HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 10, 2001
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 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 Files #01-066/067 EFH Company representing Metro Cabinets Company
and American Glass and Mirror is requesting variances to permit structure and
driveway setbacks to the property line less than the minimum required, and a
building wall length to height ratio greater than the maximum allowed for the
property located at 5418 Cottonwood Lane.
B. Case file #01-075 John Teilborg is requesting variances to permit a structure to be
setback less than the minimum required 75 feet from the Ordinary-High-Water
Mark; and a setback less than the minimum required front yard using setback
averaging; and a variance to permit road access less than the minimum required
for the property located at 14358 Rutgers Street.
C. 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 #01-068 Lawrence Baird Variance Resolution.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L: 10 1 fileslO 1 plancommlO 1 pcagendalag091 00 1. DOC
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, AUGUST 27, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Commissioner Stamson called the August 27, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:34 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke and
Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V onhof
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Commissioner Atwood arrived at 6:58 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the August 13,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case Files #01-039 and #01-040 (continued) Consider an application for a
preliminary plat to be known as McCormick Acres and to consider variances to the
minimum lot area for three of the proposed lots for the property located on the
south side of 170th Street, North of Highway 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier stated the applicant contacted staff on August 27,
2001 and requested a continuance to the September 24,2001 Planning Commission
meeting.
There were no comments from the public.
MOTION BY CRlEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO
THE SEPTEMBER 24,2001, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRlED.
L:\Olfiles\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\MN082701.doc 1
Pla'nning Commission Minutes
August 27. 2001
B. 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.
Steve Horsman stated the applicant contacted the City on August 27,2001, and requested
a continuance to the next meeting.
There were no comments from the public.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO
THE SEPTEMBER 10,2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case File #01-068 - Lawrence Baird is requesting variances to permit a
structure eave/overhang to encroach into the minimum 5 foot sideyard and an
impervious surface area greater than 30 percent for the property located at 5420
Fairlawn Shores Trail.
Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated August 27,2001, on file in the office
of the planning department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Mr. Lawrence Baird for
the proposed construction of a 6.6- foot by 14.67- foot entryway/vestibule addition to an
existing single family dwelling located at 5420 Fairlawn Shores Trail. The following
variances are being requested:
1. A 1.9 foot variance to permit a structure's eave to be located within 3.1 feet from
a side property line rather than the minimum required 5 feet.
2. A 3.9-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11. I-feet rather than the
required minimum sum of side yards of 15-feet.
3. A 232 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface coverage area of
2,981 square feet (32.5%) rather than the allowable impervious surface coverage
area of2,749 square feet (30%).
Staff concluded an alternative plan design for an entry addition of lesser scale and
reduced dimensions would work on the subject lot without the need for variances.
The DNR submitted comments recommending reducing the impervious surface.
The planning staff determined the variances requested do not meet all 9 conditions of
hardship criteria needed for the Planning Commission to approve the variance requests.
A revised and reduced entry addition plan and trade off of existing impervious surface
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\MN082701,doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27, 2001
area will accomplish similar results without the need for variances and recommended
denial of variances as requested by the applicant.
Comments from the public:
Co-applicant Mick Briedis distributed a narrative of his comments to the Planning
Commission.
Applicant Lawrence Baird, 5420 FairIawn Shores Trail, stated he owns the home with his
sister, who is represented by her husband, Mick Briedis. Briedis explained the wind
tunnel affect off the lake and the impact to their home. He respectfully disagreed with
staff's conclusion and recommendation regarding the vestibule. Briedis pointed out both
neighbors' eaves extend into the easements. The applicants are willing to shorten up the
eaves and still have 15 feet between the homes. They are also willing to mitigate 98
square feet and make a monetary contribution to a park fund. The applicants explained
why they felt Staff's recommended design would not work. This is an existing house and
the building pad cannot be adjusted. Briedis felt their situation is unique and aSked the
Commission to look at alternative Findings accurately reflecting the vestibule.
Atwood:
Questioned how far to the west does the deck extends. Briedis responded approximately
6 feet from the lot line.
Lemke:
Questioned the eave size. Baird said it was 2 feet. He also stated the neighbors do not
oppose the proposed structure.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· The applicant seems willing to mitigate the impervious surface.
· Questioned staff if someone went out to look at the practicality of their recommended
size. Horsman said he looked at it from the standpoint of whether it would work.
There is another access through the garage. Horsman said he looked at the
recommended vestibule as a place for people to enter without blowing the door off,
not for moving furniture in and out.
Criego:
· The deck does not meet the existing code. Horsman agreed.
· Kansier stated there was a permit in 1984 and it should be assumed it was correct at
the time.
· Questioned which way the house faces the lake. Briedis responded it faced northeast.
· Criego has the same situation and suggested changing the door so it opened in the
opposite direction.
· Baird felt they could not bring furniture through the garage entry.
· Questioned if the applicant had sliding glass doors. Briedis said they did.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\MN082701.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27,2001
. The 30% impervious surface is mandatory. The applicants stated they could meet
that in some manner.
. As it relates to the addition, ifit wasn't for the 4 foot deck on the lake (east) side there
wouldn't be a problem other than the overhang. Horsman explained the
encroachment verified by Valley Survey.
. The setbacks between the homes are less than 15 feet.
. The other use of the enclosure will be a closet.
. One small portion of the house, which is the deck, is causing the major problem.
. Some kind of entry should be allowed. Find a way without the eave encroachment.
. Would accept a 5 foot minimum taking in consideration exclusion of the deck on the
northeast side.
Atwood:
. Agreed the hardship standards have not been met.
. This is a reasonable request. In favor of allowing the vestibule, as the applicant is
willing to reduce the impervious surface.
. Criego brought up some good points.
. Briedis said they would talk to the architect and see if it will work.
Stamson:
. Clarified with staff that the existing home was already over the impervious surface.
Horsman said the applicant was adding 1.1 %.
. The hardship is the wind tunnel and the door opening on the side. Obviously the
vestibule will work. Agreed staffs measurements are correct. A 5x8 foot structure is
reasonable to move in and out of the house.
. The trade off is the small vestibule. There are some restrictions, such as not buying
large pieces of furniture. A 5x8 vestibule is sufficient for 99% of the use. The closet
is a convenience. Variances were not put in place for conveniences.
. It does not meet the hardships. It is merely a convenience of design. They can easily
solve the problem with a smaller vestibule.
. On the other hand, the structure is already over the impervious surface.
. Willing to allow the larger vestibule, staying a maximum of 5 feet, if they mitigate
the entire impervious surface.
. This can meet the ordinance.
Open discussion:
The Commissioners discussed the size of the vestibule and the impervious surface.
Suggested the applicant put in gutters to solve runoff problems. The Commissioners
agreed to allow the applicant to build the vestibule with the condition he would have to
reduce the impervious surface.
Criego:
. Felt there was a hardship and the vestibule could be built and still meet the
ordinances.
L:\OJ fiJes\OJ pJancomm\OJpcminutes\MN08270J .doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27. 2001
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREP ARE A
RESOLUTION DENYING THE 1.9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
STRUCTURE'S EAVE TO ENCROACH TO WITHIN 3.1 FEET TO AN ADJOINING
SIDE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 5 FEET; ACCEPT THE
3.9 VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN 11.1 FOOT SUM OF SIDE YARDS, RATHER
THAN THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SUM OF SIDE YARDS AND REQUIRE THE
APPLICANT TO CORRECT THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WITH THE ADDED
STRUCTURE NOT TO EXCEED IT'S CURRENT PERCENTAGE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
D. Case File #01-069 - Consider an amendment to Section 1108 ofthe Zoning
Ordinance to establish a procedure for site plan review.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 27,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
establishing a procedure for the review of site plan applications. The need for this
amendment is twofold. First of all, it establishes a formal procedure for a process already
in place. Second, the draft of the downtown design ordinance refers to a site plan
procedure; this amendment will provide a specific reference.
Staff felt there was a public need for this amendment in that it formalizes a procedure
already in place. Furthermore, the site plan review procedure will provide staff the
opportunity to review these plans against the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Subdivision Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and other City Ordinances and plans.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Does this ordinance change the current review practice in any way? Kansier said it
does not change, this is the process.
Stamson:
· Questioned the 5 day appeal limit. If there is no public hearing, the neighbors nor
anyone else will not know about it and not have the opportunity to appeal. Kansier
explained these are matters that already meet the ordinances.
· Agreed to support.
L\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN08270 I.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27. 2001
. Lemke and Atwood had no further comments.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE 01-XX AMENDING SECTION 1108 OF THE PRIOR
LAKE CITY CODE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Kansier presented the Design and Streetscape for the Downtown Ordinance. At this
point, it is just for a reference for the Commissioners.
Criego questioned the gutters in the setback. Kansier said the Planning Commission
agreed to have the gutters in the setback and the City Council did not agree. Requested
staff to look at that issue again.
Criego questioned the amendment to allow accessory structures on Twin Island. Kansier
explained the City Council had actually approved the ordinance recommended by the
Planning Commission on a 3 to 2 vote. At the time, staff believed the Statute required a
4/5 vote. Staffleamed later that the legislature had just changed the requirement to a 3/5
vote, so the ordinance was actually adopted.
Lemke would like information regarding the 5 foot setback on non-conforming lots.
Horsman explained the ordinance. Staff will provide the information.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN082701.doc
6
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO THE MAXIMUM
BUILDING WALL LENGTH TO BUILDING HEIGHT
RATIO; STRUCTURE SETBACK TO PROPERTY LINE;
AND DRIVEWAY/PARKING SETBACK TO PROPERTY
LINE; FOR A NEW ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
BUILDING IN THE C-5 DISTRICT (Case File #01-066)
5418 COTTONWOOD LANE SE, UNITS A & B
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
SEPTEMBER 10, 2001
The Planning Department received an application for variances to allow the
construction of an addition to the existing commercial building on the property
located at 5418 Cottonwood Lane, and addressed as Units A & B. The
applicants are EFH, Co. (contractor), Metro Cabinets Company (owner), and
American Glass & Mirror Company (owner). The following variances are
requested:
1. A variance to permit a structure with a building wall length to height ratio
of 6.6:1 rather than the maximum ratio of 4:1 (City Code Section
1107.2202, ~8,b).
