HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 10, 2000
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2000
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File 99-094 - Benjamin and Marilyn Giwojna are requesting a zone change from
the R2 District (Low to Medium Residential) to the C3 District (Specialty Business
Use) for the property located at 4636 Colorado Street.
B. Case File 99-100 - Hillcrest Homes is requesting a setback variance to permit side
yard setbacks less than the required 10 feet and a 5 foot setback for sidewalls
exceeding 40 feet for the property located at 16340 Park Avenue.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File 99-089 - Thomas and Kathleen Snouffer Variance Resolution.
6. New Business:
A. Election of Officers
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 Figr~Le~~~'-Ro~~P~~i~fL~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
:):::111:>
~e MO::~:OD:::~:er 13, 1999, Planning Commission meetinlli,l~'~",o order by
Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commis~iori~s Crieg6~J~~~ykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planni~~:R:9:ordinator Jane:~~~.er,
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman, Assistant City Engmeer Sue McDermott ahd!>:
:eco:I:::~ Connie carlson'::l!lll,,;;l;;""")i::mm:)\:::i:'i
':nnnn:;.. .:;:;:::;::"
:':':':':'.:':':':':'
Absent '<\mm::c:
":!!I!liii:ir~~il'I"mmm:::::::::::::::!!!!':'::'
.:::nn~~~~mH~~:::: . .. ....
3. Approval of A':~'~";""""::':'!ii::!l'III'I:::'
The Minutes from t.4~:November .~~n 999 Planrim:g Commission meeting were approved
as presented. : ::~ ~::!III:II!:\\\:::: ..::::::~!!:ililili:::::::::::::!::i::!m!:::!:::\:::::::::.
Commissio.l)~r~t~sod:rif~~:the Public Hearing Statement.
4',/:::llllll~ru~i;~'~~~~~~mIL'\:::i!i!i'!',!m'
A/\:!::\:.Case Files 99-056::~$,d 99-057 (Continued) D.R. Horton, Inc. is requesting a
Preli~~AAry Planned Un~(gevelopment Plan to allow a mixed use development consisting
of a totan~~:fP2 dwellin,g\#,liits on 133 net acres, for a total density of 4.75 units per acre
and a Pren~f~~ry p~.~~:~9nsisting of a total of 165.03 acres to be subdivided into 632 lots for
the dwelling.U:~~~~::~~~:'the parks and common open space for the Project to be known as
"Deerfield". .:::::::::::::.
.::~W:. .
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, DECEMBER 13,1999
V onhof
Kuykendall
Criego
Cramer
Stamson
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated December 13,
1999, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
D.R. Horton has applied for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary
Plan and a Preliminary Plat for the property located south and west of CSAH 21, south of
Fish Point Road and Wilderness Trail and east of the Ponds Athletic Facility. The
application includes a request for a PUD Preliminary Plan to allow a mixed use
development consisting of single family dwellings, two-unit townhouse buildings, two-,
three- and four-unit coach homes, and four-, six-, eight- and ten-unit villa homes totaling
540 units. The development also includes public parkland and private open space.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNI21399.DOC 1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
Kansier concluded stating most of the outstanding issues have been addressed. The
redesign is consistent with the PUD criteria.
If the project is to proceed, the following changes or revisions must b~.~~~:!~~ both the
preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan: ./CH~\
1. Address the issue of providing access .to the parcel in the p.d~ID~~~~::~!~~::9f this site.
If access is provided via a private street, address how tl}~:~ill be accompli~~~!.
2. Revise the grading plan to identify the required 30?~ib~ck from the 1 00 ;~i@iinQ.od
~levation for all wetl~ds and NURP ponds. ./~~~\equire~Hj~r.tback must al~tiFbe
mcluded on the PUD SIte plan. ':\H>.. ./H~/'
3. Revise the grading plan and tree preservation pla~~~t~II~p.91,~~W~fue lots currently shown
as "custom graded". Ifnecessary, the}andscaping philinm~~~ be revised to include any
required replacement trees. :1mil!!!!::Uj~\~::::.:.. :\1::ilii::>..
4. All private streets must meet the reqiU~~JllehtS~9.ts.~~~on 1 006~~P6 of the Subdivision
Ordinance. This requires all privat~:::~treets ..m~S(:~~~H~t.1east 32' wide, and all
easements must be identified. In addlt~BP:, ~J~wHlate..a!FhHlny of the dead-ends and
private turn-arounds ~~~~~~~ffiiPY conne~*nif~ome of these streets.
5. Identify all drain~~ffli~tf~ti1it~II~~ements :~mi~r.e preliminary plat.
6. All public utilWW:fmust be.gW:~j@~d in accpr,dance with the Public Works Design
Manual. The Ptq~~f~p'lan~:~~p~~::P.W::B~yt~r~~~t()," allow staff to review this design.
7. Loop th~.~~termarri~~m#8~~h Wildemes~ "T~~i1 in Phase I ofthe development.
8. Idel}t~~:!~h~!~##,~p:l.e op~g~i~pa"ce graphically on the PUD plan to ensure the minimum
::~f~~hsions ar{d1l,~~r:[\ "\::!j::i::\
9/:PtDvide greater det~1ftm the size and location ofthe proposed signs.
c~~~~,,~.s from the p~~~c:
Don P~~~~~~ittR. HO:rlB~!!~~d his staff presented the revised proposed development.
