HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 26, 2001
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26,2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda: None
s. Public Hearings: None
6. Old Business:
A. #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.
7. New Business:
A. TIP District 3-1 Resolution
B. Election to fill vacancy in Chair position.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:IOI meslOI plancommlOlpcagendalAG 112601.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the November 13,2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Stamson and Vonhof,
Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue
McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
Vonhof
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the October 22, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Consent:
A. Case #01-082 Koestering Variance Resolution
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier gave a brief overview of the report.
There were no questions from the Commissioners.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-
23PC APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 25' FRONT YARD
SETBACK.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
5. Public Hearings:
A. Cases #01-062 & #01-063 Merlyn Olson Development is requesting
consideration for a preliminary PUD Plan and a preliminary plat consisting of 5.003
acres to be subdivided into 32 townhouse lots on the property located on the south
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MNII1301.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2001
side ofCSAH 21, 'l2 block north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue
and east of West Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 13,
2001, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department.
Merlyn Olson Homes has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Eaglewood East on the property located south of CSAH 21, Y2 block north of Colorado
Street, west of Duluth Avenue and east of West Avenue. The application includes the
following requests:
. Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
. Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of a total of 32 dwelling units
on 4.536 net acres, for a total density of7.1 units per acre. The proposed development
includes 28 dwelling units 7 four-unit buildings, and 4 dwelling units in 2 two-unit
buildings. The development also includes a private street and private open space.
Merlyn Olson Homes is the developer of this project. The application has also been
signed by the current property owners, Lee Klingberg and Gary Staber.
There are several outstanding issues, which must be addressed. The first major issue is
the need for additional right-of-way as discussed above. Whether or not this right-of-way
is dedicated affects the design of the development. This issue should be resolved before
the Council approves a preliminary plat. The second major issue is whether the PUD
process is appropriate for this development. The primary justification for a PUD appears
to be the use ofthe private streets. A cluster development of this type is permitted with
conditions in the R-3 district, so a similar development with public streets could be done
without a PUD. Finally, the third issue is the extension of Racine Street to Duluth
Avenue. This intersection should be eliminated as recommended by staff. This issue, as
well as the remaining issues, are primarily design issues that can be addressed with the
final PUD plan and the final plat.
If the Planning Commission finds the PUD process is appropriate for this development,
the staff would recommend the following conditions be attached:
1. The access to Colorado Street must be eliminated and Racine Street must be designed
with a cul-de-sac or a turn-around on the east end.
2. The unit identified as Lot 1, Block 7, must be located at least 30' from the lOa-year
flood elevation ofthe NURP pond, or it must be eliminated.
3. The setback between the townhouse buildings must be at least Y2 the sum of the
building heights of the two buildings. The building elevations must be submitted to
scale to identify the height ofthe buildings, and the site plan must identify the
setbacks.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MNl I 130 I.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13,2001
4. The site plan and the building plans must be revised to show all decks and porches.
5. The tree inventory and preservation plan must be refined to indicate whether the trees
along the north side of the property are located on the property or on the County road
right-of-way. Ifnecessary, the plan must be revised to include any additional tree
replacement required.
6. Revise the landscaping plan to meet the requirements of Section 1107.1900, and
specifically to identify the size of the proposed plantings. The plan must also identify
how the bufferyard requirements are being met. The landscaping plan must also
identify the necessary replacement trees.
7. Provide an irrigation plan.
8. The calculation of usable open space must be revised to eliminate the area for new
storm water ponds.
9. A drainage and utility easement must be provided over all of Outlot B.
10. The plat must identify the drainage and utility easements over the wetlands and storm
water ponds.
11. The items outlined in the memorandum from the City Engineer, dated August 1,
2001, must be addressed prior to the final plat.
12. All necessary permits from other agencies must be obtained prior to any grading on
the site or prior to final plat approval.
The Planning staff recommended Alternative #2, to table this item to December 10,2001
and provide the developer with direction on the issues discussed.
Lemke questioned staff's recommendation for a cul-de-sac on the east end of Racine
Street. Kansier responded.
Vonhof questioned a right-in right-out access. McDermott stated they could look at it.
Comments from the public:
Merlyn Olson, ofMerlyn Olson Development Company, thanked staff for the
presentation and welcomed the neighbors. Olson gave an overview of the project. He
would like to see the project attractive to all. The price range for the townhomes would
be around $160,000. Olson responded to some of staff's issues and stated he would be
in favor of continuing the hearing to the December 10, 2001 meeting for additional time
to deal with those concerns.
Bill Bleckwenn, the landscape architect explained he had a complete landscape plan
meeting the requirements.
Bill Jacobson lives on Racine Avenue and felt his residence would be greatly impacted
by the project. Jacobson is an attorney with experience in real estate development and
felt the density was too high for Duluth Avenue and County Road 21, which is extremely
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MNII1301.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13,2001
busy and has had many accidents. W est Avenue is also impacted because it is the only
place people can park and fish on Prior Lake. He had concerns for the wetland, drainage
and runoff. Jacobson pointed out there would only be 8 additional visitor parking spaces,
which would not be adequate given the surrounding lack of parking space. He stated he
is not opposed to development or anti-development, but this is too large a development
for the space. Jacobson recommended denial of the development.