2. A 7.51-foot variance to permit a 42.49-foot structure setback from a
property line adjoining an arterial road rather than the minimum required
50-feet (1102.1406: Required Setbacks).
3. A 3-foot variance to permit a driveway/parking area to be setback 3-feet
from a side property line, rather than the minimum required 6 feet
(1102.1406: Required Setbacks).
DISCUSSION:
The property was originally platted in 1992 as Lot 1, Block 1, Waterfront Passage
Addition. In 1995, the subject property was platted as a condominium through
1:\01 files\01 variances\01-066\01-066pc.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
Scott County Land Records as Plat 25313 CIC 1026 Cottonwood. This permits
one building on two separate parcels with two property owners. Metro Cabinets
Company owns unit 1, and Guy & Mary Selinski owns unit 2 and has the
business American Glass & Mirror, Inc. The parcel line runs down the center of
the building with both owners having equal shares of the one structure. The
original building was constructed in 1995 under Building Permit 95-341.
(Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey).
The property owners have hired EFH, Co. to submit the variance application and
to construct the addition. The proposed addition consists of white architectural
precast concrete panels to match the materials and design of the existing
structure (Attachment 2 - Exterior Elevations/Site Plan). The proposed
building material does not meet today's requirements for new structures, but is
permitted for additions to existing buildings under City Code [ Sec. 1102.1407 (2)
Additions and Alterations].
The proposed addition is located on the north side of the existing building. It is
119.9' wide by 30' deep by 18' high. The building addition is setback 42.49' from
the property line that adjoins the County Road 21 right-of-way and requires a
7 .51-foot variance. The driveway/parking area additions are proposed for both
parcels and are 3' from the west property line and 3' from the east property line.
The proposed addition wall when added to the existing wall does not meet the
maximum building length to height ratio of 4:1.
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 and east
walls of the existing building are 89-feet and when added to the 30-foot addition
totals 119-feet. With a building wall height of 18-feet this creates a length to
height ratio of 6.6 to 1.
In the narrative submitted by the applicants, they are proposing the additions for
various reasons. These include business growth, insufficient space for
assembly, product storage, and the larger equipment and vehicles that require
more space to maneuver in and out of overhead doors, and more area to serve
the public (Attachment 3 - Applicant Narratives).
It should also be noted that conditions for a variance approval include landscape
and buffer areas, and no outdoor storage of equipment or dumpsters without
providing screening from public view. If the Planning Commission decides to
grant a variance it should include conditions, one of which is to complete all
missing landscaping and to add additional landscaping/screening for the
proposed building addition, outdoor equipment and trash dumpsters
(Attachment 4 - Landscape Plan).
1:\01fi1es\01 variances\01-066\01-066pc.doc
Page 2
This request was referred to applicable City departments and utility companies
for comment. The City Building Department noted that no interior openings are
allowed on the common wall between parcel 1 and parcel 2. The City
Engineering Department commented that proposed additions to the bituminous
driveway encroach into the 10 foot drainage and utility easements on both side
lot lines. Integra Telecom, noted that paving over the drainage and utility
easement creates problems if any utility needs to replace or repair lines.
Finally, in 1995, applicant Mr. Guy Selinski, American Glass & Mirror, applied for
and received a 7-foot variance to expand the driveway/parking area to within 3-
feet of the east lot line, Unit B. The current ordinance only requires a minimum
6-foot driveway setback and is the reason for the accompanying 3 foot variance
request (Attachment 5 - Variance 95-42 Minutes/Exhibit).
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 can accommodate a revised and scaled down building
addition without the setback variance (20 ft. versus 30 ft.). The wall addition
could be redesigned with a minimum 6.6-foot recessed break from the
existing wall in order to meet the 4:1 building length to height ratio. By
recessing the new wall addition 6.6-feet there appears to be enough room for
the driveway area to provide sufficient area to turn larger commercial vehicles
at the existing angles (the variance requested was for 7 feet of area).
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally,
The conditions that apply are not peculiar to the property or adjoining
property, and do apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use
District in which the land is located. There appears to be a legal alternative
for a redesigned addition that meets code requirements.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-066\01-066pc.doc
Page 3
By redesigning the configuration of the addition, it can be built without
granting the three requested variances.
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 variances 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. Staff is of the opinion
that granting this variance will impact the character of the neighborhood.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of these variances is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan, which is to provide orderly development and prevent
over crowding of land and undue concentration of structures in relation to the
land surrounding them.
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 all three
variances. The granting of these variances is not necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship existing today, but for the proposed future addition.
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 variances would not be necessary with a redesign of the addition.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-066\01-066pc.doc
Page 4
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
The applicant has indicated the variances are based on economic hardship
as the economic growth has created the need to expand the existing building.
Redesigning the addition will eliminate the need for the variances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff has determined that the variance requests for the building
setback and height to length ratio do not meet the nine hardship criteria, since it
is a business decision to expand the existing building due to economic growth
and the need for additional space for storage of materials and production
capabilities. The applicant can redesign the addition to meet the required
setback with a 20-foot addition. However, the existing building already exceeds
the maximum ratio of length to height, as the building wall is 18-feet high and 89
feet long (4.9 to 1 ratio). Therefore, the addition would also need to be
redesigned with a minimum 6.6-foot break (4.9 feet plus 1.7 feet). The staff
therefore recommends denial of the first two requests.
In regards to variance request number three, when the existing building was
constructed, the City Code required the overhead loading doors be located in the
side yards, and because the side yards do not have enough depth to allow large
commercial vehicles to maneuver through the doors. With the new addition
designed to meet setbacks and a break in the building wall of 6.6 feet this would
eliminate the need for the driveway setback variance as the recessed wall adds
another 6.6 feet area for driveway. Staff also recommends denial of this
variance request, as it does not meet the nine hardship criteria.
If the Planning Commission finds the request meets the hardship criteria, the
staff would recommend the Commission require screening of the building and
parking lot as conditions of approval.
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 Plannin.g Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings approving the variances requested.
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.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-066\0 1-066pc.doc
Page 5
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-015PC denying variances to
minimum building setback; and to the maximum building wall length to height
ratio; and minimum driveway/parking area setback; for the addition to the
existing building as shown on Attachment 1.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\01-066\0 1-066pc.doc
Page 6
RESOLUTION 01-015PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE WITH A
BUILDING WALL LENGTH TO HEIGHT RATIO OF 6.6 TO 1, RATHER THAN THE
MAXIMUM RATIO OF 4 TO 1; AND, A 7.51-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 42.49-
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM A PROPERTY LINE ADJOINING AN
ARTERIAL ROAD RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 50-FEET; AND, A 3
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEW AYIPARKING AREA SETBACK OF 3
FEET FROM A SIDE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM
6 FEET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. EFH, Co.; Metro Cabinets; and, American Glass & Mirror Company, have applied for
variances. from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an addition to a
commercial building on property located in the C-5 (Business Park Use) District at the
following location, to wit;
5418A and 5418B Cottonwood Lane SE, legally described as Plat 25313, crc 1026
Cottonwood, Units 1 and 2, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#0 1-066PC and held hearings thereon on September 10, 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.
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 addition location that meets the required setback for the structure exists on
the subject lot. The applicant has control over the plan design and shape, such that the
hardship created has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists
without the building addition as proposed.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required yard setbacks and building length to
height ratio, as reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
}:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-066\dnyres.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, 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 01-066PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following
variances for a future building addition to a commercial building as shown in Attachment 1;
1. A variance to permit a structure with a building wall length to height ratio 6.6 to 1, rather
than the maximum ratio of 4 to 1.
2. A 7.51-foot variance to permit a 42.49-foot structure setback from a property adjoining an
arterial road, rather than the minimum required 50-feet.
3. A 3-foot variance to permit a driveway/parking area to be setback 3-feet from a side yard
property line, rather than the required minimum of 6 feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 10,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
A TIEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O] variances\O] -066\dnyres.doc
2
~
.....
eOl./.
I\I)'~
,
I
'1~, !
YY100D " I ~'" , ,
I '-~7 ., l>::!" , ..
' J::> 9~"""",,8' .
: Ir~1- '.S3 \, ,
~ CI] 6 <1.:::::.- '),. 8000 ,,:
's . r. <v 0,. . "
w,,.. g. ~ ('\ V1- '"" \
(/AJ~ v660,., 7-1- '" ""-?
~ o~ V7' ~~
1.0.,. <6'"r:o- "IG'(' '"
!, "I~o
/ U!)(I'r
~~t" ~ ('"'Is.
.~ lj' ~ Q,..('~l'
ATTACHMENT 1 - SUR
~O-1D
"'0
.
~<V
.<0-
o~
~
~
~
~XISTING HARD COVER AREAS: I j P~~~~~E~ HARD 5:0~E~R _~R~~S: I
-- --- _.- ---- -
\ n:
~~
=>..J
~~
!::o..
:Xw
~I-
<I:~
~~
~I,)
12:n
_<I:
1-1,)
~r
<ll
W
I:n:
~}-
ILl-
~~
..J..J
<I:=>
o~
w:I
5~
o~
~~
~~
<ll..J
X"
w~
)
0--
--:::-~=-i~;;::;;;::;==--=--==
I
:=r;:;.,-;:;------c...
