources has no objection to the lot area or lot width
variances. The Planning Department received a faxed letter from a neighboring resident
on Oakland Beach Avenue expressing their opinion on the requested variances. This
letter states granting the requested variances would set a precedent and allow a property
owner with two 60' wide lots to create three lots less than 50' wide. It is important to
note this variance applies to an existing platted lot and does not allow the creation of any
new lots.
The Planning staff believed by applying today's Ordinance requirements to an
undeveloped existing platted lot of record, a hardship is created according to the
preceding stated conditions in their report. The staff recommended the Planning
Commission adopted the resolution approving the two requested variances. Approval of
this request should be subject to the condition the lot is developed as shown on the survey
to ensure additional variances are not required.
Comments from the public:
Larry Gensmer, representing Eagle Creek Villas said he did not have anything to add to
the report.
Paul Borman, 14626 Oakland Beach, asked ifhe could see the plan and did not have any
comments.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. The two variances are appropriate. There is no opportunity to expand the
boundaries.
. The building proposed meets all the setback requirements.
. Supported the request.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Stamson, the requests are appropriate.
. The impervious surface issue has been taken care of.
V onhof:
. Agreed with the Commissioners.
. Questioned staff on the driveway grade. Horsman responded.
. All the hardship criteria had been met.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm092500.doc
2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25. 2000
. The impervious surface issue has been addressed.
Rye pointed out a condition in the Resolution that the lot must be developed as shown on
the exhibit. It would be necessary to move the house a few inches to accommodate the
survey. Therefore the condition would have to be modified to reflect the change.
V onhof re-opened the public hearing.
Molly Sexe Borman, 14626 Oakland Beach Avenue, questioned if the building could be
moved closer to the other side of the lot. Kansier explained the setback ordinances have
been met but maybe the proposed home could be flip-flopped so the larger setback is on
the other side. A condition in the Resolution could state the house must be relocated
where no additional variances are required. Borman would like to expand some day. The
home on the other side of their property is located right on the lot line. They would like
to keep their options open.
Atwood:
Questioned staff on what will happen to the Bormans when they want to add on with a
non-conforming lot. Rye said they would have to meet the ordinances. It appears the
Bormans have a 12 foot side yard setback. There should be some discussion on moving
the proposed house.
Stamson asked the applicant, Larry Gensmer if they would be impacted if the
Commissioners added a condition to move the house over 5 feet. Gensmer said he did
not feel there would be a problem.
Larry Miller, owns the adjoining property on the other side and would like to see it
moved 10 feet away from his side. Miller's lot is undeveloped at this time.
There were no other comments and the hearing was closed.
The Commissioners discussed the setbacks and building separation.
MOTION BY STAMON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION
00-12PC GRANTING A 3,522 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT
AREA OF 3,978 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM
AREA OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET, AND A 10.24 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT
A LOT WIDTH OF 39.76 FEET AT THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE RATHER
THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 50 FEET WITH THE
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT A 10.4 FOOT SIDE YARD REMAIN ON
THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WITH A 5.4. FOOT SETBACK ON THE
SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm092500.doc
3
cc
DO
DD
LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE 1/8"=1'0"
S"GH
VI L
5101 G
D
REAR ELEV A TI ON
SCALE 118"=1'0"
EXHIBIT C BUILDING PLANS
t-t
tJ:j c:::I c:::I []
I-:rj c:::I c:::I []
U)~
n
~trj
1'T1t-t
,trj
o:l
If<
--::J>
CSJ~
~
o
Z
n
I'T1
F
zl
Cil'
I
,
8
E3
;u
Ioo---l
c;1
~
~~
:D
~t:tj
....t""'l
~t:tj
.!!:<
csi:;I>
-'~
Ioo---l
o
Z
c::J c::J []
c::J c::J []
D
t:::1 C::J C
t:::1 C::J C
D
D
RIGHT ELEVATION
SCALE 1/8"=1'0"
~
~~
~: ~
~ I II T ~
0r-~ I J, I L J r~ t 1 ,,~
/r1 I T...J I II ~
~ 11 . Tl J I T II.J .. 11 ~. I ~ i~
J" .'
~ 1 IT f It 't I.' I '1 I H': T:,.,-Jl I , [ F. 't '1T~
----- . I/':::----- ::-z. 1 I . f r....'ll.:P;-- =--= ~ 't~
;\IG JI.I ~ -~ I J'T" ~ ~-
I ,..
I
lJ. j' 'lTi 1 II-T- ' I
T Jj I, ., .t I I T. T 1 ' I II
~
ii' T,I . ." j r ... I T;~ I '
11 II 'ii". ~, T .
"-
I] I 111 JI' t T :...
......;.
l IT I ,'A.'.
I ...' '.:l '..l ,I~ t l' . I -J t-~- . ..~ .
1 ,. i 111 'T; I! -I I I I T- f '1 I i ~ r 'f
11' " ' JH r II IT I -1' ]l 'II IT-) tf t 1-"';;
J:LOPB... . ,
------ ,
CE IL ING ~'" K ~ ~ . ,.)l ~,~JJ.Aif'Jr-O -. . \/' 111: :l..c;])ra
,.... '~r;;:a. y ," .1i'Y n...:.~ -"I r:-r JL.: .
'i" _'" .;.;1.'''.1=..'.11. ' LA . ~.~
f.';.ci"- ~Jl~,)i"l ~~~e:K.r- '~~ '-L :J1
( . ~j
~_ ~ I ~'.' .J:;vor ~ . ,-, ; f..J ~ .N :..t!.>/' >~
~ .../-~. ~' ~t-....
~~~!Q'- DDDDDDDDD ' ~ ""'if J
.~ ~
.[.~
J~DDDDDDDDD
~\'J.V
~~
~',~;; OJ OJ OJ OJ D OJ OJ OJD ).- ~~
~J
( .;:
~~1 DDDDDDDDD ' " ?-
y~~ '~
" ".p
'~'t . ~
FLOOR .Y'~'
. . .
-
/ FRONT ELEVATION \
SCA E 1/4"=1'0"
L
PLANS FOR:
MESENBRINK CONSTRUCTION
7765 175th ST E
PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372
612.447.5058
DRAWN BY:
KREBS DRAFTING & DESIG
1291 DIAMOND CT
SHAKODEE, MN 5.')379
612-445-5787 BUS.
612-445-5787 FAX.
SCALE: \ '1 ~ I e;'~
EXHIBIT D IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA
CITY OF PRlORLAKE
.Impervious ~urface Calcu]a~on~
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distn'-ct (SD).
1l:1e Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Add ess Lot 16 Oakland Beach
Lot Area -2" 547 Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. 1,664.1
**********~~ ~**~******************************************.**************
HOUSE
LENGTH
52
x
WIDTH
24
=
SQ. FEET
1248
x
=
ATTACHED G ~GE
x
=
TOTAL PRINCIPLE SiRUCTURE......_._.....~.... 1248
DETACHED E ~DGS
(Gar.!l! IShed)
x
x
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.....--___._........_ 0
DRJ.VEVIAYfli ~VED AREAS
(Driveway.. aved or not)
(SidewallcJ1l tIeing AreM)
22
x
X
18
=
396
=
x
=
TOTAL P A"YED AREAS................._..............-...--u 396
T OT..~ DE CKS..............................-.........................-.... 0
x
X
=
OTHER
=
TOTAL OTmR...............--..-.-.-...-..-......--.......... 0
TOTAL I tIPERVlOUS SURFACE
~::~\-)~ bCJt1~0)
Company~ I-Irpo he....
