HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 25, 2001
"
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 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 #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a
deck on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #01-029 - Gary Thomas Variance Resolution
6. New Business:
A. Case File #01-051 - Vacation of the 20 foot wide easement for road purposes
located adjacent to the south side ofTH 13, from Franklin Trail to Toronto
Avenue.
B. Request to initiate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:IOl fileslOI plancommlOlpcagendalag062501.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
"
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the May 29, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:34 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego and V onhof, Planning
Director Don Rye, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary
Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V onhof
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the May 14, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck
on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated May 29, 2001
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On March 26, 2001, the Planning Department received an e-mail from the applicant to
request a postponement of this variance request from the scheduled date of March 26, to
April 23, 2001. On April 20, 2001, the applicant/owner again requested the public
hearing be rescheduled at the end of May due to business commitments.
The applicant e-mailed staff (May 29, 2001) stating he would not be able to attend the
Planning Commission meeting. Therefore he is asking for a continuance to June 25,
2001.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO
JUNE 25, 2001.
L:\Ol files\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\mn052901.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 29, 2001
The applicant has been out of town due to his business. The City has given the applicant
a deadline is June 25, 2001 as this is the third request.
Rye pointed out there was nothing in the ordinance setting a time line. It just a matter of
process.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #01-029 - Gary Thomas is requesting a variance to permit a
structure setback less than the minimum requirement from the ordinary-high-water
mark and less than the minimum required setback to the top of bluff for the
property located at 5580 Fairlawn Shores Trail SEe
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated May 29,2001
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from property owner Gary
Thomas for the construction of a porch addition in the place of an existing deck attached
to an existing single family dwelling on the property located at 5580 Fairlawn Shores
Trail. The principal structure is legal nonconforming dwelling because it was originally
built in the bluff impact zone before bluff setbacks were established. The applicant has
requested the following variances:
. A 2.5 foot variance to permit a porch structure setback of 54 feet to
the ordinary high water mark (904') rather than the required 56.5
foot setback as determined by setback averaging.
And
. A 43 foot variance to permit a porch structure encroachment into the
bluff impact zone rather than the required 25 foot setback from the
top of bluff.
Staff determined a bluff is apparent in the side yards of the lot on both sides of the
existing structure when the bluff criteria are applied. Along the east lot line the distance
from the 904 foot OHWM to the 929 foot elevation contour is 52 feet with a rise of25
feet for a slope of 48%, and along the west lot line is a distance of 81 feet with a rise of
25 feet. It appears the center portion ofthe lot and bluff was excavated when the original
home was built to accommodate a lower level walkout elevation of924.66 feet.
The City Engineering Department submitted comments for this report stating in essence,
approval of the requested variances is contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Lake
Management Plan, which is to "minimize the transport of nutrients, sediment and runoff
from city streets and lands which impact the Prior Lake watershed, and promotes lake
creep, the encroachment of buildings and impervious areas towards the lakes hare ".
The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this request. They are not
opposed to the proposed porch addition provided the slope is determined to be stable and
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn052901.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
May 29, 2001
can withstand the footings. The DNR would like to see the existing concrete slab
removed from below the 904' elevation as a condition of the Variance. If approved, good
erosion control measures will need to be implemented and maintained throughout
construction.
Staff felt that all hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the requested
variances to bluff and OHWM setbacks for construction of a roofed porch addition and
therefore recommended denial of the requested variances.
Comments from the public:
Jim Albers, 16043 Northwood Road, represented the applicant, Gary Thomas. Albers
said a key issue is that the deck already exists; it is not going to increase the
encroachment into the bluff or change the lakeside setback. The only thing that will
change is an added roof. He is well within the impervious surface requirement. The
home was built with a permit. If the bluff, side yard and street setbacks were applied
today, the setbacks would not be made, variances would have to be granted. The only
soil being disturbed will be the additional 3 posts. The applicant has no problem
removing the cement slab below the 904 (ordinary high water mark), which is currently
under water.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· The Planning Commission has always tried to protect the lake. Situations like this
have come before the Commission and we have always held fast. People can make
improvements and repairs, but not expand.
· Questioned the existing deck size and the proposed size. Horsman responded the
actual area is not going to change. The porch area will increase. It will be 12x15
square foot porch on top of a l2x 15 square foot deck.
· The roof will not go beyond the current deck size.
· Will agree as long as they are not going any further to the lake and staying within the
footprint.
· The concrete slab must be removed.
Atwood:
· Concurred with Criego. As long as it is not increasing the impervious surface, would
be in favor of granting the request.
Stamson:
· It is increasing the impervious surface, but it does not exceed the 30% limit.
Vonhof:
· Concurred with Commissioners, there will not be any further encroachment.
· Include 3 additional requirements:
1) Require the concrete slab be removed.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn05290 I.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
May 29, 2001
2) Appropriate silt fence be put up during construction to prevent any further erosion.
3) Have a gutter system installed on the roof so the runoff will be channeled back to
the house gutters.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED
VARIANCES WITH THE THREE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 1) CONCRETE
SLAB BE REMOVED; 2) APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL BE IN PLACE
DURING THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT; AND 3) A GUTTER
SYSTEM BE INSTALLED ALONG THE ROOF LINE TO THE EXISTING GUTTER
SYSTEM TO CONTROL RUNOFF. ALSO AN ENGINEERING REPORT PER THE
STAFF REPORT SHOULD BE INCLUDED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE
BUILDING PERMIT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Consider modifications to Development District 1 and formation of TIF
District 1":3.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated May 29,2001 on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
On February 27,2001, the City Council adopted a resolution approving in concept the
use of tax increment financing to assist in the development of a mixed-use senior housing
and retail facility in the Downtown. The project will consist of 73 condominium units for
seniors and 12,000 square feet ofretail. Subsequent to that, the Council directed a tax
increment district be established and a tax increment financing plan be prepared.