I
"---'i-
I
~~=F
__..:__..,-L .no
,--+::::::::--.-
.~t:':~~~~-~:
'.I__'_-'_~';:C'::':"'''''';::;===-
'''---1. ~"--',"--'-" " //
:7'""'=--:::-'- . . .... ,
"
,__~ I.
--~~+~~-~=-=~-=-
[==1=======~- :..:..
~~
..JI-
-q~
Q~
W:I
~~
z..J
- IL
~~
0--
~
;::
5
= ~
~3
. w
E;lz
"'l's
<I:
&i
-q
~
JI
II
II
I I
I I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I I
II
I I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
I I
I
II
I I n:
II ..J~
II ~<I)
II ~..J
II I,)~
II ~o..
I I h!~
I I -<( It
II ~~
II ~3
II ~~
I I :n I,)
II xlii
I I wit
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1-1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
II
0--
'-11....1
I-W
I
\
~Iiil
I
I
~
;::
is
= ~
~3
Q~
"'l's
-q
&i
-q
.'
.. I
.' ] :.
. .
I
._-~~-==--~=_-.:.-
" . ---...
.' . .
- '
----- .
.-
==T-.-.'-=--'-- --.-
--'-'--'
. --
[}~-F== -. = ~~.
~
-'---l.'~-'~
_.......1 '-
'---;'r~-
~-
I
----.6' - -
..- ~-_..-
~-_.._~-
---.-t" .-
----
. .---..- .
--.---=-.---.::....
:t::=-- ' -,
I .'
I
._._r-:I_=====-~=_:_--
--~-
._0._._._ _~ '__':-'_.-_..._.,._...__.~. .___~_..
I
:j~-"'-'-"-'-"-'
.. ..-....-...
.' -...-...
.-- --- h I ~- - --- -,-~ --- 'n_ --_..:- .-- u_ '.....: ."
-'0-=''';:-'';''-- .' .
. . .--- ---
. . . . -~~- ..--:-..:.
~ ======~. ~.
~._~-
I
,__~l
.--d-----
I
_..1
,
, /
" ",,,,'"
, /
. -'--';=-=-==;;
~liil ~\id
, I
\
I
I
JI
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
.. _JI
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
\ \
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- I
I
-'L
-J-
'I':
'U
~
'}
:~
:)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
0:
~
oJ)
-'
~
W
~
111
u
g
1;------1 I
+- --
- - I I I
, I I
I I , I
~ I I
, , I I
I 1 1L1='7."--.':;::''=l I I
I
t i I
~ I I
.I: - I
.' '. I I
'. I I
'. I I
.. .. I I
I I
: I I
I I I
d'l r.'- :1: '.' I I
W
~ '..1 1 .. .. I I
~ I I
.'
~ . I. i.'. I I
. ., :
'0 :, 1 , I I I
>- I I
~
8~ r.. .' f I
I
1., I I I I
,I ,. I I
'-...... .:. (' 1 '. J , , I I
-L . , , , I I
r-- , ,
L' , ,
"1 . I I
, '. '.
I I
,"j . i. '. .~ I I
I 1. I I
I
1 .. .. - I
\. "
.,' I I
.: ... ~ . I I !ii
0: J
r- I .' - I .', J I u
~ '. L.o-.-J .' J I ~
: I I
~ :
<t .' '. , I I ~
-' o. J I
u. .. G
0... - '. I I
<t . . I I I!!
U .'
- : J I I :i
. . .' I I II!
~ .- 0<(
.' I J W
I I ~
.' ~
.. I I
- .' I I
I I
: .' I
.' '.
.- .. - I
'. ,
. I I
o' .':<..i I I
.. '. J I
. . I
" .' -I I I
.'
. - I I
r-:' , I I I
: :1 I'. .. ....j I I
--'-- I I
'. .1
J ...1 .' .' .. I I
, ~ :j . .. j I J
'1' I I
. I,.. T , 'r I I
.1 ' , . .. I I
T ! " .' I I
.....j. j'" . , I I
{ , , I I
,
I' I..: ..L " , I I
'. .' I
, ";I I
~. : "I .. ., I I
: I I .. : I I
J. .\ I I I
.' ~ .: '.' .. . I I
" .. I I
I.' " :1 '" J
I
. ..' .' :1 I I
. -I ,', .. '0' I I
L:.-~. ~ .' I
'. I
.. I
'. .' , I
.. . I
I
I I
I
.. I
----::1
-
0--
,"
I
-fl
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I I
II
II
II
I
I
II
I I 0:
I I -' )-
II ~~
II ~iil
II ~~
I I :i w
II ~~
II wU
:: ~a
II ~:;;
II :;;~
II ~~
II
II
II
II
II
\ \
Ii :ll
II j~
II u.~
II ;fa
II -'5
II 0<(0
I I fa ~
II !:!~
II 8~
I I %"
II ~~
II :;;3
II x.:J
II w.
II
~
-'
0<(
o
~o:
!!!)-
~~
r~
~~
~IL
!!!~
~u
'r~-'
r:1
t:J
II
-.--~-,-
L:_...J,
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
--II
H
I II
1 I I
I I I
I II
I II
!- -1 I
-'----"""-------...---
0--
tf!ITnmiffi;n!jj:
jj!,:!:lrli1llH!Hj:
: !~l!mim~~t;
1 'I", .1'.l.t,.t L,
~ ~ h:b!=~~'"
( }------- ~._.__u..
II
0--
~~
0<(2
0-
WI
~~
~i
1L0...
f~
\
0--
0--
; IL~
..J C. t.
0<( ~
Q~b
!l! 3;:,
d>:::t \
~ ;t~
Iii 0...'
It -q: \
~
~
;::
is
o
= -q
~iil
QZ
"'t
-q
K!
-q
r
UNTY ROAD NO
C 0 (CREOn RIVER ROAD)
~~~~~N:J:-ii~rSI:r
2 1
TYP, HE\'
eu""ACI
NEW 6'
ecorCH
ITTE~
NEW CC
'>lED
EXI&TINGI
CURB
--
~O--
.z
~~~
Q-~
'" D!~
O~
'"
- -
--
--
...
~...
...
COT ION WOO D
LAN (
ATTACHMENT 3 - APPLICANT NARRATIVES
August 10, 2001
Mr. Steve Horsman
Zoning Administrator/Inspector
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Metro Cabinets
Variance Application Review
Dear Mr. Horsman:
Metro Cabinets is applying for a variance to the existing building setback of 50' on the
north side and the parking setback of 10' on the west property line. We are requesting a
variance of approximately 2' to 7' along the north building setback due to the proposed
addition. This will require a 7' parking setback variance to access the proposed addition
along the west property line.
This addition is necessary due to the increase in business and our desire to serve our
clients efficiently. Our existing facility does not permit our employees sufficient space for
assembly and storage of product until delivery. It is anticipated that this addition will
satisfy current and future needs for our business. The variances are needed due to the
current ordinance of no overhead doors facing Cottonwood Lane. Our business is cabinet
making and wood products and has grown substantially over the past few years with the
economy. Our location serves our customer base well and is central to our client base.
Our location also offers the ability for walk-in traffic with our signage on County Road 21.
Our original design was based upon previous conversations with Prior Lake staff that made
it clear there would be no variance for doors facing Cottonwood Lane. Therefore, we
designed a building that we felt would satisfy our current and future needs as we are going
from 2,500 sf to 5,400 sf. With the changing demands of the client, we have had to
update equipment and are not able to fit our vehicle into our building to load and unload
material at present. We need this ability as our products are sensitive to temperature and
weather.
Our new addition will allow Metro Cabinets to handle product efficiently and serve existing
and future customers. The addition will match the existing building with the white double
"T" precast exterior and is maintenance free.
Please call me with any questions. I am submitting this letter to be included with our
variance application that you have already received.
Sincerely, /, . # ~ .
/'t'4~~ ~
Tim Sinnen
Glass & Mirror Inc.
P.O. Box 542
5418 Cottonwood Lane, S.E. Ste. #2
Prior Lake, MN 55372
(952) 447-3151
Fax (952) 447 -6179
August 10, 2001
Mr. Steve Horsman
Zoning Administrator/Inspector
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S .E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: American Glass & Mirror Inc.
Variance Application Review
Dear Mr. Horsman:
American Glass & Mirror (along with Metro Cabinets) is applying for a
variance to the existing setback of 50' and the parking setback of 10'. As our
business has grown, it has been increasingly necessary to invest in larger
vehicles with glass racks on both sides. The doors and driveways are not
wide enough to allow these vehicles to pull into our building to permit safe
loading of glass.
The increase in business also requires a larger building to serve the needs of
the public. Because of economies of scale, the minimum addition that would
make sense is 30 feet (1800 square feet). When we bought this lot and
designed this building, Roger Gannett, then a consultant to the city, told us
that we would be able to put an addition on of up to 2400 square feet.
The lot shape angles in toward the west approximately 9 feet. So on the east
side of the lot our expansion plan does not encroach on the setbacks, on the
west side it encroaches approximately 7 feet. We believe that granting of this
variance will not in any way negatively impact the character and
development of the surrounding neighborhood nor diminish their value. The
granting of this variance will also not impact the traffic and congestion in the
area.
When designing our building we were told that we would not be allowed to
design it with the doors facing the front. Had we been allowed to, we would
have been able to move the building forward on our lot and then would have
had plenty of room in the rear to expand. Since construction of our building,
another building in the business park has been constructed with door facing
the street.
We urge you to grant this variance and allow our businesses to continue to
grow in our community
Sincerely,
A. ~~
Guy ~inSke
Amencan Glass & Mirror Inc.
,
o::>REENe
l.