I 1644
L 20
1-/2-<:90
1
l
Date
Phone # 15Z - t3 z.'1-o7~D
~5/27/1997 ~3:43
6~72774631
DAVID FELDSI-UH
PAGE ~1 .
EXHIBIT E RESIDENTS LETTER
David Feld.hub
14612 Oakllllnd Beach Avenue S.J.
Prior Lake, Mi....esota 5537%
FAX: 612-447-4245
January 7, 2001
TO: Steven Horsman and Prior Lake Planning Department
SUBJECT: 14624 request for deck variance
We believe that any new construction alon2 Oakland Beach should be
consistent with previous, residential regulations.
If aD exception is made in this case, ALL other residents in the area will
gain the legal precedeDt to build closer to the beach, closer than has ever
been permitted. Is this what the Planning Department envisions as a
model for the future of Oakland Beach? Is this what it wants? If so,
then you should grant this variance. If not, the variance reqnest should
be denied.
.Li~J>.
.'
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4C
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE VIERLING
PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTIONS 23 AND 24,
TOWNSHIP 115, RANGE 22 (Case File #00-084)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
--
JANUARY 16, 2001
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
Helen, Edward, Michael and Rebecca Vierling have filed an application for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located on the north side of CSAH 42
between Pike Lake Trail and CSAH 18. The proposal is to amend the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current R-HD (High D'ensity Residential)
and the C-BO (Business Office Park) designations to the Rural Density designation on
320 acres of land.
BACKGROUND:
This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural). The east 160 acres of the site are
designated as C-BO (Business Office Park) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map, and the west 160 acres of the site is designated as R-HD (High Density
Residential). The applicants have requested these designations be changed to Rural
Density.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site consists of approximately 320 acres.
Topography: The site has a varied topography. The western portion of the site
generally drains towards Pike Lake, on the west. The remainder of the site drains to
several small wetlands scattered on the acreage.
Vegetation: This property has been cropland for several years, although some portions
of the site are wooded.
Wetlands: The site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act.
I :\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-084\00084pc.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
\.
Existine Use: The property is used for agricultural purposes. There is a farmstead and
outbuildings located in the southwest comer of the site.
Access: Access to this property is presently from Pike Lake Trail.
Utilities: Sewer and water services must be extended from the existing services located
in CSAH 42 to serve this site.
Adjacent Land Use and Zonine: To the north of this property is agricultural land,
currently zoned R-S (Rural Subdivision) and designated for Urban Low to Medium
Density Residential uses. Also to the north is property located within the City of Savage.
To the south, across CSAH 42, are residential subdivisions, zoned R-l and designated as
R-L/MD. To the east are several large lots with single family dwellings, zoned A and
designated as C-BO and as R-L/MD. To the west are large lots zoned A and designated
as R-HD and R-L/MD.
MUSA Desienation: This property is currently outside of the MUSA boundary.
However, this property is consistent with the criteria for the extension of MUSA as listed
in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan (see attached). The property has also been designated as
part of the Primary MUSA in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Properties within the
Primary MUSA meet the criteria for the extension of services.
ANALYSIS:
The applicants have requested the amendment to Rural Density on this property. The
application does not include any reasoning for this request.
The Rural Density classification is intended for land where urban services are
unavailable. Even this designation is intended to accommodate future urban
development.
The Vierling property is currently enrolled in the Agricultural Preserve program. This
program was established in 1980 to preserve long-term agricultural areas in the
Metropolitan area, and to recognize farmland as a long-term use. Under the law, land is
no longer eligible for the program when the Comprehensive Plan no longer identifies the
land for long-term agricultural uses.
In 1993, the property owner initiated the removal ofthe east 240 acres ofthe site from the
program. The land will be officially removed in 2001.
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this area was first amended in 1995, and
identified this property as R-HD, C-BO and PI (planned Industrial). In 1999, the plan
was updated following a public hearing. At that time, this property was designated for R-
HD and C-BO uses.
1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-084\OO084pc.doc
Page 2
In 2000, the property owners requested the City approve a request for this property to be
reenrolled in the Agricultural Preserve program. The City refused this request on the
basis the property no longer qualified for program participation. The City has no
objection to enrollment of this property in the Green Acres program, which provides
some tax protection for existing farmland. The City also has no plans to rezone this
property from its current A (Agricultural) district unless requested to do so by the
property owners.
The current designation of this property for use as something other than long-term
agriculture has been in place since 1995. The applicants have not demonstrated any need
to change this designation.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval ofthe Comprehensive Plan Amendment as requested.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alterllative #2.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second to recommend denial ofthe Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the
Rural Density designation is required.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. MUSA Expansion Criteria
3. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
4. Primary MUSA Map
5. Zoning Map
] :\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-084\00084pc.doc
Page 3
Location Map
~."I'
WJ ,-
ll(.. .. .. IL
~. \\; . ~'LL
\~t\ )' Y(i . ~I r
_. ,v ~ \ __ ~.
\ . \' . . - .
:l! ~ ~"-J
if
fC.
jJ -
c
Location of Property
v
~I)
)
/
"
r;;7
("lJ
-
()
I
II;... :r.:t'/'I.I. ~\'/'.II \i-'':'"''-\\\''' 'J:.j:J:.HI'I' .I.-r
L ,;,bj' '1'1' c..:....:I::::J '>::::<
L.. '" : 'HI -- ~.\'\: .W'f.'1. .1.1.liIH.
II.. :"1.1.1. - . ~... ..... .....IU:U~/:'~,
~.~ ~ . $ ..... ~.':/:.~)- ~:YI'~~
&lL' r- . -'-I" I/' 'J'/~ '0/
. /........ -'-.. J.-'- . -.' . "">0.,.
. ~. .' .. f-'-' ':i - . .;<......)1
. ."-.. .: :: r-:- ,: . ~ _. ~ ..y~
~ '.. r-:- . '.;> /'C.N
. ?, '. _, 1-;-. ~ .' _
.' 8J~ ,-, "j I-O--~ . .,"< /. . ~
. :..'. W:.11\\\%.'
I<>.~_. ,.. ::\' ',:'\:.\.'< ~ <0,.'
-. ("1~'"
- ""-'. " -I. .1.\.1.1-\.\ r.--l I r=:1 . . '~- . .
----.:.... -. . '{,. \.1-\- \. '1:. u . . '. . \. . r . ..;
" t:-l. I' . .J.... J . . ~ . .
~ ~[!If71-:1 rlTf. TQ:J _.~~.~. .
rIW- In~ -' \. -..;:_
~. .tlr,n".-r ~
I~II
N
A
1000
I
o
1000 Feet
I
..