Staff concluded the Lakefront Plaza project is consistent with redevelopment goals for
the City and the tax increment financing plan proposed for the project is also consistent
with those goals as it provides a means for the project to proceed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. See no reason not to proceed.
. Questioned if Lakefront Plaza will be one TIF District and what would the total
potential TIF districts be. Rye responded Lakefront Plaza would be one district and
then it would be project by project. Once a district is established there are certain
timelines and deadlines to be met.
. It is consistent with the redevelopment plan.
Criego:
. It is the right thing to do.
. It fits into the 2020 Plan and the Economic Development Authority plan.
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn052901.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
May 29, 2001
V onhof:
Concurred. It assists in facilitating the redevelopment for downtown.
What is the duration of the district? Rye said 20 years. It could go as long as 25 years.
The proj ect itself is estimated to have a value of around 10 to 12 Million Dollars.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
OlOPC A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE PLANNING
COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.1 AND THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-3
CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The City Council will be holding a public hearing on the TIF plan on June 4,2001.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn05290 I.doc
5
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
AREA AND STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE ORDINARY
HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE FOR D. MARK CROUSE,
(Case File #01-017PC)
LOT 9, AND PART OF LOT 10, NORTH GRAINWOOD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
JUNE 25, 2001
On February 23,2001, the Planning Department received a variance application
from D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) to allow an existing deck to remain on the
property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The deck was constructed in the
year 2000 without a required building permit. The deck is attached to an
existing single family dwelling that was constructed in 1995 after approval of
setback variances to the front yard and the ordinary high water mark. Upon
processing this application staff determined a second variance was required to
permit the impeNious surface coverage area to exceed 30 percent.
On March 26, 2001, the Planning Department received an e-mail from the
applicant to request a postponement of this variance request from the scheduled
date of March 26, to April 23, 2001. On April 20, 2001, the'applicant/owner
again requested the public hearing be rescheduled to the end of May due to
business commitments. On May 29,2001, the applicant requested the 3rd
postponement of this agenda item for the June 25, 2001, meeting due to
business travel.
The applicant requests the following variances:
1) A 2.115 square foot variance to permit an impeNious surface coveraqe area
of 4.422 square feet (57.5%) rather than the permitted maximum area of
2,307 square feet (30%) [Ordinance Section 1104.306: ImpeNious Surface
Coverage];
L:\01files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2) A 71 foot variance to allow a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinary hiqh
water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the required setback of
75 feet rOrdinance Section 1104.302 (4) Setback Requirements].
DISCUSSION:
Lot 9, and part of Lot 10, North Grainwood, was platted in 1947. The subject lot
is riparian and located within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the SD
(Shoreland Overlay) Districts. The lot dimensions are approximately 62 ft. by
107.5 ft. for a total lot area of 7,689 square feet (Attachment 1 Certificate of
Survey). The lot is considered a substandard nonconforming platted lot of
record. The applicant/owner does not own the adjacent properties to the subject
lot.
The first variance request is for 2,115 square feet to allow an existing impervious
surface coverage area of 4,422 square feet for 57.5 % of the total lot area. A
break down of the area shows a structure coverage area of 2,152 sq. ft., and
concrete driveway and patio area of 2,270 square feet (Attachment 2
Impervious Surface Calculations). This is an existing condition; however, the
impervious surface area was created subsequent to approval for a buildinq
permit to construct the new house addition in 1995. One of the conditions for
approval of the permit was to not exceed the allowable impervious surface
coveraqe area [Attachment 3 Department Checklist-Building Permit 95-279
(3 pages)].
The second variance request is for 71 feet, to permit a structure setback of 4 feet
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The applicant/owner submitted a
building permit application for the deck as a result of notification from the City of
an ordinance violation for constructing a deck without an approved permit. Upon
review of the certificate of survey submitted with the application, the City
determined two variances shall be required to further process the deck permit.
Research for this report discovered a previous owner of the subject lot made two
variance requests that were approved on April 6, 1978; one was a 63 foot
variance to permit a12 foot structure setback to the ordinary high water mark
(904' elevation), and the other was an 8 foot variance to permit a 17 foot front
yard setback. The variances were approved to allow the construction of a year
round dwelling to replace a seasonal cabin on the substandard lot [Attachment
4 Variance 78-05: A 63 foot setback variance to the OHWM (4 pages)].
On January 31, 1995, the builder, Trim Tech Inc., submitted a building permit
application for the owner, D. Mark Crouse, for the house and garage addition.
According to the survey submitted with the permit in 1995, the house was
located 13 feet from the OHWM, and 22.6 feet from the front lot line. This
building location is within the variance parameters approved in 1978, but by
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 2
moving the house location to within 1 foot of the required minimum 12 foot
setback from the OHWM, this only allows for a 1 foot deck extension from the
principal structure (Attachment 5 Survey-Building Permit 95-27).
The existing deck structure serves as access to the main I~vel and the deck's
dimensions are 10 feet deep by 26 feet long to a step down level 9 feet by 7 feet
with 3 foot wide stairs that wrap around to the ground level. Under the deck is a
concrete patio area for the lower level walkout basement. Also, noted on the
survey is a ground level 12' x 14' wood deck/platform area adjacent to the
sidewalk that is not attached to the principal structure.