R
, ---
--
--
_---I
.'N._- I
I
I
--
a
31'-b"t
12e1'-el"
14 3b'-el" J~
4 FARKINU 5TALL5 . ~'-fi!).
&4'-0" = M""-,,,"
'" FARKIN6 5TALL& . ~'-el" Ell
I
~ 32'-el"
~
I
en
32'-el"
~~'-el"
II FARKIN6 &TALL& . ~'-el"
---
---
---
G -
::.---
-
1 0 N WOO 0
C 0 1
L ;\ ~l E
. .
)
'I.
)
, .......;~~, ~ l
, ,
.'~Id
""";',"'."~.,
,,- ...,
'NORTH'
!:.~!;:; ':"",J;" .....,. .
; ~';"'-'~'-'.
_/
...-..../" .
.- -1~J - "Ul
~ I
- -----.. - - -
ACCE;SI6IL~~:;IT~M6LEM I
"---,
NOT TO SCALE _______._J
2
(-- s,"\
[-- ',' ..__!.
k A- Li i
i ',>- ~/_.
/~\ 1----_.
..._-\\ " "', LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
: I"s~~;; !~I~.' \-~_~Y. J;()Ml"~~'!iAIM;rB(~~ ~:.~~ ~I'~~.
. ----.:.'--,'"---_. " ...----.\
\, A1!j '1 3/4" SB ~ HED FLOWCR MALU~;'
/ \l1>' ! 0 CF<A8 'f<EO fUYIIl j'(
r __-1
\, f!~ i.. 08- ~..~~[-,__ 7
I~,,(.d .3
\ - -;~:-~._- , -.
l ~":~~""'-' ' 6' 0[3
\ ~~; !
!" '~~l',~ :
( -;;;;;.--.'
i 0 2" BO
\\w '-..~.
.'
. , ' . ,.'.' ': Ii;' POT
SCOTCH
PINE
PINU."
S 'It VE S 11< I ')
4
Wdi It.
SPfWCE
PieLA
STR08lb
11
Gf'~ n: N
ASH
FRAXINU~,
PENNSYL \/AI~I(:,;
LANCEOL/\lA
.,1..,..
_._'..-::~...'i: ..-;I.....-~
25
JUN,PlRUS
CHINHL~I~;
'SEA Gf<CEN'
SPIRACP. X
BUMALDA
'COLDEN n)dvlE'
.' ;..,",
,- ' GOLDEN
C.~ i 15~POT 8 FLAME
:..J, SPIREA
........"....",,-- ,-----..---- ---.-- ...,-.--.;...-..-,...
(~~~:j : 15" PO T J 5. J~Vt
\2iY I ; WEIGELA
WEIGELA Fl,Of-<IDA
PURPUf<[,A.
'JAVA e[[)'
REMAr:KS - ALL PLANTING BEDS TO HAVE EDGING, POLY.
AND h-1/~. W.ASHED RIVER ROCK"
;. ..",
:. "",.~.
....~;. ;~t..
'.,', ..
..'j ..=.,'
." 1~:; .
L_ ,__________..
f--' .-~--.-~-.,----
GEI\
A~ i Llfi"
Af if-'L!CAi
U I Jf,i\,i,L
U ;~L~~' U I.i L;
D,-Jc\.nw~[ j
klL ,-:Ii ':"j'.
S~1ALL F
TrIEti-< Vi
ALl. COr
Ar~D P f.
li'lSURAf.
ATTACHMENT 5 - VARIANCE 95-42
eek: Some standards should be set - County Road 21 will be a thoroughfare int
.ty. Standards are set across the street. We should be consistent.
. : Another thing to do in looking at the site plan is to delineate only that
wH storage is occurring.
. One e difficulties with the issues of recycling was it did come throu
about 'on. Normally if we had this Ordinance in place we would n
problem. ow we are coming back and designing the Ordinance.
. Supportiv en if it is vague.
ONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CLOSE PU
verything is stored in
Kuykendall:
. Primary concern
. Support screening the public street.
. One standard to appl, :ry-wide.
. Buckingham stated non the materials are stock pile
containers.
. This is a gateway to our Ci
. Landscape ordinances should
. Issue of facilities located 500 fee
it is the activity as much as the nois
. Concern is noise level. Rye stated
trucks) in and out.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY L
COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF THE
SECTIONS 3 AND 8 OF THE ZON
CHANGES.
S TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY
ED ORDINANCE AMENDJvlENT TO
CE 83-6 Vv1TH RECOMMENDED
Rationale: Restated #4 to say" tdoor storage of recyc
would not be permitted but' any event outdoor storage'
the landscape requireme ound in 6.1 0."
e materials outside containers
ntainers would be subject to
V ote taken signified ,es by V oOOof, Loftus, Wuellner and Kuy
CARRIED.
signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, V oOOof and Kuykendall.
D.
recess was called at 8:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
~ l.C V A95-42 Consider Variance for Guy and Mary Selinske at 5418 Cottonwood
Lane SE. Applicant proposes to modify the drive area which serves their business,
American Glass. The planting area would be narrowed resulting in a side setback
of the planting area which narrows to 3 feet and 5 feet, respectively. The Selinskes
MN121195.DOC
PAGES
are requesting a 7 foot variance to permit a side yard setback of 3 feet instead of the
required 10 feet.
Michael Leek reviewed the Planning Report dated December 11, 1995. Staff
recommendation is for approval of the variance requested based on their findings of
hardship.
Guy Selinske, (19040 Southfork Drive) urged the Commission to adopt the recommended
Resolution 9540PC.
Comments from Commissioners:
Wuellner:
· Selinske explained the problem with loading glass with the present overhead doors.
Loftus:
· No questions. Supports Resolution.
V onhof:
· Hardship standards have been met. Support Resolution.
Kuykendall:
· Supports Resolution.
· Selinske explained the slope and grading.
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO ACT FAVORABLY ON
RESOLUTION 9540PC AND ADOPT ALL FINDINGS.
Rationale: All hardship criteria have been met.
V ote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, V onhof and Kuykendall. MOTION
CARRIED.
Other Business:
Comprehensive Plan: Planning Director Don Rye addressed concerns the
Commissioners had from the public hearings. There was a brief discussion of the
changes and clarification; the Met Council's response, and a request for the Scott Coun~
Planner to give a presentation to the Commissioners on annexations, especially Spring
Lake Township. City Engineer, Larry Anderson was present to answer questions.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE CHANGES IN
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL.
MN121195.DOC
PAGE6
VA95-42
COUN1Y ROAD NO
(CREOn RIVER ROAD)
T
I
195.00'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ---;;62'52\\3"W- --
-~
" '11m
Q:;('"
~~~
'"
-----------
~
~
8'
.-e
~~
.: l'l.
/j (:-~:.
cj .,".'"
/I,i
'.~~ ?
-Il ~;
~5eeDeD
..'
4'.,," . 4'.,,"
COHC. SLAe
~EE F~~ I"I....AN
E
I
I
~DE TAPERED 8'.... At
!:lET1IEEN '--,..,. e
DIRECT WAeaJFPE~ ~o a
TER. TTP.
I
NEW 1 STORY (10
FIN. FLOOR ELEv::1~.:{~ ~~J~~ING
-<: STt'OlCl. SLoPE
E..TR:JCT. =l.~ Jl
O"'-IZ'"
~t: ~~
:;OCATE ExI5T1NG. UTI~ln
XES THIS AREA TO NEW
~AND5CAFf AREA AS REa'D.
MONU1ENl
51GN 6.
OJ.,NER
...-rnN'NOOD l
~
2 1
-----1
0-:>
~
<<>
Oi
~vE EXISTI>l::. co.c
AT NEllI 0JI<6 CllI . uJALK
PROVIDE NEW ~OCATlONS>.
PEl< CITY a' PEDESl""AN ~
S 1 ANDAF<DS. ~'pOF<~,AKJ;
EAO-l I ..
^ 0JI<6~
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4B
CONSIDER VARIANCES FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS
BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIRED ELEVATION OF
907.9 FEET; AND A STRUCTURE SETBACK LESS
THAN 75 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER
MARK; AND, A FRONT YARD SETBACK LESS THAN
REQUIRED FOR SETBACK AVERAGING, CASE FILE
#00-027
JOHN & LORRAINE TEILBORG
14358 RUTGERS STREET
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_X_ YES NO
SEPTEMBER 10, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from John & Lorraine
Teilborg for the construction ofa single family dwelling with attached garage to
replace an existing dwelling on the subject lot located at 14358 Rutgers Street.
The applicant has proposed a building plan and site location and requests the
following variances:
1. A variance of .5-feet to permit vehicular access to be 907.40 feet rather
than 907.9 feet, as required to be not more than 2 feet below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) of 909.9 feet [City Code
Subsection 1105.203].
2. A 4.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 53-feet from the
Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum
setback of 57.5-feet as required by setback averaging [City Code
Subsection 1104.302(4)].
3. A 13.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 25-feet from the
front property line, rather than minimum setback of 38.5 feet as required
by setback averaging [Code Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards
(4)].
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION:
Government Lot 3, Section 30, Township 15, Range 21 (see lengthy legal
description), is not a platted parcel but a registered property abstract title. The
property is located within the R-1 District (Low Density Residential) and the
Shoreland District. The subject lot is irregular in shape with a total lot area of
33,237 square feet, with 337.9 lineal feet of deeded shoreline on Prior Lake
(Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey).
The proposed structure is approximately 90 feet deep and 72 feet wide with a
foundation area of 2,150 square feet. The main floor includes laundry and
mechanical rooms, a main bath and hot tub area in addition to an office, kitchen,
dining, foyer and great room area. The 2nd floor level includes three bedrooms
and two baths. The attached three-car garage is designed with a side load
orientation (Attachment 2 - Building Plans).