CRITERIA FOR EXTENSION OF MUSA
In order to insure that development which is proposed does not strain City
resources, the City will apply the following criteria in judging whether a proposed
development is eligible to have sanitary sewer services extended.
. Property shall be contiguous to property already within the MUSA.
. MUSA designation shall only be given to developments having a recorded final
plat and a signed developers agreement with surety covering necessary
infrastructure improvements to be installed as part of the development.
. Where applicable, utility improvements will address health, safety and
environmental issues and concerns.
. The development will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
. The development will provide adequate water supplies.
. The development will provide adequate roads and streets to serve the
development.
. The development will provide for adequate sanitary sewer facilities.
. The development will proceed consistent with applicable-environmental policies
and regulations.
. The developer and benefiting property owners shall assume the primary
responsibility for financing improvement costs. The City will participate in
such financing only under extraordinary circumstances.
. Preliminary plan approval shall not constitute a guarantee that a MUSA
allocation will be made to the subject property.
. The development shall proceed under the understanding that the project will be
maintained in accordance with the limitations imposed by the City and the
Metropolitan Council regarding MUSA availability and potential sewage flows
from the project. The City and Metropolitan Council shall be indemnified by
the developer against any claims arising as a result of future limitations on
MUSA availability.
. The City agrees to annually report on all allocations of undesignated MUSA
reserve to the Metropolitan Council.
1:\comp2020\musacrit.doc
~ m c:
._ ~ co
w-'-
c: a..
(J)"C
..c: c:
~~
a.
E
8
~
~
s-
o
--
s-
o..
'0
~
o
..
..
z~~
G i~ III ~
51 ~ 5 ~'c ~ 6 ~
~ ~~ i Ii ~ ~ J I i ~
~ G .2'- t5 C;C; ; ~ 1:m ]!
i Idl I ns~~ II ~'a ~
6, s-.. c~ ~ ~~... ~d ] ~ hI) 8 !
~ I~. ~ ~ I ~ ~ F ~ ~ 18 ~ ~ i ~~ ~ c73
JODI 8 ILillIII i I ~ 11011
..
~
~
s....
o
--
s....
C-
'0
~
U
cO>
Jlfc
~~.o
t:.. . <b +-'
.~::> ~
o..~:a:
'"
z.~
L-
0>
c:
c:
co
0>-
~C:-
--co
ai~
NF
~.i
~~
~
~~
o::E
-C 0)
o..e
--
be
~~
o
'"
~+~
(;I
illl!l(;I ~
Jl:~li ~
~11Ia::1f8~~18 (;I
~a:d!ia:: ~~. !!~~
!!f~~flidi~i~ if
i~~J~.~ 11.1 is
<?a:.3l~:I:Z !~di~~~ Q~
<( ~ ;t ~ :t;l 63 3 6 :) :;: (/) ~ ~
IDDoo~mmmllll~D~~
...
, .
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4D
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS MATSON
ADDITION
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
JANUARY 16, 2001
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary plat for
the 0.94 acre site located on the north side of Centennial Street, west of Candy Cove
Trail and south of TH 13. The preliminary plat, to be known as Matson Addition, is the
site of a single family dwelling at 5366 Centennial Street.
ANAL YSIS:
Applicant:
Gary Matson
17342 Vergus Avenue
Jordan, MN 55352
Project Engineer:
Probe Engineering Company, Inc.
Location of Property:
This property is located on the north side of
Centennial Street SE, east of Candy Cove Trail.
Existing Site Conditions:
A single family home sits on the east half of this site.
There are no wetlands on the site. A tree inventory
has identified a total of 249 caliper inches of
significant trees on the site. Of this total, 65 caliper.
inches are located on the new lot.
Zoning and Land Use
Designation:
The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential). The 2020 Comprehensive Plan
identifies this property as R-UMD (Low to Medium
Density Residential).
Adjacent land Use and
Zoning:
This site is essentially surrounded by single family
dwellings, zoned R-1.
1:\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\matson\matson pc. 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
Proposed Development:
Streets/ Access/Circu lation:
Grading/Erosion Control:
Sanitary Sewer and
Watermain:
Landscaping:
'.
The proposed plat consists of 0.94 acres to be
subdivided into 2 lots for single family dwellings. Lot
2, Block 1, is the site of the existing dwelling. Lot 1,
Block 1, is the site of a future dwelling.
The proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum lot
area and frontage requirements for the R-1 district.
Lot 1 is 18,120 square feet with 86 feet of frontage,
and Lot 2 is 22,860.61 square feet in area with 108
feet of frontage.
There are no new streets located within this plat.
Access to both the existing house and the new lot id
from Centennial Street. Although Centennial Street
is currently a gravel road, this plat does not include
any improvements to the existing street.
This property generally drains from the north to the
south. The only grading proposed on this site will be
done in order to accommodate a new single family
dwelling. This grading will be approved as part of a
building permit.
Sanitary sewer service and water service are
located in Centennial Street. Sewer and water stubs
to serve Lot 1 were previously installed in Centennial
Street.
This development is subject to the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance, which requires one (1)
street tree per lot frontage and one (1) front yard
tree per lot. The developer must submit a
landscaping plan showing the proposed location of
the required trees, as well as the minimum size and
types.
This development is also subject to the Tree
Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
A tree inventory has identified 65 caliper inches of
significant trees on Lot 1. The developer is allowed
to remove 25%, or 16.25 caliper inches, for the
building pad and driveway without replacement. The
preliminary grading plan submitted shows the
removal of 20 caliper inches, or 30.7%, for the
building pad. Therefore, the developer will be
required to replace 3.75 caliper inches at a rate of
1/2 caliper per inch for each inch removed. In this
case, replacement will be satisfied by one new tree.
1:\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\matson\matson pc. doc
Page 2
Parkland Dedication:.
The park dedication requirements for this
subdivision will be satisfied by a cash dedication in
lieu of a land dedication. The dedication will be
charged only to the vacant lot.
Finance/Assessment Fee
Review:
This subdivision will be subject to a collector street
fee and a stormwater management fee. These fees
are calculated on the net acreage of the new lot.
These charges will be paid at the time the
developer's contract is executed. A summary of the
charges is shown on the attached memo from Ralph
Teschner.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and
Zoning Ordinance. If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the
following condition:
1. Prior to final plat approval, the developer must submit a landscaping plan as
required by Section 1007.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
2. A minimum 10' wide drainage and utility easement must be provided along the
front and rear lot lines of each lot, and a minimum 5' wide drainage and utility
easement must be provided along the side lot lines of each lot. A 15' wide.
drainage and utility easement must be provided along the west lot line of Lot
1, Block 1, to maintain the existing sewer easement.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the preliminary plat of Matson Addition as
presented and subject to the condition listed above, or with specific changes
directed by the Planning Commission.
2. Table or continue the public hearing to a date and time certain and provide the
developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future
Planning Commission review.
3. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific fil)dings of fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat of Matson Addition is required.