The City Engineering Department has submitted comments for this report. In
essence, engineering recommends denial of the variance requests because
approval would encourage the following: 1) Promote "lake creep", the
encroachment of buildings and impervious areas toward the lakeshore; 2)
Increase impervious area adjacent to the lake, thus reducing the infiltration/buffer
strip, which help in removing pollutants before they reach the lake; 3) Increase
the potential for shoreline erosion with additional upland runoff; 4) Go against the
Land Use Practices and the Comprehensive Lake Management Plan, which is
to, minimize the transport of nutrients, sediment and runoff from city streets and
lands which impact the Prior Lake watershed.
The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this request
dated 3/21/01. In essence, the main concern is the existing impervious surface
coverage area of approximately 60% that poses a problem regarding storm
water runoff and lake water quality. The DNR recommends bringing the
impervious coverage area into compliance. In addition, the DNR is not
supportive of issuing an after-the-fact variance for the deck 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.
Regarding variance request number 1, and 2, the subject property is a
nonconforming platted lot of record, but was developed under the current ownership
and they did not meet the conditions spelled out in the building permit for the
principal structure. Therefore, staff has determined the requ~sts do not meet the
hardship criteria as a legal alternative building site existed that allowed for
development of the subject lot with the originally approved setback variances.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 3
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 existing conditions of the lot area and dimensions are peculiar to the property,
and generally do not apply to most other lots within the Shoreland District. However,
when all required setbacks are applied, there was a buildable area on this lot.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The approved legal site precluded the need for the additional variance requests.
The hardship has been created by the builder and owner when the decision was
made on the building dimensions and location of the structure, as well as, the
excessive paving of the subject lot.
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 variances will not impair light and air to adjacent
properties or increase congestion, danger of fire 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 granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by
increasing structure encroachments upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the
adjacent properties and the intent of the setback averaging regulations.
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 variances is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance or the
Comprehensive Plan by allowing increasing encroachment setbacks and excessive
impervious surface conditions than was originally approved by the City.
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 granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the
applicant.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 4
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 hardship results from the actions of the property owner when he constructed the
dwelling in 1995.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone shall not be grounds for granting this variance
request. The property owner helped to create the need for these variance requests
by not following the approved conditions for the original building permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff has concluded that all of the required variance hardship criteria have
not been met, and that the hardship was created by the owner when the principal
structure was constructed in violation of the building permit conditions, and by
constructing the deck addition without an approved building permit. Staff
therefore recommends denial of the two variance requests.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve all the variances requested by the applicant. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
approving the Variance requests.
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:
Staff recommends alternative #3.
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-008PC, denying a 2,115
square foot variance to permit an impervious surface area of 4,422 square
feet (57.5%), and deny a 71 foot variance to permit a structure setback of
4 feet, rather than the required 75 feet setback to the OHWM of 904 feet.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION 01.,.008PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 71 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK, AND
DENYING A 2,115 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 4,422 SQUARE FEET (57.5%)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an attached deck and paved parking
and patio area to a single family residence on property located in the R-1 (Low
Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following
location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10,
North Grainwood, Scott County, MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-017PC and held hearings thereon on June 25, 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 and on 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. A legal building envelope exists that meets the required setback for the structure on
the subject lot. The applicant was directed by previous variance and building permit
conditions as to the amount of impervious surface area, such that the hardship created
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\Ol "017\dnyres.doc
1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists without the
requested variances.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required lakeshore setback as
reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance's, 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 00-017PC 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's for an attached deck to an existing single family dwelling and
impervious surface area greater than 30% of the lot area, as shown in Attachment 1
Survey;
1. A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422
square feet (57.5%), rather than the allowed maximum area of 2,307 square feet
(30%).
2. A 71 foot variance to permit a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinary high water
mark of904 feet, rather than the required 75 foot structure setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on June 25,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\0 lfiles\O I variances\O 1-0 17\dnyres.doc
2
ATTACHMENT 1
;,~
to"~t."
~'14 0110
of I.
Oi ,0
Of \,;
\..1 tiE "
---It
-- \
\.
,
\
\
\,
o
w
z
o
ST tAt-\9<)e,T3. . .... ~z
RIIA f.\;. . ~"r-\ ~\I' ," <1
: \ Q '}~i~ . '. ttl
,. , :i;\~ ~ ; .:il't I'~ ~ <1
. . . ,'r 'i"t:';'I~,1 ~. SAN.tAt-\
; "..;}/"'" ">.
'. .' :' . "It d- .;; 0'
I :.' ~~..;lili, . 90..4~'O I
....."...,l( ;;~~~ ~
FI..(~ > 6,
908.,.~ a:' .
\' ~ ;::~~.~~:~
Z '. ~ t' ;;
. . Q. . N '."
W 1 '. d) <t' b
> "It t\;. .J . to,
. 9,0" ::J . " '
<t. t I> IX: ,
l- .
Ill. "
.7'
\
\
...-.-\
u.I ..
,-
t"
-~
.
\
,...
z.
')
~
~
~
\
~
~
I
)
\.,;
,~.
'! ~. ,., .
I~ ..... ,. .
<:(
U
91'."
1. .
, :'
C 1\\\1 N
j.... :,f!'
if .
\
,......
'1',
ATTACHM.E'NT . 2
j '..
'. , ..,'.:.'" ....
.;':/ ~.rope~~"~'ddr~:~s;.
. ....~:...Crry-.'OF 'PRIQRLAKE' .
':Imp~rYio~s S urfa c~C alcula.tions
.... .":(To be"Submltte~With'BulIding Pemlit AppJi~ation) ,".' . "
, ,.'.For"f\..l1"Prbpe;~lesJ:.,ocated'Jl1the.:ShorelandJ?istrict (SD),' '. .
