HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 22, 2008
'"
...
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22,2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
A. #01-081 Cutaia Variance Resolution 01-019PC
5. Public Hearings:
A. #01-045 Consider an amendment to Section 1102.1100 of the Zoning Ordinance creating
a new downtown zoning district and establishing design review criteria and standards.
B. #01-080 David and Rachel Norling are requesting variances for setback to the Ordinary
High Water Mark; front yard; side yards; eave encroachment; building wall to side yard
and impervious surface to construct an addition on the property located at 15239
Fairbanks Trail.
C. #01-084 John and Jennifer Barncard are requesting approval of a site plan to allow a
detached accessory structure on a nonconforming lot of record separated by a private
road from a lot with the principal structure for the property at 16558 Inguadona Beach
Circle.
D. #01-082 Jim Koestering Homes is requesting variances to a front setback from a road
easement and to a setback from a rear property line for the construction of a single
family dwelling for the property at 14934 Pixie Point Circle.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
A. #01-083 Jim Koestering Homes is requesting a vacation to a portion of the drainage and
utility easement located on the north side of Lot 4, Block 1, Eastwood 2nd Addition
(14934 Pixie Point Circle) for the construction of a single family dwelling.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:IO I fileslO I plancommlO I pc.gend.IAG I02201.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
#
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 8,2001
1. Call to Order:
Vice Chair Stamson called the October 8, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke and Stamson,
Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator
Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V onhof
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the September 24, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were
approved as presented.
4. Consent:
A. #01-017 Crouse Variance Resolution 01-01IPC.
B. #01-061 Tofanelli Variance Resolution 0l-017PC
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-
011 PC .
V ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BYATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-
017PC.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the hearings.
5. Public Hearings:
A. #01-073 Hillcrest Homes, Inc., is requesting an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit for the project known as Wild Oaks located south of County
Road 42, west of Greenway Avenue and north and east of Conroy Street. The
request is to allow the addition of porches and decks to the approved townhome
plans.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MNIO080 I.doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 200/
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report on file in the office of
the City Planning Department.
The developer has submitted a request for an amendment to the approved CUP plan.
This amendment involves a change in the size of the townhouse units, and the addition of
porches and decks to the townhouse units. The proposed plans will increase the size of
units 1,3-6, and 8 by 376 square feet on the main floor and 40 square feet on the second
level. Units 2 and 7 will increase in size by 296 square feet on the first level and 40
square feet on the second level. All ofthese units will also have an optional 12' by 12'
porch and 10' by 12' deck. Units 9-21 will not increase in area, but will include an
option for a 120 square foot porch and a 10' by 13' deck addition.
The staff felt the proposed amendment would not alter the character of the approved CUP
and recommended approval ofthe amendment, subject to the following conditions:
1. The townhouses must meet the setbacks approved as part of the original CUP. This
includes the required yards and the 30' setback from the 100-year flood elevation of
the wetlands.
2. The porch elevation must be at least 3' above the 100-year flood elevation of the
adjacent pond or wetland.
3. The developer must submit an approved modified Watershed District permit to the
City prior to the issuance of any building permits for these units.
Comments from the public:
Chris Deanovic, representing Hillcrest Homes stated this should have been done with the
original proposal.
Comments from the Commissioners:
All the Commissioners agreed with staff's recommendation.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO WILD OAKS CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. #01-81 Alfred and Thelma Cutaia are requesting a variance to permit a
structure to be setback less than the minimum required 75 feet from the Ordinary
High Water Mark for the property at 15366 Red Oaks Road.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report on file in the office
of the City Planning Department.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\MNI00801 .doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from property owners Alfred &
Thelma Cutaia for the construction of a porch and room addition in the place of an
existing deck attached to an existing single family dwelling on the property located at
15366 Red Oaks Road. The principal structure is a legal nonconforming dwelling
because it was built before the current setback requirements were established. The
applicant has requested the following variance:
A 10-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 65-feet to the Ordinary High Water
Mark (OHWM), rather than the minimum required 75-foot setback.
The City Engineering Department submitted comments for this report stating in essence,
approval of the requested variances is contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Lake
Management Plan, which is to "minimize the transport of nutrients, sediment and runoff
from city streets and lands which impact the Prior Lake watershed, and promotes lake
creep, the encroachment of buildings and impervious areas towards the lakeshore".
The Department of Natural Resources did not comment response on this request.
Staff felt that aU nine hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the requested
variance to the OHWM setback for construction of a roofed porch and room additions.
The staff recommended denial of the requested variance.
Comments from the public:
Alfred Cutaia distributed an outline and reviewed his proposal. Mr. Cutaia disagreed
with staffs report pointing out several Red Oak Road residents have closer setbacks to
the lake. Cutaia summarized by stating the addition would provide quality space and
increase the value of his property without impairing his neighbors. He felt there were no
other alternatives.
Marv Mirsch, 15403 Red Oaks Road, supported the applicants' request.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Clarification on applicant's proposal- Horsman responded the survey's dimensions
did not including the overhangs.
. Questioned the front setback averaging. Horsman explained the ordinance.
. The original building variance was not for the lakeside. Horsman said it was for the
front garage.
. Sees no problem adding the expansion as proposed as long as it does not exceed the
existing roof line.
Atwood:
. Questioned the intensification to a nonconforming lot. Horsman explained the
process.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN 1 0080 1.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8,2001
· Kansier also explained the setbacks and impact.
· Approve the variance and felt the roof overhang would be a problem.
Lemke:
· Agreed with Commissioners. The homes in the neighborhood are much closer to the
lake.
· It is a technicality that is preventing the applicant from adding on.
· Agreed to process with the overhang.
Stamson:
· Clarified the home was built in 1982.
· Questioned the original setback variance to the lake. Rye said the Shoreland
Ordinance was not in affect at the time the home was built.
· The intensification does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. It is
not unreasonable.
· Approve the expansion but it has to remain within the building footprint.
Criego:
· Under normal circumstances would not be in favor of approving this variance,
however the surrounding neighborhood is well within the 75 foot setback. This is a
special condition.
· Do not exceed the expansion.
Stamson:
· The Commission generally holds tight on setbacks.
· Agreed with approving.
Cutaia pointed out he was trying to stay within the deck and explained the fireplace
location.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, DIRECTING STAFF TO DRAFT
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE OHWM.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier explained the appeal process.
6. Old Business:
A. #01-076 Consider an amendment to Section 1101.1104(1) of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to the hours of operation for motor vehicle service and repair.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report on file in the office of
the City Planning Department.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN 1 0080 I.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8,2001
On September 24, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would limit the hours of operation for car
washes, which are included within the category of motor vehicle service and repair. The
Planning Commission was concerned whether the proposed amendment would
adequately control the noise and still allow the car washes to operate. The
Commissioners tabled action on this amendment and directed staff to contact the
operators of the local car wash for suggestions.
The Holiday Station representative stated they can close the door but it restricts the
number of cars going through the carwash. However, this issue was raised by the City
Council when the CUP for the proposed Holiday Station at Pike Lake Trail and CSAH 42
was considered. The Council did limit the hours as long as the doors remain shut.
The staff suggested combining the limitation on the hours of operation, with the
provisions for keeping the doors closed. This is consistent with the conditions imposed
on the CUP for the proposed Holiday Station. The hours suggested are 6:00 a.m. to
11 :30 p.m., which is consistent with the existing limitation in the C-l district. The
proposed language also provides some flexibility by allowing the use to operate outside
the hours of operation if the doors remain closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Opposed this issue at the last discussion because of the door design. The design of
the two existing stations does not allow them to have the doors shut. Didn't feel it
solved the noise problem much beyond limiting the hours to 11 :30 p.m.
· Went out and observed the stations. Holiday - during the day was not as bad as I
thought it would be. At night when it was quiet, it was very loud to the south with the
doors open. Observed cars drying with the doors open and closed. It is louder with
the back doors open than the dryer side. The noise has a tunnel effect.
· The amount Qf noise was drastically reduced with the doors closed.
· A carwash@ 'S~vage was not loud with the doors open. It depends on the equipment.
· Amoco's dryers were not as loud.
· Most of the dryers are not objectionable.
· The real problem is Holiday's equipment. The dryer on their machine is extremely
loud.
· Should not be a blanket ordinance to address this matter.
· Rye explained noise duration issues.
Criego:
· A second concern is the late evening hours. It still represents a problem for the
average person. Same thing applies to the 6:00 a.m. hours. It is too early.
· If the carwash can operate with the doors closed, it should not hinder the station.
· Change the ordinance from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday, 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. on Saturday and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday.
L:\Ol files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\MNI00801.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2001
Atwood:
. Agreed with Criego, but felt 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. was too conservative. For the
sake of conforming and not having different times that are hard to keep straight will
agree. It is really only reducing an hour and half in the evening. In this case, 10:30
p.m. is okay.
. Mowing the lawn and car dryers are two different things.
Lemke:
. The 6:00 a.m. to 11 :30 p.m. times are fine. There have been no complaints.
. It will be hard to enforce. It is confusing to keep track of carwash times. Would like
to see something more uniform.
. Supported staffs original proposal.
Criego:
. Would accept the ordinance if the times were from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1102.1104(1) AND
1102.1203(3) OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF
WITH THE EXCEPTION THE HOURS FOR HAVING OPEN DOORS CHANGE TO
6:00 AM TO 10:00 PM.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on November 5,2001.
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The first meeting in November is on Veteran's Day, and will be scheduled for Tuesday,
November 13. Ifthere are any problems let staffknow.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\O I files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN I 0080 I.doc
6
'. . .
. '.:....:..';.~,~-','.',\-.";.::.,,.~..,,'~_..... _..t...r,,,.....;._... ":___'., ,- ..... .~.: ._' ..'
.":..~....,;,-
'-. '\ :,~",-:'<-;-'~-;' :'-"'.
~..''''-,~.:.:
......'....:;.".,'~,:...."" ".....:.. .","~"~"';':""~p.:._..;'..;,........,.....~..h"'~,:'~ ,'''''~h'' ,'~'~~-_:.',.'.'....-~,..
: ..
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
SA
APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE
THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY
A NEW DOWNTOWN ZONING
CONSIDER
AMENDING
CREATING
DISTRICT
N/A
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
OCTOBER 22, 2001
In June of 2000, the City received a report from Hoisington-
Koegler Group called the Downtown Redevelopment Guide.
This report had been commissioned by the Economic
Development Authority to serve as a guide to the redevelopment
of the Downtown area. While no official action was taken on the
report, it nevertheless contained a number of ideas and concepts
for Downtown development and redevelopment.
Subsequent to that, the City Council determined that it was
necessary to incorporate some of the design criteria and
standards from the consultants report into the zoning ordinance
to provide. clear guidance to those persons developing or
redeveloping property Downtown. The Council then directed
staff to draft an ordinance that met this objective. The City
retained URS Consultants to assist in the creation of a new
zoning district for the Downtown area as well as a streetscape
plan for Main Avenue.
The public hearing draft of the new Downtown zoning district
attached to this report was developed by staff based on the
consultants recommendations, a joint City Council/Planning
Commission workshop and staffs experience.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
PLANNING REPORT
PC AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION:
PLANNING REPORT
PC
There are several features of the draft ordinance that are
different from the current ordinance. The section on permitted
uses and uses permitted with conditions has been modified to be
more limiting on the types of land uses allowed in the Downtown
area. Specific kinds of retail uses, for example, are permitted
rather than allowing all retail uses. The size of retail uses is also
limited to fit in with the scale of the Downtown area. Larger
retail uses may be allowed by conditional use permit. Certain
mixed uses are encouraged, including multiple family dwellings,
retail, offices, services, studios and coffee shops or restaurants.
/Ir '.
The dimensional standards such as lot sizes and setbacks remain
basically the same. The primary difference is the establishment
of a build-to line along Main Avenue. This requires that at least
70% of the width of a building fac;ade must be within 5 feet of
the street right-of-way.
The most significant difference from the current ordinance is the
addition of Design Standards in the Downtown area. These
design standards apply to:
. All new construction.
· Any renovation or other exterior changes to eXIstmg
nonresidential or multiple family dwellings, including
repainting.
· Any development or expansion of parking areas.
· Any other exterior alteration requiring a building permit.
The standards apply only to the site or building element being
altered. For example, a fac;ade renovation would not require
changes in a related parking lot.
The Design Standards are comprehensive in scope. They cover
architectural and site design elements such as building
orientation, fac;ade treatments, entrances, windows and doors,
awnings, mechanical equipment screening, colors, signs, building
materials, lighting and parking lots. These standards are
consistent with recommendations from the Downtown
Redevelopment Guide and the Streetscape Design elements
developed by URS Consultants.
In considering whether to approve an amendment to the zoning
ordinance, the Planning Commission and City Council are
required to find that:
· There is a public need for the amendment, or:
PLANNING REPORT
PC
. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the
purposes of the ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or
other adopted plans or policies ofthe City, or:
. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State
and/or federal requirements.
This proposed amendment is directly related to, and supportive
of, at least three major policies in the Comprehensive Plan. These
policies are:
. Encourage and provide for the revitalization of the City
through the development or redevelopment of existing
and new commercial and industrial areas.
. Establish a theme for positive identification for
redevelopment of existing commercial areas in focal
locations including.. .Downtown.
. Encourage, regulate and promote non-polluting and
aesthetically pleasing commercial and industrial
development.
A related issue to the adoption of a new zoning district is the
location of the district boundaries. The attached map shows the
existing boundaries of the Downtown district. In the past, the
Planning Commission and City Council have had discussions
about the proper location and application of the Downtown
zoning district. There has been discussion about enlarging the
district, making it smaller or otherwise adjusting the boundaries
to include certain land use and exclude others. In particular, there
has been discussion about the automobile-related uses along
Highway 13 and whether they should be excluded from the
Downtown zoning district.
The auto repair businesses located across from the entrance to
Lakefront Park are currently zoned C-4, which is the General
Business District. In many zoning ordinances, highway and auto-
oriented businesses fronting on highways have a classification
typically called highway business. The district reflects the
particular needs and orientation of the businesses that depend to a
large degree on highway access and visibility. In this case, the
current Downtown zoning district includes two auto-oriented
businesses. One is the Amoco Station and the other is a used car
lot and auto repair facility. Staff is of the opinion these uses as
they presently exist need not be included in the proposed
Downtown District. Both uses have substantial investments in
place and the likelihood of them terminating in the foreseeable
future is small. Including them in the Downtown District will
render them non-conforming. This can have negative
consequences for the businesses, including potential difficulties
in re- financing.
ALTERNATIVES: There are four alternatives available to the Planning Commission
1. Recommend approval of the ordinance and map as
recommended by staff.
2. Recommend approval of the ordinance and map as
modified by the Commission.
3. Recommend denial of the ordinance and map.
4. Defer action to a date certain for specific reasons.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1.
PLANNING REPORT
PC
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT - 10/22/01
1102.1100:
"C- 3" Specialty Business Use District. The purpose of the "C- 3" Specialty
Business Use District is intended to provide for a variety of commercial
and residential uses within the framework of a traditional downtown area.
The district also contemplates and provides for pedestrian circulation,
urban and civic design and the creative reuse of existing buildings.
The C-3 Specialty Business District is designed to express the City's
commitment to maintain and enhance the vitality of the Downtown area by
establishing minimum criteria for the development and redevelopment of
commercial, residential and public buildings while promoting amenities
intended to attract business, residents and visitors. Specific objectives
include:
· To improve the visual quality of Downtown.