The main floor level will have a crawl space beneath with a proposed lowest floor
elevation of 910.6-feet, which is .7-feet above the minimum required Regulatory
Flood Protection Elevation of 909.9-feet. The proposed impervious surface area
of 4,114 square feet is 12.4%, and well within the maximum allowable
impervious surface area of 30% (Attachment 3 Impervious surface
worksheet).
Staff has determined a legal alternative building site appears to exist on the lot
by redesigning the structure in order to meet the required setback of 57.5 feet
from the OHWM, which eliminates the need for one variance. However, when
one also applies the required 38.5-foot setback average from the front property
line, the buildable area diminishes to a point approximately 46 feet deep. The
front setback of 38.5 feet was the result of one structure within 150 feet that has
a front setback of 85 feet. Setback averaging was affected by this one non-
conforming structure that is setback only 44 feet from the OHWM (Attachment 4
Non-conforming Structure). It should also be noted that a large portion of the
subject lot has elevations below the 100 year flood level of 908.9-feet, which also
reduces the area allowable to build without bringing in additional fill to raise the
grade.
The City Engineering Department has reviewed this Variance request and
responded that Rutgers Street is a public roadway that is not in the 5-year capital
improvement plan for reconstruction. In addition, raising the road to the
minimum required elevation of 907.9 feet will cause drainage problems for other
existing properties on Rutgers Street.
The Department of Natural Resources has submitted a no comment response on
this request.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-075\01-075pcrprt.doc
Page 2
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 public road elevation and vehicular access is a condition over which the
applicant has no control. In addition, raising the road will affect drainage and
may increase potential flooding on neighboring properties.
A revised building plan will allow for a comparable structure on the subject lot
that will meet the required OHWM setback of 57.5 feet, but will not eliminate
the need for some form of front setback variance for the proposed structure.
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 vehicular access elevation is peculiar to the subject lot and
adjoining properties.
The property is an existing lot of record with a location and elevation peculiar
to this site and surrounding area.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The variance for vehicular access and front setback are necessary for the lot
to be buildable and preserve a substantial property right of the owner.
However, the lakeshore setback variance can be eliminated by plan redesign.
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 impede these stated values
L:\O 1 files\O 1 variances\01-075\01-075pcrprt.doc
Page 3
nor endanger the public safety provided an emergency management plan is
prepared by the applicant/owner.
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 variances will not unreasonably impact the
character of the neighborhood, or diminish property values or impair health,
safety and comfort of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Since this is an existing lot of record, the granting of the variances is not
contrary to the intent of the Ordinances or the Comprehensive plan as long
as all other Ordinance requirements are met.
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.
Without the requested variances to access elevation and front yard setback
the lot is unbuildable for a single family residence. A hardship exists and the
variances are required to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty. The OHWM setback can be eliminated with a plan redesign.
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 public road elevation and the lot's proximity to the ordinary high water
mark are existing conditions and not a result from the actions of the owners of
the property. However, with some building plan modification the OHWM
setback can be achieved.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone are not grounds for granting of the variances.
L:\O 1 files\01 variances\01-075\O 1-075pcrprt.doc
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff believes that all of the Variance criteria have been met with respect
to Variance number 1) vehicular access elevation, and to Variance number 3)
structure setback from the front lot line. However, regarding Variance
number 2) setback to the ordinary high water mark, a modified building plan
will meet a 57.5-foot OHWM setback.
In addition, staff recommends four conditions be met by the applicant prior to
building permit approval and issuance for the subject lot:
1) Submission of a revised survey with a minimum structure setback of 57.5-
feet from the ordinary high water elevation of 904 feet, and depict the
minimum surrounding grade elevation of 908.9 feet within 15 feet of the
proposed structure.
2) Year round occupancy of the property be subject to the applicant/owner
submitting an emergency management plan to be approved by the Police
Chief and Fire Chief.
3) All Resolutions adopted by the Commission shall be recorded and proof of
recording be submitted, along with the City Assent Form, to the Planning
Department.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
denying the variance requests.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends approval of two of the requested variances and denial of
one request. This requires the following Motions:
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-016PC approving a Variance
of .5 feet to permit a road access elevation of 907.4 feet, rather than
907.9 feet as required to be not more than two feet below the Regulatory
Flood Protection Elevation of 909.9 feet; and, a 13.5-foot Variance to
permit a structure setback of 25 feet from the front property line, rather
than the required 38.5 feet as required by setback averaging.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 variances\O 1-075\0 1-075pcrprt.doc
Page 5
2. Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-017PC, denying a 4.5-foot
variance to permit a structure setback of 53-feet from the OHWM, rather
than the minimum setback of 57.5-feet as required by setback averaging.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-075\01-075pcrprt.doc
Page 6
DESCRIPTION AS PROVIDED:
--
-
All that part of Govemment Lot 3, Section 30, Township] 15, Range 21, described.,.
follows:
Begi nning at a point which is ] 7 feet North and 30 feet West of the northwest COI'Dcf;
of Lot 56 of "Boudin Manort'~ thence North 6 degrees 45 minutes West 8.9 feet to1bC
north line of a 33 foot road which is the North boundary of said "Boudins Manor.~
thence North 67 degrees 36 minutes East, 85 feet~ thence North ]2 degrees 24
minutes West, 100 feet; thence North 42 degrees 24 minutes West 85 feet to the sbore
of Prior Lake; thence South 59 degrees 36 minutes West, along said lake shore, a
distance of 177. 7 feet; thence South 29 degrees 35 minutes West, a distance of 160.2
feet along said shore line; thence North 83 degrees] 5 minutes East, 235 feet to the
point of beginning. Situate in the County of Scott, State of Minnesota.
Also showing the location of the proposed house as of this lOth day of August, 2001.
. i
.0 =-'-
~
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 907.]2 Top of the rim of the sanitary manhole at
property.
907 Denotes existing grade contour elevation
Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
.,:."
--. Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage
Set the proposed garage slab at elevation
Set the top block at elevation
The lowest floor elevation (crawl space) will be 9]0.60
.....Contractor to verify boa. clbaeasiou prior to eOllltnlCtloll**'*
RESOLUTION 01-016PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A .5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
VEHICULAR ACCESS ELEVATION OF 907.4 FEET RATHER THAN 907.9
FEET AS REQUIRED TO BE NOT MORE THAN 2 FEET BELOW THE
REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION OF 909.9 FEET; AND A
13.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 25 FEET
FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 38.5
FEET.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. John & Lorraine Teilborg have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in
order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling located in the R-1 and SD
(Shoreland) District at 14358 Rutgers Street, and legally described as follows:
All that part of Government Lot 3, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, described as
follows:
:LVI~~ ~ ~
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for Variances as contained in
Case File #01-075PC and held hearings thereon on September 10,2001.
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 the subject property's lo~ion in relation to the lakeshore and the existing
road elevation! for vehicle access -i;;f- the subj ect property and tk 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.
] :\0] files\O 1 variances\O 1-075\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
5. The pre-existing {A:.tU- lot of record does not meet the current Ordinance for
minimum vehicular access elevation in the R1ISD 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 caused by the existing vehicular access elevation and the
elevation required today and the pllil a 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.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #01-075PC 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 Attachment 1:
1. A .5-foot Variance to permit avehicular access elevation of 907.40 feet rather than
907.9 feet as required to be not more than 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection
elevation of909.9 feet.
2. A 13.5-foot Variance to permit a structure setback of 25 feet from the front property
line rather than the required 38.5 feet as required by setback averaging.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. Submission of a revised survey with a minimum structure setback of 57.5 feet to the
ordinary high water elevation of 904 feet, and to be in compliance with all other
Zoning Ordinances.
2. Year round occupancy of the property is subject to submittal of an emergency
management plan to be approved by the City Police Chief and Fire Chief.
3. The Variance Resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the
Planning Department within 60 days. 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
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\01-075\appres.doc
2
necessary permits are not obtained and construction commenced within one year after
adoption of this resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 10,2001.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\0 1 files\O 1 variances\0l-075\appres.doc
3
DESCRIPTION AS PROVIDED:
-
--~
A \I that part of Government Lot 3. Section 30. Township 115. Range 21. described as
follows:
Beginning at a point which is 17 feet North and 30 feet West of the northwest comer
of Lot 56 of "Boudin Manor"; thence North 6 degrees 45 minutes West 8.9 feet to the
north line of a 33 foot road which is the North boundary of said "Boudins Manor"~
thence North 67 degrees 36 minutes East, 85 feet; thence North 12 degrees 24
minutes West, 100 feet; thence North 42 degrees 24 minutes West 85 feet to the shore
of Prior Lake; thence South 59 degrees 36 minutes West. along said lake shore, a
dIstance of 177.7 feet; thence South 29 degrees 35 minutes West. a distance of 160.2
feet along said shore line; thence North 83 degrees 15 minutes East, 235 feet to the
point of beginning. Situate in the County of Scott. State of Minnesota.
:\Iso showing the location of the proposed house as of this 10th day of August. 2001.
-
=---
~
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 907.1~ Top of the rim of the sanitary manhole at
property
907 Denotes existing grade contour elevation
( Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
---.. Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage
~t~
Set the proposed garage slab at elevation
Set the top block at elevation
The lowest floor elevation (crawl space) will be 910.60
""*Contractor to verify ho_ diJlteUiOllS prior te CODltrtldion***
RESOLUTION 0l-017PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 4.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 53 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM OF 57.5 FEET AS DETERMINED
BY SETBACK AVERAGING.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. John & Lorraine Teilborg (applicant/owner) have applied forVV'ariancef from the
Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family residence
with attached garage on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential)
District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
14358 Rutgers Street, legally described as Government Lot 3, Section 30
Township 115, Range 21, described as follows:
X\A~ ~ ~
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-075PC and held hearings thereon on September 10,2001.
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 that meets the required setback averaging for the structure
exists on the subject lot. The applicant has control over the house design and shape,
such that the hardship created has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of
the property exists with a smaller building footprint.