.' '. Tpe M,i'Xirril,1nfimpervi.~.ufsurface' Coverage Permitted -in 3'0 Percent...
",.
"&\~~.r-"~'~~~~~<'~b
. . ::::$;-:..> . . . .:' . ~"':.: , .. . '. ' "
",'.::~ot"~~'~""""" n~ .~'~q '.,<....... .. :..~.... Sq. Fe~t' '.x 30% = :............... . ~~6~ .' . ,: ,
***************~****~*~*************.**************~******~*************.
' . ,I '.~ . . ".' , '. '
.'\~" .' .
:......501
:.' ,'J
,LENQTHi::. . . "
" "h~j',
. .:::LJ,;,:;. x .~.
" 'Z$?:x',
.;: ....
., "'~.=
=
,.'. ,,'
", .
t......
. .
. .
.-z \'S. 2...
.\:
....
~ .:; . i' '.
.. I'
.., .
".
2-Z::"iO .'
:.,.'
'~'" .
". ,
l'b;~bii\1~tRV16ds"svR:F;.tc~ ..... .... ... ..... ... ..'LJj'lii->1
.\:i~!~~~~.~q~;. .................. ........... .1.~1\5 ,
Idr>.\t ~ 1 '~0~\) ~ ,\l~ {7&;,;8.:(\. Ph6ne# 1"'\1~ 't.s I ::,
, " "". ..~ '
.;,'
I'..
ATTACHMENT 3
~
White . B~lIdlny
Canary . Engineering
Pink . Planning
Th.. ('"u.., 0' till' I..." COMnl"
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST
r: . 1-" ~
NAlvlE OF APPLICANT, '1ft,,,,, , 'It 1'1 ,- -=, -' .
APPLICATION RECEIVED 1/7,11;'-
.
The Building, Engineering, and PIF\nning Departments have reviewed the bUilding permit
application for construction activity which is proposed at:
/:,"Tl1 7 ~
Accepted
Accepted With Corrections
-I-
Denied ~
.' Reviewed By:. \
~)
Comments: .J-. ~'( .p/~-<::..
~
Date: 2. I :s,- '7 ~
Pit.:;,......... 1'22---.:>\ L .":>,
I
f 2.<../-"':;;,
""/ ,,~~-
..:J
12 ,~~.
~
C<""-"rJ~
1~'rlC-
.....,,~ <.-(<.....
c:.::...,. )-\-k- ... /
r
~~ ,-\..:;;..'~-\--c..~
( ";Dc^V"cJ~ -S..-..>(i'~).c..~
\
,~~,
\---" " i2cQ
~
~~
1: - ~c-l.l;l,'V"I_ \
. [<-..,'->V'- c1 -4 ~~
s...+; ; R.....,..::, t..........
-,..-. . t.
k:. ,-:
ti:.........,r_\ I "....~ I ~, /""l/'A '-,
,~ . "-..J '
c~p~.....,,", "'r:;;;'V',)
f <...-.::.
vV'fd- //~r.:.. ~
.
rzEG)0Ir~~
~_ LIL'):;T I .
"The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and
computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of
any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits
presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other
ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid."
.
.
,
1f
I
!-'i
lj
!~
't
I'~
, -
t,
:::t
'~
r
i
i
{'JkL J./~/~s- <4L 1.l'~
~vJ!--d.'''1 ..L.t./
'~~ It
Tht ('"nlt't or tht I..", ('nu,,,r)'
White . Building
Canary . Engineering
Pink . Planning
BUILDING PEBM'T APPLICAT'ON DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST
I"
1\
NAME OF APPLICANT -..,' ,
APPLICATION RECEIVED ,'/ / //, -'
~.llt"~~/'AyT )-1'/15""
,
The .8ui!ding, Engineering, and Planning Departments have reviewed the building permit
application for construction activity which is proposed at:
'~
! , '. ,. ,/
,t:
.
/' Q) rJi( 5U(1~2: G ;q4J1()J}J
Accepted Accepted With Corrections C o1Jil ' ~ ""'" '" _~ ,
~ \ ll\-\'vI r&.\;\ hl.l\l\/) (;~Q)') ."
Denied v vv I" 0 I .IlL' I ' l (/""
f:../'I" (\ ;)1
Reviewed By: ()~/ Date::J; 1- 9'j \
Comments: ~ (?i.1.~(,~ "1 ~~ (,J AH--<'-~II'0
IillJ/(u61- ~ ~ lt~, -;I at! ~Ci ~i~ /,~ ~' ~1<z
'101{ 6. Ii - eJ i 1/1 tf'v' j, u.b.. 1-1-.--.: We. f I?YHa/!{;f-L? a",'"',';",,,
'o5J.l1hu -:III '10." af( /, VCifPJ ; !It,;'; St' >-a-? Mc/VOt-t/6-- ,
IYh (fat- ) OJ/-'0ua...-I7r-J1. Ct. {~~.J...
--..!Yl JJ/r.{)j)tJ-if~t1 i/I/f2;a fht<.a!P ?/tN"ho1.-J- f
ad /;t~/;; k 01 f01.~f erA aI~~.
1- OIJtiIJl. !J ((~ ,lJJ,M ~/;p pfl-ft {K 9:/1. (~ ()~y-up i'J-+cdio--
~ arNfth{/(l - .5tl6~lJ ot 0..1 K1Hl uarzu(f1,fJ~_
H I.L VA- -17-6'5 - I.:" ICU:.LJ/torC. >, 'g -;- Rwck~u~!) U!h2 1/111 U ,
"The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and
computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or al1 approval of, any violation of I,.',.
any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits'jt
presuming to give authority to violate or canc9/ the provisions of this code or other
ordinances of the jurisJ;ction shall not be valid, · 6 ' '14 f ,
* fYt[U?( ((1^vU/r\ D ( l vtL(j[y ()Jj 0-/11 cdf 11\.0 (!-LYi Ul (Y . u.-.