· To reinforce the physical character of Downtown by focusing on
the design context.
· To expand the employment base and residential population of
Downtown.
· To preserve and reuse older buildings as appropriate while
establishing standards for the construction of new ones.
· To reinforce and enhance a compact development pattern.
· To accommodate and promote commercial, residential,
educational, cultural and governmental uses within the Downtown.
· To establish clear development and redevelopment guidelines in
order to provide effective responses to typical development issues.
1102.1101
Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the "C-3" Specialty
Business Use District if the use complies with the Commercial
Restrictions and Performance Standards of subsection 1102.1300.
16200 E1%17~kek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (95zY~~7-4245 1
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
11 02.11 02
10/17/01
(1) MedicallDental Offices
(2) Retail - The following types of retail use are considered
appropriate for the Downtown area. Retail stores shall not exceed
5,000 square feet in floor area, except as a conditional use.
. Antique stores
. Bakeries, delicatessens, bagel shops, ice cream shops and
other specialty food stores, not including drive-in or
drive-through facilities.
. Bicycle sales and repair
. Bookstores
. Camera stores
. Clothing or shoe stores
. Drugstores
. Florists
. Jewelry stores
. News stands
. Hardware stores
. Liquor stores
. Tobacco stores
. Toy stores
. Video sales and rental
. Cafe or coffee shop
. Printing Process/Supplies
(3) Showrooms for merchandise such as home furnishing,
appliances, floor coverings and similar large items, not including
motor vehicles, with a maximum floor area of 10,000 square feet.
(4) Offices
(5) Services
(6) Libraries
(7) Police and Fire Stations
(8) Business Services
(9) HotellMotel
(10) Schools and studios for arts, crafts, photography, music, dance,
exercise or similar courses of study
(11) Museums/art galleries
(12) Clubs and Lodges With and Without Liquor Licenses.
(13) Private Entertainment (Indoor).
Uses Permitted With Conditions. A structure or land in a "C-3" Specialty
Business Use District may be used for one or more ofthe following uses if
URS
2
10/17/01
its use complies with conditions stated in subsection 11 02.1300 and those
specified for the use in this subsection.
(1) Adult Day Care. Conditions:
a. A minimum of 150 square feet of outdoor seating or exercise area
shall be provided for each person under care.
b. The facility shall not be located fronting Main Avenue, Dakota
Street or c.R. 21.
(2) Dry Cleaning, Laundering with route pick-up and delivery. Conditions:
a. The use shall not exceed 5,000 square feet in area.
b. Outside storage and parking of trucks involved in the operation of
the business is limited to trucks and vans with a manufacturer's rated cargo
capacity of 1 ton or less.
c. Outside vehicle storage shall be screened from any "R" Use District
by a bufferyard, as determined by subsection 1107.2003.
(3) Group Day Care/Nursery School. Conditions:
a. A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil must be
provided and such space shall be screened with a bufferyard Type C
as defmed in subsection 1107.2005.
b. An off-street pedestrian loading area shall be provided in order to
maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety.
c; Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any
roadway designated to the Comprehensive Plan as a principal
arterial. ,
d. The facility shall not be located fronting Main Avenue, Dakota
Street or c.R. 21.
(4) Park/Open Space. Conditions:
a. The principal structure shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from a
lot in an "R" Use District.
URS
3
10/17/01
b. Areas designated for group activities shall be located a minimum of
25 feet from a lot in an "R" Use District.
c. The entire site other than that taken up by structures, required buffer
yards, or other landscaped areas shall be surfaced with a material to
control dust and drainage.
(5) Public Service Structures. Conditions:
a. All exterior building faces shall comply with subsection 1107.2200.
b. All structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any
abutting property located in an "R" Use District.
c. All service drives shall be paved.
(6) Multiple Family Dwellings. Conditions:
a. Multiple family dwellings with their primary frontage on Main
A venue or Dakota Street must be in combination with another
permitted use, as specified in Section 1102.1103. Residential units
shall not be located on the ground level or street level of the
development. This is in keeping with the objective of promoting
commercial pedestrian traffic on the primary commercial streets.
b. Safe and adequate pedestrian access to open space, plazas and
pedestrian ways shall be provided.
(7) Elderly Housing. Conditions:
a. The building design and placement provide a residential
environment with limited exposure to noise and traffic.
b. Safe and adequate pedestrian access to open space, plazas and
pedestrian ways shall be provided.
c. Site access shall be located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
d. The site shall contain a minimum of 200 square feet of usable open
space per dwelling unit, and no more than half of the usable open
space shall be located in the front yard. Alternatively, public parks
or plazas within 300 feet of the site may be used to meet this
requirement.
URS
4
10/17/01
e. A minimum of 25% of the usable open space provided on the site
shall be developed as outdoor recreation or garden areas.
f. A minimum of 900 square feet of lot area is provided for each
dwelling unit.
g. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be at least equal to
the average heights of the buildings except where dwellings shall
common walls.
h. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the
curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots.
1. Covenants running with the land in a form approved by the City
Attorney that restricts the use of the property for occupancy by the
elderly shall be recorded against the property.
J. The development shall provide a lounge or other inside community
rooms amounting to a minimum of 15 square feet for each unit.
(8) Community Centers. Conditions:
a. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to
maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety.
b. Outdoor areas intended for group activities shall be located at least
25 feet from any lot in an "R" Use District and shall be buffered
from such residential lot with a bufferyard Type C as defined in
subsection 1107.2005.
(9) Bed and Breakfast Establishments. Conditions:
a. The required parking shall be screened with a bufferyard.
b. The total number of guests shall be limited to 6.
c. Not more than 50% of the gross floor area of the residence shall be
used for the guest room operation.
d. Only exterior alterations, which do not alter the exterior appearance
from its single-family character, will be allowed.
e. Accommodations may be provided to a guest for a period not
exceeding 14 days.
URS
5
f. Food service shall be limited to breakfast and afternoon tea.
g. Rented rooms shall not contain cooking facilities.
h. Rooms used for sleeping shall be part of the primary residential
structure and shall not have been constructed specifically for rental
purposes.
1. Parking shall not be located within the front yard. No more than
50% of the rear yard may be paved or used for parking.
(10) Banks. Conditions:
a. The use shall not include any drive-through or drive-up windows or
facilities.
(11) Wholesale sales, in combination with retail or office use. Conditions:
a. The use shall be limited to 50% of the floor area of the structure.
b. Total floor area of the structure shall not exceed 10,000 square feet.
(12) Restaurants With and Without Liquor Licenses. Conditions
a. Access shall be located so as to avoid generating significant
traffic on local residential streets.
b. Drive-through, drive-in and outdoor pick-up facilities are not
permitted.
11 02.11 03 Uses in Combination. In keeping with the purpose of the "C-3" Specialty
Business Use District, combinations ofthe following uses on a single parcel and/or within a
single building are encouraged.
· Multiple family dwellings
. Retail
. Offices
· Services
· Studios
· Coffee shops or restaurants
10/17/01
URS
6
1102.1104 Accessory Uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in a
"C-3" Specialty Business Use District:
(1) Parking Lots, in compliance with the Design Standards of Section
1102.1106(5).
(2) Incidental repair or processing which is necessary to conduct a permitted
principal use, provided that it shall not exceed 25% ofthe gross floor area.
(3) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages by a restaurant IS
permitted as an accessory use to a restaurant if:
a. The use is separated from any adjacent residential use by a building
wall or fence. This provision will not apply if the residential use is
located in an upper story above a restaurant.
b. No speakers or other electronic devices, which emit sound are
permitted outside of the principal structure if the use is located
within 500 feet of a residential district.
c. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. if located
within 500 feet of a residential district.
d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area
does not exceed 500 square feet or 10% of the gross floor area of the
restaurant, whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same
rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating area in
excess of 500 square feet or 10% of the gross building area,
whichever is less.
(4) Outdoor seating and service of food and alcoholic beverages is permitted
as an accessory use if:
a. All the requirements of subsection 3a-d listed above are met.
b. Access to and from the outdoor area shall be through the indoor
seating area. There shall be no direct access to the outdoor seating
area from the parking lot or street.
c. Food service to the outdoor area shall be provided during all hours of
operation.
d. No bar shall be located in the outdoor area, except a service bar for
the exclusive use of the employees.
10/17/01
URS
7
(5) Awnings and signs extending over the public right-of-way may be
permitted subject to approval of a "Private Use of Public Property"
agreement in a form authorized by the City Attorney, and the provisions of
subsection 11 07.801.
(6) Outdoor Sales is permitted as an accessory use with the following
conditions:
. The items displayed must be related to the principal use.
. The area allowed for outdoor sales is limited to 30% of the gross floor
area of the principal use.
. The area must be landscaped and fenced or screened with a Bufferyard
Type D from view of neighboring residential uses or abutting any "R"
district.
. A decorative fence or wall a minimum of 3 feet in height shall be
located between the sales area and any public street or pedestrian way.
. All lighting must be hooded and so directed that the light source shall
not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring
residential properties and compliant with subsection 1107.1800.
. Areas must be hardsurfaced with asphalt, concrete, decorative concrete
interlocking pavers, or other equivalent material approved by the City.
1102.1106 Dimensional Standards
These are the lot requirements for lots in the C-3 District.
. Minimum lot width - 30 feet
. Front yard - minimum setback - 0, maximum setback - 20 feet, measured
from the right-of-way
. Side yard - no minimum setback - maximum setback - 10 feet, unless parking
is located within the side yard
. Rear yard - minimum 10 feet
. Maximum floor area ratio - 3.0
. Minimum floor area ratio- 0.5
. Build-to line. Along Main Avenue, a build-to line is established a distance of
5 feet from the inner edge of the street right-of-way (in most cases, this is the
inner edge of the sidewalk). At least 70 percent of the building fayade that
fronts Main Avenue must be built out to this line.
. Maximum height - 35 feet or three stories, whichever is greater. Multiple-use
structures with residential uses on the upper floors may be a maximum of 45
feet.
1102.1107 Design Standards in the "C-3" Specialty Business District
10/17/01
URS
8
10/17/01
(1) Purpose of standards. The purpose of this section is to provide guidance
and direction in the development and redevelopment of the Downtown
business district in a manner that reinforces the role of Downtown as the
community focus of government, culture and social interaction.
(2) Applicability. The design standards and the design review process shall
apply to the following activities:
a. All new construction.
b. Any renovation, expansion or other exterior changes to eXIstmg
nonresidential and/or multifamily buildings, including repainting.
c. Any development or expansion of parking areas.
d. Any other exterior alteration that requires a building permit.
The standards shall apply only to the building or site elements being
developed or altered. That is, changes to a building shall comply with
those standards that pertain to buildings, while changes to a parking area
shall comply with standards for parking areas, but not for buildings. The
Planning Director will make the initial determination as to which
standards are applicable.
There are many ways to achieve the same design objective. The City may
permit alternative approaches that, in its determination, meet the
objective(s) of the design standard(s) equally well.
(3) Application for Design Review. An application for Design Review shall
be on a form provided by the City, and shall include the following
information, in addition to any information required for site plan review
under Section 1108.903.
a. Elevations. Complete exterior elevations of all proposed buildings and
existing buildings if they are joined to new development. Elevations
should be drawn at an appropriate scale (usually ~"= 1') and should
show:
. All signs to be mounted on the building(s) or erected on the site;
. Designations of materials and colors to be used on all exterior
facades
b. Materials sample. Material samples shall be presented, including color
and material type for walls and roof.
c. Color samples. Samples of all principal and secondary colors to be
used.
URS
9
d. Context. Photographs of surrounding buildings on the same block or
street, to address issues of context.
(4) Administration and Review Procedures. The following design standards
shall supplement the standards and process outlined in Section
1108.900, Site Plan Review. After receipt of a complete application, the
Planning Department will refer the application to City Departments and
to other parties having jurisdiction. The Planning Department will then
review the proposed development for compliance with the guidelines in
this Section and other applicable ordinances. Within 60 days of receipt
of a complete application, the Planning Staff will take action to approve
or deny the application. If a site plan review is needed, the two
processes will be conducted concurrently.
(5) Design Standards
The following design standards shall supplement the standards and process
outlined in Section 1108.900, Site Plan Review.
a. Compatibility with lake theme. Site elements, including landscaping,
lighting, signage, etc. should be compatible with the lake theme for public
improvements within the downtown, as expressed in the Design Theme
Standards and Criteria.
b. Renovation of Existing Buildings. Inappropriate fa9ade additions should
be removed to the extent feasible during building renovation. These may
include, but are not limited to, wood or plastic shake mansard roofs, plastic or
oddly shaped awnings, window opening infills or surrounds designed to reduce
the size of window openings, modem siding materials inconsistent with the
original fa9ade, and light fixtures inconsistent with the building's original style
or the downtown lake theme.
. Masonry buildings should be cleaned as necessary to lighten the
overall color.
· New masonry work should match the color and materials or the
original fa9ade.
· Wherever practical, fa9ade renovations should not destroy or cover
original details on a building. Brick and stone facades should not be
covered with artificial siding or panels.
10/17/01
URS
10
10/17/01
· Original window and door openings should be maintained wherever
practical. New window and door openings should maintain a similar
horizontal and vertical relationship as the original.
c. General in fill principles. Infill buildings should reflect the original design
of surrounding storefront buildings in scale and character. This can be
achieved by maintaining similar setbacks, building height and proportions,
cornice lines, horizontal lines of windows and openings, and compatible
building materials and colors. Where such original buildings are missing or
have been extensively altered, the other design standards in this section shall'
be applied.
d. Building fa~ade width and articulation. Buildings should be oriented with
the primary axis perpendicular to the primary fronting street. A building width
of 40 feet or less is encouraged. Buildings of more than 40 feet in width shall
be divided into smaller increments (between 20 and 40 feet) through
articulation of the fac;ade. This can be achieved through combinations of the
following techniques, and others that may achieve the same purpose.
· Fac;ade modulation - stepping back or extending forward a portion of
the fac;ade
· Vertical di visions using different textures or materials (although
materials should be drawn from a common palette)
· Division into storefronts, with separate display windows and entrances
· Variation in roof lines by alternating dormers, stepped roofs, gables, or
other roof elements to reinforce the modulation or articulation interval
· Arcades, awnings, window bays, arched windows and balconies at
intervals equal to the articulation interval
e. Building fa~ade articulation - horizontal
· Most traditional storefront commercial buildings have a strong pattern
of base, middle and top, created by variations in detailing, color and
materials. New buildings should respond to this pattern.
· New buildings should have articulated tops. This articulation might
consist of pitched roofs, dormers, gable ends or cornice detailing.
· The ground level of any multi-story structure should be visually
distinct from the upper stories. This can be achieved through the use of
an intermediate cornice line, a sign band, larger window openings,
projections, awnings and canopies, changes in materials or detailing,
or similar techniques.
· While diversity is encouraged, materials, colors and textures on all
levels of a building's facade should be drawn from a common palette,
and should be visually compatible with each other.
URS
11
10/17/01
f. Two-story expression. One-story buildings should be designed to convey
an impression of greater height through the use of pitched roofs with dormers
or gables facing the street, or the use of an intermediate cornice line to separate
the ground floor and the upper level.
g. Entrances. The main entrance should always face the primary street, with
secondary entrances to the side or rear, and should be placed at sidewalk grade.