Project Man:~g~~~pJ~iFkrier explained the PUD changes and addressed staffs concerns,
specifically: PriV~~' streets will be changed to a 32 foot width; Signs will not exceed 50
square feet and street lights will be on both private and public streets. Krier stated all
experts claim there will be no stonn-water runoff problems to Markley Lake. He also
stated the development will provide an access to the 4 acre parcel to the north. All usable
open space, setbacks and elevations from the wetlands have been identified. Krier felt
with the revised lower density and changes, the development meets all criteria for a
Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat.
Tom Stanley, 6221 Sue Ann Lane, Credit River Township, said all he heard in regard to
the water problems with Markley Lake is encouraging but everything he has read
addresses the 100 year flood. Water events are of as much concern or greater to the
residents of Markley Lake. Volume is rate times duration. He would like have the
hydrologist address some of his issues. Stanley read statements from DNR Supervisor
Thomas Balcom, dated November 29, 1999 to the City of Prior Lake. He also read a
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNI21399.DOC 2
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
letter from Savage Public Works Director, David E. Hutton. Stanley felt there were no
figures in the EA W to make a correct decision. Stanley is not giving the dey~,~oper
permission to put water on his property. Stanley asked the CommissioneHj~g.:pay
attention to the EA W. The developers should not rush this project an4l~~e
Commissioners to make quick decisions. Make sure Savage and CredWRiver Township
agree to the water runoff and have some kind of plan to address '0~pi6fh~~[:::~::
Hydrologist Brian Miller, from BDM Consulting Engineer~~:4~75' Lovell Ro'~ali~H2,
Lexington, Minnesota, explained the process of redirectiggitne water from MarkJeyD!ii*e.
A diversion structure which has been used in drainag(;;d~~llities in hydrology for m~y:>
years will be constructed. It is a simple stop-log s~~~1#e with th~:#i.tent oftaking water
from the Deerfield development and completely divett:~t::f!:~aX:frWrt Markley Lake. This
water body is under the DNR's jurisdiction. One ofthdf#~@!ffils with Markley Lake is
that it is a water body and it can't be starv~d. If there is a'dry::y~ar it will drop
considerably. The water must be suppleriiciited.,and maintain~(hit..a reasonable level.
There will be diversion structures on thci:hbriri~ij6utlet..and one::6b!the proposed diverted
outlet. A permit application has been sub~~t1ed t'~:'thW,:piN'RJQ, ali6\~rfor this diversion.
The developer will negotiate a managemenrplan wtdiHihe'DNR:tor the diversion
structures. In the opinion of:~~J?;NR, the OP~!~~ffi#nofthe faciiities will stay with the
City of Prior Lake becauseH{)&th:SW~tures arejifdhe city limits. The DNR does not want
to add any additional.~#tlFioad to:~lj~mselves.:~j:~1j~s not for the DNR's benefit, it is for
the City's benefit ~nffi:~fructures 3f~:~'eing consid~I#~' Once the permit is in place along
with the manageniei~(p.Jan, th~:~~~~q*:w~4)?~J#ken care of. Up to the 1 00 year storm,
this will divert all of'tli'(:hvateidW'ffi' ~d~f~ct~natea from Markley Lake. The overall
drainage i11?-PJ!:~UP oth~i:~~~~;:~re at a rate of discharge to DNR Wetland 188 is also
reduce4!:::NVitinli,~:4~:y'elopfu~p.h,increased volumes will go to that wetland and discharge
to Cl~w'Lake. The.:i~imulhj~p.tease would be approximately 2 inches (with no
d'~AP~ge). The dowi{~~:am imp~ds to the wetland is insignificant. Miller stated the
dev~l()pment will reduc<!dhe amount of water to Markley Lake.
:t~~j(n\. ~wm~
Kuyk~~dw'itparaphras~4.i~iller' s comments confirming the development would not have
a significcilifhnpact .to.:lfte area to the south, Savage or Markley Lake.
'::; ~ ~ j j 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~::;; ~ ~ ~ ~~i 1 ~::'
JeffElasky, 169'S:1\Vildemess Trail, wanted to keep Wilderness Trail a cul-de-sac. In his
meeting with the Planning Staff, the City felt the road should go through. Elasky felt he
did not receive a valid reason. Mr. Patton, the developer, told him it wouldn't be a
problem, but city staff recommended a through-street. Elasky questioned the benefit to
opening the cul-de-sac.
McDermott responded if the City allowed a the cul-de-sac, there would only be one way
to enter and exist the development. There should be two points of entry. It is a safety
Issue.
Kansier said not only is a public safety issue, other concerns are for maintenance, snow
plowing, costs to the City, school buses, garbage hauling, mail delivery and all kinds of
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM\PCM1N\MNI21399.DOC 3
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
vehicles that go through neighborhoods every day. It is a more logical and efficient use
ofthe public right-of-way.
Margi Atwood, Crimson Court, the spokesperson from Wilderness p01}4~111~~r~ they
consider the new proposal a great gesture. Atwood said on behalf 9[~h~:~~ighborhood,
they consider it adequate. <111111:/::' '::<:11111111::::\.
-:n:;:; :::::::::::'.
..:-:.:.:.' .. ....
..):u~::" :+j:lll!II:'.~~~.'j:.:."
.:/::11!!:::/' .\::/:
..:(~1nW:' .....
Kuykendall: ':<::m::\: :/i:f!i::?"
. Commend the developer, neighbors and City staffi6ii~~~:~~6~ough comprehensive
report. ;::::.,' :;~i~i~i~:::.
· The development is a great addition:1g:t$,~:ffi8wmunity. '::::i::::::\:
· There is a couple of issues left to be ~~#:r.e's~e4~Y:l~~t~evelo~~i:pSpecifically,
drainage and utility easements. Staff i~4ipated itW4i~:~~t~:P!oblem.