Lyaman McPherson, 16282 West Avenue, said he spent time today at the Spring Lake
Prior Lake Watershed District who were not aware of the project. McPherson read a
petition stating opposition to the project that included conditions that it was not consistent
with the surrounding housing development, preservation of the wetland and the existing
drainage problems on W est Avenue and County Road 21 and the increase in traffic will
further complicate the already heavy traffic. The existing church and school have
congested traffic problems. Property values will be affected. McPherson said the
watershed issues must be addressed as well as the parking. There is no play area for the
children. The amounts of units should be reduced. The atmosphere will be greatly
impacted. They would like to allow the development but not the current proposal.
Josie Schmaltz, 16200 West Avenue, across from Racine Street, stated the traffic is
excessive on West Avenue. Weekends, morning and afternoon peak traffic is
unbelievable. People park on both sides of the street to fish on Prior Lake. Residents
have brought petitions for "No Parking" signs to the City only to be denied. She knows
Merlyn builds quality homes, but this project does not fit. There are too many units for
the area. No one wants it. Every spring County Road 21 floods. Schmaltz explained the
proposed park in 1983. She was not against the project, would rather see single-family
housing.
Greg Ilkka, Assistant Scott County Engineer, Scott County Highway Department,
supported staffs recommendation to table the matter. Ilkka explained the request for the
additional right-of-way and widening the roadway. Under Design Standards the County
needs 120 feet minimum right-of-way to build a 4 to Slane road and maintain the
existing sidewalks and trails. Ilkka explained they do not have a full plan ofthe proposed
plan for widening County Road 21. It makes more sense to ask for the land on the south
side of County Road 21 than come in later and impact the residents. They are trying to
avoid that scenario.
Heidi Peterson, 4346 Colorado Street said she was extremely disappointed with this
development. They bought their property last August because it was a quiet established
neighborhood. Some of her concerns are the wetland, the trees, the high traffic and the
small amount of parking allocated for the project. She stated she used to live in
townhomes and did not want more townhome-type people in the area. The proposed
landscaping will change the entire look of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is
opposed to the proj ect.
Julie Bruha, 4190 Colorado Street, noted the parkway was a Hennepin County Park trail.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MNl1 1301.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13,2001
Dan Willgahs, 4432 Colorado Street, said many residents are hitting on the same points,
but wanted to reinforce the traffic issues. Questioned the County's traffic proposal.
Vonhof responded the City Engineering Department can explain some of the traffic
issues. Willgahs pointed out that he lives across from St. Michael's School and many
people are using his driveway to turn-around. Willgahs explained the traffic problems
with the existing parking and the increased traffic.
Anna Mae Ryan, 4296 Colorado Street, questioned the County's painted crosswalk. No
one stops at County Road 21. Many of the residents and homes were present before
County Road 21. She explained the skateboard problems. Another problem is the
increase in parking for fishing and lake usage. Residents have the right to use their own
driveways. Ryan pointed out the growing problem with St. Michael's Church and School.
There should be stoplights on County Road 21. V onhof said the crosswalk problems can
be forwarded to the police department.
Joanne Brandstedter, 4452 Colorado Street, explained situations with the neighborhood
racers and an unknown car parked in her driveway. She felt Prior Lake is not a very
pretty area. She proposed the City purchase the land from the developer and increase the
benefit of the area and put in a small parking lot and reduce the drainage problems on
W est Avenue and Duluth Street. She explained the drainage problems in her back yard
and suggested other changes and alternatives entering downtown Prior Lake.
The floor was closed at 7:43 p.m.
Kansier did point out the stop sign proposals and the proposed parking lot at Grainwood
Park. McDermott said they would like to add 6 spaces.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Questioned the R3 zoning. Kansier responded it was there for several years and used
to be zoned R4.
· What is the Planning Commission's role if a developer meets the requirements and
the Planning Commission does not want it, can the Commission say "No"? Kansier
explained the process pointing out it would be difficult to deny the proposal if it
meets the ordinances.
· What is the market value of the land if the City were to purchase the property?
Kansier said she could not guess. Staff did not have that information.
Stamson:
· Being within the density allowed, given the amount of green space, excluding the
ponding, the zoning is definitely what the City had in mind when it was zoned R3.
Given that, there is a definite problem of increase of traffic and how to deal with it.
· The plan needs to be further reviewed with the traffic in mind.
· Against the cul-de-sac proposal, all the traffic is pushed on to W est Avenue, which is
far less than an ideal street. Duluth Avenue is built to a higher level of traffic.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MNl1 1301.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13,2001
. Pointed out the traffic problems for the development turning onto Duluth Avenue.
. Maybe a right-in, right-out access would be a preferable solution.
. The tree preservation proposal meets the requirements.
. Density needs to be looked at.
Atwood:
. Does not like the development. The developer decided to maximize the density.
. The buffers are not adequate.
. The traffic on Racine will not work.
. Does not like the right-in, right-out solution.
. The streets and project will not support the traffic.
. The matter should be tabled.
. No problem as a PUD.
. This is an already overburdened neighborhood and this project would only add fuel to
the fire.
. The additional parking of 8 spaces in the project will not work.
. Would be more agreeable to a lower density.
Vonhof:
. Before tabling this issue would like to see a traffic study on Duluth Avenue and West
Avenue and estimate of traffic impact by the proposal done by a traffic engineer.