Entrances should be emphasized and made more obvious through the use of the
following techniques or similar ones:
. Canopy, portico, overhang, arcade or arch above the entrance
. Recesses or projections in the building facade surrounding the entrance
. Peaked roof or raised parapet over the door
. Display windows surrounding the entrance
. Architectural detailing such as tile work or ornamental moldings
. Permanent planters or window boxes for landscaping
h. Windows and doors. Windows and doors should comprise at least 40
percent of the area of any ground floor fayade facing a public street (defined as
extending from ground level to 12 feet in height). Windows should have a
generally vertical orientation.
Windows and doors should comprise at least 10 percent of the ground level
side or rear fayade facing a public right of way, parking area or open space.
Qualifying windows or doors must be transparent, allowing views into and
out of the interior, or may include display windows set into the wall.
Reflective glass is not permitted.
i. Awnings. When awnings are used, they should extend only across individual
storefronts, not across more than one storefront or building. Awnings should be
a simple shed form; rounded awnings are prohibited. Canvas or other fabric
awnings are most desirable; metal, wood shake and plastic should not be used.
Internally-illuminated awnings are prohibited.
j. Side and rear facades. Side and rear facades that contain customer entrances
or that adjoin off-street parking areas should be treated as extensions of the
storefront or front fayade. Building materials should be of similar quality as
those on front facades, although detailing may be simpler. Entrances should be
clearly delineated using the techniques mentioned above.
k. Mechanical equipment screening
Utility service structures such as utility meters, transformers, above ground
tanks, refuse handling, loading docks, maintenance structures and other
ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be entirely screened from off-
URS
12
site views by a decorative fence, wall or screen of plant material at least 6 feet
in height. Fences and walls shall be architecturally compatible with the
primary structure. Loading docks or doors should always be located on a side
or rear elevation.
1. Colors. Building colors should consist predominantly of subtle, neutral or
muted colors, with low reflectance. Recommended colors include browns,
grays, tans, beiges, and dark or muted greens, blues and reds. No more than
two principal colors may be used on a fayade. Accent colors not to exceed 10%
ofthe area of the building fayade shall be from the same color palette as the
principal colors. This standard does not apply to murals or other approved
public art.
m. Signs
Within the "C-3" District, maximum sign area per property shall not exceed 1 square foot
of sign area per linear foot of street fayade at the front yard. One sign is allowed for each
usable public entry to a building. Wall signs and projecting signs are permitted. Free-
standing signs are permitted only in an existing front yard.
Projecting signs: Projecting signs shall not exceed 8 square feet in area and may project
no more than 4 feet from the building face. Signs must maintain a minimum clearance of
9 feet above a sidewalk and 15 feet above driveways or alleys. No projecting sign shall be
located within 25 feet of another projecting sign.
Sign design guidelines
Signs should be architecturally compatible with the style, composition, materials, colors
and details ofthe building, and with other signs on nearby buildings.
Signs should be positioned so they are an integral design feature of the building, and to
complement and enhance the building's architectural features. Signs should not obscure
or destroy architectural details such as stone arches, glass transom panels, or decorative
brickwork
Sign Colors. Sign colors shall be compatible with the building fayade to which the sign
is attached. No more than three colors should be used per sign, unless part of an
illustration. A combination of soft/neutral shades and dark/rich shades within the palette
ofthe building colors shall be used.
Materials. Sign materials shall be compatible with the original construction materials
and architectural style of the building facade on which they are to be displayed. Natural
materials such as wood, stone and metal are preferred but other materials that are equally
durable and replicate the appearance of natural materials are acceptable.
10/17/01
URS
13
Illumination. External illumination of signs is permitted by incandescent, metal halide
or fluorescent light that emits a continuous white light. Light shall not shine directly onto
the ground or adjacent buildings. Neon signs are permitted in windows. Internally lit box
signs and awnings are not permitted, with the exception of theater marquees.
n.Parking
Parking location. If off-street parking is provided within the "C-3" District, it shall be
located to the side or rear of the principal building, not between the building and the
street. Parking may not occupy a comer location.
Parking lot screening. Parking lots adjoining the sidewalk or a walkway shall be
separated from it by a landscaped yard at least 4 feet wide, containing a decorative fence
or wall between 2 Y2 and 3 feet in height. One canopy tree shall be provided for each 25
linear feet of parking lot frontage on a public street or accessway.
Parking lot landscaping. The comers of parking lots and all other areas not used for
parking or vehicular circulation shall be landscaped with turf grass, native grasses or other
perennial flowering plants, vines, shrubs and trees. Such spaces may include architectural
features such as benches, kiosks or bicycle parking.
The interior of parking lots containing 20 or more spaces shall contain landscaped areas
equal to at least 15% of the total parking lot area, including a minimum of one deciduous
shade tree per 10 parking spaces.
10/17/01
URS
14
m
~ ~ m
~m]!i]!'~~
$ ~ 1: .- 1: III
0:: ~$~ III III
c:: ~ 'iii 0:: .- 8 ~ l/l Y.! -
o III Q) ~ $ .- ~ Cl5 .m
:m,..,o::. 0::8~'-C::..l<:EIIl
"" ...... E III III III .- ....
_.:::>. c::>. ::IlIlm~ ~
m"O:t::!::I~:t::! .i::'Ill::lCl. ~ '-
....~~-D~€~bIllIllE ~.~
~(/)~IE~.8ji\le~e -g 5
.g e .;2 -6 .~ ~ 'm Q) ::I &l
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~
u;>......N('t)"f......NC'?"'tI.Q......~9~
<{ 0:: r:r.c:r.r:i:. 0:: 00<.) <.) <.)...!.. C/) 0:: 5
IDDM"..I~I..rw.....I=IIIII...DM......~~
:~:r ..~~ ":;:W ::( :~~{: ii~!~i~ ~i>~
':;:;:; ..... ;:;::. :::;:: ;:::;:; ::;:::; :;:::::
e>Q.
ceo
.E~
~
~
CO
---I
l.-
e
--
I.-
n.
a
~
~
G
~
z*oo
~
~
"'0
Co
~~
~o
CON
Q.Q)
~5
O)J
.~~
C..,
Cco
~R
Q..:J
C-
eo
~a1
. C)-o
ICe:
.- ~
Co
~ca
I~~
'm-o
.-JC:
.Q ~
O:E
08
,~&
u
~ (ij-
~ 1ll 'E 1Il .ID
.- :ca ~ -2l ~ J
~ -a'm-a ~ Ul
C~'iiiC::'- ~l(lY.l -
o lil Gl >. ~ .- i! as .1Il
:1J5c::c::~ct~~'1J5 c~~
~i.i~!~!i~~ill~ ~i
:J:;1CI c~ Ul- ..\!l~
~ ~~. 5 lU ~ ~ E c
.~~~ ~tilj~ai2!'~_i ..B.B
<la:..;J-.J:2~z86t~wl:J~~ Q~
<{~ tf~ ~~ 0 ~ 3 6 ~:;: (/) ~ ~
1 0 Om:::;:: ~I;" []": I);:; .11.111:::' 0 [j<.~~
~ ~ - ~~~ y~ ~ '~.'. .
":;:;:;.. ::::: :::::: ..:t. ::::;; ::::::-
~
z.~
~
^^<>""~"",,, -
~
-+JO
Co
~~
~o
CUN
Q..Q)
~3
0)-;)
.~al
cm
cuR
Q.:J
~
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A - CONSENT AGENDA
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
VARIANCE TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE SETBACK
LESS THAN 75 FEET FROM THE OHWM
Case file #01-081 PC
ALFRED & THELMA CUTAIA
15366 RED OAKS ROAD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
OCTOBER 22, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from the property
owners for the construction of a porch and room addition in place of an existing
deck attached to the principal structure on an existing platted lot of record
located at 15366 Red Oaks Road.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 8,2001. After
review of the applicants' request with respect to the variance hardship criteria,
the Commission directed staff to d raft Resolution 01-0 19PC approving the
following Variance with conditions:
1. A 10-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 65-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum required setback of
75-feet [City Code Subsection 1104.302(4)].
The following condition shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. The variance resolution shall be recorded and proof of recording submitted to
the Planning Department within 60 days of adoption. An Assent Form shall
be signed by the property owners and pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the
City Ordinance the variance will be null and void if the necessary permits are
not obtained for the proposed structure within one year after adoption of this
resolution.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
..
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached Resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction
for approval of the Variances as requested by the applicant. The staff therefore
recommends adoption of Resolution 01-019PC.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the attached Variance Resolution 01-019PC approving the Variance
with conditions that the Planning Commission deemed appropriate under the
circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-019PC approving the Variance
requested by the applicant with conditions.
L:I01 filesl01 varianceslO 1-081 \01-081 VR2.doc
Page 2
It
RESOLUTION 01-019PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 10 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 65 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK RATHER
THAN THE REQillRED MINIMUM OF 75 FEET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Alfred & Thelma Cutaia (applicant/owner) have applied for a variance from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a porch and room addition to a single family
residence with attached garage on property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential)
District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
15366 Red Oaks Road SE, legally described as follows:
Lot 26 and that part of Lot 27 lying Southwesterly of a line described as commencing at the
most Easterly corner of said Lot 27; thence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of
said Lot 27 a distance 77.90 feet to he point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
Northwesterly deflecting 71016'31" to the right a distance of 164.8 feet to the Northwesterly
line of said Lot 26, and said line there terminating. All located in RED OAKS, according to
the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#01-081PC and held hearings thereon on October 8, 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, 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 proposed a porch and room addition that meets the existing structure
setbacks, such that the hardship has not been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the
property does not exist without the porch and room addition to the existing principal
structure.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-081 \aprvres.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. There is justifiable hardship caused by the required lakeshore setback, the existing lot of
record, and the existing structures location, as reasonable use of the property is not possible
without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
8. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship.
9. The contents of Planning Case 01-081PC 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 a porch and room addition to a single family dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 -
Certificate of Survey:
1. A 10-foot variance to permit a 65-foot structure setback from the ordinary high water mark
of 904 feet, rather than the required minimum 75-foot setback.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. The variance resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days of adoption. An Assent Form must be signed by the property
owners and, pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Ordinance, the variance will be null
and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within one year
after adoption ofthis resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 22, 2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\0 I fiJes\OI variances\O 1-081 \aprvres.doc
2
~
>
w
~
::)
tJ)
u.
o
w
~
o.
-
u.
-
~
w
-'-0
~
....
z
w
:B
:E:
~
~
~
Survey For A I Cuta ia
Bogk
Page
File 1\4AA
15366 Red Oaks Drive
Prior Lake. MN
Prior Lake Elev. 903.2
as of 6/25/01
;)
a.,OPt..
~,~
,0
I.
,;.
, .
,.
.,'- - I
Line
;
.
,
.I
,., ,;
,. ,;'
V
x~/,
':.-
~,
l:)
,
, 0"
0- ...--' - '... -'-
,a.\' . ;;"''' . 9-'
\)
b..+
1)Y
...-./
7: .)1iiJ1-f-"
""'.....0.;. /'
. '" "'k.tt. 0:../
~
i .>,,'
I
(
!
<<, <:) ...
q;
'"j
-T"p
y.... -'L
. ':Ii'O 74
J)~
Q
-~s
)
)
./
-~/..
Scale:
1"-30'
. Denotes Iron Mon. Found
~~
..... .'
This plan. specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervls1on. and that I
am a duly Registered Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota. Signed this 25th day of June. 2001
Description: . .
Lot 26 and that part of Lot 27 lying Southwesterly of a line described as commencing at the
most Easterly corner of said Lot 27; thence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said
Lot 27 a distance of 77.90 beet to the point of beginning of the line to be described. thence
Northwesterly deflecting 71 16'31" to the right a distance of 164.8 feet to the Northwesterly
line of said Lot 26. and said line there terminating. All loc~ted in RED OAKS. according to
the recorded plat thereof. Scott County, Minnesota.
Hard Cover
Drive 1820
Walks 260
House 1775
Garage 502
Porch & 341
Deck. 380
Shed 48
Patio 180
5306
Rev.71l0/200l
I( /jl $/].,.001
" 8/1'-1:J. o. J
" 9/11/ 7..~()1
License No. 6508
sq.ft.
sq.ft. Hard Cover
Lot Cover 22.,528 sq.ft. . Hard Cover 23.6%
Same Hard Cover with Proposed Addition
..
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5B
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE
SETBACK LESS THAN 75 FEET FROM THE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK, A FRONT YARD
SETBACK LESS THAN 25 FEET, A SUM OF SIDE
YARDS LESS THAN 15 FEET , EAVE
ENCROACHMENT INTO SIDE YARD, A 66' BUILDING
WALL SETBACK, AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA
GREATER THAN 30%, Case file #01-080PC
DAVID & RACHEL NORLING
15239 FAIRBANKS TRAIL NE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
OCTOBER 22, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from the property
owners for the construction of an attached garage, a second story addition, and
a main level room addition to an existing single-family dwelling on a
nonconforming platted lot of record located at 15239 Fairbanks Trail
(Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey). The applicant is requesting the
following Variances:
1. A 4.77-foot variance to permit a 15.53-foot structure setback to a front
property line, rather than 21.3-feet as required by setback averaging
[Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (4 )].
2. A 12-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 48-feet from the
Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum
setback of 50-feet as required by setback averaging [City Code
Subsection 1104.308(2)].
3. A 1.41-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 8.59-feet from the
side property line, rather than minimum setback of 10-feet as required for
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~
the sum of side yards on a nonconforming lot of at least 15-feet
[Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
4. A 2-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 3-
feet from a side lot line, rather than the minimum required 5-feet
[Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments (1 )].
5. A 2.6-foot variance to permit a building wall 66-feet in length to be
setback 5-feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.66-
feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 (6)].
6. A 256-square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage
area of 2,436 square feet (33.5%), rather than the maximum allowable
coverage area of 2,180 square feet (30%).
DISCUSSION:
Lot 4, Maple Park Shore Acres, was platted in 1924. The subject property is a
legal nonconforming platted lot of record. The property is located within the R-1
District (Low Density Residential) and Shoreland District (SO). The subject lot
has dimensions of 50' (front) by 134.80' (south) by 49.89' (lake) by 144.62'
(north), for a total lot area of 7,268 square feet. According to Scott County
records, the applicant does not own the two adjoining properties (Attachment 1
- Certificate of Survey).
In 1994, the applicant applied for two variances: a 15' variance to permit a 60
foot deck/porch structure setback from the OHWM; and a 9' variance to permit a
1 foot setback from the property line for the replacement of a deck-walkway. On
May 19, 1994, the Planning Commission granted the 15' variance, but reduced
the 9' variance request to 5' with the suggestion that the deck-walkway be
constructed on the north side of the lot because of the available area to meet the
5' setback. The applicant appealed the decision to the City Council, and on June
20, 1994, the Council granted the 9' variance for the replacement of the existing
deck-walkway.
The applicant now proposes to build a second story addition over the existing
dwelling and a first story addition in place of the existing deck area. The
proposed garage addition with living space above is attached to the front of the
existing dwelling and is 24' deep by 36' wide. The proposed front setback of
16.53' requires a 4.77' variance, as setback averaging will allow a 21.3' setback.
As proposed the driveway is only 16.5' deep and staff has concerns regarding
vehicle parking in the right-of-way. By reducing the garage depth from 24' to 22',
this adds 2' to the parking area and would reduce the requested front setback
variance by 2' for a setback of 18.53' (Attachment 2 - Building Plans, 13
pages).