. The other concern was Item 6, regarding:p~bl:~ffi:~mities::ffi~ting the Public Works
Design Manual. The d~y~t9P~~1;:pon PattQp.Aj~ponded they will address ali issues.
· The hydrologist has.:~~f~:~sci~tt~~ issues tbl:~~~isfaction.
· A permit applic'~M8#Is in for p#~Fess with t4~:pNR. McDermott did not feel it was a
problem waiti~:~8:hear frollJ,}n~:PNJ~)J?- reg#f,d to the application as this is a
preliminary plaU:::::::\.; ;/:::::::H::::<nniHi::mii::::::>:':'
. Requested Tom St~~YJ~i8ome forwaf(f~d address Hydrologist Miller's' comments.
Stanly.y::~~i.'4JMtfelt the:j;iY4r.ologist addressed his concerns for keeping the water out
onyt~la~)/t~k~~:Hijis cori~W, remains as far as the development actually being able
J~dfjh11 it offwith~$#,y~ge. :\::::::>
.:{iU4iI of his concerns:hiVe been '~ddressed.
. ':::~~q~~sted Develop~#!~on Patton to explain his comment stating "considerable arm
tWis&~g,by staff'. ~~'tton responded 4.1 is the density for Rl. He felt they are
redudhgi1ll,e den~j,~y:~hich was an issue from the beginning. Patton said they are
yielding:~fthatiS:What it has to be. They still think the original proposal they had was
appropriat~\#ii,tl.nhe subjectiveness of the grid system. They answered that with staff,
but have to accept it for approval.
. Did not like Mr. Patton's negative comment about staff and was not impressed. The
staff does a remarkable job and should be commended and in response to the
community. The proposal is 99% solid with the exception ofthe negative comments.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Requested to see the sidewalk and trail systems. Kansier identified the paths.
. Patton explained the custom six, eight and ten unit buildings.
. Questioned why the developer wouldn't construct four and six unit buildings. Krier
responded the strategy in reducing the density is price reduction and design. They
dropped 94 units and to do that they need some flexibility. The development provides
a limited number oflarge buildings, yet maintain the look from the outside of being a
lot less. It was a trade off.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNI2 I 399.DOC 4
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13,1999
. Has a hard time with large buildings - 8 and 10 units. Concern for parking, etc. It
does not seem professional. Krier said all units have 2-car garages.
. The developer has done a wonderful job in laying out the project.
.:::::::::"
.::~nn~;::'
;:;:;:::::"
Stamson: :/i::II:iiliilin~::
. Overall the developer has done an excellent job in addressing~~4~~'Co~~~ion's,
City's and neighbor's concerns. The redesign of the vi11a,:d.,e\i~iopment'i~\~\&r:eat
. ~~~~~::~ropriate.,):iil:',m;('\::ml'llm::""
. Most ofthe other concerns, water, traffic and de~~gB,Xhave been,:~qdressed. :\/:
. It is an important development for the City withii#$Y housmg\~hoices.
. Most of the people mentioned in their EA W co~~~i~:~~~~i~hf~rmation was not
available. As part of the recommendation, the develdI@n:~pould provide information
to support what he stated in the recor~tb.:~.fore it goes the:Gl.~y:.Council.
· Supported the development. q:II\:\i;;::mm:m:m@m:::n{>::.. ':\:mlli:li>
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, sEcoNifSY ST AMS{jN~/r(JRECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE PUD ~ PRELnvIWM\r::PLAT':slfB'JECT TO STAFF'S
CONDITIONS LISTED lJ'~)1t~~mi~4.ANNIN~:~PORT AND THAT THE
HYDROLOGIST'S REF:ORT BE~\AtTACHEDmro THE RECOMMENDATION TO
CITY COUNCIL. ,/ii:in:::' ,:H\:: :~:U\\
Criego suggested ~~'~,l!:'e~Ii~~~f_~l~:ght ahd ten unit buildings.
StamsonJ~~nh~Jt.U,;ger'~~lij~I~~,uld be minimized. He explained the increased setbacks
with the\:~riialier::tihlHhwhich:W8.uld eliminate green space. It is a trade off. Take the ten
0~~1~4ildingS in e~~h't '::<:l@:~:
Cri~~~:4id not disagree,:hi~ concern was the number of people in a small area. Proposed
to reci'8~~i~~:r, number o.f:~hs in the each of the 8 and 10 unit buildings.
KUYkend~ii::~~~~J}.~~~~~i~ rather see adding the 6 units somewhere else. This
development m~~~Hli1 the criteria with all the design standards. The process has been
long but it is an e'kcellent product. It meets staffs concerns. All the issues have been
addressed. There is no other alternative. Accept as proposed.
Stamson pointed out the previous proposal actually had four eight-unit buildings. The
design was rejected and traded off. The Commissioners said come back with something
better and a new proposal was submitted.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Kuykendall and Stamson, nay by Criego. MOTION
CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on January 18,2000.
A recess was called at 8:16 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:25 p.m.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN 1 21399.DOC 5
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13. 1999
Commissioner Stamson announced (6. New Business B.) Case File #99-09~.)Yilliam and
Margaret Righeimer and James and Nancy Samec's request will been contiriIued.
.:=;::=;=;:.
,,:.:.:.:.'
.:/~miiiii::"
,,;::!!!!!!!!!?"\!!";!'!!!!!!:.~:.\.,:..
.::;:k
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Plann~h~~~~port dated D;~~~ID~J3,
1999, on file in the office ofthe City Planner. .::/:i/:: "\~:m>
.::jHH(=:' .:nH~::. ,::"
.,:.:.:.:.' ,,:.:.:.:."