1:\01 files\Ol variances\01-075\dnyres.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. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required lake shore setback 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 01-07 5PC 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 a future single family dwelling and detached garage as shown in
attached Attachment 1;
1. A 4.5-foot variance to permit a 53-foot structure setback from the ordinary high water
mark of 904 feet, rather than the required minimum 57.5-foot setback as required by
setback averaging.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 10, 2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\Olfiles\O I varian ces\OI -075\dnyres.doc
2
/'
\
\
\
\
\
7-0:\ ~
..........- \
\
/'
/
.N
:t-
.r-.:
::EO
en
~::E
Vlit.
/
....
Z
w
:E
:I:
~
~
!i
-----,
0"0 .
~
/l q .
11>. '" "'".
~.. ... J-:L r.~l \ 9 ·
,$~ 14 . ., .. 14f ,~C
( ..... __ _ . t>'~
, ~'6 0 .--- - ...
O~ ~ /'
I d~ '6\Y t~ r6'!a <.!) W
\ _ _ _ _ _ 909 0 -g. Z <.!)
~... 0 . F.c(
().. J' 8- lL!~
2 ><<.!)
__~~_~_ .', .1 '"i -----"', W
" /OJ ~ i
.!? _ / 'fi .. ~~'lto. 2
" ~ <> ~
',____ "//~tI
_ _ L06 0 '" 0 I ·
--::;....../ ...., g
\ ~.jlfl '
I . ~. /
\~ 2' ~
"" $! tik-n
... ~t-J
-'~,1} 1~~.'1
~1J11ia .~
~ u ~
2 ~_.
~ ..v.~ 2
in 2 ~
~ ..,
.' .. ,.
:.SU~
~
\ .~
>~''\ 0
W, ~.
~ .~
::)
CJ)
I
(
,
to
o
0'
\
\
\
~----
in
, --
~ /1
" I I
)^\ m~
, \ .~
, \ ~
\~F
\~~
,
,
\
,t;j~
\~:J
~~
~F
i55
'jUl
)/
,;\ :5'[ .
J~.l .
~~
. -0 W
en Q)"
o Q)"W
~S~
--.,./ u
-H~~
<X) \D C
(1)~.
r:---
~ '............
'-
..
Ii
o
, ::f
\ '0
....
"
"
"
"
- - 906 - _
........--,
?.....-..... ,
,,90 \
/"'.....".. \
, '-
y) -J,.
6.-
>
-!' 00
/0
6'
o~
<9
,
,
\
.....-r
'-O:Ef"
f~
S
n
10: '
>3:
tn
:z
,H
l...... ...
;n.lO
'm
c:
G
:-
'Z
C)
.-0
r-
')>
Z
en
';"
"
..
\f
\ "\.,
~ ~~Q ~
"g"~~ ~ ~
~i;_ ,...O.ooO<:J ~ ~ C
'-~ . . \t;~.
...... '-'\ 1&.)""
~ ~.~, ,,'.\' .
,;;: V ~-'-
,,;;:> 9 .~~
~~ ~<: ~
~ ~-..:; ~ 'I:;SJ ,
"" ~J.~ ! "
- ~"r';;:' ." )
. ---.;.~ M
ff "1 ~'>>' j ',j .
I if <;:'U ~ ~ :} .
11 '3cZ'- ~ .
j" ~~~.. ',9 ~~.. .
\ ~ ~. ,,<...c: (L
I -,~ r; (S... ..~.,
I . ~.. .-, ).,' "fO<C..
""'C:OJ ,I
~ ~-)
1'~~
~ /~"'c-
V~~~
CoI. _ .~
[.;0;, 6
~ ClUj
· 0
. Co
Q~i
'i5
r
-=\--
\1'.
~
-T-
()
r:.
/'.
r
,/
"
()
{\
t1::.c
\J I\l'
-;-
,J
"
~.
~,
.~.
~:l
~
'""'-
...,
\oN
\1
.'!'
.,..
I.-
~\ 'i:: .-:,.."
~
:~~,
1~~~,
>-.,~
\' ..~
'\
',.
.... -.....~
.-:.,
x
I
,1:
~~ .
~~
::\
, J
....----------...
~.
.,-j" '2r:-/'
, '-
/
.,c-1/2 €PLA(;(;
, """"'y
.. "-'(/ 1!Jr./ILr /N"J
i':.
j :;
I i: ~
,I
!:)"l<, ~
'II..... r"
., '" JI:I
~ ;
I,
I,,!
. .,.
'I:
I :,;
~-i'l
"l.
e
'- ~
-... ..
(c '1"-"1.. ':
-.r ""
"::>.
o
IN IN/hI'''';,.
?Y"'J
DJ
i;
\
l...
',/:
~~
-t
~-1---r-""""
Nlr
N r ~,i,t,
N -+ aJ I
IV ...J If
''-<J \tv i.~
\'--....J
-
/
r
/,".
;-l]/[O'd
'=:CJ'.':"""-.'t~.:~)~~,:-,t=, 11'':- 0__
'~;-::'-;l--:~
'~n:=: ,-' T .:.;
t-!
'.
"- __n _ ",
01 I::
,{~ :1 I '
':J
",:/ -.
~. -J..I.
....,
'.':..-
"'x'--'/ '-i..1t-..-- -"
I "'.
:'!'
** 1710' 3!Jl:ld ltJi.Ol ~;i
'-;"
."," ,.>...
7 ,.."?
1//
.(
I
'\
:l
I
I_l_
\.
\,., t \
l!';c,
c: ~
~~
/'3
",-
o
, I
I
j, ""
I ,
! f .
. ",: 4. "..
.' '.,
'!:
I
I
II I
. I' , " __ ~
-'" -' ~\
'W
1
-;; "i.
~ <" ~ -< :;.:'. ",-
~
~~-i"
.~-:( ~j I'" ~~-~
,
\
\
~
1:
~
\ \'-f ry
\. \\ ~
\. \\ -~\ \.
~N'\ I~ \\K\
\ \"~ ~-.. - \\
\ ' -I "
IV \ '\. \.
\~( );,
\ \ / \', -
\ \ '". ~
\ '\ / ~
\ \\,/ /~:~*-~~-------
\~, ~'::'\/'----
i..
,
\
\
\.
~
o
~
(
l
r;;ft ~,
~ ;r, to. /-,
'"f' 'oJ I ,':'.,_
Ii: t1S'-.~.
If\ , .:.. ;::, ~
! . c::l \,
() .J.
. '-$
!>j'
..s
,-
~~~
,
c. .
'~
\~
c;;;;:. 0
'h~
~TTACHMENT 3 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WORKSHEET
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations.
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distrlct (SD).
The NIax.imum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address ~ -; s e
e...Ly..... Sh-,t- N(.
Lot Area 1;3 '2.-?>'1_ . o.'ao~ ~. '\oL Sq. Feet x 30% = ..............~
***********L************************************************************
LENGTH
WIDTH
SQ. FEET
HOUSE
~
A TI ACHED GARi~GE
x
=
x
=
x
=
TOT AL P RIN CIP LE STRUCTURE......................
"2- \ So
DETACHED BLDGS
eShed)
\~ x~
x
3lO4
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.......................
~e'L-
x
x
x
=
DRlVEWA YfPAVED AREAS
<E:iveway-pave;i or not)
(SidewalkIParking Areas)
=
=
TOT AL PAVED AREl~S.........................................
\~~
PATIOSfPORCHESfDECKS .
x
=
(Open Decks '/;. min. opening bet\v~n
boards. with a pe:;o;ous surface below,
arc not considered to b.: impervious)
x
=
x
=
TOT.o\.L DECKS........................................................
OTHER
x
=
x
=
T OT _~ 0 Till R.... ..................... ......... .....................
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
@VE~
Prepared By, .........., ~\I "'.\
J'
Company ~~ <6\..l{l."~I"'~ C' -<>-) ~.t:>...
~
z:;e€>U
Date e q 0 \
Phone # ~~-th1o
U> (l /' \
7."$,..... ~ \
",I .~ 0' \
.~ ,./ _\
V. P\
/' G-
. · G'
)'- . \ \ \
- \'G- ~ {;~~ \
\ em /'
u
0'
\
. "09
I 0)
-' . sa
:\
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ........
I>. .. :=f
~ --I
~ ~
~ ~
~ 0
~
~ ....
~...
3:
m
z
-f
~
Z
o
Z
o
o
z
~
2J
3:
-
z
C)
~
2J
c:
~
c:
2J
m
/
/
/
/
/~>4
/1<
/
"
/
r
I
"; I
lD
![ 0
f. l{)
0' I
co
~ -j
-~J)
/
/
/
/
/1.'4
//1<
/
/
\
\
\ \\
\
\ /
\-.c---
\
\ --
r
\
\
\
\
i! \
\. \
~. \~-
1\ r
'\\ \
\ \
\
\ \
\
\
.------
~
~
'to
~
~
r
------.
"" 06
<
-
"00\
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4C
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA 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
SEPTEMBER 10, 2001
On June 25, 2001, the Planning Department held a public hearing for two
variance requests from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) on the property
located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The requests included a variance from the
ordinary high water mark for a deck setback, and a variance to the maximum
impervious surface area. The Planning Commission denied the deck variance at
the public hearing (Resolution #01-008PC). The Commission continued the
public hearing regarding the impervious surface variance to allow the applicant
more time to revise and reduce the request because the Commission did not
believe the applicant provided proof of hardship for the 4,422 square feet or
57.5% of the total lot area.