0:/13/1995 11::6
61:938155::
JUSTUS
February 13, 1995
City of Prior Lake
Building Inspector
Gl:lry Stabler
Dear' Gary,
Kurt Hazekamp brought to my attention:
the 30\ impervious surface requirement
entry roof. We will delete this piece
floor lftvel is approximately 36" above
ft stair & platform to the front door.
drawing is required, please call me at
Sincerely,
~
Ron Buchanan
I ';t
PAGE 01
the building exceeds
because of the front
of roof. The first
grade which requires
If an addendum
938-2741.
I t
.
L
1~
,i
t
'J
.~
'1"}
;
I
'1
-
~
~i
i
H
~l'
ORLAKEPl.ANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION
-"---"-"'"~""-~-'-_."---_.._._-_.~.._..._.-._.__.-'--
APPI.JCATION FOR VARIANCE FROM l11E PqUIHEMENTS OF 'mE ZONING orWIN.A,NCE
Name of. AppJ j cant or Agen t..i.::'..:.: uJ.Lr.~~.L.L:.::!:.il.lj r,.::.__________}'h one J::::<C&::2 =::~_~2.s:~:'i2_.___
- / ,"") 7 '1\ . .-..-
i ..6.ddress of Applicant lJL..~-If..~?___~~_j~(l!..t._..LL1.~ ~u..SJ;:;..__.____...____._._.__
Street and Number of Affec ted Premises
Legal Description L/~ i c' oJ- :~l~-i--'-/t--~~~-~-;-'~.'-.[' G~f"" ':<,~-7i-"'-------
- - 7 ~~---~~~1:';;_f~____._!j_____.L________
Nature and Sj zc of Improvements Now Existing i,~L'-"-{<..".~J._.ll'_!.A:j::(,<jL_"_ll....:'S._:~?~_._..._____.,__
Prescnt Zoning Classification
.'.'.:.'~ti.i.'....'/D.et:a..ned Description of the Va.riance APPlied. For~"):....".>-j (~""'I,It!L~_.[)J ,,>\ .Cy'uZu,(; ~
.~:":'i: I r ' I . I ! . t / I
:"~<l;;:tJ~-';;; ~e~~~~~~:!~~,~~~~t':c~~;;"-,;~;];;,~"~~ 7i:;Z.,-o &.,7).L.Y. . ,,)i, Nt" >5,
:'\.!1t',> "'\.~.._~c,:"-l\~:~L:-:=J__.{<:_e\'JIo:'.~C'~.._J,,:i.L 5.~{'^~__) f:::::-s....!:_..c5.J?~_LL I~ {!:::::.....1.r..:.~<. Ae u8' ,,- .' ", "1
sIt( b <.' ~I.. d t-.::..J. ._~_.J!!:5~/:: f'2L.'::.3.':: f~..:jL~'If,.d_'7J...L,-M..,=,___S.1:=.._~c...t.b,!{ y (() u... {"Ill> 1-" tI. t.w ptf..j'
Note:; Ten C~ copies of a plat plan, showing the ioeation of all existing and proposed ' .,\'
structures must be filed with this application.,:'
lease.....Complete The Fol1o,,'ing:
.......~l. Li teralcnforccmcnt of thc Ordinnnpe would resul t in unduc hanlship with respect to
· my property.. IV 0 + iJ.;.- 5' :;. b /.;:,
-- ._..___._.__n________... _. _._..____ _______.._.________________ .._.____..
B
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unIque to my property.
,13
-----.---.-.----.---.-----. --. --~--_._---
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the ordinance and is not the resul t of
actions of persons presently having an interest in my parcel.
..
,0
4. The variance observes the SpIrIt and intent of this Ordinance and produces
substantial justice, and is not contrary to the public interest.
Variance may be permitt~d if all four
Date 11 c:.. c~ ! '3 , 7 8
This is to certify {hat $ ,Jr). D~:..-. "'as received
for a Variance Application Fee.
.' ~".~ - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - - - - --
Application for Variance
X' Reasons:
Other Remarks:
TI'lIS SPACE TO B1=. FILLED IN BY PLANNING
\. /
'/
Grant.ed _____.--L....:.:.._._________._Den i ed._____
~~~J~@~gn~tu~ Of.",
-...-.--"-'-~~J-.-7-~::-:::::~;:~---7~----.--..-.-~'---~----.-...--.--~---.-.-
."----'-. I'
O"dt,.( /'.....r JItl~ t
70 ~R rO.1Dvt/1
~) f t vui,l' ~ I J 9" 5. 3
IV,,,,, 8/'1 fl." fo 7,$"
\
. I \
I ..-
~
~::'I' \ I ,.~/I
, .. r", 1t1/~ 1 -'I 6oV'" .
1, '.
j~\
\
lA~
.IX
'I(
J,.
\):
I" I ,- ,
':: .::J
\
\
\
,~,.. --...-
,
'1-'-
--- >\
I ' I
-- - -t'-_... - _ _~
I ......:--\
I ~ ;: I
I '-. . '.. "-
I 'f--.. ,.1 I
ll\ , ...
-. -
'...... -
". , I':"
J 'I ,
- ,~.9
\
\
\
\
\
J
,
,
I
. .
~.
"
~
)\,.
,",-.
I }---
1____ _ ' ~
... t
t-. '"
" ~o1-.--'-.:. --;
~I .