. Would like to see an Environment Report done by the developer regarding the
wetland.
. The City modified the NURP pond, was it done correctly? McDermott responded the
NURP pond was redeveloped to take some development on this site into account.
Not the entire site, but at least half. The County has addressed the flooding on
County Road 21 by adding a catch basin. It probably alleviated some of the problem.
She hadn't noticed any problems since.
. County Road 21 will be expanded in size. It has shifted the traffic patterns off
Highway 13 to County Road 21. This will impact the site. It will be foolish not to
heed the County's input.
. Would not consider any development without sidewalks.
. The density and size ofthe buildings acts as a buffer between County Road 21 and
the existing homes. Is it esthetically pleasing? Probably not.
. Would like to see more preservation or something more creative than what is
proposed. This is basically a row oftownhomes.
. More buffering is needed.
. The spirit of the PUD is to make homes cluster and fit into that area and maintain as
much natural preservation as possible.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO TABLE THE MATTER TO
DECEMBER 10,2001, TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS AND
THE ISSUES IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MNII1301.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2001
A recess was called at 8:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:08 p.m.
6. Old Business:
A. #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.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated November 13,
2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
At the October 22,2001, public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff
report, heard comments from the applicant, and discussed the Variances requested. The
Commission determined that a revised survey with additional correct information was
needed to make a decision, and continued the public hearing to the next scheduled
meeting date of November 13, 2001. The additional information required includes the
existence of a 15' sanitary sewer easement granted to the City of Prior Lake that was not
depicted on the survey, and correct information regarding the existing and proposed
structures as submitted with the Variance request.
As ofthe date ofthe staff report, November 6, 2001, the applicant had not submitted the
additional information with a revised survey. Staff contacted the applicant for a progress
report and was told the survey contractor had not completed their research on this project.
The applicant requested additional time to acquire the requested information.
The applicant was present and presented the new information.
David and Rachel Norling distributed the new survey to staff and the Commissioners.
David explained the deck issue and that the setback variance is no longer necessary.
Norling went on to explain their proposed reductions with parking and overhangs.
Rachel felt a 3-car garage would be standard. She also felt parking was an important
safety issue.
Comments from the Commissioners:
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING
TO NOVEMBER 26,2001.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all.
7. New Business:
None
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MN11130!.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2001
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Commissioner V onhof is resigning from the Planning Commission after the November
26, 2001 meeting.
Commissioners Atwood, Lemke and Stamson went on record to say Congratulations and
how sorry they will be to see him go. Rye stated in his 35 years as a Planning Director,
Tom was one of the best Commissioners he had worked with.
Rye noted City Council reviewed the Downtown Zoning District Ordinance and deferred
action and is sending it back to the staff to deal with the non-conforming uses and size
limitations.
A new chair should be elected at the next meeting.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN 11130 l.doc
8
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
6A
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
VARIANCES TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD SETBACK
LESS THAN 25 FEET, A SUM OF SIDE YARDS LESS
THAN 15 FEET, EAVE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE
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
NOVEMBER 26, 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.
At the October 22,2001, public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the
staff report, heard comments from the applicant, and discussed the variances
requested. The Commission determined that a revised survey with additional
information was needed to make a decision, and continued the public hearing to
the next scheduled meeting date.
On November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission again continued the public
hearing until the November 26th meeting date because the additional information
and revised survey had not been submitted in time for review by the staff. The
new information required on a revised survey included the existing 15' sanitary
sewer easement granted to the City of Prior Lake, and correct information
regarding the existing structures dimensions, setback to the OHWM, and the
proposed addition's dimensions.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
,"
..
j
The revised survey depicts the actual proposed setback of 63' to the OHWM, not
50' as originally submitted. This setback is permitted by averaging the setbacks
of two adjacent structures, Lot 3 is at 70' and Lot 5 is setback 50' [(70 + 50) / 2 =
60]. Therefore, the Variance request for a structure setback to the OHWM is not
required. In addition, the applicant has revised the building plans and reduced
the eave projection from 22-inches to 1-foot which reduces the encroachment
Variance request to 1-foot (Attachment 1 - Revised Certificate of Survey
Dated 10/29/01).
The applicant is now requesting the following Variances:
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 1.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 8.5-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)].
3. A 1-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 4-
feet from a side lot line, rather than the minimum required 5-feet
[Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments (1 )].
4. A 2.6-foot variance to permit a building wall 66-feet in length to be
setback 5-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.66-
feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 (6)].
5. 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.
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
L:\O 1 files\O 1 variances\O 1-080\VarRpt3 .doc
Page 2
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).
The front and rear additions add 24' and 14 I to the length of 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 for the garage. Although the existing house is
currently setback 5', the addition is considered an expansion which is not
permitted under City Code.
The applicant now proposes to reduce the main level room addition by 3';
thereby creating a 3' break or 90 degree offset in the 66' building wall. However
the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum break of 10% (6.6') of the total
building wall length to eliminate the additional setback requirement (66' x 10% =
6.6'). This variance request could be reduced or eliminated by resizing the
garage depth to 22' and recessing the exterior garage wall by 3.3' away from the
south lot line, and creating a combined 10% break in the total wall length with
two 270-degree turns in the direction of the exterior wall away from the south lot
line (Attachment 5 - Applicant Letter Dated 11/13/01).