On November 22, 1999, the Planning Commission'R~~m:~:pub.1~ffiim~~ring regarding this
property. After reviewing the proposal with respect to ili~J~~gship criteria, the Planning
Commission directed staff to draft a Reso~~tion approving:~iY=IDance to the front yard
::::N BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY '~~i:X~'~t6VE
RESOLUTION 99-024PC APPROVING A::~h1 FQQ1fv~CE TO PERMIT A 19.6
FOOT FRONT YARD S~J~~~~p~'STE~I~~iTHE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK. .:.~:::::im:::~:::'" ":\1:1%: \iil::lL
Vote taken indica~s~I~~~s by a.~~;:::I~~~~~f:~:~~~~ED.
B. Case File 99~86:::tCQ,,#i.iiuedfM:afkLi~sener, is requesting a variance to place
the lowestJ1p:~:L~.t an ~I~!~~~p~ lower than the minimum required lowest floor
elevati9.~:9ttrr~~t.:~~:pve th~i9r~linary high water level and a variance to permit a
strup:~rtsetback:'1~~~iJh.an ih~~r~quired 100 foot minimum setback from the
OJ;;4j,~:~ry-high-water:(Q~L) le:Vij:~for the property located at 4510 Jackson Trail.
z;~~h~IA4ministrator ~~~~k Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 13,
1999, oii~~m::~~ the 0~~9~i8fthe City Planner.
The Planni~i~~~p~ffi~~t received a variance application from Mark Liesener for the
construction ofli$ihgle farriily dwelling with attached garage. The applicant previously
applied for a variance to lot area that was approved by the Planning Commission. The
applicant applied for a Variance to permit the lowest floor level to be less than the
required 3 feet above the ordinary high water level and the Planning Commission tabled
this request at the public hearing held on November 22, 1999. The following variances
are being requested:
5.
Old Business:
A.
Case File 99-080 Marvin Mirsch .Resolution.
1. A 2.7 foot variance to permit the lowest floor elevation to be three tenths foot
(.3) instead of the required three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level.
2. A 70 foot Variance to permit a 30 foot structure setback instead ofthe required
100 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of a tributary stream.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM\PCMJN\MNI21399.DOC 6
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13,1999
The Acting City Engineer, City Water Resources Coordinator, Prior Lake/Spring Lake
Watershed District and the Department of Natural Resources recommend d~W~1 ofthe 3
foot separation in elevation. .//?
The stafTrecommended denial of the requested lowest floor eleVatiq~;*I::e on the
grounds that all required criteria for approval had not been met. 'P~~~r(;qu~~~f:tcontrary to
the City Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and a legal alte~atiVe: exists t(fQ.~y~lop the
vacant lot without the variance. .:,):> "\~:~:~:\:
Staff recommended approval of the structure setback :y~ij~~~:~s all:pf the hards:i~llllllll>
standards are met and the pre-existing lot of record)#:~~fnot be blf~~~~ble without a '.
structure setback variance. "::<iil~~ilm:H:1111111Ii~Y':'
Criego requested clarification on the elev~tion. Horsman 'an,'9.~K~sier responded there are
no studies and the elevation may be higli~.d4lmJhe 802.9. :\:~::::\:
::::::::::s::bs:;~~"'~93.3 :~I~;:::::f[~~~;~~~':pon by 0~ smIT.
All agreed that 803.3 wa,~:~r~~~8h~1?~e heigh(tpt:the lowest floor. From the day the plan
was submitted there 'Y~#::tb'nsiden~~~~ discussi~1PP the high water mark. He finds it
difficult to accept .th~~~~b'or level ~~:~qangerous. it:Nr~s not an issue in September. After
the variance was gnmted, it was:al~Q6y.~t~dJhe.:pt6perty is in the Shoreland District. His
attorney has a fax fr~ffi1~~~L9~t&::~i~H'[~g:hiwdilld"be able to get a building permit. At no
time did th~::q,tY::J?1entiori}mfvariances. He does not agree with the suggestions of
redesigg~ijig::ili(djgm~~. He'c@~tget an answer from the City on how to redesign. Now a
1 O~J?*f~~~back i'~'f~~~~d. 'L~~mt~~r said he is critical of staff and would like a "sorry"
fr8mthe CIty. \/\ :\::..
~:::~~ISIII~~:,m th:,;~~'miSSioners:
· Conc~id:Wi1~~~t~ff in opposing the request for floor elevation.
· Outlined ob]'&itions at the previous meeting.
· This is a very serious variance. The home does not meet the criteria. It creates a
definite danger to the current resident and future resident.
. There are alternatives.
· Agreed to the 30 foot setback. The DNR has no objection.
Kuykendall:
· Apologized to applicant, but it does not change the rationale criteria for the variance.
· Supports staff s recommendation.
· Did go out to the site. Could see the flood area - it is obvious the water comes down
at a very terrific speed.
· Cannot in good conscience give a variance for the floor level. Applicant will have to
redesign the home.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNI21399.DOC 7
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
. Applicant had to know when he bought the lot there was a creek bed.
. Prior Lake is unique. We have to stay with the criteria.
~ri~t~~;s;;::::~~::::::::C::::e proce~. ,,,,,,,..",....[[..;[[!!,:,,III:':::';';;;:::;;;,,.
. The Commission would cause applicant additional dissdif:ice to allow this \]ianbce in
the flood plain. There are alternatives. .::~n::W/:' ':;~n::w>;:.
. Agreed with the setback variance to the creek. ./:~m:~~;:' . . . . .\/:
· Suggest in the Motion mention the 803 elevatio~:~m~~G~d o.;;~~m~:b~H-W.