1:\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\matson\matson pc.doc
Page 3
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat of Matson Addition
3. Memo from Ralph Teschner
1:\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\matson\matson pc.doc
Page 4
Location Map
2 . ~IJ/ If.;' ~,~ /
. ~ "-.)\ . ':*-. "..... .T\'Vi"~/
_, _ 11 ~ ~ ARSTAlXl'NTO ..... , . . ';<. - .~. : . '
~~~..-'~ " ~/
-:~I '(~=~) '. ' :'.)7 -'. ~~~
:.1,1,. . ~~!~ y. - . , . -. m~~\:'
~EU- .. " . \ 'I 'I /-r-
2 ,S; ~ ~ _ . -' ~~. n ~ ~
.~.. ;? '. 2 _. ~ .._. . , ..;.. .' . ~ ~ocation of Property
~. ~ - ' " ~~'I' , '~K
~~ ~ /. ~~ ~f?f, . ttl~ .I,I.I.r- .
9 I /./ .', . - -
/ ~-;:-. U-" \
~ ~- ~hn\
/ GATEWAYca<TER I
~. ~ . 1ST AlXl'N ,-
<!ctf!;o ~ l1lfffi I
I I II
-
. .
. ;T
\1 ac 1072
1111 [jfiJ rn:IJ 1 ,
1 .- ~ . ~
. \ ERJCJ<S\1UE ~ ~ ~ '2'
HLLS 6TH .~ :-' ..
! -". - ~,f" .,#' l'lLw' ·
I:R ~. ~ - ~ (/" , I', . I - . '.-
ElJElJ~ ~~.. , . ~
~' "J .j. . I.' -1.1'1._ _~' . . . '. 1./, .
l< fi1 """'"' .. OL ,\/., - I
~ ~r l~ '~.~,. , . ' 1;
lEI ~l--l-. . . - , ..
xr---r- 6' '5'.. 14 ~ ., I I CRt
~~ =c. . - ~ " : i: : i~,': ~ : .,. . .
~ ----:-- _ = """"""" sr.SE ~' , . .3
r;-- ==. =. . . - ;~'I'I' -1.1. -I. ,5\ '\0 " - ',\, .
--'- . I --.,~ .~ ~ ~
' ~1--111 I. '2 ," I t
~..-nc--I .... ~ ----'-=-1 -. ' '
~ .; T';"J iii ~ ..~. 1
.---
. .
. .
. "~
. ,
~ : i
. ,
. .
. -
.!(! .
::a:=i .
. ,
. ,
litt:U
N
A
1000
I
o
1000 Feet
I
'~~~
"'-,
. },~~
It \ '~
'I! \'~
I !
-m~' ? ,A!~:__ ~l
- - / / / ~ i .... - ~ii
- I '-,.......................---, / / 1./ Pill r--
.... -L-----\----___..l~~-/.,L--./ ~~
- -r - - - ,-::./ " /. .. ,/ / 'I / . ././ ~,: R
- -r - - - -,;- 1 /' /i / ~ ) l
~-=- -+- ...i l-i-7 r f "r ,11' // // I -_,____
y-c; I --.r I ~ !:l \ 'I ; / ~ / 'I a
'-.' I '- I'i / / / ~
i 'I" ~ , 'j / / ,( ~,
,:. l~ . ,I '1/'1' I, : L __
t i i +:a i +,1 , I
'/ "
---_/
~
!
~ -
III
.11 .,
l~ : ,: : !
Ii . _II
~ I ~IC
~ ! @h
~
~ ~
5"'(;') e
~~~ i
~ -< ..
.~
"",~
z~ )>
.. (II VI
e>o
~riz
IJlimhl
i ., x
. I" I
...
~
~
~~
[J.) J::
~'o\::.;,
t;~_ "":\
::4 ~u ;~~~
o ~" 1.::':,,\
Z -. uui!
--= - -eel
\S --c--
I
~
I I. I
~ ~~~ I
i J~J ..
~ I~~ ~
I II I
I i
I
~
!l~~
I'N~
an
r~
ji~ '""
I~~ I~
.GE i:
in I!
I~
!~
,)>
Jf:~i~~
'l\1 ,_ '-
\ ,"
\ i +//
'j \ ,
, ,\
\ 'l 1 \s r-,
~ \ '\ J,
N \ " ~ I
'--, 'f '_"
\ . I '\1 i
--, '1 -" I Ii
;.... --: ',.......... / \ , ~
) I 1 .-( \ I ~
/ .. 1 \ '.,
. ( v
l' L__
I :
I :
I
I i
---
r--
---1
I
-
-
II
JI~
3
IIluinn H I
(lflltUill~ I! ~
rl UlLt r ~
hinlll~ II
'!iijl(;1 U
hp,~!!lt IE
HI l:I'(J I
I. III- r I
';11 II.. IL'
liEilJ'llf' I
r;I..I"1 JlI
l~htl!J~ ~
II .. .. .~
I
9'6'i!i~ii!i~i~~!ijii~~~~~~~:~~~!~!~~i
'jii'j'jl"iW!ilii"'IIlI"'f'i1I'11
~
-~~~~--~iliiil~
iiiiilliii~lii!'i~i!=i!!~a~==~=.q~q~=
"li"'llliil'j'lil11liiil"'III'I'1
l!
~
I Ii
.III~,
rft,.. r
~ i r"'
Il .: II
J ..5'
~ ! ill
r--
: ,
i I j
~ I
r L__
:
I: _
~ 4-=--1
11 I ~t-
5 r : i
~ rL7.-'-:
I ( ;
I
.....
.
i
.s .1
"'\. '1
\'1 ./.;'
'1 \ ,
I . '1 \a r _-,
r-\.,~ I,
~ \ '1" ~ ,
'I'" "-"'." _" I
, '. I '-, 8
- '1 -,\ I ~
. ....- ~" " \. I j
. -- ,. ,
Iii ..."" , ,
~~ ~ i V
,', L.__
I
I I
I
I I
I !
r
--1
I
ir "7/-.... _
Bli / ~ -....
"--
-
1<: __,
- / --, "~'~h
/ / ---, ,
1 / .;' -'- .l. 1
"'///y 17
/' J / l!!j I
,,"/ojo/ I li,
// ...., j
- /
........ i
"
'1\
. )
i/
/
...-
'. .;'
"r
/
!
- ~
10<...." D
~~)> b
,..N:;:O ~
.z~-<
'" '" s:
zg )>
lJIVl ~
~~~
N.
~~~
~N~
~n
fi=
. ;~
.~"
il~~
IilIiS
;n
~
I~
~ ! .
~51 i I I i
1111 li!U!
alib I!! 13. ~
~n I ~ fit !
C~-.~ Iii I I
. ~ ~il I
3!ri @ h~ ~
~ r;--,\ Ii,. ~
~ ~-~.~;I Il .
~ ~ (~'1'
! 1';' 1. ~~~~~~, \
I\) . !
;g
~
I!::~
~ .~
(J))i
0::0
Z",<
~G)
t::j
3
~
I
-u
~
lE
i
-<
~
o
~
)>
~~.~~~~~'ii!i;j
- '~~~~~'~=.-i!ll~.=
~- .'S~i~i~~~~~.~~~q~~~~q~~~
illl ill i1iiillilimm Iill"'f'iifi i !