As proposed, the combined side yards on the subject lot total 13.5' (5' + 8.5' =
13.5'). This requires a 1.5' variance, as the minimum sum of side yards required
on nonconforming lots is 15'. This variance request could be eliminated by
reducing the garage and deck width by 1.5' and provide for the minimum
required 10' setback. The applicant has now proposed eliminating the deck from
the proposed project. This leaves the garage setback at 8.85'
A l' variance is also requested to allow the eave/gutter to encroach within 4-feet
of the side lot line. This original request was reduced l' by resizing the eaves by
1 '. The existing house eaves currently encroach into the same side yard,
however, this addition is considered an expansion of a nonconforming structure
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-080\VarRpt3.doc
Page 3 -
and not permitted by code. This request could be eliminated again by reducing
the garage size at least l' in width.
The revised survey depicts a proposed setback of 63' from the OHWM, and will
compensate for a 2' bay window and l' eave overhang as proposed by the
applicant. A 60' OHWM setback is allowed and was determined by averaging
the existing structures north and south of the subject lot.
The applicant submitted an existing impervious surface worksheet with 1,504
square feet of coverage area or 21 % (Attachment 3 - Existing Impervious
Surface Area). 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 driveway another 96
square feet, this variance request for 256 square feet can be eliminated
(Attachment 4 - Proposed Impervious surface Area).
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck-walkway that appears
about 1.5' from the south lot line. 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 without approval of a variance.
The revised Certificate of Survey includes the sanitary sewer easement as
required by the City Engineering Department. Staff has determined the
proposed building addition does not encroach the easement. In addition, the
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 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 merit when applied
to the standards of the hardshi\Sl criteria (Attachment 6 - Applicant Narrative).
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
L:\01 files\01 variances\O 1-080\VarRpt3.doc
Page 4
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.
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 structure's location and proximity to the front lot line, this
precludes the ability to build a garage without some form of front setback
variance. However, as requested, Variance #'s 2, 3, 4, 5, do not meet the
hardship criteria because a redesign can eliminate these 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, the requested setbacks to the front and side yards, 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 2 - 5 appears to impair
these stated values but do not appear to endanger the public safety or
increase the danger of fire.
L:\O 1 files\01 variances\01-0BO\ VarRpt3.doc
Page 5
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 reduced front setback variance to permit a 22' deep 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 -
5 will unreasonably impact the character and development of the
neighborhood.
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 # 1, can be reduced and Variance #'s
2 - 5 can be 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.
However, as requested, the remaining 4 variances do not meet the nine
hardship criteria.
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.
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.
L:\O 1 files\01 variances\01-080WarRpt3.doc
Page 6
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, and may also affect the remaining
variances as a redesign in the proposed additions, as recommended by staff,
could increase the material and labor costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff believes that all of the variance criteria have been met with respect to
some type offront setback variance such as a 2.77' variance for an 18.53' front
yard setback which provides for a 22' deep garage. 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.
In addition, staff feels the garage and room additions may be redesigned and
reduced in size to eliminate Variance requests 2 - 5. Therefore, the variance
hardship criteria have not been met with respect to 4 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
variances 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 sUNey to show existing and proposed structures,
all easements, and the proposed grades with a drainage and erosion control
plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
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.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-080\VarRpt3 .doc
Page 7
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-footfront setback; a 1.5-foot
variance to permit a structure setback of 8.5-feet from the side lot line; a
1-foot variance to permit an eave/gutter to encroach within 4-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\O 1 variances\O 1-080\VarRpt3.doc
Page 8
RESOLUTION Ol-020PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 4.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 21.3-FOOT
FRONT SETBACK; A 1.5-FOOT VARIANCE TO SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 13.5
FEET; A I-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EA VE/GUTTER WITHIN 4-
FEET OF A SIDE LOT LINE; A 2.6-FOOT VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING
WALL 66-FEET LONG TO BE 5-FEET FROM A SIDE LOT LINE; AND A
33.5% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA
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-1 (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, November 13,2001
and November 26,2001.
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 dangefto 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 subj ect 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 Ivariances\O 1-080\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 har4ship 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 - Revised Certificate of Survey Dated 10/29/01;
1) A 4.77-foot variance to permit a l6.53-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 1.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 8.5-feet from the side property
lines, 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)].
3) A I-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 4-feet from
a side lot line, rather than the minimum required 5-feet [Ordinance Section
1101.503 Yard encroachments (1)].
4) A 2.66-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)].
\
5) 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%).
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-080\dnyres.doc
2
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 26,2001.
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye" Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-080\dnyres.doc
Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair
3
! -------=
01
:>
o
f1'\
n
"
",i:.
~o
~I"
~
-:t-
o
C.
~
.;.>
28
2~
PROPOS to. .
.. AOOITIOtll"ll~
'STING otC\( ovtR ~
HC. S\.Ae !lOW 11'1
pACt) . 2~
1916.9)
DECK
V>
(J)
CD
o
Vol
N
~
o
fT\
I
I
",.. \
" ~
..
0,
'ri
,,",
, 'A,
...
;l\
\
\..\t-\'t. c--- -----
(.t>.s't.t^'t.t-\\ t''t.R
, ~~
_/:::-----~ e'l' -lo'-Nt-\ R
_- t'RO\J\O 'tJ'
-------
\ -----
-
~~-S-"-- -
urvey
\ S 12 0 26' '"27 ..