L:\01files\01 variances\01-080\VR4.doc
Page 2
The front and rear additions add 24' and 14 ' to the existing building wall of 28'
. for a total wall length of 66'. The Zoning Ordinance requires that two inches per
foot be added to the side yard setback for walls over 50' long (66' - 50' = 16' x 2"
= 32" or 2.66'). This requires a 2.66' variance to permit a 5' side yard setback as
proposed. Although the existing house currently is setback 5', the addition is
considered an expansion which is not permitted under City Code. This variance
request could be reduced or possibly eliminated by resizing the garage depth to
22', and recessing the garage wall away from the south lot line and/or reducing
the rear porch dimensions by creating a minimum break of 10% of the total wall
length (6.6') and a 90 degree turn in exterior wall direction away from the south
lot line.
As proposed, the combined side yards on the subject lot total 13.59'. This
requires a 1.41' variance, as the minimum sum of side yards allowed is 15' on
nonconforming lots. This variance request could be eliminated by reducing the
garage and deck width by 1.5' and provide for the minimum required 10' setback.
A 2' variance is also requested to allow the eave/gutter to encroach within 3 feet
of the side lot line. The. existing house eaves currently encroach into the same
side yard, however, this addition is considered an expansion of a nonconforming
structure and not permitted by code. This request could be eliminated again by
reducing the garage size an additional 2' in width, and still provide for a 32' by
22' garage. In addition, the rear porch/room addition could be reduced 2 feet in
width as proposed on the house plans but not depicted on the survey.
The survey depicts a proposed setback of 50' from the OHWM, however to
compensate for an eave/gutter overhang the applicant is requesting a 48'
setback. A 60' OHWM setback is allowed and was determined by averaging the
existing structures north and south of the subject lot. Although the existing deck
is setback 50' from the OHWM, and code allows for exact deck replacement, to
convert this area into a room or porch addition is considered an intensification of
\
a nonconforming structure (Attachment 3 - Existing Impervious Surface
Area).
The applicant submitted an existing impervious surface worksheet with 1,504
square feet of coverage area or 21 %. The proposed impervious surface area of
2,436 square feet is 33.5%, and greater than the maximum allowable area of
30% or 2,180 square feet. As recommended earlier in this report, by reducing
the proposed garage by 160 square feet (2' x 36' + 4' x 22' = 160) and resizing
the porch/room addition another 96 square feet, this variance request for 256
square feet can be eliminated (Attachment 4 - Proposed Impervious surface
Area).
L:\O 1 files\01 variances\01-080\VR4.doc
Page 3
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck-walkway that appears
about 1.5' from the south lot line. However, the new building plans depict a
south side yard deck-walkway with stairs that extend beyond the proposed
structure and appear to encroach closer to the OHWM. Also, two bay windows
are depicted on the plans, but are not shown on the survey. The proposed room
addition over the existing house structure is permitted as a legal nonconforming
structure and is not at issue. However, the extension or expansion of the
exterior walls of the nonconforming structure is not permitted.
The City Engineering Department has determined there is a sanitary sewer
easement that should be depicted on the survey in order to verify the proposed
building addition does not encroach (Attachment 5 - Easement Documents, 3
pages). In addition, the Department submitted comments for this report stating
in essence, approval of the requested variances is contrary to the goals of the
Comprehensive Lake Management Plan, which is to "minimize the transport of
nutrients, sediment and runoff from city streets and lands which impact the Prior
Lake watershed, and promotes lake creep, the encroachment of buildings and
impervious areas towards the lakeshore".
The Department of Natural Resources has not responded to this variance
request.
The applicant submitted a narrative describing their reasons for the requested
variances, and pictures of the existing dwelling and adjacent properties. In
addition, the applicant submitted a list titled "Appendix A - Variances On
Fairbanks Trail". This list of Variances was not verified or described by staff
because each individual variance request stands on its own when applied to the
standards of the hardship criteria (Attachment 6 - Applicant Narrative &
Pictures, 11 pages).
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 lot of record and an existing
condition over which the applicant has no control and some form of front
setback variance will be required to build a garage addition. However, the
applicant can control the design and size of the proposed additions and
eliminate the need for variances as requested.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-080\VR4.doc
Page 4
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
The lot is a legal nonconforming lot of record and has an existing
nonconforming structure without a garage. Plats of this era (1924)
subdivided lots with smaller dimensions (50 'wide) and are peculiar to the lot
and adjoining properties of the Maple Park Shore Acres. In addition,
because of the structures location and proximity to the front lot line, this
precludes the ability to build a garage without some form of front setback
variance. However, the requested Variance #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, do not meet
the hardship criteria because a redesign can reduce or eliminate the
variances.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
A front setback variance appears necessary for a garage addition of
reasonable size and preserve a substantial property right of the owner.
However, as requested the setbacks to the front, OHWM, sum of side yards,
eave encroachment, building wall, and impervious surface area, may be
reduced or eliminated with a revised building plan.
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 a reduced front setback variance will not impair these stated
values. The granting of the requested Variance #'s 1 - 6 appears to impair
the~e stated values but does not appear to endanger the public safety or
increase the danger of fire.
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 a front setback variance to permit a garage and 2nd story
addition will not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood, or
diminish property values or impair health, safety and comfort of the area.
However, the granting of the requested Variance #'s 2 - 6 will unreasonably
impact the character and development of the neighborhood.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-080\VR4.doc
Page 5
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Since this is a platted lot of record, and no garage exists, the granting of a
reduced front setback variance is not contrary to the intent of the Ordinances
or the Comprehensive plan. Variance #'s 1 - 6, can be reduced and
eliminated with a redesigned garage/building addition plan and therefore they
are contrary to the intent of these Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan.
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.
With respect to the front setback variance, a hardship exists and a variance is
required to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty to build a
smaller garage and second story additions to the existing structure.
Therefore, no hardship exists pertaining to the 6-variances as requested.
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.
A hardship results from the provisions of the Ordinance with regards to a front
setback for the garage and second story addition over the existing structure.
However, the applicant can reduce the size of the proposed garage and room
additions to meet the Ordinance and reduce the requested front setback
variance.
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 the granting of variances.
In this case financial considerations are in addition to the other 8 hardship
criteria for a front setback variance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff believes that all of the Variance criteria have been met with respect to
some type of front setback variance such as a 2.77' variance for an 18.53' front
yard setback. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot
to allow for a garage addition because of the location of the existing structure on
the nonconforming platted lot of record.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-080\VR4.doc
Page 6
In addition, staff feels the garage and room additions may be redesigned and
reduced in size to eliminate Variance requests 2 - 6. Therefore, the variance
hardship criteria have not been met with respect to 5 of the variances as
proposed by the applicant and staff recommends denial of these requested
variances.
Staff recommends the following conditions be included with approval of any
yariances deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
1. The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at
Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with
the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised survey to show all easements and the
proposed grades with drainage and an erosion control plan.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances, in this
case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings approving the variance requests.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends alternative # 3, denial of the variances as requested for a
lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. This requires the
following motion:
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-020PC denying the requested
variances of 4.77-feet to permit 16.53-foot front setback; a 12-foot
variance to permit a 48-foot setback to the OHWM; a 1.41-foot variance to
permit a structure setback of 8.59-feet from the side lot line; a 2-foot
variance to permit an eave/gutter to encroach within 3-feet of a side lot
line; a 2.6-foot variance to permit a building wall 66 feet long; and
impervious surface coverage area Of 33.5%.
L:\01 files\01 variances\O 1-080\VR4.doc
Page 7
RESOLUTION 01-020PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 4. 7-FOOT VARIANCE TO FRONT SETBACK, A
12-FOOT VARIANCE TO STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE OHWM, A 1.41-
FOOT VARIANCE TO SUM OF SIDE YARDS; A 2-FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT AN EA VE/GUTTER 3-FEET TO SIDE LOT LINE, A 2.6-FOOT
VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING WALL 66-FEET LONG, AND A 3.5%
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA VARIANCE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. David & Rachel Norling (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from the
Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a garage and room additions
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, 15239
Fairbanks Trail NE, and legally described as follows;
Lot 4, Maple Park Shore Acres, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-080PC and held hearings thereon on October 22,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. A legal building envelope exists on the subject lot that meets or reduces the requested
variances for setbacks to front yard, side yard, sum of side yards, eave encroachment,
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\01-080\dnyres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
and impervious surface area. The applicant has control over the house design and
shape, such that the hardship 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 setbacks and impervious
surface coverage area 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 01-080PC 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 garage and room additions to a single-family dwelling as
shown in attached Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey;
1) A 4.77-foot variance to permit a 16.53-foot structure setback to a front property
line, rather than 21.3-feet as required by setback averaging [Ordinance Section
1102.405 Dimensional Standards (4)]
2) A 12-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 48-feet from the Ordinary High
Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 60-feet as
required by setback averaging [City Code Subsection 1104.308(2)].
3) A 1.41-foot variance to permit a structure setback of8.59-feet from the side
property line, rather than minimum setback of 10-feet as required for the sum of
side yards on a nonconforming lot of at least 15-feet [Ordinance Section 1101.502
Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
4) A 2-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 3~feet from
a side lot line, rather than the minimum required 5-feet [Ordinance Section
1101.503 Yard encroachments (1)].
5) A 2.6-foot variance to permit a building wall 66-feet in length to be setback 5-feet
to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.66-feetfor building walls
over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 (6)].
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-080\dnyres.doc
2
6) A 256-square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of
2,436 square feet (33.5%), rather than the maximum allowable coverage area of
2,180 square feet (30%).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 22, 2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\01-080\dnyres.doc
3
\
:K
01
o
~.Lj,,::
e;<l'f[~i
.::;':7.t~~~~,;:~~:.::
0\
N
0
, II..!>. 0
\\
'" \
:II
0 ' ".
'" \
0 ,
'" t.
...
0 :>
~\ 01
tv
0 \ - ~
... ti~
n
lit 'Jln
. \ ~...
~
'..
\ ~
,..
0
o
rt\
n
~
('f',
",i:.
.....
':'0
~e;
-:t.
o
c::.~
~
~
~
~
",i:.
:.-
. 0
!.e;
. 211
_ ,,"0 "OS [0
... AOOITI014 ;
ItltlSTIl-lG O(CK ~ (QHC.
5\.,A6 NOW IN p\.,ACt \
- .!!--
\.el..9)
II
DECK
t
.
~
.\
.'"
..
..
\
.
..
o
\'T\
\
,
\
01
$10.
air
\
\~
\
\
\
~LJ'
_':'_49.89---
\~
Survey \
S 12 026' "ne
27"
---50.83__.
.
o
.
.
'Xl
2
~
8
---
--
N
'u!.
..
Gl
~
v
~
~
0
Co
III
'"
~i:.
0'"
. 0
~
.e;
I
0
m
~
-
."
-
~ \
~
-.l m
o.
..
0
."
en
c:
~
~
(J)
CD
co
0
Vol
0
0
=
\'T\
,
:
? :Ill 1:
-I>
1:%
... '55
0 . r'
~...
\ .
, s
.~
I
I
I
\
\1
, S~OREUNE
',~~
~?/:;:;.----
ATTACHMENT 2 - BUILDING PLANS
.
.~
J
-z.
~
10
.)
J
1..
, i-.'
,-.r'
{:
~
~
[)
"
~
:J
C)
-z:.
~
f)"
'~{., ..: '-.
..f.. '.:....~.:~.
.-&....._~_.
f,)'"
.0. ,
-z..
/
'\
J
.'.-..---.'--=====-:..:-.:.:..--:.:.."--
----
.:~_::::'=~:~:':'::::~..-:;'::.~;:-:--~-....--,-:"p
t'~
..(J
()
~
~--:_:..:;...:;;:- -- --;"7-',,.._~
-z....
_'_':':';:~:-;~:-:-.~~-::';:;:;:;'::;:::-'=-=::-:-~":::~-=:::;~'"?""c?"'.-:-.~:7"""'~::'~:-~-:r"~--:"7'.:~~~':~
~ ~g- .~.
__ ~~_" l:.....
- --
'---
1
=>
~)
-~~.':""'~~~~""'''"':'''~--~:'''.
')".....
(-
~:~. .
',,)
~...,..,;.,:~
H'l
i::
..~~....,.:.;. ,..:~..:,'"..:,'~..,..:......:,..:.-.;.-.:....~:!
")
~
~
~)
._...---..............--..----.~---:---..----~........~...._:"'_._,..._---------:'" ..~
--:'-':--- - ~_.. - .._~-.,..
f
-'
1-
..-
o
k
~
1\
~I
t
J'J
_......~.-. .-~ ., "',
-""......~....:........,:.::~...::.:>.;;~~.~~.:~'-;: :~ ~:., ::.~',
~; :< ~:. ::::.~.~ ~,'~!: ::.:.: ; :i;.;~:~~ :~;::.l:,;~ ~:-~::~ ~~ :;~::~:- ::,:~'~{~~: :\:?: :;-~; .
..~,?l,~:. ~':.~~_: ,:i-t1~;,~_~;.~_i.:~:~;.::~':~:";.; ::';;<:.:~, '_: -.--: ,>_;",,-,:_'. ;'.:: _- '
\ ^ ({,d
'5{-9/Or~U"
~~~
1. WI"4~ M~~
L- (h'
/ jJ fl,~ yu1 Vl
I
(,1 I
I-
I i__
I
I
I
I
'1" I i J
t I!
I
I
I
Ii'
I
I
! (1Lltk
I
I
I
I
, ....-. .
~ ,~'- -, ~..' ~.~~. . .'
. ,~' - .
~~~--..
._~........._.:._,;,:.
p.
'- '
o () 0 ,..I'-
\,- : ~ \! 1\ q r'
.-
-c
-
-
r:o:-; .
::.!::
, ~
^ -
<pO
,~ ~'
i
c..
I\.,.)
!
....
~(~NJ"q, .'.
,;:.1 J'iI\. (' i~.
I #~::;ioftJce1 ill
1~:,~:o.:.::.~~::~.~_:::~O_~,:~~{:~::~::'-2::~7;,<~;.;:~~ <~ :~~ + ~..:;.:"''7; .~. _0
",>- .~,;; ,: ,:-{:;-' >~.., :,' " .~-
. . '-
:~~,:,~;....,_-L._:_.-':""":__~..._'::.:.:.:-;......-':'='~~i~';":'....,..::.....-:.~~-.;.;.o;.
; : j
'd
/:.~/
ff~
IIII~U'I/
I I i!i
rrlT! , i -;;- -
l' r'-''- ~
Larqt..
'-'
u _
!l-
, I
II
"
"
: : L.t\~Vll \
:: ;)\ ~;JJ~J\ ~
II
II
II
.: ~t0~{,,J
'JJ;-
'},'-
~-:
o(~
-D!!: / )LA~
a (,0\( i)) .
j'i"t..
: I
fptl
b'\1.11
tt<e- ~
-,T
-< -
~~
; 1
-----11
II
\r~ ,~\t-. ~:~\(<-?-
II
..,:~
-il- - _'-
ii
ii
Ii
I
I
I
\)
"'
~lJ c~ ( 1 ~
Il "t-'"
,.r, n
I U 111m ill i : IlllilLn II
h
L I ~ I ...-- -". d r I - . ~: , I . I I ,
{\1 . v ~je...l^ -' 9l.^ '" (' '-' >..;c. - d'.', vU'lIc..Ji\ !-;o-J<-
J .' l:..l \ J f U - .... i'
f) :*Cz ,'J\ EI t I/o f-, j /J '> I (; J,/ fry A \"'"" ~cJ
f-L-s +0 iS€- 81A1)+ !j+e ~drdUj~ For )"1olr5
t<> /\I\.d:I(z lAp fl~'Jd t<J.vJ D,'tt--<..I<'-I'J<:: J<.. QvJ cJ
Ho1+w'f'f S e.perq. te..S" Go r4Cfe$ +4 /Jc; ~l e.~
A 5~f.Z ,crov-J-t [:I"'-h-y f'GM t~eRcd-d ,
11 ~s <- 4"" C. 12 e. q,s;..;;..'0 S I;.H_ /11 ~~ 1 1_f/' 1/1.11' d -c.. ct-v J_ ..