At the public hearing held on July 23,2001, the Planning Commission again
continued the public hearing to August 27, 2001, to allow the applicant to time
provide new information that proved he also owned the old railroad right-of-way,
adjacent to the front lot line of the subject property. The applicant is requesting
to be able to add this green area, not covered by Calmut Avenue with public
street and utility easements, to his subject lot area to help reduce the percentage
of impervious surface coverage. In addition, the Planning Commission directed
the applicant to reduce his variance request for a.n impervious surface coverage
area in the 30-percentile range (Exhibit A Survey).
On August 27, 2001, the applicant requested an additional continuance of the
hearing. The Planning Commission continued this item to the regular meeting on
L:\01files\01variances\01-017\VrRt5.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
September 10, 2001. As of the date of this report, September 4,2001, no
additional information has been submitted.
The original variance request is as follows:
1) A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious 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: Impervious Surface
Coverage].
DISCUSSION:
A building permit for the house on this lot was issued in 1995. A condition of approval of
the permit stipulated the impervious surface area was not to exceed 30 percent. It
should be noted most of the additional impervious surface area, such as the driveway
and patio, were added after the completion of the existing house.
The staff has determined the existing driveway is approximately 41.5 feet wide
and exceeds the allowable width of 24 feet at the front property line and through
the right-of-way to the street. This area of driveway amounts to about 375
square feet. In addition, the parking area along the garage wall amounts to
approximately 318 square feet and does not meet the minimum setback of 5 feet
to the side property line.
Eliminating approximately 693 square feet of this portion of the driveway/parking
area and about 600 square feet of the sidewalk area would reduce
approximately 1,293 square feet of area (16.8%) of impervious surface. The
total impervious surface area would then be 40.7% of the lot area. In addition,
the back yard patio area of 570 square feet could be reduced to bring the total
impervious surface area into the 3D-percentile range (Exhibit B Impervious
Surface Worksheet).
The subject lot has a total area of 7,689 square feet and allows for 2,307 square
feet of impervious surface to equal the 30% coverage area. The area for house
and garage totals 2,152 square feet. The remaining 155 square feet would
permit a driveway dimension of about 10 x 15.5 feet. This size driveway would
not extend from the garage to the front property line.
A follow-up inspection of the subject property was conducted on August 6,2001.
The deck and concrete impervious surface coverage area remain, as
documented on the original certificate of survey. In addition, a metal frame with
tarp boat shelter has been installed on the south side of the property. To my
knowledge, this shelter was not present on site, nor included on the original
impervious surface calculations as surveyed on December 6, 2000. Also, two
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt5.DOC
Page 2
docks were present with a pontoon boat tied to one dock, and a boatlift installed
next to the 2nd dock.
According to Patrick Lynch, DNR, the conditions for approval of the Windsong
Marina adjacent to the subject property, allowed only 1 dock for fishing,
swimming, and daytime docking on the appellants lot because a boat slip at the
marina was deeded to the subject property. Another condition required that no
boat lifts or swim rafts be permitted off the shoreline of the property.
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 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 which included a maximum 30% impervious
surface coverage area.
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 conditions are applied, there was an approved building permit for
the principal structure on this lot that met the 30% impervious surface area.
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 building site precluded the need for the additional variance
requests. The owner created the hardship when he decided 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.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt5.DOC
Page 3
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 variance for increased impervious surface area will adversely
affect the above stated values by reducing the infiltration/buffer area which helps to
remove the pollutants and increase the potential for shoreland erosion with
additional upland water runoff into the Prior Lake watershed and floodplain and
thereby affecting the adjacent properties.
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 variance is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance or the
Comprehensive Plan by allowing 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.
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 recommends the Planning Commission deny the applicants variance
request of 57.5% impervious surface area as the applicant did not meet all of the
hardship criteria, and require the property to meet an impervious surface area
the Planning Commission deems appropriate under the circumstances. As a
condition staff recommends the applicant provide a revised survey to depict the
required impervious surface area as adopted by the Planning Commission and
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt5.DOC
Page 4
the applicant shall submit a driveway permit application to the City to verify the
conditions have been met.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance as requested by the applicant, in this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to draft a Resolution with findings
approving the Variance request.
2. Approve a lesser variance to impervious surface as deemed appropriate
by the Planning Commission. In this case, the Planning Commission
should direct the applicant to provide a revised survey and impervious
surface calculation worksheet identifying the area to be removed, and
direct the staff to prepare a Resolution with Findings approving the
variance request.
3. Deny the variance as requested by the applicant. In this case, the
Planning Commission should adopt the attached Resolution 01-011 PC.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends alternative #3.
1. A motion and second to adopt the attached Resolution 01-011 PC denying
the applicants request for a 57.5% impervious surface coverage area.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt5.DOC
Page 5
'-
RESOLUTION Ol-011PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 2,115 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 4,422 SQUARE FEET (57.5%),
RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM REQUIRED AREA OF 2,307 SQUARE FEET (30%)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mr. 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-l (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, and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115, Range
22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Lot 10; thence southerly along the
westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8', a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line
of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, S1. Paul and
Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its
intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00
feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly
along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southerly along said
shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said
Lot 9, to the southwest comer thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of
said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning.
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, and on July 23,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment continued the hearing to August 27, 2001, to allow the applicant
time to present additional information.
4. The Board of Adjustment further continued the hearing to September 10,2001, at the request
of the applicant.
5. On September 10,2001, the Board of Adjustment continued the review of the application for
variances and allowed the applicant and other interested parties the opportunity to present
their views.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\01-017\dnyrs4.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
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The applicant was directed by previous variance and building permit conditions as to the
amount of impervious surface area, such that the hardship created has been created by the
applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists without the requested variances.
9. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required by the ordinance as reasonable use of
the property exists without the granting of the variance.
10. The granting of the variance as 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.
11. The contents of Planning Case 00-01 7PC 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 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 of2,307 square feet (30%).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 10,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\dnyrs4.doc
2
\
\
\.
\"
ATTACHMENT 1
c.Olltlt.ll
tl'll Ol ,0
of \.
i \0
Of \.0
i,", \.\tlE ----
No<' ~/\
\
\
~
w
::>
z
w
.>
<1
h.__\
v.I .
\
\
\.1
Z.
")
'';"
t-
l"
-~
o<B.
\1\
v.I
Z
-::'
v.I
It.
o
S.
Ifl
~) ~
,...
ul
&:
J,
\
~
. ~;' '1'
\
v';
....~.
..;~:~ J":.'~:': '~:.
"<.t
\.)
. \
....... \
".
9"'"
'l .
\0 _ '
\0, -t- S
\0 0 '
0- fl)
fl)-
<f _ ",
fl) 0 .....
" 0
a:. "
~
C t\\\\ N
'. . ~. .
.-
;':0'
~:~
\
i
'.
_^'_.. _" '.."..... ......,_...........:..~.......~ ,.. ......._,'~........_.._.,..~~..._".___"'- ,,.,._ u_ _
. ......,.ATTAC:H.M:E..N.J.:::. '2:..
, . .. . ... 4 .' ":. ......'.. .. .:' '.. .' '.~ ~'. - '.' ..........:.' .. ". ..... ;'. '.... .' '..:. .:.,. ..... '. ,.' .':'. '.' .:..... ..... .....:'..
.... ;'.; <.:. :.i~ ..... .. ::,:.... \. '." . " -
. .. ~ ..:';.. ."; .~... l":. :-'., '..:'.1 '. . ". . . " "':' " :, .:-. '.. " I " , , '.:: . ,
. '1 .~." '.' . . .'\0, , .' . . . .: '.' ....: .' .,'. '. "~:, !".
, . . ::..', .: ..~':; '~., '..:. .' ,.' ~:.. :. . '.... .
'. '. ....;{;~..;cIT~'6;;#~()~tAKE .' ,.,.",>".,.,. ",'Z
. .:';:'il1i;p~l'vi~.tis' ~urfri~~.Calcul.a.ti~n~"'" '.: .:..:. ., ~ "':".::".:.. .::;'> :..' ~:'.:"':: ::':.
. ., '. ;'.. :.. '-:,"'::(To be:Submitted with'Bullding Pennit Application) .: . . .:. .'. ........ .'. ..... .... ..... .... :"
.:' ...~....:F.cir>\ll)~ope~Ies..~o.cated:Il1:.~~e...~ho~eland-:I?istrict (SD).':'.;,,' .:.:: -:':. -:,:'. . .;~.' :.;> .>':::<"
. ." .,-:. Tpe:'Iy.raXiIl1\lrri)mpervio.u$' :Surface .C.overage. Permitted -in 30 Percent.:' '. ...... . '.: ':..:.. ~ : ~ .....
,>pw;erty.lt~res~:'Y~~~1:'Q2\W\~I:~i~,jk€ ','. .. ,.' ., . .,..' .... " ........
O'.:,::,,~':'>:.:":. :::<\:./:.::;~:":.":.'~::':\,,'~":;':'.':>::.'::'-::/>~:::....:..::~..:;~<:;:;.;.:.:.. ....:...,...."...:.:..:>:..:.;:~.:.. '_:'. .'. ..'... ':'" .....'... '..: . :.:',': ...~.:-......: .' ...:....
:<.~otAr~a:'.. t11ti>~q :.", -:' '," "',;" '.' Sq. F~et :;.~ 30~o. - ............... ~=.,o~.. . . '. . ,
~\:***~***.**!~*~..***1*~*~.~.*~*.**.*.~~~*******~*************~*************.. .'. . .
:,' H"~':'/'<":"'::"':";:>"""" .>: ~ LENOT1-!"': . -:. ':'.'.'VnD'TH':.. ..... 'SQ 'FEET' '. . .' '-:,: .... ,:,. ...~~:':':""':'
. :"':';'Hbp'SE;::'~:~:'<':'~"':: ~ ~\:';"'>,:: .:' . ......:. ..,~.. .;:-:. 4~ .'~. " " "'-i..~..'. .... ::.<~;,.-:. \\ 4:\:t :' . . .... .:' :,::. ". :.... ..:.:.... .,...