=: '<I
:'NI
<f. '" I
...
t'll
t)
"
.J
~l
~
. tI
.~
''''':'i
~.
~
\,.
.......
"
'-
,
\ I
.....1
It
1,_ ::J
V") -.:
~
;: 3
, C::', -
LI..~ ,
~
.
,.,.
'"
.. ,
~ ,. ...' I
-. ' I
'1
~ - _._ - - - ..I
Of ~ :
~ n
~~
eta:>
tl")
.....
'-
'?
"
j. 1+ Q
y' /-0" /
--... "____ 1-/ (}
V ., _n
~o+- 8>
.
,.,
,.,,;
;,~ ND
1
PrIor
t _ k-..
,"'"
.~ - -
-
-, .. :;
I' .
lC:
I
\,,;
, .......r-
',' .-- :. - (~: .....)
...-
I..,. -), ~ \ '"
I 'L 1..' -
,~
CI
---;
.. ~
- -
........
~ -...
\0(. .
~ CQ .
Ill'
>.
i
i
~
I
-~
,<
Ii
,
I
i~
i,
,t
u
,
;Y
:~
-j;
If,
.~
.
~
,,''.1
'.
CITY OF
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA
55372
~'"~"2""""'~',,,,-
,.. '.- r_., ". .._....':...1t,,~i ,L - ._, ~. .~'
.. ~-~~,i;:\:;;.._,;_}~', .
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING ADVl SORY Cml.\!ISSION
April 6, 1978
TIlC~ meeting of the April 6, 1978 Prior Lake P1:lnning Commission was
called to order by Chairman Thorkelson at 7:30 Pt-L Members present
were Commissioners Cavill, Speikcr, Johnson, Councilman Busse and City
Planner Graser.
The minutes of the March 16, 1978 Planning Commission were motioned for
approval by Johnson seconded by Speiker and upon a vote taien were
approved as published.
Mr. Graser stated that he would like to add an item to the agenda. Motion
was made by Cavill to discuss a proposed subdivision for Carlson & Carlson
at 10:30 PM seconded by Speiker and upon a vote taken motion carried.
First item on the agenda was a subdivision discussion for Mr. Dick Schwartz.
Mr. Schwartz is proposing to develop the Vie Schroeder 24 acre farm. Mr.
Graser gave a presentation siting low areas, grade problems and access to
Eagle Creek Avenue. Mr. Schwartz stated that he was in ag1'eem~nt with 1-11'.
Graser's proposal as to the drive~ays not fronting on Eagle Cteek Avenue
(County Road 21). questions were raised on the interceptor easements, lak~
access, soil compaction from the interceptor and total number of lots. The.
overall vie~ of the Planning Commission was that the plan looked feasible
and the developer was asked to continue working with staff to work out
any additional problems.
><Next item on the agenda was a variance application for Mr. George Borgerding.
A63 foot lakeshore setback variance and an 8 foot front yard variance are
requested for lot 9 and the south 42 feet of lot 10, North Grainwood. The
proposal is to remove the existing buildings and replace it with a year-
round home. Mr. Graser gave a description of the parcel inovlved. Motion
was made by Speiker to grant the variance due to the fact that the new
dwelling will encompass the old building envelope and it is a unique lot
aTldwill be a permanent, year round home. Motion was seconded by Cavill
upon a vote taken, ~otion carried.
Next item on the agenda was a Home Occupation Permit application for Mr.
Bruce Langevin. Mr. Langevin is proposing to construct light, two wheel,
hor3e drawn carriages at his place of residence, 16078 Cambridge Circle SE.
The parcel is zoned R-l. Planner Graser ga-.e a brief description of the
request a ". Mr. Langevin then stated that hE. ~1as an air conditioning unit
and extra soundproofing in the garage. He a:so stated that the noise d.)es
not bother his .wife who is immediately above him in the house. A petition
was then given to. tl:,:: Chairman with 16 signtitures of the n~ighbo,...s in
opposition to the home occupation permit. Cavill motioned to Geny the
home occupation permit because of oppositivn of the neighbors and the
occupation is in with the ordinance. Motion was seconded
a motion carried.
..
II
'1
~
\I
II
co'" OF f 101 10_----
-- I-lW I nf 0 __\'-
, OT .10 Norlh. '" ,'"
\ L E' .__.._ ".-'
\---
1\ ..
/ \
ATTACHMENT 5
'"
~
'!
"r III H
0.. P ~eU~1
1" . ~
' .~
tI- II>~\..\..
l' \ f -Jj
foafO
~
, . 90S ,15
" I
J,
'....
c", . ,
i_.
.u
;;:
"%
0..
II)
l~
-1ir~
.. N,
i..
"., '.If).
i''''
~cr.
~,
... '
~,
g.
'E. ::
0'0
.... -
o 0\
tl Itl
.g ..
jJ
!t
pR\ ~
~':\d,",
',; :),
:~j~
'.~w .'
~ - '>'" c', :':,,;':-:':, l'
. ~ (.. "':'!e. .~l;." f ;;'" ..,,,,,, .. '~I
,:-- ~ -llif5 ;..' t~;j .'\'
}-:' ~ ,,' '~.,/,( ':.
'1.,
> "'~!~
. 'j.
;~
;'~....1l. '.~:~:I
.'1.VV.n.'.",~\ "
" ..,."...~....
~L.'
.~
~
i.t
'~'-~~:,.:~ .
.. '~.' "'~.'.".'.',"""
\ ;" ,"~;: ., '
; ;:o.",':~'"
{2.."
\ ~.
,......'.' '<t.,
,. (;:)
, ,
", .
': ....
I ,,"
t\,. '
.;....