. . . - .
. "~--'-:o_~~>-L:ili:.
C-;
"..,./
q I
, '
I
J
.j I i
;1; 1 :
I I I
('\
- - ~-r -
d I-
I-
I.
-~ i
__ _ -'- _ _0_ ~ _
j
j i
!
i
o !
'--'
,~2::;'"j,'
;'::>t:';~-:':::.:::.:.. .'
I
II
;,
. ".'. :',"-,:".c:>:"Z:: .',::,.
" -""',;~:."
:' .~';.~, ,:,:'"
.-,' ,'. :~~:~::~.: '::~-:"..~:~ -~:!.!:?::~::~_:
.', . -.' ;,-';~ '. .
'"" "'.-'..",.
, ,-i. ,"~:
,-
\
'I.
i I
I \ ,(
-. tNf7'1.V
..c...T~~
V- *
~~~
I
I
I ::
.101lIo: --.
'-
!
-
-'!"
'!
::,l";'
\) ,
ILl :
Q~
\. \. ,_v....(
\".jjl"":l
1> 1, {I,~N'\.
fJ . (;)
.... \'
_ !-.ol-A,J (y
"'l
s
uI pt'2-, Le. ~ II'3ed,a~M <;
iJ<2<",,'cJf\(J foJ' ~^"\\'\( iAJl'+~
/) ,~! -/1 )
~ l."v\ l I (1. Ie.. i'v
',. . ... '.
A
~\~:5 \\e<> N\ \
" I
""
......-,r--
L-J--
U
~iit - -
CJ= .,() Q
-'1(
'0 -,
I . \, ~:;i}...J\:'-
\'- \ 6') I
-
---
---:...:__::-_--~..:.........-
('
-
I
1
~ I
o
I
I
~
I
I
1
I
I..)
i
I
~
I
CITY OF PRIOR L1\K.E
E.~\'O~\~ Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with BuildIng PermIt Apphc:mon)
For PJl Properties Located in the Shoreland Distri"ct (SD).
The J\tlaximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address \ z:; Z. 3 ~
,/ \ ------
'rP." R- Ot\.V\. \<~. \ R~\ \
Lot .Area .:J "2G:>B abc,wt"_ \;L C\~4-Sq. Feet x 30% = ..............~\ roo
**********J*******************~*****************************************
HOUSE
LENGTH \V1DTII
UJ x '-z.!O
x
SQ. FEET
= ---=:J B L\-
=
ATIACHED GARA.GE
x
=
TOT AL P RIN cn> LE STRUCTURE......................
l~L\
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garag~
'1\.G
e x \'2-
x
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.......................
C\lo
-
",'~
\JDRlVE~A YfPAVE~
<tPriveway-pave~r not)
. (SidewalkIParking Areas)
'5 \" b \JY\J.-el"" dec..~
\lo x \~
x
=
~>?>
,"", =
=
"'Z..e> x I '2.
~3\.o
TOT...\L PAVED AREAS................................:........
. Co L. "\
PATIOSfPORCHESIDECKS .
x
=
(Open Decks ~" min. opening between
boards. with a pervious surface below,
arc not considered to be: impervious)
x
=
x
=
T OT.U DECKS .....................-................................. .
OTHER
=
x
.x
TOT AL OT:ErER.....~............._......................_..........
TOTALI~ERVIOUSSURFACE
"
. ~OVER .
Prepared By D ~~ ~b t1V\ '
. . . \
Company ~ {,"l<-"i~ CD'J p. f.\ .
I
I
\'604
~1lP
Date .., . "2 S-ol
Phone # "-\ L.\ '1 - "Z.S 10
~;~?-;-,~c~
~~~I.;..~'!;-
~
ii
o
:I:
s:
m
Z.
-I
CN
I
m
><
-
en
-I
-
Z
C)
i:
\J
m
:D.
<
-
o
c:
en
en
c:
J]
:n
:I>
o
1m
I~
m
)>
---:. l t<
9~o~.,JL___ .
.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distrlct (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address. \ 'CS 2. '3 ~ t=,p.;\ R.~~~S - \ ~~\ \
Lot Area ~,'G.l.c <2> . o.loo'-3e (.C, '( D c.{ Sq. Feet x 30%. = .............. "'2.. \ ~c
************************************************************************
. HOUSE
~ru~s-e(Q .
AIT LilLi) GARAGE
LENGTH WIDTH
~ x "22:>
SQ. FEET
=~
x
=
.-z.. "-\ x ~ \0
=
ce, lo ....,
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE......................
\lo"-\e>
DETACHED BLDGS
. (Garage/Shed)
x
x
n . TOTAL_DETACHED BUILDIN.GS.......................
t' ~\) (J D'~e.D B ~ ~\.) \.~\ II\O<./'::>
DRIV'EW A YfP AVED AREAS ex \ 1.0 . S . = ~3'2-
(Driveway-paved or not) \ \0 x \ \0 ' S = 'z.~'-\ .
(SidewalkIParking Areas) X =
TOT A.L P AVED .~AS.........................................
3~(P
P A TIOSfPORCHES/DECKS x =
(Open Decks y." min. opening between X =
boards. with a pervious surface below,
are not considered to be: impervious)
X =
TOT.<\L DECKS........................................................
OTHER.rt^OrObec.Q .
~ -J'1e h19 \1 ~
\ q X ""Z-co
x
=
'3~-z....
=
TOT AL OTlIER.....~................................................. ~ '1. ""'2-
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER~)
. Prepared By Ol>.~ ~'1c";;
. -~ . \
Company \Jt.~l~ 0U"-\>N\\I\l1\ C),)
, \ (\
p.~
:b!.
-.
:s
o
:J:
s:
m
z
-I
.Q..
I
1:J
:xl
o
-a
o
en
m
C
~
1:J
m
:JJ
<
-
o
c:
en
en
c:
::D
~
e-')
m
z
>
XI
ITI
)>
"0"".
.
:;-~,
. ~~-,.- ~~-----
( ~,
~ ~
~ ,-
, <.',
~ .
~, ' :~ijW~?
--
~-
;~ !:U\tAC TMIClt!T
A
Ii:
III
...
.
--
::>t:.
: EA'> .
115 -11If%
o' ~
'"
..J . '
a
.oc
t- ' ."
~
z
J
cv
~
,.
0"
. "
o '"
o
It)
"
@).. ,
~RIOR ' LAKE"
all
'"
,.0
.-.\
.... .
-,
IT]
(/) "'T.T 4.,
~
~ w/o .' .'
w
a:
-
f @
5'
0'.
,,,
~
6- "
t ,p.
r 50'
II ,\O..oJ.
to .
l\l
E.-1/1I/J/r d
,
OS M EASEMENT NO.
Description and Drawing
rvY"',
O&UI
COIIULtlIl _,.
WI 1IImTI.
\"J....A.)
~~
I HEItfIT CEITIFT THAT THI$ SURvn. I'I.A". 01 ItfI'OIT WAS PIE PAllED IT ME 01
UNDER MT DIItfCT SUPervISION AND THAT , AM A DULT ItfOISTEIfD U,HD SURVETOI
UNDER THEU,WS Of THE SU''/ff MINNESOTA.
Q.f:/2-A~~ 11-17-77
D. ,...",.. AMIS Il!O. NO. ""4 DATE
WATMI .. LONG KG. NO. 7612
ORR. SCHELEN. MAYERON & ASSOCIATES. INC.
2021 EAST HENNEPIN AYE. . SUITE 231 . MINNEAPOLIS, M'NNESOTA S5413 . ,612) 331.8660
NOTE: No boundary luney work wal performed al to the precile
location of thil tract.
OWNER: Sterling J. and Sally Robson
5812 Zenith Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minneota 55410
DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT:
A 15 foot permanent easement for sanitary sewer purposes
over, under, and across Lots 4, 5, and 6, Maple Park Shore
Acres, according to the plat on file in the Office of the
County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota. The center line
of said easement .is described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the northerly line of said Lot 4
distant 125.00 feet easterly of the northwesterly corner thereof;
thence southerly to a point in the southerly line of said Lot 6
distant 140.00 feet easterly of-the southwesterly'corner thereof
and said center line there terminating. I
Said permanent easement contains 2,265 square feet more
or less.
Said temporary easement contains 4,530 square feet more
or le.ss.
Said temporary easement expires December 31, 1978.
~~
0110(. of County 1:.....,"'_
Scott C.oUnl Y, .~mrl
} 55
I hIt..bv ce,tU., tkal th. Wltt';n _.rume""
.... filed "' th., ./Ii<. !of ~
IN ~ Cf <S.. 01 _t'1 --,A-
....0. 19:z:J"..-l.-O''''''- .!-.l!!
- dulV reco.ded .. 161568
7~ lJ. ~,~~~ -
r C .nT, Rocorder ~
'"-
lleDUt'V
\ I
,,'-'_"'..)--'
.
.......<
r
~ :: I...~ ,) \_,,-,!JL.~.
. 'r' .:\ "'~i
................. "_ 1..... .......
_....\.,.\.-.0' \ . ~." \_.- __...,~
. . I !
OS ":) :..... !
Of fl C f,' f\ ,n,! P:.,L ~I
f~ lJU J
....
'1'"1
.'
t-
, ~.
, ~
'-:> ~.,
? 0
\ EASEMENT
1f -:;C)~
THIS
, 1972,
by and
of the County of
Minnesota, parv':=-..s of the first
part, and the CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, a municipal corporation, party
of the second part;
WITNESSETH, that the said part/.6'Sof the first part in
consideration of One Oollar and other good and valuable consider-
ations to 7/E/7-1 in hand paid by the said party of the second
part, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do__ hereby
Grant, Bargain, Sell, Convey and Warrant to said party of the
second part, the easements situate in Scott County, Minnesota,
described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof:
,
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the said part/e~of the first
part ha.s hereunto set1L!tr.,e hand (s) the day and year first
L1
I "J t '
, "j . !
: ',<'})' ""
'11 j
, .,,'
i'
j J
!
above written.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY OF
~) r+ ,/
On this.~i::J-day of /yCJ'.i:MJ.f.'Z- , 197~, before me, a
Notary Public, within and for said County, personally appeared
c.5 7' E/c L. / "" t; , T U.r7 cI .....s .H L../.. y' L. 20 ffs c "J
.:..~:'::CG.
j.;:'....~_i._ _,_.
to me known to be the person.5 described in and who executed ,"._ '
CG~i1:,,1. :#: j "
the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that ~_he~ executed r" _!"'\
\J':' i.I -
the same as
Ii c.'V-
'''''77
~~f
free act and deed.
----..--- ." '_-----..~
I " .
l~~';:-"':""- , ", -','
I .' , " ,,----
-:-~,- .._,\ -'-.. i i
rr-l---ji--di-r
,.. ,.. I '" "'"
..~~~~~.
~,'AY;{E TI. ".lCN.d< .~ "J,""/ __'.',
N.....OIY :: u::';:c,1-hr:.nap;';l <;OWUV;'.Mjn'1o
'!'IIi .:;....~~i~~,E::~:i ~~~y 9;'l~n'" r FIr. r
; ..' '. "', , ~\\.' /,::.J ,~' r ' ~'." '/il
& As s 0 c. " . ,,_,~,,<~~A-::-:: ".' .. '.. ,
J ..;~ j< ~ '..::.. -. . ,"'
r" n,', ?:"',.i~,'
~ ',$ ~, " '/
. ~1~;~-':"
!i" " "'J "
Prepared by:
Orr-Sche1en-Mayeron
2021 E. Hennepin
Prior Lake Planning Commission
City Hall
4629 Dak-ota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, Mn. 55372
August 24,2001
To Whom It May Concern,
We are writing this letter to introduce ourselves and to explain each variance needed and why it
should be approved per your hardship guidelines. Weare a growing family that owns a business
in Savage. We currently have three adults and one child living in our home and are planning to
expand our family. David has lived in Prior Lake for the past 25 years with his family and has
owned our lake home since 1993. As the family has grown, the house size has not. This is why
we are asking for these variances so that our house will be able to accommodate our growing
needs.
The first variance we are asking for is for the impervious surface. Weare 256 square feet over
or approximately 3.5%. The lot is a non-conforming, small lake shore lot which used to be part
of Eagle Creek Township. It is a 50-foot by ISO-foot substandard lot. There have been many
other lots throughout the area that have been granted variances for these reasons. The addition is
needed to add a safe entry to the front of the home. To help reduce our impervious surface num-
bers, we have removed part of the drivew~y from the original plans. Impervious surface
numbers can also be reduced 42 square feet by making the addition over the deck 3' narrower on
the south side of the home.
~
tJ
The second variance is for the driveway set back. The avera~ is 21.3 feet and the minimum is
20 feet. We need 16.5 feet and are asking for a 5.2 foot driveway set back variance. This vari-
ance is needed in order to obtain a 24' depth to the garage. The elevation difference fromthe
house and the garage, along with the current design, forces the entrance and the stairways to ex-
trude into the garage which limits this space.
The third variance we are asking for is the maximum driveway width of 24 feet at th~ property
line. This changes our original plans from a 36-foot wide driveway and have split it into two
separate driveways. One would be 16 feet wide and the other would be 8 feet wide. We will
landscape to the front entry, in order to reduce the impervious surface numbers and leave a total
of24 feet of width at the property line-for both driveways. Because the entryway must be put in
the middle of the home, the driveways must be split. It is understood that two separate-driveway
permits will be required
The fourth variance is for a 1.15 foot property line setback on the northeast comer of the lot. In
this area-, the ~ity wants ten feet and we are asking for 8.85 feet which is less than the existing
fence line. We will be removing the kennel fencing to clean up the area. We are only 36' wide
at the front, even when adding the needed three car garage and front entry.
2>
The fifth variance is on the south side property line. We are currently at 5.1' with 4' -Of decking
and 24" of overhang. We will be removing a section of the deck to reduce congestion in that
area AlSO,. it reduces the overhang width to 18". The only change in this area is to extend from
the house to the driveway.
~
~
o
:J:
3:
m
Z
-I
en
"
:ta
1:J
-a
r-
-
~
Z
-I
Z
)>
:XJ
XI
~
-
<
m
J20
-a
-
C')
"-C
c:
::D
m
en
The final variance we are asking for is a 10' variance set back from the lake to build a 4 season
~.l addition on the deck which already exists. The deck was built in 1993 with future plans to build
this 4 season addition. We are not expanding beyond what already exists, we are only making
our main lakeside living area more useable for year around pleasure.
()
'0
As you can see, we are asking for several different variances but, if you will notice, all of them
are needed due to the size and elevation drops, and the way the house was originally built on the
lot. All of the variances we applied for are minimal. Each of our neighbors are aware of what
we would like to do and all have said that they support our plans.
Sincerely,
DIDTid M. Norling
Rachel A. Norling
Homeowners
..-
\
I
\
\
\--z,;r-~'-'
\ ( G.......G,
val ley ~urveymg
SUITE 230. FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL S. E.
PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372
[PHONE (612)447-2570
..... .<OH I
(,0.,
t":A.
SURVEY PREPARED FOR
DAVE NORLING
15239 FAIRBANKS TRAIL
PRIOR LAKE. loiN 55372
etc."
\ I ' /
\ -'
A~
\ V
II G...t.G1
\
!----
'507"
\
\
\
\
'l-t.
\,.fl.
:
o,~.: I
\ 1- /
J
_::~:.._--_...,...j\ .
o~
~\
~ l'" ,\ let
, I
,0'
i
\
\
i\
.1
.......3..:c-C---:J.-. -~~-
-----~ ~,~~
-_ - - -:;- .... (I
:.., .......' ....... ~\" \ ~-
..... ..\t \;
.., .' H~tt !
t, t '~i \-
",0\l'50(
..-:"~i.; !
le"~"
see. 30'01" Eo'
----.-----
t-----
&0" __-~j
_.- \
\
~--~.--
----
------
_--- e. . ~,
',-
:'..
.. ;',:
"
,
\~. z.' .....,
\ ~
L-- ~:- -=--
'('
~
,
~\
-'-- -.---- "
\
~.....
::....--_.
.----.-..-
"
DI!ICM'T1ON
Leo~. MAl'LE PARK SHORE ACRES. Scon Cc>unIy. Minneoota. AIIO ohowin,....
-.. of !he """"""" house one! prqe oddilionI.. ~ !hi. I lllldoy of
JioIy.2001
I)
~: BenchmoR __ 917.1710__ __... orai..""'"
92'6 Oenotes 'Kisti.. .- _
K
(933.2) 0..- prupoood Milhod .- _
"[Iw .1.'1)1 TO C"""'[ DIIJ\I~""
Sll[ . If4CMl1 NCWOSlD Ole_
_ Oenotes """"""" di__ orflmlhod ourf_ dnU_
Set !he prupoood _ slab. .\evotion 93340
I ""'*' -'II)' _ .... _
-....-..,...."'-...,
...rKf~IIarI"""_I..
......,~ Uhllonoyer
-....-......-L
~. '2
1,:...~.Jl6..-'~, -
00,. ,. 2$-0 I ~ NO.llIl1J
The kJWnt Roar .. ., etevat... 'It 7..'
o 20 '10
I I
SCAL[ IN FEET
0_--....
. DenDteI ... ~f tcuwI
--c._.. -.if) ............ ..... ..--
~ ,..,;"\ 'A _
'sz "- '2 ~" - . '
"d \: ,!;I'C T :.-' I ",.s' ,...
. / ~ 0 ~ ~..,./ ~.d./ "~'l~' '"
~ 1'6 '~ ..J). .....
__ _ '1""2 ~ '< - <0 t ~
\.:;;rE"'\~ ~ ,SN1le/'vW
~p~i ~~~ - -- .-
\ r~ ~/fr~~ W
~ 1 I 0 ~ _ ../.T. t .= ,\
~ J Ii'" <0' v/ 1"::- '" ' '\
~ ~;; ~ I ~ '~ :<r '\I ~
a:: ,,_\N ~ ~'" ~ ,--,", l ; W
,." ~1. ,l:j "< ", "'>_ ~~i. '..,', ~ =.J"~ 7 ,I ........ I-
, " .' .. v'S , '> .! -~ / --
_ F""A'~~~!O · a: en
I -;;ro: . "",' ~ · --=- "'"1. "","-- 7
~~: ~ ~ ~ 1l ~....... 7 J ~ I-
~; : L~ f'!. 77///.1 ,"U W
~ J ~ r- 1/ \wi
I ,~~~~ : f~ ~ 7 A ~, Cd
~~ ~ ~,_ T~r ~~
~ r;... '~ ... 1. /I a: en
~ ~. I u-'~ I
~ ~.:.C: ~ \>>rl. ~ ;;; {i 0
~i t. ~ J _"V. "'\ -\ Z
~ ~ ~ VL ~ '"
.rn ~ ~ . · ""! ~
~ i tl rtl ..n\ ("l>
____--- <;;. N, -L1.3"
~._ ~ j ~ ~ vl--' ,
-: !.1._ 1\
....'0 N '-~ ~
o - C'l
_ ~ _...J :r; <0"; C5'
~ lJJ. J 0..... """ s;.... N
~ rIl~ ~ ~ ~ :0 ~ "i:]i ~
_,. ~ IL"" \rc;.. '\- ......~ ~ N ~
Cd''''' ,..~, \>."0 ~ A ~
"I~'- ~2'~ "" L = t " '< ' ;;; ~ll~
o I...' '" ~ · 0 I~'
'0 ~. ..... ;\"" ' ~ 'or ~ '
,.. "" ~ ,. m .:---.. ---
~ ~ '" lOllno ~ '" ~., ;. N::: :;; ~ ,..010' :--.." I
_' ~O NO""" M':;e~~" ....., I _....' 'lo..-""":
)~ ...' ~~ ,~. ost f
,.o.L~~1 00...' \" 'O;.LI 1 -
o
~~
_ - '>10
.: )0'0 'S...,J.;
_ ">E 01
b ISI 8"<.01 ..
F-:; 2 O~SI
I _ 0 ,...
__N ~
"J
?
-0
r-
~
..
2&1
~
',}) IQ'O..~
.; ~ to?
\ \.~
-" ~
'f!:::/ "'to" f
_ ~, ~. _ , /,s
,,' "s
"" ,.
. f:I .4; "
:7~:! "~" " . ~
E ::: It) ~,~~
;.,~ c '/' ~,
.~> .s,'" "
: ~
;; or-' ..,.
_ 0" ..~
c... z e,,'
r..?;, ~
It) ,
~~,~
N V
-
It)
o
x
a:
<
a..
~
al~
x~
..ctl~
r- ..
~,:._ Il3SS.L1 ~.
IvY
~ _-:
)-.,\.i' ~\I~ I"I~O
W./
c...4~~
/ -
c ...,~ .
~ ~ It) .!;\ J
It)
"i1~ j
(l
. ,.
.;-
"5/_, 'A\"''''
")
-
-
,... l"
.' ~..
..:"
_I
ltSl
,.
<
I
t,
;~
: lIi".. ~ ~. ....
..; ~
4-
2:
;T
(t
-,
r-
.......
,
~
C
-/
Z
~.
..-.
CL
a-
";:>
'-
~
2.....
.......:;..-
~:'~~';';:'';';'';;
~
,
APPENDIX A - ALSO REFER TO MAP #1
VARIANCES ON FAIRBANKS TRAIL:
15:19 F::tirbanks Trail
1. 5' north side yard
2. 5' west from yard
3. 25' lakes hare
I 52:!9 Fairbanks Trail
1. 6% lot coverage
2. -- 5" north side yard.
3. - 3.5' south side yard
4. 12' west front yard
15249 Fairbanks Trail
1. 22' lakeshore
2. 6% lot coverage
15259 Fairbanks Trail
1. 5' nonh side yard (VA 80-27)
2. 4' south front yard (VA 80-27)
3. 5' nonh side yard (VA 83-17)
4. 16' south from yard (VA 83-17)
15283 Fairbanks Trail
1. 5.1' west side yard
-~)
, .'
15279 Fairbanks Trail
1. 3' west side yard (VA 85-03)
2. 4.2' side yard (VA 87-12)
,
"""
1 <;275 Fairbanks Trail
1. 2' east side yard
15271 Fairbanks Trail
1. 5' east side yard (VA 84-12)
2. 5' east side yard (VA 91-04)
3. 5' west side yard (VA 93-18)
15209 Fairbanks Trail
1. 3' north side yard (VA 94-04)
2. 2' south side yard (VA 94-04)
3. 25' lakeshore (VA 94-04)
4. 1.2% building coverage (VA 94-04)
5. 2.8% impervious surface (VA 94-04)
6. 5' west front yard (VA 94-04)
7. 296 square foot lot area (VA 94-04)
15267 Fairbanks Trail
1. 3.45' north front yard (VA 94-06)
2. 2.1' east side yard (VA 94-06)
3. 45' lakeshore (VA 94-06)
4. 346 square foot lot area (VA 94-06)
5. 3.7% impervious surface (VA 94-06)
/
----
-"~''''~-'...............".--.-''~''''
..
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5C
CONSIDER SITE PLAN TO ALLOW A DETACHED
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON ONE OF TWO
NONCONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD SEPARATED
BY A PRIVATE ROAD, Case file #01-084PC
JOHN & JENNIFER BARN CARD
16558 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
OCTOBER 22, 2001
The Planning Department received a site plan application from property owners
John & Jennifer Barncard for the construction of a detached accessory structure
on one of two existing platted lots of record located at 16658 Inguadona Beach
Circle. There is an existing single-family dwelling located on the other lot, but is
separated from the subject lot by a private road. The applicant's request is
described as follows:
1. A site plan for a detached accessory structure to be built on one of two
nonconforming lots of record under single ownership separated by a
private road or driveway from a lot with the principal structure [Ordinance
Section 1101.501: Lot Provisions (3,d) Lots of Record - Buildable].
DISCUSSION:
Lots 10 and 25, Inguadona Beach, are two legal nonconforming lots of record
platted in 1924. The lots were combined for the purpose of constructing the
proposed accessory structure. The property is located within the R-1 District
(Low Density Residential) and the Shoreland District. Lot 25, has platted
dimensions of 50' by 90', for a total lot area of 4,564 square feet. Lot 10 has
dimensions of 50' by 95.3' by 50.6' by 103.2' for a total lot area of approximately
4,992 square feet. The combined total area is 9,556 square feet. (Attachment
1 - Certificate of Survey).
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
..~
A 20' private driveway/roadway was dedicated in the plat for the joint use of the
respective owners of lots in the subdivision. This common driveway separates
the two lots. Lot 10 is riparian with platted common access on the shoreline of
Prior Lake for all property owners of the subdivision. Lot 25 is the subject
property where the garage is proposed to be located. An existing garage is
located on the adjacent Lot 22, with a house and garage on Lot 24, and Lot 26 is
vacant.
The applicant proposes to build a detached garage on Lot 25. The topography
and location of the principal structure on Lot 10, preclude the ability to construct
a garage, with a front setback of 24.6 feet to the exterior wall and 12.5 feet to the
deck. However, Lot 25 is relatively flat and will accommodate the proposed
structure with setbacks of 42.25' front, 12.69' side, 15' rear, and 12.85' side yard.
The proposed structure is 34' deep by 24' wide for a total area of 816 square
feet, and is less than the maximum allowed 832 square feet for a detached
accessory structure. The proposed building height is 13', as determined by the
mean dista'nce of the highest gable on a pitched roof and the grade elevation
having frontage on a public right-of-way. The exterior finish material is an 8" lap
cedar siding with asphalt/fiberglass shingles, and is compatible in design and
materials with the principal structure (Attachment 2 - Building Plans, 3 pages).
Lot 10 has a total lot area of approximately 4,992 square feet, plus 1,611 square
feet of dedicated waterfront to the OHWM, for a total lot area above the OHWM
of 6,603 square feet. When combined the total area of both lots equals 11,167
square feet (4,564 + 6,603). For the purposes of impervious surface calculations
common area between the property line and the OHWM may be included with
actual lot area. The proposed impervious surface area of 3,203 square feet is
28.6%, and less than the maximum allowable area of 30%. Also noted, the
paved private road/driveway encroaches onto Lot 25 and was not accounted for
on the impervious surface worksheet, but the survey shows a comparable
unpaved area that is adjoining on the other side of the road. (Attachment 3 -
Impervious surface worksheets, 2 pages).
The City Engineering Department has recommended approval without
comments.
The Department of Natural Resources has not submitted comments on this
request.
The following conditions are a requirement of Zoning Ordinance Section
1101.501: Lot Provisions (3,d) Lots of Record - Buildable:
L:\O 1 files\O 1 variances\01-084 \01-084 VR.doc
Page 2
Two or more nonconforming lots of record under single ownership separated by a
private road or driveway may be combined and used as a single buildable lot
under the following circumstances:
1. The property owner must apply to the City for approval of a lot combination.
2. The property owner must file a deed restriction or covenants with the Scott
County Recorder in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This deed
restriction or covenant must include provisions that restrict the resubdivision of
the lot.
3. There must be an existing principal structure on one lot.
4. The location of the principal structure on the lot must preclude the ability to
construct a legal accessory structure on that lot.
5. Any structures on the combined lots must meet the minimum setbacks of the
Use District in which it is located.
6. In those cases where a detached accessory structure is to be located on the
portion of the lot which is separated from the principal structure by the private
road or driveway and there are existing residential structures adjacent to or in
close proximity to the proposed structure, the Planning Commission shall hold
a public hearing on the request upon receipt of an application and following the
notice requirements for a variance pursuant to subsection 1108.404 of the City
Code. In evaluating the application, the Planning Commission shall not apply
the hardship criteria for variances. The Planning Commission review shall
determine whether the design and location of the detached accessory structure
is compatible with the surrounding properties in terms of architecture, building
materials and placement on the lot. If the Planning Commission denies the
application, the applicant shall have the right to appeal the decision to the City
Council pursuant to subsection 1109.400 of the City Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff has determined that all of the conditions, except # 2, have been met
with respect to the applicants requested site plan and Zoning Ordinance
1101.501: Lot Provisions: (3) Lots of Record - Buildable. A legal alternative
building site does not appear to exist on the lots because of topography and the
existing principal structures location.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Resolution 01-022PC with
the following conditions:
1) The property owner must file a deed restriction or covenants with the
Scott County Recorder in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This
deed restriction or covenant must include provisions that restrict the
resubdivision of the lot. This condition shall be met prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-084\01-084VR.doc
Page 3
2) The Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at
Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with
the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the site plan requested by the applicant, or approve any site plan 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 the applicants
request does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance criteria. In
this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings denying the site plan as requested.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends approval of the site plan as requested by the applicant.
This requires the following motion:
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-022PC approving a site plan
for a detached accessory structure to be built on one of two
nonconforming lots of record under single ownership separated by a
private road or driveway from from a lot with the principal structure.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-084\01-084VR.doc
Page 4
RESOLUTION Ol-022PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN TO PERMIT A DETACHED
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON ONE OF TWO NONCONFORMING LOTS OF
RECORD UNDER SINGLE OWNERSHIP SEPARATED BY A PRIVATE ROAD
OR DRIVEWAY
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. John & Jennifer Barncard have applied for site plan approval under the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a detached accessory structure on one
of two nonconforming lots of record located in the R-1 and SD (Shoreland ) District
at 16558 Inguadona Beach Circle, and legally described as follows:
Lots 10 & 25, Inguadona Beach, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a site plan as contained in
Case File #01-084PC and held hearings thereon on October 22,2001.
3. The applicants own two nonconforming lots of record, which are divided by a private
road or driveway. These lots have been combined and are considered a single parcel.
4. The location of the existing dwelling on Lot 10 precludes the construction of an
accessory structure on this parcel. The materials for the proposed accessory structure
are compatible in design and materials with the existing principal structure.