Kuykendall: ':;~nmm::::m:::;;"
. Lives on the lake and has knowledgy.:of:hi.f! neighbor's'f1&lli~h~g problems.
: i~~ca~~~~c ~: ::;~:~erations. :~:i~I:':i~U::::m:mmmi:.!:.:li.i:.::.:~.~:.::.~~.~;.;:.;:....".::::1%11:(
:inn:~.
Stamson: "::::;:;:;:;::" ';~:I;lllj:~./~~mi:i:?;:' "::;\H::::::>
Markley Lake is a good e~@ip1e:9.t~omes beijjig~built where the homeowners never
dreamed they woul~::~m~i~lrwith ~ring prob~~~~:
MOTION BY K~J'IDAL~($,~y,QlNPJfX..qt.tlEGO, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 99-25r~LP~~G:A2j1.nItQOt VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE
LOWEST F.I/?9R ELE~~t~bN TO BE .3 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 3
FEET ABOV:E~ht'HE.oRb'tNARY HIGH WATER LEVEL OF A TRIBUTARY
S TIq}.!;;::.:.... .:.: ::::~:~:::iii:~~~~~:: .:;~~::::~i:~:~:;:..
;::::=;=::" ',:;:;:::;:: .:;=;:::;=:::
V'~~I~en indicated ~~W~i:by all. ':~~TION CARRIED.
M~~~~!&:nY K~ALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE
RESOLlfttQN 99-~Q~~fAPPROVING A 70 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 30
FOOT STRUq~g~~nS'ETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 100
FOOT STRUCttJ,RE SETI;3ACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL OF
A TRIBUTARY STREAM AS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY ATTACHED TO THE
RESOLUTION AS EXHffiIT A.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process before the City Council.
Liesener stated he would not appeal and asked ifthere are any other requirements ifhe
came in with another plan. Horsman said he had to see a survey and a plan before he
could make any comments. Kansier said according to the survey submitted by Liesencr
the zoning issues are covered unless he changes the survey. Building Code issues are
separate. The Engineering Department has reviewed for grading.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN I 2 I 399.DOC 8
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
C. Case File 99-089 Thomas and Kathleen Snouffer are requesting a front yard
setback variance to permit a garage addition to be less than the require.~}5 foot
setback to the front property line for the property located at 15142 ~m~::~oint Road.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report.~~ij~:~ecember 13,
1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. .:/~j:j:/:'\~:mj~\:..
The Planning Department received a variance application frQ#.f;~:~as & 'i~~~~~~l.
Snouffer for the construction of a garage addition to an ~?f1i~Hhg single family dw~~tmK
with attached garage. The existing structure is setba~:w,~~~~:;6 feet fr~W the garage to :th~>
front lot line. They are proposing to widen the exis:?pg;:garage bX:~~~:feet and because the
structure is not perfectly parallel to the lot line the fro#'br~!d ~WP'#~a:chment increases by
.54 feet. Snouffers are requesting a 9.94 foot setback v~im~Hto permit the structure to
be setback 15.06 feet from the front lot lirW rather than the:1W*~r.num required setback of
25 feet. ::ll!!!!:::::::~:ijij::~t~>:::.. ':\::!!i:l!::~\:
The Planning Staff felt all of the hardshi~:~riteri'~::h~tfri6tHb.een m~fih this case and a
legal alternative to the proposed garage ad&i1~8!1 e~~~~~~~ii~h~~~j;in accessory structure in
another location. ./~::!::mmm:illllll!j\ \:::11:1Ill.I~/:" .
Criego questioned if t.4~~~tiilding i~~~@der constm~tion. Horsman explained it is, but the
applicant would li~8:~~~xtend ~~~I~~jill~H~~~~~~!I':i:~
Horsman said the apJh~mti,s,~~~fuHerb~d:~U~~~8{the elevation. He could build a shed to
accomm~~:~~ffi:m~~:~:~~rag:e~%~~:~.
c,;,;~~~~'~;~~'i~~~~~,Il~;':'II'I'II::"
TohiSnouffer, 15142 FislLpoint Road, explained the remodeling project began five years
ago>rm~:~ide yard setba~~ changed from the beginning of the remodeling project. A
varianc{;:t#a~~st was th~:j~siest route. They have worked hard to stay within the
ordinancefT$nQuff~t:~j(t not agree with the number 1 hardship criteria and felt he was
working witk~j4ifflptih lot. He has a storage shed down by the lake. Snouffer felt his
proposal is not ~ny:different from several of his neighbors and does not see any other
legal alternative.
Criego questioned the existing structure. Snouffer explained the home originally was a
flat-roof structure. Three years ago with the remodeling, the City requested adding
supporting posts under the pitched roof.
Jane Fier, 15141 Fish Point Road, stated she did not have a problem with the variance.
Almost everyone has a garage that is practically up to Fish Point Road. Her concern is
that the addition will obstruct her view of the lake and reduce her property value. Her
neighbors' lake view has diminished over the years.
Comments from the Commissioners:
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNI21399.DOC 9
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
Criego: .':::'.
· Because there is already an existing roof, enclosing it does not affect the!1(}Urrent
structure. ./~ml~/i:'
· Agreed with applicant to approve the requested variance. .:)~~Wiiii~ii\.
· Understand neighbor's concern, but the applicant can do wh~tij~\vari.t$.iwHh this
property as long as he stays within the City's ordinances. .::: "ii):' '\!iiiiii\.
. ..)~iIIIIW/ ':<i!II!I!iii\:
Kuykendall. .::;:i:i:i" '::i:i:i:iii.