---50 7
.83 -.
.----------
, 8 .8~~
U\
N
. ,1').0
-0-" '
o
\\
\
~\
~
~
\-~~
\b';
8--0~
3
~ \
C1l
l>I
..
~
i!
o
J:
s:
---m--
z
-I
---------
o
f1'\
,0
"
Gl
~
v
~
~
o
C.
11\
f1'\
I_N
oDi:.
~-
. 0
lJ'1"
oD r'"
;.._..13,
DECK
(J)
CD
CD
0
Vol
0 -..I
0
0 ..
=
fTI
;oJ:
-I>
:t%
'55
....
(1'"
\ '"
, So
'-..I
I
I
,
--.--.:-----:::.-
---.--::;;-:: --_..~.--
-~--------
\~
\ s~ORtDt-\'t.
I.~----:::::::::-':::
. ,..------
...... ~,-.;>:...--
/\
.....
\
\
\
i<
<
-
en
m
C
o
m
:XJ
-I
-
."
-\
~l
~
m
o
."
en
c:
~
m
~
o
--
I\)
(0
--
o
.....
ATTACHMENT 2 - BUILDING PLANS
~.1
~,
-z.
~
:~
.'1..... .'
:;;<~-;','.-:-'. ,
...~
.. T."'t-,,~. '....:.,~...;/.~:~.r.::...~,-
. - ::.~~~~:~:;.:.:~~;:~~,>~~;~:.~~:;::.:..~..~;~ .....
'.'.~:'. ..~:.:.,-'.:.'..'.,<.
........-.
..,6
(j-..
. ,
.' ..j
.... ;
"2-
1
o
/
2-
-
,"..-:,-
. ;..;- ~'::-
:'.":-..
:'-~;::~~::.^-" <~"'-:';",:::,~,;>~:~::;';:~~:~J};'~.:.t~:.~ ~~.j~';$\/,;C';jL't~':~r-~;P::t;.~~~~~;~ir}i.~3~~?~.t~ii~~t~::,~~':.:;,.:{<~...~}:...~~~:~ .,~""~:f';';r" ~:--,
\~i
,x. j
h
'-I:
"
. ..~. -:-."
;.;.;~:
o
o()
. .'-" - ..-
I
I
I
i~
: r
i! n :'1
: , , I
. :! I
II! ~ Ii ~
,dl: !:
!!ij,i L
(~-
()
1!lnll
Ii J 'II
.Ii I,!
! II
! I j III [ I
t! I ,II
. , I
.~..;
.~ -
[ ':
,~.
--
.-
.~ -
..
1
':. ',":' ":'~~~~.~~~:~i:;::i{~';:~.~i':~:~~:~i~~:.~
,
~;...
:-,-.,.
.".~' -...' .
'.-.",' .~
.', :
.......-..
. """---.-.-..
"'"'i~__ ._.
~~. :_~~~.~~.:-.:.~._.~...-O'- :--r:..'
". ..
. .-.....,
.- .~..~~.~.~~ii::::.:.:==..:.~;,,~...::-_.
""Z-
i
n
'-
C"
-. . .'"
..
'. ...,
+..../
:::~~.;,>~.,~~~:~;.:.. ::.: :;R:;:,.~.;~.:~~:~_~.~t~:_:_~~~\:~~~:~~~~~~::.;~~.:_> r:'< ;_ " ~.... .' ~ '_.; - .'
.;'~.~;~ :~:.. -.: ~.; :\~- . :.~.:. '. ":.: .,'
. ~. '.;.
'.. .-'. .....-
. . .._....;. "_~' ":".:i. :'_~:; .... .-:- '-
.. . A
.
i
41
//
//
II"I(
, ".
lH-I~,~,-~-J
/,/1
ml
I ill
u;';
u._
~.
il
"
.1
:: L..l:1~\
:: ~\ ~]J\J\~
II
"
II
l' r~" ~
Larqt.
i," ~. \
. i I ! i \\' _\ '\1\
, I ; , V \~...
, ,
, 'i
: ~ ~\-v~<-~
'-:.If-
-')."":
~?
~; )l.A~
d tOl( u~
fV\1,
, I
i I
!
II
~ I
.-= - - - - ~ I
- ,I
i I
---II
II
\r~ ~\ ~~:~e<..~
~
-l
~
J;
fp\k
b' I-<'i .II tttil
~e.. ~
, I
I:
'! ' ...
-'1---
:I
l!
'.)
""
'CQ( ~;
tJ\{.Cl :t "
I \ , .
d\,..
'"'
I I II.! I i II' I : I ! I I Iii I JI
i f I ! i ! I I i I i I i Ii! I i l'
\
L I r/ I <', .. I r - .' I' I / I
(\,lJ\'," ~(t:..i6\~n~",- ;;S:'-o ~~l _.-:' LI.I'J''-k ~o'.i-L
D"*-,~~" "'. ,r::I",'^ L " 'I {; J,/{T-v A t"""~l
'....... "'-. "'... . -I -- "\.,,I ! '- J .IV ..> r ~
I..!<.-s. +0 Be.. Bu.li+ I~+a ~~rcl.cl--e.. ror )"101(5
ta :V\.d-lce_ IItp fl,,'Va t\{}w,J D, ({---(I--e../')< -'<- (j -Ai J
HoUW4~ 5e.pejq.ks Gdr4AieS +.0 /Jr;~/e.~
A 5~K ,cro>Al-t .t;;v'trY fraM t~eR.cdd ,
11..<"_ _. -:i "I,,~ I --'1 1'.& ",J... AI.,I
, . ,
.. ..... .'