5. This proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in Section 1101.501 (3,d) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
6. The granting of the accessory structure is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the property owner.
7. The contents of Planning Case File #01-084PC are hereby entered into and made a
part of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
1:\01 files\O 1 varian ces\O 1-084\appres.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
",
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following conditions for the proposed structure as shown in attached Attachment 1 -
Certificate of Survey:
1. A site plan to permit a detached accessory structure on one of two nonconforming lots
of record under single ownership and separated by a private road or driveway from
the lot with the principal structure.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1) The property owner must file a deed restriction or covenants with the Scott
County Recorder in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This deed restriction
or covenant must include provisions that restrict theresubdivision of the lot. This
condition shall be met prior to the issuance of a building permit
2) The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the
acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 22,2001.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\Ol variances\O 1-084\appres.doc
2
........' ..."V..L.."..".. ''1'[' '''. .... '~n.l~~ U"'.. '--.,l1!"~-'';fI~'" .
~;t);. .~"'....,&;,l".i:!';:'''',,-;-\ ',,,:', ."", ".~. '.:. ..;; ;J:""""~::<l)~C"~~:~'~~:;l~"iV'.-;:t(,r:';c.::~tit;~,.: 1":-<::4:0",;.i",
;~~c~~~: ,,', ',,', "';:?:~~~;~i':' ,~~-;.:.~,~c~, '\
- .c,' ~~.~
.' ':~:~~:..'.
,i
, ,-- JDld CXi~1U .,9'6" -',
: 5 . . M..ZE..,S.OS /!
~loo':';;.- ~.n.,....... uz. ~
\1-----1' -..z -r--~-;:.
1&1 'J 51 0 ~ , I \, ~
~ ~1':Ag,CI Ii.
i .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ri-. : ~
, · t'~ Gl 1.\ ~ ~
U-, I_;,,! \ '{
,J
. ~.
,.....
:,:
~"'.'j
,
i
'la..i
~..
0"
III ..
~
-,,-
I
t
~
j...
If)
.
01
CD
1tI
~.........-...-
. - I.' '
o
..:I'
-f'
g
~-
t". ''''"~.1.'.""O
. , (J
. " ~'... C' ~ .. ~ ..,
" .,) . . . ,. \ .
, ~ ~
". " ... .... ......, .'.: .
. ... a" '" 4 ,
. II .i .! t ... '..
. ,& ~ . -:
U Q' '0,
. ... a
I
" .
1'1 ~
..
~ ':
~
. '
l
..
i
x
~Qt/') · ~i
.....;~~~ .....
, ~ ... .i.i:;~: ~ "_' -. .\
~~F~~;"!1'..:."~" :':~. ....~..
a:
w
CJ
..
.;..... .<,'
..
. "..
.-
I
,
..." '
\
"
j/
.
..'
.. ,....
I
':.
...
0
~
- ~
1:1
Q.
If)
III
en
,.
"
.
0
....
I-
Z
w
:!
J:
~
~
ti
\
\
\
.:)..
.J
o
i
/
~
~,
~.. '
.'
-1
\ '...-, I
~ 1
~J
'0
'" "........
I
.~..
.. .
" "
.:..\.
t'r
~,
,...(.
':'...i
\ r
.. !
.. ...
.. .. I"- ..
\ ~ 0\ .,
0
'So
~w
.f
.' i
~"'J
~,
~
~'-'~-:'r--:~
Q. -
N
,..,
T I \
, ~.
:.! -'~: L~ .-
SJf;)
ol..{v.O&
<i
I ~
17
I~
ATTACHMENT 2 - BUILDING PLANS
P,D
DO
o
D~
. II
q40
l ".. (/] f):' ~ I' I (1'-- q"' 0"1
~
, ,.
~
FRONT Elf VA/ION
I' I /I
~ALE ~ y~ : 1~O
:r" ..
.
. .
..
. ..
~
I II
:2L.f.O
1
':;
I
.
~155E~ II
:J4 (J.e.
)
( "RANCH MKDOWS
;.
\
r ' ,
II ,- tit J6 >< 8 OVHD DR.
.3J :S~ ~ .t.
(3) J. X~ ~~ (~)- J X /2 HE~R
1
-/,
........-
FLOnfZ.. PLAN
"
~CALE ~ ~:_c 1'. nil
-
...1::...
.
0.;:::
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with BuiIdingPermit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD).
The Maxi111UmImperviousS~rface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
~ co\\- c,. M~
..
.
PropertyAddressAJ,.!- \D,. ~:t:~(."'\J~X:>()~~e.~A.C_ ~I
LotArea (QlPb'3. Ci\o\.')",~--e\.qD\.\:PSq. Feet x. 300/0 = .............. . 13 ~ \
**'* ** * **:4c* ** * '\C*** '" ** * * * ***~** **'4<* ******** ** * ***** *** *** * * *** * "'* ***** *",**
WIDTH
x "3'1
=
SQ. FEET
6CO~
=
TOT AL P RIN tIP LE STR U CTURE... ....... ............
DET ACHEb BLDGS
((}arage/Shed) .
x
x.
TOTALDET ACHED BUILDINGS.......................
. .tp~....c..~-c.k ~~ct'!:.
DRlVEWAYIP A VEDAREAS~~~~ W"e\'-t x 1..l;
(Driveway-paved or not) ~c..\'L. 4.,. X '10
(SidewlllkiParking Areas) . X
=
?~q
&>
=
=
TOT ALP A YED AREAS.........................................
PATIOSIPORCHES/DECKS.
(Open Decks W' min. opening between
boards. with aperyious surface below.
are not considered to be imperVious)
x
=
x
=
x
=
TOT AL' DECKS........................................................
'?r1 s _
,fC~<O
t\"'''-
'3"1S
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
~'QVEJj'..'.'.... ............<.
pre;ed By ._A-~1<" .J ..
..c~mpany~~n+t%f~.r~i....
I
Dale 11'4 In
. ( '.
Phone # l{'-A"l-'2..S10
\101.
"Z.. -, 'L..J
. .. .
.)::-.
~
ii
o
:J:
s:
m
Z
....
w
I
....
-
s:
-a
m
:D
<
6
c:
en
en
c:
::D
J1
~
m
==
o
:D
.,.;
en
:I:.
m
m
uJ
CITY OF PRlOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Penn it Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shore land Distrlct (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address . ~\- 2'5 \ --c..N(S-\.)(:)o..nDt-oiAr-"\3~~
Lot Area L\~lo'-\ Sq. Feet x 300/0 = .............. \"3l.::.~
************************************************************************
LENGTH
WIDTH
SQ. FEET
HOUSE
x
=
x
=
A IT ACHED GARAGE
x
=
q~ooc<seb
~kT ACHED BLDGS
-
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE......................
3\..\ x '2.."-\
x
z:-.> \ ~
(Garage/Shed)
QRl:>~.>et>
DrovEWAY~AVEDAP~AS
~riveway-pave? or not)
(SidewalkIParking Areas)
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.......................
<2:>\<.0
t.\'Z.. ~ x \ lD
x
lo~
=
=
x
=
TOT.-\L P A YED AREAS.........................................
l.oiQo
P A TIOSfPORCHESfDECKS .
x
=
(Open Decks y." min. opening between
boards. with a pervious surface below.
are not considered to be impervious)
x
=
x
=
TOT.U DECKS........................................................
OTHER
x
=
x
=
TOT AL OTlIER........ ...................... .........................
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDE~ .'
Prepared By 1)~~ 1<\. CAJ
\
Company ~ '-'. \ \ 0 I.,R ~ '\ V\
Ie \'i.- ....'\'\-..-e... -e. '~\":~'\_' ~ ~ \ 'I-. \-z- S -etO
\ '--\ q \p
\L.1
Date '1- l..-t; -C> \
,~. Phone # '-\ '-\"l. - L.-t::;., 'D
b~ \('~"'^o 'Vi?Q
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
50
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK AND THE REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS, Case File #01-082
14934 PIXIE POINT ROAD
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_X_ YES NO
OCTOBER 22, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application for the construction of
a single family dwelling with an attached garage, as shown on the attached
survey, on the property located at 14934 Pixie Point Road, and legally described
as Lot 4, Block 1, Eastwood 2nd addition. The following variances are being
requested:
1. A 10' variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow the structure
to be setback 15' from the front property line and from the road easement
rather than the minimum requirement of 25 feet.
2. A 10' variance to the rear yard setback to permit the structure to be
setback 15' from the rear lot line rather than the minimum required
setback of 25 feet.
The attached survey also shows a 34.38' wide driveway access onto the road;
however, this survey was revised after the application was submitted and the
hearing notice published. The applicant has not requested a variance to the
maximum driveway width of 24 feet.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 4, Block 1, Eastwood 2nd Addition was platted in 1985. The property is
located within the R-1 SO (Low Density Residential Shoreland) district. The lot is
not a riparian lot, nor does the applicant own either of the adjacent parcels.
According to the survey submitted by the applicant, Lot 4, Block 1, Eastwood 2nd
Addition is 18,300 square feet in area. The lot is approximately 132 feet wide
L:\01files\01variances\01-082\pc report.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
'-
and 138 feet deep. There is also a 40' wide drainage and utility easement
located along the north 40' of this lot. There is also a road easement along the
west property boundary, ranging in width from 1.37' wide at the southwest corner
to 10' wide at the northwest corner of the lot.
The property also slopes from Pixie Point Road to the northeast corner. There is
approximately 24' of relief on this site, with elevations ranging from 954' at the
road to 930' at the northeast corner. This topography is based on County
information, because the applicant did not submit any topographic information.
The lost is also wooded, although no tree inventory has been submitted.
Using the required setbacks, and taking into consideration all of the existing
easements on the lot, this lot contains a building envelope 82' wide by 82' deep
at its narrowest point (approximately 6,724 square feet).
The proposed dwelling is an irregularly shaped structure approximately 90' long
by 50' wide at its widest points. The total footprint of the proposed house is
3,650 square feet in area. It is a walkout dwelling with a three-car garage, a
porch and a deck. The applicant has not submitted a floor plan for the dwelling.
The proposed impervious surface on the site is 25.14%, which is within the
allowed limits of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant is proposing to place the structure on the lot so it is located 26.92'
from the front property line, 15' from the roadway easement, 15' from the rear lot
line, 23.71' from the south side lot line and 33' from the north side lot line. It
must be noted that the proposed structure is encroaching into the 40' wide
easement on the north property line. The applicant has filed a petition to vacate
a portion of this easement. The Planning Commission will also consider this
petition at this meeting. As noted earlier in this report, the attached survey also
shows a 34.38' wide driveway access onto the road;however, this survey was
revised after the application was submitted and the hearing notice published.
The applicant has not requested a variance to the maximum driveway width of
24 feet.
The DNR had no comments on this request. The City Engineering Department
comments are attached. The Engineering Department comments primarily
concern the vacation of the existing easement. Also attached to this report is a
letter from the owner of the property to the south of this lot, objecting to the
requested variance.
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
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-082\pc report.DOC
Page 2
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.
There are no exceptional or extraordinary conditions on this lot that result in
an undue hardship. The applicant has the option of using a different house
design or of redesigning the proposed house to meet the required setbacks.
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 conditions applying to this lot are no different than the conditions
applying to other lots in the R-1 SO district, or to the lots in the immediate
area. The lot is a conforming lot of record.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
Granting this variance is not necessary for the preservation of a substantial
property right. The lot contains a building envelope 82' wide by 82' deep at
its narrowest point (approximately 6,724 square feet). A structure with a
different design can be located on this without the need for 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.
In staff's opinion, the granting of the variances would not impair light and air,
increase congestion in the 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 granting of the requested variances would probably not unreasonably
impact the character of the neighborhood. However, the proposed rear yard
variance may impact the value of the adjacent property by reducing the view.
There is an alternative location for the building that would allow both the new
and the existing dwellings to maintain a view of the lake.
L:\O 1 files\01 variances\O 1-082\pc report. DOC
Page 3
..
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
This is a conforming lot of record with a building envelope that can
accommodate a house of similar size as that proposed by the applicant
without the need for variances. Granting the variances may be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to maintain required setbacks for health,
safety and aesthetic purposes.
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.
Staff believes there is no demonstrable hardship in this case. The house can
be redesigned and relocated on the lot to eliminate the need for any
variances.
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 owner can submit a plan that conforms in all respects with the ordinance
requirements, and does not require any variances.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
The applicant has not stated a need for the variance based on increased
costs or economic hardship.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above findings, the staff finds that this request does not meet the
nine hardship criteria. There is a legal alternative for the construction of a house
on this lot. The staff therefore recommends denial of the requested variances.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this
case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings approving the variance requests.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-082\pc report. DOC
Page 4
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Ordinance criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends Alternative #3. This action required the following motion:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-021 PC denying the requested
variances to the front yard setback and the rear yard setback requirements.
L:\01files\01 variances\01-082\pc report. DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION Ol-021PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO REQUIRED 25' FRONT YARD
SETBACK AND THE REQUIRED 25' REAR YARD SETBACK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Jim Koestering, on behalf of the Kathy Allegrezza and Jerry Hein, has applied for
variances from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a single family home to be constructed
on property zoned R-ISD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District), located at
14934 Pixie Point Road, and legally described as follows:
Lot 4, Block 1, Eastwood Second Addition, Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-082 and held hearings thereon on October 22, 2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Granting the variance as proposed could be construed to be in conflict with the
intention of the Zoning Ordinance, which establishes the minimum front and rear yard
setbacks for health, safety and aesthetic purposes.
5. Reasonable use of the property exists in that there is a legal building envelope on the
lot, which would allow the construction of a house of similar size and design without
the need for variances.
6. There is no justifiable hardship in this case as reasonable use of the property exists
without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance 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.
1:\0 lfiles\O 1 variances\01-082\pcres 0] -021 pc.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
There is a legal building envelope on the lot, which would allow the construction of a
house of similar size and design without the need for variances.
8. The contents of Planning Case File #0-082 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 requested variances:
1. A 10' variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow the structure to be
setback 15' from the front property line and from the road easement rather than
the minimum requirement of 25 feet.
2. A 10' variance to the rear yard setback to permit the structure to be setback 15'
from the rear lot line rather than the minimum required setback of 25 feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 22, 2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\Olfiles\OI variances\OI-082\pcres OI-02Ipc.doc
2
Location Map
6 I
COJRT
5
4
3
I
I
~
/1
~OT I
/' A'
~+---->/-<-- \-
T---+------- \\
2 i 1 i 5
I I
/ k~
14934 Pixie Point Cirde
2 ~ 1 5 6 7
\ I
, I
I '
I
I
F
H
BUCKEY'S
N 1ST
18 (j)2
CJ) Z r- "- J
0 CJ) K L
....J 'v' I
, .!, ....J
O::il~3 i ~~_~ t I ZI
i I
! N\ I N'
II I
I !
I I --- I
: I
I 1 : ~
I I
OAK Rl DG
1 ;
,
i
I
2
I
3 !
4
5
OUTLOT A
GREEN /
/
\
\
N
A
200
Q
200
400 Feet
~
.- .~...
PIXIE POINT CIRCLE
SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION
For: Jim Koestering Homes
PROPOSED HOUSE LOCATION
. - I I
I
I
CID~"- ^,.....~I.,-lr"',1 I
I II \ __ I " U LJ I , I v , 'I
.,- f""\ ~
IV
-DR.o.INACE /it UTlLlTY-, I
E/~, S T\^v' C C D t." EASEMENT PER PLAT I
DRAINAGE & UTILITY I \
EASEM"'T PER PlA" ,-< r \ I
NORTHWEST CORNER LO"h ~ '\ ~ G \ r - NORTHEAST CORNER LOT
4, BLOCK I, EASTWOOD I \ '\ ,-<\., \ 4, BLOCI< I, EASTWOOD
SECOND ADDITION / \ \ : r \.J \ SECOND ADDITION
25 \\'137.27 S89038'30';;'W \
W
.-J
()
10:::
()
..-
Z
10
0-
w
X
nl'
I LL.I '\
18
....Oz
3:0
SliiE
-,<0.
wo;
W < ".