· The site does not belong to the neighbor. The appl1~ifut is build,Wg within the l~~~i>
footprint. It is not an issue. <!!Im;;::. ::/!!I!i!>
· Neighbor should do her homework before buying::Pr8i?:~rt:$#p(f understand what can
happen to neighbors' property. "ii<iiiiiii~t.
· Adding the extension with the wall iM?9~itive. Rather s~~:iwngs stored inside the
building than out. :!iiiii:;<!:~:!::::tii::::.. .\!::!:!!\:
· The footprint has been encroached bef,d,r~ b)Papp.ffiY~J~:pfthe tj~ty:by permit.
· It is impractical because ofthe terrain ib:have eq1idjjlhe6fdQWD below the structure.
:ta::::ve request. ~~~rn~m':~"::i:":"'I!!,IIII!!::W:}'.'.;;;;'"
· Disagreed with .9p~issioner:~mlbn its fac~mili~ variance seems minor. By adding
the structure ori~i~(~~ forming!~:nqA~PP.J9.W1ing;use. The addition is for storage. He
has a two-car garag~:and.i$!abie"f6'iaa(f9q!~~(feet. There.is space for storage.
· This a~RMg~M;~:~ do:~I~~~I~~~e any undue 'hardship. It is largely for the convenience
K~;i~~:IJ,l;"'::':'!'II'I:,':::", ""':::'!I'IIII!:::"
.ii~!!iT4~ City created th'~:~~dship ~hen it allowed the structure to be placed where it was.
~XJ?:unish the own~mm The City went beyond the limits of the design by the
engl~ffl~f~:./!m/
Stamson: :\!!!llilm\::/iiiill!!!?'
· The back~6~#ifdoes not warrant the variance.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO DIRECT STAFF TO
DRAFT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 9.94 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
15.06 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego and Kuykendall, nay by Stamson. MOTION
CARRIED.
Staffwill bring back the Resolution on January 10, 1999.
6. New Business:
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNI21399.DOC 10
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13,1999
A. Case File 99-085 Larry and Joyce Nickelson are requesting vacation of a
portion of the road right-of-way for Ridgemont Avenue adjacent to 155.4~
Ridgemont Avenue. ./::i:/:
.:::::::::"
::::::;:::"
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report d~~~i~~cember 13,
1999, on file in the office ofthe City Planner. .:;~::mi>;:..:;~Himii!\.
The petitioners, Larry and Joyce Nickelson, are requesting .th~i~~~::~ion of .~~~im~~1h~
excess right-of-way adjacent to their property at 15543 Ridg~hlOnt Avenue. The~~*i$ting
lot is about 50,000 square feet in size. Mr. and Mrs. l~:i~~~ison wouJd like to subdi~ia~:;
this area into 3 lots. According to the letter submittffi~i~~y the pet~MR~ers, they believe .:
vacation ofthis right-of-way "may avoid future probl~m~Jor ~A~ipity and new property
owners if the easements are moved to reflect the true pii~~m~~fofthe utilities and the lot
lines end at the street, as they do in all re~~g~ntial districts.Yiiiillii:\:
The staff felt the right-of-way should n~l~~.~i~8~t~~k1iW~P the .:I~{~piP issue is resolved.
Once the ownership has been determined;':@e,: citY.cijii~W:i*,~~w:~d the necessary
easements will be dedicated, and the vacati:Q,#.i:'rVill.,~pf8reate:~~i~~parate parcel. The
Planning staff therefore rec9mmffi~s denial :qf~m~:vacation. .
Comments from the:;P:~b~~~~n;;;:::<iillll.II' \lllllli;\
:.:-:.:-: -:-:-:-: .;.:-:-:.
..... .... . ....
):~:~n:: .;inn::" ::~:;:~::.
Applicant Larry Ni&~~l~:pn, 15.~4~i~~~~ffil1tAy~hue, said they would just like to get
this matter resolved. .:~ft.9:~Jtml'OfiecohStfuai6n of the road, the City said there
wouldn't be.:4::ppJ.blem. ::N.t~'4:~~lson questioned the frontage facing Condons Street instead
ofRidg~m~ridih4ji~~i:4 he .WQ~4.grant any easements needed. He could subdivide
wit~9P~:ithe vacatloh:~~t;wouICf~i#n~nish the value of the comer lot. The setback would
inJ~a~.so far back it wg~~d limiftlie' use of the property. In good faith they would have
t(H~h~the property owri~i~here is a disputed piece of property. Their attorney
recO'ffim~nded not putting:i~ driveway in that area. There are a number of issues.
Nickei~b*=jj~~~~ he is w~~~~*~ to spend the money to get the issue cleared up but is asking
for some dH:~m~~~~~;(ii:ji::::/.
-...... ..
Criego explaine&lli:e process of subdividing the property with a vacation and/or variance
creating a substandard lot.
Kansier said the issue before the Commission is the vacation. Staff could meet with Mr.
Nickelson on the other issues.
Comments from the Commissioners:
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL DENY THE REQUEST BASED ON THE NEED FOR UNDERSTANDING
OF THE OWNERSHIP.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNI21399.DOC 11
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1999
This issue will go before the City Council on January.
B. Case File 99-095 William & Margaret Righeimer and Jam~H'$,~II~;:cy Samec
are requesting vacation of the lake access and right-of-way for IW*~~~Y's Street
adjacent to Lots 5 & 6, Kneafsey's Cove. . <illlll~:i/: ..\::111111:i:::\.
In a letter dated December 13, 1999, the applicants have reqH~~ted continuand~:~:ttb.e
matter to amend their application. """m","':':::?' """:mll"",:"
:. Elee:::o:;::::: and Correspondence: "':::.I:'I'::III::"":,,,I"""':"'?