. .;.
~ H
c:'\
I.&J
1'\...6
E't\S f.
rlO\JS l'
a,t. "O'l, 16
.".. 90'
E\.
~~
~,
( 91!~_~'
,." --
-~
'. ",.,..'.1'." ','
,
-
(
'-
'i.:
"
..I
\
\
..f&!9 ,"
611.--- I
.- "w I
'-- f 5;9"26'10 9 ~
SW cor. 0 . 'e 0' 101
10' lil 5'Ir "n
.. \ 'of lot 8
'-W'I)' Itn.
Of tlEG
19
9\1,
~
"'I..,
C'~ 6
' 6
911.
'1
/
j"
,t
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
SA
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING
VARIANCES TO THE SETBACK FROM TOP OF
BLUFF, AND TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER
MARK, FOR GARY THOMAS, Case File #01-029
5580 FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL.
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
JUNE 25, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from property owner
Gary Thomas for the construction of a porch addition in the place of an existing
deck attached to an existing single family dwelling on the property located at
5580 Fairlawn Shores Trail (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey). The
principal structure is legal nonconforming dwelling because it was originally built
in the bluff impact zone before bluff setbacks were established.
A public hearing was convened on May 29,2001. After review of the applicant's
request with respect to variance hardship criteria, the Planning Commission
directed staff to draft Resolution 01-009PC approving the following Variances
with conditions:
1) A 2.5 foot variance to permit a porch structure setback of 54 feet to the
ordinary high water mark (904') rather than the required 56.5 foot setback as
determined by setback averaging.
2) A 43 foot variance to permit a porch structure encroachment into the bluff
impact zone rather than the required 25 foot setback from the top of bluff.
The following conditions must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit and/or certificate of occupancy for the proposed addition:
1. Remove concrete slab located below the 904 foot contour as depicted
on the survey.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2. Install and maintain required erosion control during the entire phase of
the construction project until vegetation ground cover is established.
3. Install a gutter system along the entire roof line of the structure to
control storm runoff to an approved location.
4. Submit two engineer's reports: one that approves the project in the
bluff zone location prior to the issuance of a building permit; and the
second report to be submitted at the conclusion of the project that
verifies all required conditions have been met.
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached Resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction
for approval of the requested variances to bluff and OHWM setbacks for
construction of a roofed porch addition. The staff therefore recommends
adoption of Resolution 01-009PC.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution # 01-009PC approving the two variances with
four conditions that the Planning Commission deemed appropriate under the
circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-009PC approving the bluff and
OHWM setback variances with four conditions.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-029\VarRpt2.doc
Page 2
RESOLUTION Ol-009PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 2.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 54
FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK RATHER
THAN THE REQUIRED 56.5 FEET AS DETERMINED BY SETBACK
AVERAGING; AND A 43 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A PORCH
STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO A BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER
THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Gary J. Thomas (owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in
order to permit the construction of a porch addition to an existing single family
residence on property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) District and the
SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
5580 Fairlawn Shores Trail, legally described as follows: Lots 22 and 23,
Fairlawn Shores, Scott County, Minnesota. Together with that part of Lot 21,
in the plat of Fairlawn Shores, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast comer of Lot 21; and running west along the north
line thereof a distance of 12.00 feet; thence southeasterly to a point on the east
line of said Lot 21, distance 89.00 feet south of the northeast comer, thence
north to the point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom part of Lot 22, in the plat of Fairlawn Shores, Scott
County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer
of said Lot 22 and running thence east along the south line thereof a distance
of 12.00 feet; thence northwesterly to a point on the west line of said Lot 22,
distant 89.00 feet north of the southwest comer; thence south to the point of
beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-029PC and held a hearing thereon on May 29, 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
1:\01 files\OI variances\O] -029\resO 1-009.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed vanance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent properties, umeasonably increase congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, umeasonably diminish or
impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the
Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The applicant has no control over the existing house's location, such that the hardship
created has not been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property does
not exist with the present structure, as is, without the requested variances.
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the required bluff and ordinary high water
mark setbacks of today that were not conditions when the original principal structure
was constructed.
7. The granting of the variances, as originally requested, 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.
8. The contents of Planning Case 01-029PC is 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 variances, with conditions, for a porch addition to an existing single family
dwelling as shown on the certificate of survey (Attachment 1).
1. A 2.5 foot variance to permit a porch structure setback of 54 feet from the ordinary
high water mark (904'), rather than the required 56.5 feet as determined by setback
averagmg.
2. A 43 foot variance to permit a porch structure encroachment into the bluff impact
zone rather than the required 25 foot setback to the top of bluff.
The following conditions shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a Certificate Of
Occupancy for the proposed addition:
1. Remove concrete slab located below the 904 foot contour as depicted on the
certificate of survey.
2. Install and maintain required erosion control during the entire phase of the
construction project until vegetation ground cover is established.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-029\resO 1-009 .doc
2
3. Install a gutter system along the entire roof line of the structure to control runoff
to an approved location.
4. Submit two engineers reports: one that approves the project in the bluff zone
location prior to issuance of a building permit; and the second report that verifies
all required conditions have been met shall be submitted at the conclusion of the
proj ect
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on June 25,2001.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-029\resO 1-009.doc
3
ATTACHMENT
SURVEY
1
"'0..,.
oS' ?-Iy
6''::>0 <;'\-('
I ~/' 0",
.::>. a "I~" <o?-
a ~ <?;
"
~
\'
~-
~
'fiJIO
IY
t..-4Ir~
0"
.Lors
22/j
2.3
o
..
r'
~ .
c.. ,
!
/-
Q{('
.'