.. ' .~:~:~'<~-':2"~:-~':....<.":,:~~
c
o :
, '
I
J I
:1 I
;1; l :
I I I
---~-~-
:::=I d I ,-
I. I
'. I
._ _ _'. _ _0_ ~_
I '
I
jl
j
-
. ::";:::':'::::':":i:';~:k:; ~':>!~:i;/'::: Lo:o:,:,:,:::;:-:,,,->,::: >:.,:~:::/:::::;:~'.;, :;: ;,.,:'\",,<'.:C. ;.- ..;:/:"~p::;_7':',;:'~;,.r::::::~_O:::' C.-,':::>: '":;:':::~;g ,';-.' -
.. ill
I
I ~.
! '=
II
!I
I,
II
,i
-
~,;.
\) ,
'U:
Q"!'
'='
,,-
\
'\..
~
..
- --
j
I
-. -- i-
-!
:II]JJ]J
: 19', "'11
I' I
I 1~tt+I;1
."
~ ~~~(Y ;.
.-H- -
"
-"iT'
,-\{.,(
~j)-'
'2. \, eJ;.....;'\.
XV e, ..l~,
.- L
-" ~ :~ ~
'iJ pjXC}...e ~ 1)3ed,a~;V\ ,
iJ"<;;C}I\<.J fa)' +:"":\1 l,J\t~
;( Cht'idre,J
..
~\~) y,eo"" ,
'; I
- CJ~-- ~
-'1 I U
-=-_. I ~~ - -
CJ~ "~ 0,
........c "'-';
...r
. f" \ /
h,\~)
--.'..
. ~. . . ~ .
'" ;'.. .....
r-.
-
I
~
I
I
I
1
I
~,
()
~ -..
I; I
\.)() rJ\ :--
\
~
,;
-
I'
I
:.:~-
, '~~~:)~:~j."_.~..,..~: ..:...:. -.. .:~. ;',' ,;: '~:<~~j;~!::~:~,~;~j~~-~;,~~::~.'.:,~~;~'~~~;~:;-;~S::~::;.~~,:;!-;;!4,,::;;j~~ :';::~::::fri~';-~ ::._'::.2~';"i~:'-:7:= ,-i~-t;-~~..ij.:'~:~:~~.;~~l:<.:'~; ;t-:.; .,';.:.;:;~: :~'~<:,;,..;,;.i> ::'~;,":. :. , ..' .:~ . ..-::.~ . .". .
......:;. .....
n\ ({,d
I e...,F
<)(~((l~ ~~
r/ t f'\d4- ~
./ ~/}/17lA (b'
1"/ r. tVl
/}1 t/ttYU
(
~I . i
....
~
Ii
I I
I
I
I
I
Iii
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
i .
~iltk
. '. ,..'-.-,
. ~", :.;.;.;......:.....O.:.~'.:....,.......
p,
'-
~l>O ,..J"-
',I\~^ q
1r~\1
2400
..JI
- ,.
-
t
-c;
Ul^,
'''t """":.
IAva~
~r~N~^ .r r ,171
! ;J~~~/of1IK
I
C-'\
.-'.:"]
I '-f
I i
lIU
CITY OF PRlOR LAKE
E.~\~~\~ Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted WIth BuIldmg PermIt Apphc:mon)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distri"ct (SD).
The Nfaximum Imnervious Surface Coverafre Permitted in 30 Percent.
- -
Property Address \ 6 z 3 ~
~ \I\~ \':'C,,,, \<-s ~~"\ \
Lot Area .:J J -Z ~f?;> abc.\R_ \; L 9~4-Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. "1..1 <00
**********~***********~*******~***************************************~*
HOUSE
LENGTcl \VIDTH
U:; x ~
x
=
SQ. FEET
= -.:JS4
ATTACHED GAR.A..GE
x
=
TOTAL P RlN CIP LE STRUCTURE......................
l~L\
DETACHED BLDGS
. (Garag~
qlo
e x \'2-
x
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.......................
'11..0
-
...~.
~-'.,:J.
'\JDRlVE~A YfPAVE~
<Wriveway-oaveCUSr not)
. (SidewalkIParking Areas)
514 '0 \JY\J<~ dec..\t:-.
\ro x \t:>
X
=
~2>
><10, =
~ X 1"2-. = :'3\.0
TOT.U PAVED .'~R.EAS................................:........
. lo-z. '-\
PATIOSfPORCHEStDECKS "
x
=
(Open Decks Yo" min. opening becwe:n
boards, with a pervious surface below,
are not considered to be: impervious)
x
=
x
=
T OT.U DECKS ...................__................_..........._.. .
OTHER
x
.x
=
TOT AL O.TI!ER....................-....................__.__.....
TOTALIMEERVIOUSSURFACE
..... .-
\'604
.~OVER . .'