::!:~~iS~:Z,~t.~j~.>:C,;~.~~CTOT~L:~;IPt'~RUC~i....~.:.::...;L.. .......~\~~. ....',;.;:i:., .'. ...... ~..
.~ <"':~ .' f.':' '. '~~">":'.,.~.:;<.;:.:.:<~:/;,";;::':;:.:'..,.:/:(.!:.~.\:<.:...:\.,.,., . ".')'. ,'.... ". )".::":; ':'. ::.' ::.:...::.......~ ': . .:: ...... :': ... ....... .': .:.; ',. .' ".:' /.H'..:. ....~...;.:..
",DETACHEDBLDGS,. ..... ....,. ." x " ," ." ..... . . . . ." ' .: .
..r:..;~){2:..~.....~g;.;:...~'~.L. :l.~i~'~~~PET;\~#~~~IN~~"'''';;;;'':;'';'''''' .:. :'. ...~ c. ...,:. ". .....:r:....\. .........
\...."-'..,......\J...,." ~'L ,~,..." '.;;> . .... .' .:.;.. ..:,'.: . :...... :::....,:i:.....:..~:',:~.>.:-
.iD\~%5~Wf~~~J~..:,(,:;". . ." : ....~~b........... .... ..' ......."................
::<TO''tAL P:XVED A.REAS.....~;.~....~~.:~~....:~........~...........,~.~.. ':. ..-2.~.-i..!.b. .,; '>.' .'::; ".;. "
.. ...... ::' . ..,' .:. '.: . "":":J : '. . ," , . ,.' ~..' '. ...;.'. ". . . .:.. .'.
.. .....,...1
'.
'. . p 0:.!IOS/~OR9J:i.ESiD~CKS .: .'
':' .' . (Op'en Decks' ';." min. opening betwee~l'."..
:. : boards, with a pervious surface' below,. .. .
...., are not consiclered to be imperv'ious) . . ....
, : ...,:;(....~. X.::::' .."
=
. :'.:.. .....
. ...... "
.,',=,
" .. ....
. ~ " .
. . ,;'1'
. . '.
, ..' .
." .'~ .
. . .
. : . :. .~ '.': .'. ... ; .
. ~., .'
. .
". ".
.. .
.. ,
. . -:'.'
.', :,
.,' ,,,:....... .'.: :'i ,....'...;..: . '." .::. . .." .' .:
.. T.Ol AL OTH'ER'f.'. ~ ,.;........~.... ..',~~. ..-.., ~~. ;.:... "....,... ~:. ...."..
. .
, . ~. '.
, ,
......,i..T.,OT AL 1l\ip:gRVI QUS"'SURFA CEo .
'.. .'.
.~ .'
....u' ..,..........'.....:
":' ..' '4~"'v" ........:,.:....... i: .::..'.....
, ...... .......... .
. '. . .: .' .',:'. . .... .'.
. .... '..... .
I.; j':" ".
...:' .,
'1m6~~~< .' ........./ ......... ......
:p~:~'~;ed ..By' [)~~~~.~J~ ':'.' . Date ~,"'D
". " c~mpan~xlP,\\~ 1'~~~~ ~~[';')6-~') p;(\. Pho~e.# "\'\1- 'L~ l (;)
'.. ...., '.... .'J
.. .
. .
" .'. '.' ,; .: ~ .' . '
" ~ .
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5A
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DENYING 1.9 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EAVE TO BE LOCATED
3.1 FEET FROM A SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND A 232
SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 32.5
PERCENT AND A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3.9-
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE
YARDS OF 11.1-FEET FOR LAWRENCE BAIRD (Case
File #01-068)
5420 FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
SEPTEMBER 10, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from Mr. Lawrence
Baird for the proposed construction of a 6.6-foot by 14.67-foot entryway/vestibule
addition to an existing single family dwelling located at 5420 Fairlawn Shores
Trail.
A public hearing was convened on August 27,2001. After reviewing the
applicant's request with respect to variance hardship criteria, the Planning
Commission directed staff to draft Resolution 01-012PC denying the following
variances:
1. A 1.9 foot variance to permit a structure's eave to be located within
3.1 feet from a side property line rather than the minimum required 5
feet [City Ordinance 1101.503 Yard Encroachments (1)).
2. A 232 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface
coverage area of 2,981 square feet (32.5%) rather than the allowable
impervious surface coverage area of 2,749 square feet (30%) [City
Ordinance1104.306: Impervious Surface Coverage; (1)).
1:\0 1 files\Ol variances\01-068\varrpt2.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
t
The Planning Commission also directed the staff to prepare Resolution 01-
014PC approving the following variance, subject to specific conditions:
1. A 3.9-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.1-feet rather
than the required minimum sum of side yards of 15-feet [Ordinance
Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
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. The applicants must submit a revised certificate of survey identifying
the 5' by 8' vestibule.
2. The applicant must mitigate the effects of the 5' by 8' vestibule by
removing at least 40 square feet of the existing impervious surface.
The area to be removed must be identified on the certificate of survey,
and must be verified by inspection prior to a certificate of occupancy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Resolution 01-012PC is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction for
denial of the requested variances to side yard setback and to impervious
surface. Resolution 01-014PC is consistent with the Planning Commission's
direction to approve the requested variance to the sum of the side yard setbacks.
The staff therefore recommends adoption of the attached Resolutions.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt attached Resolution #01-012PC denying the two variances and
Resolution #01-014PC approving the variance to the required sum of side
yard setbacks subject to the listed conditions.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends Alternative #1. This action requires the following motions:
1. A motion and second adopting Resolution #01-012 PC denying the variance
to the side yard setback and impervious surface.
2. A motion and second adopting Resolution 01-014PC approving the variance
to the required sum of the side yard setbacks subject to the listed conditions.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-068\varrpt2.doc
Page 2
RESOLUTION 01-012PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 1.9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURES
EAVE TO ENCROACH TO WITIDN 3.1 FEET FROM A SIDE PROPERTY LINE
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 5 FEET; AND A 232 SQUARE FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 2,981
SQUARE FEET (32.5%) RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE AREA OF
2,749 (30%)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Lawrence A. Baird and Mary Jo Briedis, (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from
the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an entry addition to a single
family residence on property located in the R-I (Low Density Residential) District and the
SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
5420 Fairlawn Shores Trail, legally described as Lot 4, Fairlawn Shores, Scott
County, Minnesota. And that part of the plat of Fairlawn Shores, and Government
Lot 2, Section 25, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as
follows:
Beginning at the most northerly comer of Lot 4, of said plat; hence northwesterly
along the northwesterly extension of the northeasterly line of said Lot 4, to the
shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southwesterly along said shoreline to its intersection
with the northwesterly extension of the southwesterly line of said Lot 4; thence
southeasterly along said northwesterly extension to the most westerly comer of said
Lot 4; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said Lot 4, to the point of
beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#OI-068PC and held hearings thereon on August 27,2001.
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.
1:\01 files\OI variances\01-068\dnyresOI-0 12.doc I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
5. A legal building location that meets the required setback for the entry addition structure
exists on the subject lot. The applicant has control over the entry plan design and shape,
such that the hardship created has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the
property exists with a smaller building footprint.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required side yard setbacks, as reasonable use
of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the requested variance to the impervious surface is contrary to the intent of
the Zoning Ordinance to limit the amount of impervious surface for the purpose of water
quality control. The applicant can mitigate the effect of the addition by building a smaller
entry and by removing some of the existing impervious surface on the lot.
8. 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.
9. The contents of Planning Case 01-068PC 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 a future entry addition to a single family dwelling as shown in attached Exhibit A;
1. A 1.9-foot variance to permit a structures eave to encroach to within 3.1 feet from a side
property line rather than the required minimum 5-feet.
2. A 232 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface coverage area 2,981 square
feet (32.5%), rather than the allowable area of 2,749 square feet (30%).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 10, 2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\OI variances\OJ -068\dnyresOl-0 J 2.doc
2
RESOLUTION 01-014PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3.9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM
OF SIDE YARDS OF 11.1 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM
15 FEET SUM OF SIDE YARDS
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Lawrence A. Baird and Mary Jo Briedis, (applicant/owner) have applied for variances
from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an entry addition to
a single family residence on property located in the R-I (Low Density Residential)
District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
5420 Fairlawn Shores Trail, legally described as Lot 4, Fairlawn Shores, Scott
County, Minnesota. And that part of the plat of Fairlawn Shores, and
Government Lot 2, Section 25, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,
Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the most northerly comer of Lot 4, of said plat; hence
northwesterly along the northwesterly extension of the northeasterly line of
said Lot 4, to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southwesterly along said
shoreline to its intersection with the northwesterly extension of the
southwesterly line of said Lot 4; thence southeasterly along said northwesterly
extension to the most westerly comer of said Lot 4; thence northeasterly along
the northwesterly line of said Lot 4, to the point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-068PC and held hearings thereon on August 27, 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 not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets,
1:\01 files\OI variances\01-068\aprvresOl-014.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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 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. 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.
7. The contents of Planning Case OI-068PC 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 variance, with conditions, for a future entry addition to a single family dwelling
as shown in attached Exhibit A;
1. A 3.9-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 1 1. I-feet, rather than the required
minimum of 15 feet.
The following conditions shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a Building Permit
for the proposed addition:
1. The applicants must submit a revised certificate of survey identifying the 5' by 8'
vestibule.
2. The applicant must mitigate the effects of the 5' by 8' vestibule by removing at
least 40 square feet of the existing impervious surface. The area to be removed
must be identified on the certificate of survey, and must be verified by inspection
prior to a certificate of occupancy.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 10, 2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
]:\01 files\OI variances\01-068\aprvresO 1-014.doc
2