~,
H('USt:
GI\RI\Gt
Sl4f1 [l
936.2/
~~t'4'\.".
.1ili~~:/"~J -'
~~ tlt..:;~
'~
"~
q,. ,
-'J
!':"
1;'1.'/
~
r
'J
'; '1
C. _ ~.r
,
,,<--
.>
:~
.
.,
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
PLANNING REPORT
6A
REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE THE 20' WIDE
EASEMENT FOR RAODWAY PURPOSES LOCATED
ADJACENT TO THE E-Z STOP GAS STATION,
VELlSHEK'S AUTO SALES, PARK NICOLLET CLINIC
AND THE HOLLYWOOD RESTAURANT (Case File
#01-051 )
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_YES X NO-N/A
JUNE 25, 2001
The Prior Lake City Council initiated the vacation of the 20' wide easement for
roadway purposes located adjacent to TH 13 and to the E-Z Stop gas station,
Velishek's Auto Sales, Park Nicollet Clinic and the Hollywood Restaurant. The
easement presently functions asa frontage road serving the properties located
on the south side of TH 13 between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. The City
Council is scheduled to review this matter at a public hearing on July 2, 2001.
As required by State Statute 462.356 Subd.2, the Planning Commission is
required to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposal or
acquisition of public lands as it relates to compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate
easement or right-of-way by resolution. The statute also states "no such
vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the public interest to do so".
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of
the existing easement comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public
need or anticipated future need for the dedicated property?
1:\Olfiles\Olvacations\OI-051\OI-051 pc report.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.
.1'
Comprehensive Plan Review
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to "plan for access to and
movement of people, goods and services." Policies to meet this goal include
cooperation with the County and State to keep through-traffic on arterials with a
minimum di'sruption of local circulation and to provide access to arterials and
major collector streets by public streets only. Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive
Plan also discusses specific recommendations for the TH 13 corridor. The plan
recommends the establishment of "back street" connections whenever possible.
The current easement provides access to the properties adjacent to TH 13.
However, the City is in the process of designing a ring road connection from
Franklin Trail to Duluth Avenue. The section of the road from Franklin Trail to
Toronto Avenue will be dedicated as part of the Park Nicollet Addition.
Construction of this ring road is expected to be completed in the next year.
Once this segment is complete, the properties along TH 13 and the existing road
easement will have access via the ring road.
Public Need
The construction of the ring road will eliminate the need for the existing
easement. If approved, however, the vacation of the easement should be
subject to completion of the new road, in order to ensure continuing access.
RECOMMENDATION
Once the ring road is constructed, there is no need for the existing easement.
The Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this request subject to the
condition that the resolution vacating this easement will not be recorded until the
construction of the new road is completed.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the proposed vacation of the
easement as presented or with changes recommended by the
Commission.
2. Continue the discussion to a date and time certain to allow the staff to
provide additional information specifically requested by the Planning
Commission.
3. Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny
part or all of the applications based upon inconsistency of the proposal
with specific regulations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and/or
specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
1:\01 files\OI vacations\01-051 \01-051 pc report.doc
2
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1 .
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the vacation of the
easement subject to the condition that the resolution vacating this easement will
not be recorded until the construction of the new ring road is completed.
1:\01 files\OI vacations\01-051 \01-051 pc report.doc
3
Location Map
24
25
19
20' Road Easement
to be vacated
23 22
Priordale
Mall
TOWER
HILL
APARTMENT
EAST
2
1ST
IERST.
N
A
300
o
300
600 Feet
..
~
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6B
DISCUSSION OF MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
- -
JUNE 25, 2001
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this item is to review the need for several miscellaneous
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The need for these amendments is the
result of several factors. These factors include, among other things, changes to
the State statutes, the need to clarify language in the existing ordinance, the
need to update references in the existing ordinance and the need to change the
ordinance to reflect existing policy.
DISCUSSION:
The staff has identified language in the current Zoning Ordinance that is
inconsistent with Minnesota State statutes. Some of these inconsistencies are
the result of very recent changes to the statutes. These changes include the
following:
. The definition of elderly housing (1101.1000)
. The definition of congregate care (1106A.200)
. The number of City Council votes required to adopt an amendment to the
Zoning Map and the Zoning Ordinance (1108.506 and 1108.704)
. The definition of an official map (1112.200)
Since the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1999, the staff has made a number
of interpretations on the application and intent of the ordinance. In a few cases,
the staff feels it is necessary to clarify the ordinance language to reflect these
interpretations. These include:
. Language to include basement egress windows as an a'lIowable
encroachment into the side yards (1101.503 (1))
1:\01 files\01 ordamend\zoning\misc amends\pc report.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.
.
. Language to include platform decks as allowable yard encroachments
(1101.503 (6 & 7) and 1104.308 (2))
The Zoning Ordinance also references technical documents, which can updated
on a regular basis. In order to ensure the reference is current, the language
should be changed to eliminate the specific edition number, and reference the
current edition. This amendment applies to the following:
. The Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Handbook (1107.1801 (1))
Finally, after several discussions, the City Council has directed staff to relax the
certification requirements for replacement trees. This relaxation is intended to be
a more "customer-friendly" approach, especially for single-family homeowners.
The amendment affects the following provision:
. Tree Preservation Requirements, Certification of compliance with an
approved landscaping plan (1107.2106 (5)).
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff is requesting the Planning Commission initiate the process to amend
the above sections Zoning Ordinance. A motion and second initiating the
amendments is required. Following adoption of this motion, the staff will
schedule public hearing dates and prepare specific language for these
amendments.
1:\01 files\01 ordamend\zoning\misc amends\pc report.doc
Page 2