Prepared By D A~ ~\:I Do", '
, . . \
company~ 6u~~ G.) P. ~.
\,p"'1 lP
Date .., - -z. S -ol
Phone # '44'1 - "Z.57o
..j~.~:-
'?'!:.~~'.::;;-
~
~
(1
J:
3:
m
Z.
-I
CN
I
m
><
-
en
.-f
-
Z
C)
~
-a
m
:xJ.
<
-
o
c:
en
en
c:
::D
:n
~
1m
I~
m
)>
---; ) - ..
. Q~o~___
.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted w'ith Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distrl'ct (SD).
The Nfaximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property .Address . \ ~ 2.. '"3~'
t=',p;\ ~'oc...~~s-
~ ~-.'\ \ .
Lot Area ~ I ~tc ~ C\\oc'3e U. <q D c.f Sq. Feet x 30%. = .............. "Z.. \ ~c
************************************************************************
, HOUSE
~'(\)~~s-e(Q' ,
AI 1 \LllLD GARAGE
LENGTH VlIDTH
"LX?> x~,
SQ. FEET,
=~
x
=
--z.. '-\ x ~ \.0 = z:> lo L\
TOT AL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE......................
\lo'-\e>
DETACHED BLDGS
. (Garage/Shed)
x
X
n ,,' TOTAL DETACHED BUILDIN.GS.......................
t'l:r~ to oc.~~ B ~~'"'Io~\\^O...r:> . .".
DRNEWAYfPAVED AREAS e 'x \ 1.0. S = \32-
(Driveway-paved or not) \ \0 X \ \0 . S ' - 'Z,4'-\ .
(SidewalkIParking Areas) X =
TOT.U P A.VfD' ..;.REAS.........................................
3~~.
PA TIOSfPORCHESIDECKS X =
(Open Decks 'I." min. opening between X =
boards, with :1 pervious surfac: below,
are not considered to be: impervious)
X =
TOT.U DECKS........................................................
OTHER. r ('0 ~ 0 foe c.Q
~~'7e hW \.1
, q x-z..<O
x
=
'3~L-
=
TOT AL OTmR.....~................................................ .
-::, q -z-
TOTAL In-lPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDE~)
. . Prepared By' Ol>.~::R>.lc,~
. -1 . \ P
Company \J G. ~l ~ tJ ~ "€>-I \ \i\i1\ Cl') I. fJ,
-z. ,-\3 tp
'''7-~4:.
Date
Phone # \J. '-\'1- 'L.SI'D
:b!.
--I
~
o
::t
3:
m
z
-I
~
I
."
:c
O.
1:J
o
en
m
C
-
s:
."
m.
:tI
<
-
o
c:
en
en
c:
:0
~
C->'
m
z
Ib
. witl
I -:xJ
.m
:r=-
November 13,2001
RE:
#01-080
David & Rachel Norling
15239 Fairbanks Trl NE.
Prior Lake, MN. 55372
We have decided in an effort to work with the city to make a few compromises with our
house addition:
# 1 Reduce eave encroachment by 1 foot
#2 Remove deck on the North side of the home
#3 In order to reduce congestion on the South side of the home (where we are closest
to property line) we are removing the stairs.
#4 Reduce deck addition by 3 feet on the South Side.
We are hoping with these changes you will grant us our.remaining variances.
Sincerely,
9~~
Rachel & David Norling "7
~
i!
o
:I:
s:
m
z
-I
U1
.
)>
-a
-a
r-
-
~
Z
-I
r-
m
-I
-I
m
:D
~
~
m
C
........
........
--.
........
eN
--.
o
........
,$$.~';; .f"".,;~,"<V:"":t(" .,'
* ""_.~.-._.-;":,.~';!!i,..,,,.,::,~.,~?,;.,,,,:~,;,
""~~,
\ D
E'Xrsv:tJ~ Pfff2.jLJ tJG
rn~
\J~
~~
1-CRf(S
~,
.p..~
O r. Q..-'O~'?
, 1:::::' 0~ C0
o
-* \ p:u2-10 tJl;:t SPa!
2.
~
Vl
'::t.
'0
<
111
. 2-Q~r2 GA12A6[,
/
G:! -
l' ~\~~ spor
,~
~II
3.
3 c..A~5
3 &R- b~
4
- ~ 3 fXJftA'~ SPJ+
- ,- - - -
<-
~
a
~
~
f::J
~
~
~
Prior Lake Planning Commission
City Hall
4629 Dak.ota Street S.B.
Prior Lake, Mn. 55372
August 24, 2001
To Whom It May Concern,
Weare 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. T:o help reduce our impervious surface num-
bers, we have removed part of the driveway 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.
The second variance is for the driveway set back. The avera~ is 21.3 feet and the minimum is
2G 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 from1:b.e
oouse and the garage, along with the current _desi~ 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 city 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.
o
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.'
~
i!
o
J:
s:
m
z
-I
0)
!II
:b
\J
."
r-
--
~
Z
-I
Z
)>
;I]
-XI
'~
~
-
<
m
The final variance we are asking for is a 10' variance set back from the lake to build a 4 season
r, 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.
:)
~
.
As you can see, we are asking for several different variances but,.ifyou 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,
DaYid M. Norling
Rachel A Norling
Homeowners
..
-
\
."