.;:::::::::.
.:::::;:::::.
'::;:;:;:;" '::::::::=;"
':';';';':';';';';" ::~m~~H~::.
::: m i j:;;: ~ ~ ~!: ~: m~::::: ~: \ ~::::.. .:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::.
Commissioner Kuykendall announce&~~;wilfb'&t~ti~~g::f.).:9~!i~~~ Planning
Commission. \jj::i~; .;:/ijj?..::::~{~mj:n>
B. The December 27, l~~:~~~~~~J:lg co~!~ij~j!~i::meeting ~as been canceled.
:e m~~;:o:!~::';,~~~.~jll!:!'::mmmmmm'!::...III:'
'.:::;:;::::;.
; : . . : ; :.. : . ..::!::mi%:i;..:.~.:~:.:.:;::..;~::.:::.;:;:.;;;.:.;...
g~1f;~$;~::~III::".,..,::,. "."""..
::~nnn;::.. ~~!t~;:
'''''::::',,!::,\...;III./II:
'.;.:.;.:.: .':':':':
....::::'.I.,::.!I 1,,:,,1: !:::",.,
Deferred to the next meeting.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNI21399.DOC 12
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY
BENJAMIN AND MARILYN GIWOJNA FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4636 COLORADO STREET
(Case File #99-094)
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
JANUARY 10, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
Benjamin and Marilyn Giwojna have filed an application for a Zone Change for the
property located at 4636 Colorado Street. The request is to rezone the property from the
R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) District to the C-3 (Specialty Use
Commercial) District.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Existine: Use: The existing land use is commercial (T-shirts and More). The structure
was built in 1935. Previous uses include a limousine service. The previous zoning was
R-2. The existing printing/graphics shop is consistent with the proposed zoning and is a
permitted use under the proposed C-3 zoning district.
Adjacent Land Use and Zonine:: The property to the east is zoned C-3. The use is a
commercial office structure. The property to the west is zoned R-2. There is a single-
family residence on the lot. The property is bound by CSAH 21 on the north and
Colorado Street on the south.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for Town Center
Commercial uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The existing use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation.
ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the following policies for
amendments to the Official Zoning Map:
f:\dept\planning\99fi1es\99rezone\99-094\99094pc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
. The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical
or administrative error, or
. The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of
the area, or
. The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will be appropriate on
the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
It appears this property has been improperly zoned for many years, because its actual use
is and has been commercial. This application would make the use conforming under the
Zoning Ordinance. The proposed C-3 zoning designation is also consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Zone Change as requested.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1. The proposed C-3 district is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second to recommend approval of the Zone Change from the R-2 (Medium
Density Residential) district to the C-3 (Specialty Use Commercial) district.
f: \dept\p lanning\99files\99rezone\99-094 \99094pc .doc
Page 2
4636 Colorado Street
10
R.L.S.
15
22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15
8171615141312
PLEASANT AV.
22 21 20 . ~ V ~ 5 M U 1
u.i
U)
u.i
~
~
::;)
-'
::;)
o
300
600
900 Feet
I
L
N
PLANNING REPORT
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
CONSIDER SIDE YARD SETBACK AND
ENCROACHMENT VARIANCES FOR HILLCREST
HOMES, INC.- Case File #99-100
16340 PARK AVENUE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
JANUARY 10, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Hillcrest Homes,
Inc., proposing to construct a single family home with attached garage on an
existing lot of record (Exhibit A, Survey). The proposed structure is a two story
dwelling with an unfinished walkout basement level. The combined finished area
on the first and second floors totals 2,246 square feet. An attached two car
garage of 550 square feet with 156 square feet of storage area is also
included(Exhibit B, Building Plans).
Lot 7, Lakeside Park is a substandard lot of record and is allowed one 5 foot side
yard setback. However, the building wall is 65 feet in length and code requires
that 2 inches per linear foot shall be added to the setback for building walls over
40 feet in length [City Code Sec. 1102.405 (6)]. The applicant is requesting the
following variances:
1. A 4.08 foot Variance to permit a side yard setback of 5.08 feet instead
of the required 9.16 foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet
in length [Code Sec. 1102.405(6)].
2. A 4.16 foot Variance to permit a 10 foot side yard setback instead of
the required 14.16 foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in
length [Code Sec. 1102.405(6)].
3. A 1.92 foot Variance to permit the eave to encroach to within 3.08 feet
from the lot line instead of the required 5 feet [Code Sec. 1101.503(1)].
L:\99FILES\99VAR\99-100\99-100PC.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The proposed impervious surface coverage is 3,354 square feet, including the
house and attached garage of 1,872 square feet, and driveway, sidewalk, porch
and patio area of 1,482 square feet. The total lot area of 11,911 square feet
allows for a maximum impervious surface area of 3,573 square feet (30%). The
3,354 square feet proposed equals 28% impervious surface coverage area and
is permitted by City Code Sec. 1104.306 (1), [Exhibit A Survey].
DISCUSSION:
The subject property Lot 7, Lakeside Park, was platted in 1921, and is located
within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay)
Districts. The lot is substandard with a dimension width of approximately fifty
feet (50.28'). One sideyard setback of five (5) feet is allowed for nonconforming
lots of record, provided the sum of the side yard setbacks is at least 15 feet, a
minimum separation of 15 feet is maintained between all structures, and no yard
encroachments are located within 5 feet of an adjoining lot (Code Sec. 1101.502:
Required Yards, and Sec. 1101.503: Yard Encroachments).