--~.~iliil;j
-~'iiiiiiiai==~=~q~q~=
li!lm lilii! illljiilfiliiil'lIfifil
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE:
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director
MATSON ADDITION - preliminary
(assessment/fee review)
November 29, 2000
TO:
FROM:
RE:
A .96 acre parcel in 36-115-22 (PIN #25 936 033 0) is proposed to be platted into Matson
Addition. The property was initially served with sewer and water utilities in 1975 under Project
75-2. These lots were 100% assessed for frontage and trunk acreage charges. Under the original
assessment roll this parcel was assessed lateral front footage of 204' and a trunk acreage
assessment of .93 acres.
Since utilities are available to the property site, the cost for the extension of services internally
will be the responsibility of the developer. In addition to these improvement costs, the
subdivision will be subject to the following City charges:
Collector Street Fee
Stormwater Management Fee
$ 1500.00/acre
$3180.00/acre
Lot 2 Block 1 Matson Addition would be exempt from these fees since an existing home is
located on this parcel. The remaining lot (Lot 1 Block 1) would be subject to the application of
these City charges which would generate the following costs to the developer based upon a net
lot area calculation of .42 acres as provided within the site data summary sheet of the
preliminary plat description:
Collector Street Fee:
.42 acres @ $1500.00/ac = $630.00
Storm Water Manaeement Fee:
.42 acres @ $3180.00/ac. = $1,336.00
These charges represent an approximate cost of $1,966.00 for the newly created lot within
Matson Addition. Assuming the initial net lot area of the plat does not change, the above
referenced collector street and storm water charges would be determined and collected within the
context of a developer's agreement for the construction of utility improvements at the time of
final plat approval.
There are no other outstanding special assessments currently certified against the property. Also,
the tax status of the property is current with no outstanding delinquencies.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
H:\SPLITS\M.lson.doc
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4E
CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM
BUILDING WALL LENGTH TO BUILDING HEIGHT
FOR THE NEW ADDITION TO ST. MICHAEL'S
SCHOOL IN THE R-2 DISTRICT (Case File #00-086)
16280 DULUTH AVENUE
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
JANUARY 16, 2001
The Planning Department received an application for a variance to allow the
construction of an addition to the existing St. Michael's school building on the
properly located at 16280 Duluth Avenue. The proposed addition is located on
the south side of the existing school, and is 142' long and 26' high. The
following variance is therefore requested:
1. A variance to permit a structure with a building wall length to building
height ratio of 5.46: 1 rather than the maximum ratio of 4: 1 (City Code
Section 1107.2202, S8,b).
DISCUSSION:
St. Michael's school is located at the northwest quadrant of Duluth Avenue and
Pleasant Avenue. The property consists of a combination of unplatted and
platted parcels. It is in the process of being replatted into one large parcel.
St. Michael's is in the process of expanding the school. The first phase, planned
for construction in 2001, consists of the south addition. Phase 2, shown in the
cross-hatch pattern on Exhibit A, is planned for construction within the next 3 to
4 years. There are no specific plans for this second phase. Based on the
applicant's drawing, construction of the second phase also seems to require the
purchase of additional property.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-086\OO-086pc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Pnor Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The proposed addition is located on the south side of the existing building. It is
153' long by 73' wide by 26' high. The addition is setback 25' from the south
property line, 185' from the west property line and 165' from the east property
line. The proposed addition meets all of the minimum setbacks. However, the
west wall of this addition exceeds the maximum building wall length to building
height ratio.
Section 1107.2202, S8,b, of the Zoning Ordinance states "no unbroken building
wall may exceed a 4:1 ratio of wall length to wall height, and each building
deviation at the 4:1 ratio shall be a minimum depth of 4 feet." The west wall of
the addition has a length to height ratio of 5.46:1. In the narrative, the applicant
notes the master plan for the school will reduce the ratio of the west exterior wall
once the second phase is built. In order to plan for this, they are proposing to
provide exterior insulation on a portion of the building wall rather than face brick.
It must be noted, the exterior insulation is not a Class I material. The exterior
wall must be constructed of at least 60% Class I materials. No more than 10% of
the exterior may consist of Class III materials, such as the exterior insulation.
This proposal is not consistent with this requirement, and therefore, will not be
permitted. The applicant has not applied for a variance to this requirement.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
The existing lot is 3.155 acres in area and can accommodate the proposed
building without any variances.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
The proposed addition to the building complies with the required setbacks.
There are no unique conditions applying to this structure. It should be noted
the proposed addition is planned as the first phase of a two-phase project,
although there are no specific plans for the second phase of construction.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-086\OO-086pc.doc
Page 2
By redesigning the configuration of the addition, it can be built without
granting of the variance.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The addition is located 185' from the nearest property line, and is separated
by a parking lot and landscaping. The granting of the variance will not impair
the supply of light and air to the adjacent property. The addition will not
significantly impact the public streets or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The purpose of the maximum length to height ratio is to lessen the impact of
the bulk of a large building on the adjacent property. Granting this variance
may impact the character of the neighborhood. However, the proposed
setback and additional landscaping may soften that impact.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of this variance is contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan to provide a suitable buffer between different uses.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
The proposed addition can be redesigned to eliminate the need for a
variance. The granting of this variance is not necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of
the owners of the property.
The variance would not be necessary with a redesign of the addition.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-086\OO-086pc.doc
Page 3
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
The applicant has not indicated the variance based on economic hardship.
Redesigning the addition, however, will eliminate the need for a variance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed request does not appear to meet the hardship criteria in that a
legal alternative exists. The applicant can redesign the west side of the addition
to meet the maximum ratio of length to height. The staff therefore recommends
denial of this request.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance 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 approving the variance request.
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.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-003PC denying a variance to the
maximum building wall length to building height ratio for the addition to the
existing building as shown on Exhibit A.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-086\OO-086pc.doc
Page 4
RESOLUTION Ol-003PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING WALL
LENGTH TO HEIGHT RATIO
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. The Parish of St. Michael has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of an addition to the existing St. Michael's school on property
located in the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) District at the following location, to
wit;
16280 Duluth Avenue SE, legally described as follows:
Lots 1,2,3,4,5,23,24,25,26,27 and 28, Block 1, "WESTSIDE ADDITION TO
PRIOR LAKE", Scott County, Minnesota, together with the east 15.00 feet of Lot 6,
Block 1, of said plat.
Also together with that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 2, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter and the center line of Main Street (extended westward) of the
Village of Prior Lake; thence south along said east line a distance of371.0 feet to the
center line of Pleasant Avenue (extended westward) per the plat of CATES'
ADDITION TO PRIOR LAKE; thence Westerly along center line of Pleasant
Avenue extended a distance of 183.00 feet to the easterly line of the plat of
WESTSIDE ADDITION TO PRIOR LAKE"; thence north parallel along said east
line a distance of 389.50 feet; thence east parallel to Pleasant Avenue, a distance of
183.0 feet to said east line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence
south a distance of 18.5 feet to the point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
File #00-086 and held hearings thereon on January 16, 2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect ofthe proposed variance 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 variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-086\res Ol-003pc.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
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the proposed
variance will unreasonably impact the character of the existing neighborhood and in any
other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed addition can be redesigned to eliminate the need for a variance. The applicant
has control over the building design and shape, such that the applicant has created the
hardship created. Reasonable use of the property exists by redesigning the west wall of the
proposed addition to eliminate the need for a variance.