Z_"
::'x!!
1-(,>0
1Il00
""-'W
~ III III
25
Scale:
1" =30'
o
o
ci
...
\
SOUTH LINE OF THE
\ NORTH -4fl.tlfJ FEET
1-- _ ...
~ - 715.00 )J~~ ~
Ol
o
"
\
cog
1"")"':
.0
""I-
I"")
o
(J)
N
I"")
l"'1
I"'l
;t
I" ~
".
NO
...1fI
....
o
v,
~'<
--'
~o.
::.D:
w
..a.
wI-
",z
<.....
~~
<Ill
" IXce
" 0...
I .....--?
- _ aO.'9 _ _ _ _
"~J7/ 138.83 N89"58'4'''W
/
- -SOUTH LINE LOT 4,
BLOCK I, EASTWOOD
SECOND ADDITION
"
I-
~I-
;:l!z
WW
~ ~cn
Wul'l
>- 010
I- o~
::'p:: ,
;~~
I
I
R.
I f""\""
l.V'
...
,,,
Page 2 of 2
James
N
()
()
()
-.
:::.
1--
(,')
<(
L.J
()
1--
-".
"'-
()
1--
()
()
<(
1--
(/) ~
0:::
-- ~
L,_
~
I\:
c:l
e!
II>
Hill,
Inc.
DRAINAGE & UTILITY
EASEMENT PER PLA\
NORTHViEST CORNER LOh~ '\
4, BLOCK I, EASTWOOD I \ "-
SECOND ADDITION I \ \
'\ '\
\
2!\
W3:
...J
UCTl
N
I~ en
U~
o
1-0
ZZ
-
10
a..
w
X
I O:~',,-
18
..~~
I-r=F
3~~.
W \
W '"
Z -
~-~
1-00
Inou
~~bl
Scale: 1"'=30'
PIXIE POINT CIRCLE
SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION
For: Jim Koestering Homes
LEGAL BUILDING IENVELOfE
, I I
\ I
I I
k -DR"''''AGE &: UTILITy., \
I' EASEMENT PER PLAT I
't...:.
j I ~ J
~ -<' (J'
\ \.0'
: (J\ J '
137.27 S89038'30"W
r-Ij:) C"""- ^ r"\ f'"'\ IT' f""\ 1\ I
,- I' \...;;, " U U I , I U I ... .
T f""\
IV
r- ^ c- T' ~ 'A A r"\
L_'-' ~ I ~'U V L.I
, I
_.~-----
N
. .......-..... ..,.
r - NORTHEAST CORNER LOT
\ 4, BLOCI< I, EASTWOOD
SECOND ADDITION
\
I I
'0
o
o
~,
\
\
\
\
\
SOUTH LINE or THE
\- NORTH 40.00 FEET
/ \
o
o
o
~
i
\.
i t.-
.0.
: 0
t........\. ~
.
.'
,~ ' ,:,::::::::,::Jr~t{i!itl.' '..::i!:?:i};':U~;=::U.::::.i;i{::i:,:\'i;:;::$ti:;;:r::t:::.:.;::::.'
ro8
1")....
,0
N-
I"')
!
!aj
o
I1J
'. ....;...::..:;..:...:..:.;:;:..:..::..::.::.;.......
...
~,J7/
/
- -SOUTH LINE LOT ...
BLOCK I, EASTWOOD
SECOND ADDITION
...
~I-
~ffi
~~fJ I
Wu
~g~
215 .
::>Il..~
... I
,...
James R.
25
I A-r.
L.U I
Page 2 of 2
p.'
o
v
CTl
o
"
()
()
()
-~
-~
j:-
C')
;
<I
L.J
()
f--
-".
,,(,-
()
f--
()
()
<(
f--
(n ~
D:::
L,_ ~
~
II:
Q
e!
co,
o
Ul
N
I"')
I"')
I"')
Hill, Inc.
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us]
Friday, September 28,2001 1 :06 PM
Shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com
Koestering Homes Variance and Vacation, & Alfred Cutaia Setback Variance
No DNR comments on the two subject zoning matters that were sent here for review.
....
~
1
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (KoesterinQ Variance and Vacation)
for the following:
)<. Water City Code Grading
'j.., Sewer )(. Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric X. Roads! Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion Control, Other
Recommendation:
Approval ~ Denial
Conditional Approval
Comments:
Al.L. b.'l>'i"'Ir.l(, OTII-ITIES LOCA"if-J;) 1'-> -me. EASU\EtJ':""' ?~oP':'5.D To
{V\\lS;- 3E. LoCA7E..D'tIl'J[', S",(l,uE'!'E.C::> 1-l"'~ 51-10'...)-..1 o~ s~lt...lf-,J
SA")'''~\' SEu>E:Jl.. SThIl.M 5Eu.:.€R. l..>A~Q.' I PH"""!: I rAr..LE E.L;:~.:Tn.,C.
Be \J~CAT6.b
'mIS: IAJU~.\ES oJ
f-l....C\.CA5 _,o~ "'t1~O(
~ -MP.K€. '-1-lE.M <MovE: Hl'\..i<'E."'TC-, TI-IE.. <:',/l-Jj...!, (..JIl-l.. EU~(^".'\r€. rno~LE.1"\. . .
'?.. NO- S-lAfl.OS;-.IIP
Signed:
'_ ~ GJ ~ cj)-~-tt-
Date:
Q(c8)6J
Please return any comments by Thursday, October 4,2001, to
Jane Kansier, ORC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9812
Fax: (612) 447-4245
'.
1:\01 files\O 1 vacations\O 1-083\referral.doc
Page 2
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jane Kansier
Monday, October 08, 2001 8:30 AM
Steve Horsman
FW: Koestering variance
--Original Message---
From: Sue McDermott
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 5:38 PM
To: Jane Kansier
Subject: Koestering variance
Jane-
Additional comments from public works:
1 ) The storm sewer must be shown on the survey.
2)lt may be possible to vacate a portion of the easement but the forcemain will have to be potholed and surveyed. The
Engineering Department must be contacted 48 hours in advance of this work being done.
3) Again, both storm sewer and street are proposed to be reconstructed next year and it may not be in the City's best
interest to vacate any easements until plans are completed.
Sue McDermott
City Engineer
City of Prior Lake
(952) 447-9831
1
October 15,2001
OCT I 5 2001
I ___._.________._.__..__'~_.__.'_"'"
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Sir or Madam:
lam writing in regards to the request by Jim Koestering Homes for the
property location legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, Eastview Second
Addition, Scott County Minnesota. Or 14934 Pixie Point Circle. I live on
the adjacent lot, Lot 3, 14916 Pixie Point Circle. My concern is the setback
of 15 feet from the rear property line.
My home was constructed in 1960, the fITst building on the 4 lot property
owned by Wes Green. When I purchased the home in 1989, it was the only
house on the properties. Over the last 12 year period Lot 1 and 2 were sold
and homes constructed on them. These homes are at least 25 feltt from the
rear property line. The adjacent lot to my rear, Lot 2, was raised 15 feet
above my lot to accommodate access to Pixie Point Cir1ce.
Now a request is on the table to allow this new home to be built less than
25 feet from the rear property line. This will take away the view of the lake
that my lot has had from the beginning to now allow someone new that
view. If the new home is not allowed the 15 foot setback and instead held to
the 25 foot requirement, my home will retain it's view and the new home
will also still be able to enjoy a view of the lake as well.
My request is that the variance for the 15 foot rear setback be denied to
allow my home to retain the view that it was meant to have and thus retain
it's property value.
~ yon ~e and consideration.
POlly~r
14916 Pixie Point Circle.
Prior Lake, MN 55372.
,.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AT 14934
PIXIE POINT ROAD (Case File #01-083)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_YES X NO-N/A
OCTOBER 22, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Jim Koestering is requesting the vacation of a portion of the 40' wide drainage
and utility easement located on the north side of the property legally described
as Lot 4, Block 1, Eastwood 2nd Addition. This request also includes the vacation
of a portion of the 10' wide road and utility easement located along the west
property line of this lot. This easement was dedicated to the City in 1984 when
Eastwood 2nd Addition was platted.
The applicant is proposing to construct a house on this lot. As presently
designed, the house would encroach into the existing easement.
As required by State Statute 462.356 Subd.2, the Planning Commission is
required to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposal or
acquisition of public lands as it relates to compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Cou ncil to vacate
easement or right-of-way by resolution. The statute also states "no such
vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the public interest to do so".
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of
the existing easement comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public
need or anticipated future need for the dedicated property?
1:\01 files\OI vacations\01-083\01-083 pc report.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.,
Comprehensive Plan Review
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss utility easements, other
than as a function of ensuring access to public utilities. There are existing
utilities, including storm sewer and sanitary sewer, located within the 40' wide
easement. The Engineering Department has noted that it may be possible to
vacate a portion of this easement; however, the location of the existing utilities
must be field surveyed and shown on the certificate of survey before staff can
determine how much of the easement may be vacated. A portion or all of the
easement may also be required for the 2002 Pixie Point reconstruction project.
The 10' wide easement located along the west property line is for both utilities
and the existing road. The Engineering Department has noted that Pixie Point
Road, along with the storm sewer, is scheduled for reconstruction in 2002. It is
not in the best interest to vacate any of this easement until those plans are
completed.
Public Need
As noted above, there are existing utilities located within the easement area,
While it may be possible to vacate some of the 40' wide easement, the
determination of just how much of the easement can be vacated depends on the
precise location of the utilities. In addition, the 10' wide easement on the west
side of the lot includes both utilities and the existing roadway. Until plans for the
reconstruction of this road are complete, the easement should remain in place.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information submitted thus far, there appears to be a public need
for these easements. The Planning staff therefore recommends denial of this
request. It may be possible to vacate some portion of the 40' wide easement; .
however, in order to make this determination, the applicant must submit a
certificate of survey that identifies all of the existing utilities, including sanitary
sewer and storm sewer, as located in the field. In addition, no part of this
easement should be vacated until the Pixie Point project has been designed and
constructed, so any future need for the easement can be determined.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the proposed vacation of the
easement as presented or with changes recommended by the
Commission.
2. Continue the discussion to a date and time certain to allow the staff to
provide additional information specifically requested by the Planning
Commission.
1:\01 files\OI vacations\01-083\01-083 pc report.doc
2
3. Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny
part or all of the applications based upon inconsistency of the proposal
with specific regulations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and/or
specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #3.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council deny the vacation of the
easement as requested.
J:\Olfiles\Olvacations\OI-083\Ol-083 pc report.doc
3
Location rvlap
BUCKEY'S
~ \
1ST
N CJ) I ~>
18 - 2 \ L
" Z 1-, \ K
~Io ~ 'v" I
I ....J....J \ i <(-" i +
i a::i1w3 N\ \
i i i u.. I
,
II I - ~ ---
I I,
, -:-1
i I ,
;JRT I 4
, ! 5 I
I
, I 1 I I
RIDGE I
QAK , I I
! i ,
, , I I
, I I
I I 3
I I 2 : I
\ I
\
N
A
200
F
5
H
2
-~
I
I
I
I
I '
~~
11/
~:T :
I
I
I
! !
I
I ,
I
3 I 2 I
I I
I !
I
4 5 /
0
\
" I
I
I
j
5
OUTlOT A
/
GREEN
200
400 Feet
I I
I I
I I
C'C>"~ . '"''"''~''"',,! I I
111\"';1 r'IJIJIIIV,,,:
;
Tf'"\ ~
IV
-ORAINAGE Be IJTILITY-o\
c:;',S'T\v^~/CC8 EASEr-tENT PER PLAT \
OR~N'.' · unClTY '-! I ')
EASEMENT PER PLAT ~
':-- _APPROXIMATE LOCATION I3Y CliENT --< ,......
NORTHWEST CORNER LOt.. '\ " jJ:' ,--< ,\or;:; , ( - NORTHEAST CORNER LOT
4. BLOCK 1. EASTWOOD I \ 4, BLOCK I, EASTWOOD
SECOND ADDITION I \ ~ ; r '...) , SECOND ADDITION
'~ ! ~ \
13i27S890:38'30"W
SKETCH AND PESCRIPTION
I
For: Jim Koestering
Homes
I
25
o<l
0</
,,;
w~
-1 -
() -0'1
N
I~ en
()~
o
o
z
~
t-
Z
- co8
o r'1"':
.0
a.. N~
n
W
-
x
0..-1 "
I I"
18
.....~z
I-~O
0"''=
-'.:58 "
w < ".
z..:
:J~'i
1-00
"'Of..)
~ffi~
I
I
James R.
LOT-4
5 10
138.83
..'....,..
-
'l.1..371"
/
- -SOUTH LINE LOT 4,
BLOCK I, EASTWOOD
SECOND ADDITION
I f'"\ "T;
L.V'.
25
"'\
"....
Scale: 1"=30'
Page 2 of 2
N
C)
()
()
-...
...
j:-
(,'J
<(
LIJ
....-
0 ()
If) r-
N
r'1 -?
L_
n ()
n --
r-
--
C)
C)
<C
f--
(/) ~
iJ~ 0
LI_ ~
-;
~
I\;
~
Q:
Hill, Inc.
Jane Kansier
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sue McDermott
Thursday, October 04,2001 5:38 PM
Jane Kansier
Koestering variance
Jane-
Additional comments from public works:
1) The storm sewer must be shown on the survey.
2)lt may be possible to vacate a portion of the easement but the forcemain will have to be potholed and surveyed. The
Engineering Department must be contacted 48 hours in advance of this work being done.
3) Again, both storm sewer and street are proposed to be reconstructed next year and it may not be in the City's best
interest to vacate any easements until plans are completed.
Sue McDermott
City Engineer
City of Prior Lake
(952) 447-9831
..
1
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (KoesterinQ Variance and Vacation)
for the following:
y. Water City Code Grading
j.. Sewer )<. Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric X Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion ControL Other .
Recommendation: _ Approval ~ Denial
Conditional Approval
Comments:
Au... &\~IIr..lU> OTIL,IT,ES LOC4~....D 1"-.\ "'i1-IE. tASU'lEJJ"':'"" ?~oP~o6.b To
-Mus-;- i3E. LoCA7~J1I\JD S'-'n.uE."....~ i'\ Nt) SHo-...hJ Q r-J s..;(t.J E-:'
5A.J'Tr'\~'I' se,-",~ STha"" 5Eu.>F.R wATER I ?H!),,-,E I ('MbLe:. E.L!c..TR\c..
BE U~CAi.s.t:>
'Tr;,s ~.. IAJU. ~M: S -J
A"-'ClcA-S _~-~ "t1z$O(
~ - MAKE. THE M MovE:
'? - N 0 ~A(l.OSH If:>
HI'\,.;<.E: T.,....
THE..
C;I)..)'~
.
L...) I L.\...
EW.....'NArF-
moC'lLE.fYI.. , .
Signed:
.- _ ~ LJ ~ c:-.r)~-tt-
Date:
1{c8)61
Please return any comments by Thursday, October 4, 2001, to
Jane Kansier, ORC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9812
Fax: (612) 447-4245
(:\01 files\O 1 vacations\O 1-083\referral.doc
Page 2