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
DISCUSSION:
PLANNING REPORT
7A
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
FINDING THAT THE CREATION OF
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 3 AND THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 3-1 ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
N/A
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES X NO-N/A
--
NOVEMBER 26, 2001
On October 15, 2001, the City Council adopted a resolution
approving in concept the use of tax increment financing (TIP) to
assist in the development of a senior housing project near Five
Hawks School. The project will consist of 54 units of senior
housing. Plans for this proj ect were previously approved as part
of the Creekside Estates PUD. Subsequent to that, the Council
directed that a TIP District be established and a Tax Increment
Financing Plan be developed.
Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 3 requires the City to find
the TIP Plan to be in conformance with the general plan for
development or redevelopment of the community as a whole.
The Comprehensive Plan contains several housing goals and
policies that staff feels are relevant. The primary goal is to
"Encourage the development and maintenance of suitable
housing in a desirable environment." (Comprehensive Plan ,
page 105). Under this goal, there are policies that call for a
variety of housing types, sizes and price ranges in the City and
the opportunity low and moderate cost housing.
One of the conditions of the PUD was that the project was to
provide senior citizens housing. This project will comply with
that condition as at least 60% of the units will be made available
to persons at least 60 years of age.
L:\Ol files\Ol tit\pcrept3-1.docpcrept3-1
16200 E'lfgle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
......
Tax Increment Financing is provided for a project only upon a
showing that, but for the TIF, the project would not be feasible.
The application for TIF assistance for this project has made
such a showing. The role of the Planning Commission is to
make a finding whether the TIF Plan for the project is consistent
with development or redevelopment plans for the City.
CONCLUSION:
Staff concludes the Creekside Estates project 54 unit building
project is consistent with development goals and policies of the
City and the TIF Plan proposed for the project is also consistent
with these goals and policies as it provides a means for the
proj ect to proceed.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Resolution 01-024PC.
2. DenyResolution 01-024 Pc.
3. Defer for a specific reason.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution 01-024.
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to approve Resolution01-024PC.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 tif\pcrept3-1.doCpcrept3-J
PC
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 01-024PC
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 AND THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 3-1 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to
adopt a Development Program for Development District No. 3 and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for
Tax Increment Financing District No. 3-1 (the "Program and Plan") and has submitted the Program and
Plan to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.175, Subdivision 3, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Program and Plan to determine their conformity with
the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive
plan for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Program and Plan conform
with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Dated: November 26,2001
Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Director
/~.
~
x: 11
~10
-g.
fA 1
\ ~ .
...J .
"'"
r
o
~
~ 6 ..-
13. $
:5 .
A
161
I B
t,
W J.fM
~ ",' 2 ~
r~
L-
30
Location Map
PLEASANT AV.
~I I~; '0'\"1 LAKI~DE
~O 1 AllJ B ~4~ ~o 3.. 8 9 10
",....~ "'~.. ~ ~ 1 EST.~TES
~~~ w?A 21
..' 2NDAl C
.nO' ~ Po .J. C/~~ COND.~
....;,. I~TO "', <'" . [!i!tJ '~~
1:"('....._ F 0 2 3 .. 5
1 EST TE
· _~ . r I -I?i ~TES ST. S.E.
s ~ ~ ..,.- \ lE~\O~ 2. 1 (~'\ · 2 am.ar A
· ::=.=-\ ~S"I'\ ES 2 \"lOLL'" COUfl
3
di~ion.of
~ A n",,~REEK--
VILLAS ~ Y
"C1C .. 1035 '---
.. M a" :, = 'I~ " ~.
gf
I ~~ 1~ rnrnITJ7iJrnrnp ITm-r.rr
m S 8 EAGLE CREEK VIL~
~~~~ !~~. . ~.<
fif- 7 10 Oz
Q:'C::J<f1 Q~. ~ 10 11 12 13 ~
~ ~y ~. ~'''J
12 11 10 .~
~
1.
:(/
~17
16 18 1 2D 21
15
IjM 13 J. 11 10 · l'
. 3 .
Develhpment District
Boundary
-a-
z
o
a.
>-
a::
::)
10
f-
en
LU
~
MAIN ST.
23 24 25 26 Zl 28
PKJ
RICHI\RD
11
AOON
~
3 4 6 6 7 B
P.l
13 12 1
10 .
7
1 if 2
~~
Q<<:' ~~
.p
4'3
'"
~
UJ
~ EVAN3BJCAL.
~
:r
w
>
;;
UJT>EIlAN
o
30 Feet
I
ADO'N I 1, I 1Ml'~ I I I 0 II I I I 1----1--11
MAIN/
10 1 12 13 14 15 1 17 18
· · 1 . . ,., 21 22 23 .. 25 2Ii :tf '"
98765321
~32 0917654321
~~r
-
-
-
'-
ST. MCHtB..'S CHl..R:H
-
'---
f----
. 12
- S'\:."\'
.3
.
- M
"/) .
.'"
~7 $
1:8 '"'
"'. s./!I~
~ R:' 15
t..:. Y
,if d..
~
13
M
15
~<;;.
:<<
I.
..) d
2 ~\I'I ...,.
~~~..
l5 2 1
W
c
I.---l !1i
.
~ ~
co ,c!::
3 '"
~ Q"'''
2 ,
<0
>---
17
1
~\((-'O-{,
+