6. There is no justifiable hardship as reasonable use of the property exists without the granting
of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve
merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable
hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure to be permitted with a reduced
variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case #00-086 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
variance for an addition to the existing school building (as shown in attached Exhibit A);
1. A variance to permit a structure with a building wall length to building height ratio of 5.46: 1
rather than the maximum ratio of 4: 1 (City Code Section 1107 .2202, ~8,b).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 16, 2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATIEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-086\res Ol-003pc.doc
2
Location Map
=~::. ,,' :,:'. "'2 ,~,," ~.
.- '- 3
;:: -= ' ~ ~.s' · l~T ." j i
""-//; ~ ~.". ""'"
r I I------- 2r
.J#s<fi. _ ~
,"": I ________
~ ---. r--.
I "v~ I .
1 . 8
1 :r 2 3 S
~~ CJ
~ p..C~ ~.
.... 1 2 1 II: rc-~
en ~~ CAWf'.\(j3 7
UJ
'?: 1 .
1 1 2 3 zq
2
~ . .
1 3
RLS.
56
tRACT B
'---------
8
12
o
\...
11
J-:
.,
~
<Ii 11
12
10
10
-
2ND I
~lN ;
lb~~ 1110 · · ;
5 .. 3 2 t
r---,-......---.
1€
6 5 4 3
7~
MAIN ST.
13 11.. 15 t 17 18
1516171819202122
15 An" "fl.' 1=n
~2D 19 18 171815 .. &R~~EO
RAT bF PF OR LAKE
1. 17 " 1. 1. 13112 2 10 ~ll
r-
7 IS 5 3 2 1
141312110987
E !MP!1
. ~ I
PLEASANT AV.
1~1..n II 1878
8JT Location of
- St. Michael's.School
ST. MCH6.8..'S CH..R:H
am.or .
u.i
en
~
~
=>
....
=>
o
IT. S.E.
,.
_~G. LE ~REEK
A " " I
VILLAS "" I
"ac " 1035
1Jffi ffiwrnrnrn ~ ITu-r.r.m 1
EAGLE CREEK VIL~
II
~
/
N
A
400
I
o
400 Feet
St. Michael's Catholic Community
Prior Lake, Minnesota
School Building Addition
November 27, 2000
I D !m <S [g 0 ~ [g !~I
I I MW 29m I~l
The proposed building addition will occur on the North-West corner at the intersection of
Pleasant and Duluth on the property of St. Michael Catholic School. Construction is planned
to start in February of 2001 and completion in September of 2001.
Project Variance Narrative:
The west exterior elevation has exceeded the height to length ratio of 4:1. Presently the length of the
building is 142'-0" and the height is 26'-0".
We are applying for a variance based on the following:
Item #1 The future master plan addition in the next phase will reduce the ratio on the west exterior
elevation.The ratio will become 86'-0" length and 26'-0" height. Please refer to the site plan sheet C2.1,
which identifies the future addition. This addition will occur within three to four years.
Item #2 We are presently planning for the future addition by providing an exterior insulation system in
lieu of face brick which is shown on the west exterior elevation sheet AS.1. The exterior insulation
system will be incorporated into the interior of the future addition.
DLR Group, inc.
Project No. 4098136-15
1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
~----.-':'
'-;
, ,
, ,
II
__: _I
,
"
, ,
III
IIi'
-!I!,
'"
_ 'l'--l
, :. -I
I
G
~~
-:- .1
j "
, I ' ~
.1 ~"',,__.:. _ _!..,.
1 ~ ~;
- - 11'1 i)' :
, ~ 1~ 1 II' ,
I : Iii I :
, .111' I. ,
. ~ -: II I !:
~ L\~ i
L~ -~_ "'-: ..8 ~,
\..
"
~
~~
:.
!Ii:)
!lll "
!ill,'>"
. or-
(,\(
f2~
Cj ,
~!
"
C) ~
!
~_o:.......~
",~
i -.~~
,>j"'''1 O-r;; ~
-~ ; .l
I , I'
, . ~.._,,-..~ 1 _
\ ": , ,
\ r- '[~ ljJ
l' . ;1\ r \0 I
" _: '-_,"'''-',,:'';;'00 H
, "'l-~'
\,..;1 I ;I
I' ~: I : ~I I
.., ~ I .._~~-
-, ~::tK.o.\'1
~ ; -",:,1' I '1(\ 0 I
, I ~ '"_,I :
\ i~\I~1 ~J
:l\lt~1 I
\ ',!" II [I! I I I I
\ ;m i\ I I' . :~~ lL.=...-
"llt.:". · · .:11--..-.,
:;r,;..,.j-"--~ - ':. .' I~-- ...~- y~
I"" I "
1,', -<<_ ___ H_. 0I'inr..;_1'<...s~ ~ 1/ j j
\ :~0t~'~~~:~~~~--~fJ~
G -~'~ ~ .. ~ 11 !: !
I I ~J II I
r . ~ II I
W :: :
\::;:
~1
~
i\
: \
: \
\ I
,--
~r
I
I
:tlH +H1+t1'H
7)
lij;n)
hv
':;jil
:J
: /l
D'l'VI I
-.) -, ~
,. ",
''l'I~ r
IiI II III II
'liIl1uq ~
i :Ptl B
nlll ~ I
II. Ii=>
l nt
i ftI f
=1
_.
--------..----
u
(i
!~
:.~
l!!
~
d
z
p, ~ P\
t~
pi'
~
z
o
~
~ I I ~
~~
I ' ;0
~ ~
Z
'IiI 0
~
~ in
' i:iiiI
I en =
I ; :; ~
'.. I~W
._"".:-=
s~ CI)
~~ 00
i::a ·
III
,runl1q II
liPtl ~
t~
II \ !11ii ~
" IIII} I
III !
".r
'-If
, 11'1
· 'il II
; '~.
I
(i
,riUI~ ~
II( Ii='
II I
,
~~
-t
~p!
~!1!
~
o
z
1 (1t;1!jtll
C'Dc;l..rt"
if sa. ~ e:;
C'D., ~ .
_n
> S' ="
c;l..=~
c;l.. ~
a;
o
=
~(1
.~
~(1
(1==
~o
~~
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
6A
CONSIDER A 1 YEAR TIME EXTENSION TO THE
APPROVED VARIANCE RESOLUTION 99-026PC,
Case File #99-086
LOT 13, BLOCK 2, TITUS 2ND ADDITION
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES -1L NO
JANUARY 16, 2001
The Planning Department received a written request for a one year extension of
an approved variance from Mark Liesener (Exhibit A Request). On December
13, 1999,the Planning Commission approved a variance to the structure setback
requirement. This variance expired on December 13, 2000. The request to
extend the variance was submitted on December 6,2000, after notification by
this office of the impending expiration. Variance Resolution 99-026PC, originally
adopted on December 13, 1999, approved a variance to the minimum structure
setback for a single family dwelling (Exhibit B Resolution). The variance is
described as follows:
1. A 70 foot variance to permit a 30 foot structure setback from the Ordinary
High Water Mark (OHWM) elevation of a tributary stream rather than the
required 100 foot [City Code Subsection 1104.301: (3) Setback
Requirements: Tributary Rivers].
DISCUSSION:
Lot 13, Block 2, Titus 2nd Addition, was platted in 1974. The property is located
within the R-S District (Rural Suburban Residential) and the SD District
(Shoreland Overlay). The original owner and applicant, Mark Liesener, decided
not to build on the subject lot and has recently sold the property to Daniel
Pinkevich. The new owner intends to build a single family dwelling in the Spring
of 2001. Without the variance extension the lot would become unbuildable again
and the new owner would be required to apply for the same variance that was
approved on December 13, 1999.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The applicant Mark Liesener has met two out of three of the required conditions
by recording the Variance Resolution with Scott County and signing the Assent
of Applicant Form (Exhibit C Assent Form), but did not make substantial use of
the premises by submitting a building permit application and commencing
construction within one year of adoption as required by City Ordinance
1108.415.
The Planning Commission may grant an extension of time not to exceed one
year for any variance. The request for a time extension must be filed with the
Zoning Administrator before the termination date of the Variance, but shall not be
filed more than 30 days before the termination date (City Ordinance 1108.419).
The applicant has met this requirement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the applicant's request for a one year extension
of time. The lot in question is a nonconforming lot of record. A variance is
required before any construction will be allowed on the property.
On October 9, 2000, The Planning Commission approved a request for a time
extension of one year for Variance Resolution 99-021 PC. Resolution 00-014PC
granted the applicant until September 27,2001, for commencing construction on
the subject property or the variance will expire. Staff recommends a time
extension for this Variance request coincide with the time extension granted on
the previous request, on September 27,2001. If a building permit is not
approved prior to September 27, 2001, this variance will also expire.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the one year extension of time as requested by the applicant, or
approve a time period less than one year as the Planning Commission deems
appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the extension of time because the Planning Commission finds the
applicant did not meet all of the conditions imposed in the variance resolution
as required under the zoning code. In this case, the Planning Commission
should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings denying the extension
of time requests.
L:\99FILES\99V AR\99-086\ExtRpt1.DOC
Page 2
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second adopting Resolution 01-02PC approving the Extension Of
Time for a period until September 27,2001, for Variance Resolution 99-26PC, a
70 foot variance to permit a 30 foot structure setback from the ordinary high
water mark of a tributary river rather than the required 100 feet.
L:\99FILES\99V AR\99-086\ExtRpt1.DOC
Page 3
RESOLUTION 01-02PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR TO DECEMBER
13, 2001, FOR VARIANCE RESOLUTION 99-026PC
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mark L. Liesener has applied for a one year time extension expiration date for a variance
from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on
a lot that does not meet the minimum setback to a tributary river in the R-S (Rural
Subdivision Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts at the following location, to
wit;
4525 Jackson Trail, Prior Lake, legally described as Lot 13, Block 2, Titus Second Addition,
Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment reviewed the request for an Extension of Time for the Variance as
contained in Case File #99-086, on January 16,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed request 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 variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible
to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance time extension will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger
to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in
any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The pre-existing lot of record does not meet the current Ordinance for minimum lot size in
the R-S District. This situation creates an unbuildable lot and a hardship with respect for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
6. There is justifiable hardship due to the fact that this lot is a lot of record platted prior to the
minimum lot area requirements established by the current ordinance. Reasonable use of the
property does not exist without the granting of the Variance's time extension to permit a
buildable lot for a single family dwelling.
1:\99fi1es\99var\99-086\rsO I-02.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
7. The granting of the Variance's time extension will not serve merely as a convenience to the
applicant/owner, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. Without the requested Extension Of Time for the Variance the vacant lot is unbuildable.
9. The granting of the Extension Of Time for the Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant/owner. The variance will not serve
merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable
hardship.
10. The contents of Planning Case #99-086PC 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 approves the following
variance time extension:
1. An extension of time to September 27, 2001, for a 70 foot Variance to permit a structure
setback of 30 from the ordinary high water mark of a tributary river rather than the required
minimum 100 feet.
The following conditions must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
proposed structure:
1. Prior to construction, the applicant must obtain all necessary permits, including permits for
the private well and septic system.
2. The applicant/owner shall be required to comply with all other city ordinances and agency or
governmental regulations that apply.
3. This Resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days of approval. Pursuant to Section 1108.415 of the City Code, the
variance time extension will be null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the
proposed structure by September 27, 2001.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 16,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\99fi1es\99var\99-086\rsO 1-02.doc
2
EXHIBIT A REQUEST
December 6, 2000
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
16200 Eagle Creek S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Extension of Time for Approved Variance Resolution~s for Lot 13,
Block 2, Titus 2nd Addition.
Dear Planning Commission:
I am requesting a one year extension of the approved Variance Resolution's
99-025PC & 99-026PC for the above lot.
The lot has been sold. The new buyer plans on building in the coming year,
and would like the extension.
Thank You.
~~
Rev. Mark L. Liesener ~
EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION 99-026PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 70 FOOT VARIANCE TO PEAAllT A 30
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 100
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER
LEVEL OF A TRIBUTARY STREAM
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mark L. Liesener has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of a single family dwelling located in the R-S (Rural
Subdivision Residential Use) District and SD (Shoreland) District at the following
location, to wit;
4525 Jackson Trail, legally described as Lot 13, Block 2, Titus Second Addition
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #99-086PC and held hearings thereon on December 13, 1999.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance 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 variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The pre-existing lot of record does not allow for the minimum structure setback
requirements of 100 feet from the ordinary high water level of a tributary stream and
does not provide for a legal building envelope for a residential dwelling. This
situation creates an unbuildable lot and a hardship with respect for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
1:\99files\99var\99-086\appres.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
- -. ,--',-, ,"
-):;~ ~::~:~?~,;:~>
. " ,-. ...
."'~ ,. '.' '-. ~ .
~::~._:~::;:)~:._-'; ,./
~~~:?~~.~ ~//
.'0- ./
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the minimum structure setback to a tributary
stream required today and the platted lot of record. Reasonable use of the property
does not exist without the granting of the variance to permit a buildable lot for a
single family dwelling.
7. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant,
and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. Without the requested Variance the vacant lot is unbuildable.
9. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
10. The contents of Planning Case #99-086PC 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 approves the
following variance for the proposed structure as shown in Exhibit A Revised:
1. A 70 foot Variance to permit a 30 foot structure setback instead of the required 100
foot structure setback to the ordinary high water level of a tributary stream.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. All other City Codes and applicable agency regulations, including the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency standards for private well and septic systems shall be met.
2. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. Pursuant to Section 1108.415 of the City Code, the
variance will be null arJd void if the necessary pen nits are not obtained for the
proposed structure within one year after adoption of this resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Arljusbnent on Decemb~
Anthony Stamson, Chair
g Director
1:\99files\99var\99-086\appres.doc
2
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC.
LAND SU:RVEYORS
REGISTERED' UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
NAOI 73rd A....nu. North 012-080-30D3
Fax No. 060-3822
o D.nol.. Iron Monumenl
C Denote, Wood Hub Set
for excavotlon only
xOOO.n Denol.. Exl,t"'" E1evot/on
@ O,not.. Propolld Elevotlon
-- Donol.. Surfoee 0.01""9'
NOTE: Proposed grodes ore .ubject
'0 r..ulo of Ion te.lo.
Proposed buIldln9 Informollon
No flood elevation available from must be checked with approved
City engineering or watershed dept. bulldln9 pion _ dev,lopment or
grodln9 plO1 belore ..cavatlon
. , and conslrucl1on.
Property is located in Zone X per ~llq
COlIIIl\/nity Panel No. 27043~ 0002 C~Propoo.<I Top 0' Block
Da1;ed November 19, 1997. ~;:'1:~ 511.4 Propoo,d Gor09' Floor
/: 'S'" flo3 .1.-_ Propoofd Lowest Floor
"" qp'/l.7
Type of Bulklln9
""(< 'fiN- ~&fEJ)r
, /. 'NAt.Wt"" .
~}~rfl"
~,~.
(1'.(' \I.?'Z-Ao- - .._oj ~
tjf1fJ ~/d ~,' )!
~ .~. I / I
I .. l~,' /
I ~ A I ~ '1~ t~ J.. l~~ ;'
'I .r i= rr + ~ ~ ~I:.~/f / "
~.li'.~ ~ .,{\.'O Il;~. '1'- /
".- I ~4 ~ 11'" '0' qr lP.v;'" I
I ~ . I. I .
..:~ ,:J.t~~t:17
I I ~~"~y.:!i
t I J>";~'" > \~ ; /
[ ~o~ oJ~q.::l_":.A ,0' ......--5'. / \
I · .f ~, @ 1'''''''. I'
/ (S
~~I1011-:::.i.
j"-
EsLe.bllshed In 1962
YlnnupoU., YIDn..ola 1I11~28
g,ururynrs Cl!rrtifirntr
NOTE:Proposed elevations shown
recommended by builder.
HICn^EL nAYES
Property located in Section
23. Township lIS, Range 22,
Scott County, Minnesota
-~
JAv~~ON
I.,\l}"" ( f't:O(H\u.. ';-!<
{:.. -~r'
\
'~\L
"1fA\L.) ~ .,)<
Jf1'
",,:,
~
.,
l:l
1:
~!1
(~
. ~
..,.
"
~
....
~
.
Y1-rtlnY I O!<AlfoIA4e.
,
.l\!-fO'
.....- ,/
....-
/ /'
... \/1'\ ....-
.-/ "./7) '" ,.-
......-/....\'1.... ./
.....-.....- ./
.....
.....
"..
I
\
t
INVOICE -NO. 53642
F.B.NO. 838-07 .08 ,
SCALE: 1" = 30'
'~:'
LC1" ~(l-eA.',
? 4-I,,'Z.e> ~..cl-_
O:1~ A~~e~
,.10";: t"1.E:\I,,-r,DN .F
lUA.O DVrlP-
tVl.oJlifZ-'- . &D??
r-, 'I ~= f;'':. r.:? :' \", ;.' :
0. ' ~ ~ L.S tJ -:""1 ~:~ !,
~it:! -..-
t~/j\ OCT 2 q 1999... "I;'
!i j\\ I II L"
jUU, I
1Dl~~
~~~
Lot 13, Block 2, TITUS 2ND ADDIT~ON
\
/'
'"
The only easements shown ore 1iom plots 01 record or inlormuUon
provided by client .. ...
We hereby eertlly Ilml Ihi. is 0 Irue and correel repre.enlollnn or
a "..yey 01 the boundevles at the obove deserihed land Ot1d Ihe
loc:ation at 01 buikJin9s and vjsihlfl Imcroaclvnenll, II any. from or on
fund lond.
s~J]M 1 OiL-
......
(...,......_.1 I... .... 11.:_ n.... ....1__.. _., 1011..
.... nn
OIlTloo r. Andoronn, ~Im. Re9. N".1J75J or
EXHIBIT C ASSENT FORM
ASSENT OF APPLICANT
File #99-86PC
As Approved by Resolution #99-26PC
The undersigned hereby assents to the following:
1. I have read the conclusions and conditions of said Resolution, and I am familiar with
their contents and with the content of the exhibits.
2. I fully accept all of the terms and conditions of said Resolution.
3. I understand Section 1108.400 of the Prior Lake Ordinance Code provides as follows:
1108.413 Revocation and Cancellation of a Variance. A Variance may be
revoked and canceled if the Zoning Administrator determines that the
holder of an existing Variance has violated any of the conditions or
requirements imposed as a condition to approval of the Variance, or has
violated any other applicable laws, ordinances, or enforceable regulation.
1108.414 After One Year. No Construction Required. All Variances shall be
revoked and canceled if 1 year has elapsed from the date of the adoption
of the resolution granting the Variance and the holder of the Variance
has failed to make substantial use of the premises according to the
provisions contained in the Variance.
1108.415 After One Year. New Construction Required. All Variances shall be
revoked and canceled after 1 year has elapsed from the date of the
adoption of the resolution granting the Variance if a new structure or
alteration or substantial repair of an existing building is required by the
Variance and the holder has failed to complete the work, unless a valid
building permit authorizing such work has been issued and work is
progressing in an orderly way.
1108.416 Upon Occurrence of Certain Events. If the holder of a Variance fails
to make actual use of vacant land, or land and structures which were
existing when the Variance was issued and no new structure, alteration
or substantial repair to existing buildings was required; or if a new
structure was required by the Variance and no building permit has been
obtained, the Variance shall be deemed revoked and canceled upon the
occurrence of any of the following events:
(1) A change in the Use District for such lands is made by amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council.
L:\99FILES\99V AR\99-086\ASNT26.DOC 1
16200 Engle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
(2) Eminent domain proceedings have been initiated to take all or any
part of the premises described in the Variance.
(3) The use described in the Variance becomes an illegal activity. under
the laws of the United States of America or the State of Minnesota.
(4) Title to all or part of land described in such Variance is forfeited to
the State of Minnesota for nonpayment of taxes.
(5) The person to whom the Variance was issued files a written statement
in which that person states that the Variance has been abandoned.
The statement shall describe the land involved or state the resolution
number under which the Variance was granted.
(6) The premises for which the Variance was issued are used by the
person to whom the Variance was issued in a manner inconsistent
with the provisions of such Variance.
4. I understand the granting by the City of this Resolution is in reliance on the
representations that I will fully comply with all of the terms and conditions of said
Resolution. I understand and agree upon notice of non-compliance with any term or
condition, I shall immediately cease conducting activities pursuant to the notice or
will take all actions necessary to accomplish full compliance with said notice and
conditions of the Resolution.
~~/(JO
If TE
~p~cifu
~ ~----.- ~------,
SIGN TURE OF OWNER
4525 Jackson Trail, Prior Lake, MN
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
L:\99FILES\99V AR\99-Q86\ASNT26.DOC
2