The applicant proposes 5.08 foot and 10 foot side yard setbacks for the new
structure. However, Section 1102.405 (6) states 'the width of the side yard
abutting a building wall shall be increased 2 inches for each 1 foot the length of
the wall of the building exceeds 40 feet". The building wall on the north side of
the lot is a continuous 65 feet; therefore, a 9.16 foot setback is required (5'+
4.16'). The house is proposed to be setback 5.08 feet and a variance of 4.08
feet is requested.
In addition, the wall on the south side of the lot is also considered a continuous
65 feet because the Code definition for a Building Face (wall), reads in part, One
face shall be terminated by an exterior angle of at least 210 degrees framed by
two exterior walls each being at least 18 feet in length. The section of exterior
wall at the SE corner of the house front has an exterior angle of approximately
270 degrees but is only 13 feet long and does not terminate at that point.
Therefore, a 14.16 foot setback is required (10'+ 4.16'). The applicant has
proposed a 10 foot setback along this side and a 4.16 Variance is requested.
In addition, a variance of 1.92 feet is requested for the portion of the 2 foot eave
that will encroach into the required 5 foot separation to the property line. Code
Sec. 1101.503(1): Yard Encroachments, which states in part, Eaves and gutters,
provided they do not extend more than two feet into a yard; and provided such
encroachment is no closer than 5 feet from any lot line. As proposed the 5.08
foot setback causes the 2 foot eaves to encroach 1.92 feet into the required 5
foot separation to the property line.
The applicant has proposed that the existing shed and retaining wall along the
front property line and in the public right-of-way shall be removed at the time of
L:\99FILES\99V AR\99-1 00\99-1 OOPC.DOC
Page 2
excavation. The existing stone wall along the north lot line is to remain except
for the portion that encroaches on the subject lot along the proposed building
pad which will be removed and graded to provide a drainage swale.
The Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the survey and has no
objections to the Variances as requested.
Lot attributes are as follows:
Size Requirement to Variance
be Buildable Requested
(as a substandard lot)
Area 11,911 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. N/A
(above 904 el)
Lot Width 50.28 feet 50 feet N/A
(measured at setback)
Side Yard Setbacks
North 5.08 feet 9.16 feet 4.08 feet
South 10 feet 14.16 feet 4.16 feet
The applicant has submitted a written explanation with reasons for the Variance
request (see attached letter from Hillcrest Homes dated 1/4/00).
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.
Reasonable use may be made of the property if the Ordinance is literally
enforced. The setback Variances requested may be eliminated by downsizing
the proposed structure. However, a 50 foot wide lot is considered
substandard and is the reason the code allows for the one 5 foot setback.
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.
Hardship does not exist in this case as this is a vacant lot without an existing
structure and open to design modifications. A legal alternative for a building
L:\99FILES\99V AR\99-1 00\99-1 OOPC.DOC
Page 3
foot print 26.68 feet by 65 feet, 30 feet by 55 feet, or other options are
permitted in this situation without the need for a Variance.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The required structure setbacks are a result of the applicants building plans.
A legal alternative for a redesigned smaller floor plan is possible.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The granting of the proposed Variance's may impair the supply of light to the
adjacent property to the north but do not appear to adversely affect the other
values stated nor endanger the 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.
Established property values would not be diminished in the surrounding area.
The health safety, and comfort of the area should not be impaired with the
granting of these Variances because a minimum 15 foot separation between
adjacent buildings is maintained.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the proposed Variance's appears contrary to the intent of the
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan as the Code was adopted to prevent
building oversized structures on undersized lots.
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.
An alternative design could eliminate the need for the Variance's as
requested and therefor no true hardship exists.
L:\99FI LES\99V AR\99-1 00\99-1 OOPC.DOC
Page 4
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of
the owners of the property.
The hardship results from the property owner's suggested building design on
the subject lot
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Economic hardship or construction costs do not appear to be a hardship in
this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded the requested Variances do not meet all of the required
criteria for hardship. A legal alternative exists to redesign the structure to meet,
eliminate or reduce the need for variances and the structure shall be setback
from the property line as prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the Variance's requested by the applicant, or any Variance the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative #3. A motion and second adopting attached
Resolution #00-01 PC denying the 4.08 foot and 4.16 foot setback Variance's
and the 1.92 foot encroachment Variance for the proposed structure on Lot 7,
Lakeside Park.
L:\99FI LES\99V AR\99-1 00\99-1 OOPC.DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION 00-01PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 4.08 FOOT AND 4.16 FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A 5.08 FOOT AND 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS INSTEAD OF
THE REQUIRED 9.16 FOOT AND 14.16 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR
BUILDING WALLS 65 FEET IN LENGTH; AND A 1.92 FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT AN EAVE ENCROACHMENT TO BE 3.08 FEET FROM THE LOT
LINE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Hillcrest Homes, Inc. has applied for Variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order
to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the R-l
(Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland) District at the following
location, to wit;
16340 Park Avenue, legally described as Lots 20 and 21, Red Oaks, Scott
County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #99-100PC and held hearings thereon on January 10,2000.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light. and air
to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The legal building envelope for the lot is approximately 1,400 square feet. The
applicant has control over the house design and shape, such that the hardship created
has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists with a
smaller building footprint.
1:\99fi1es\99var\99-100\denyres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. While the subject property is a substandard lot, there is no justifiable hardship caused
by the lot shape as reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the
variance by redesigning the building plans.
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 #99-1 OOPC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following Variance's for future single family dwelling and attached garage (as shown in
attached Exhibit A);
1. A 4.08 foot Variance to permit a 5.08 foot side yard setback instead of the required
9.16 foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in length.
2. A 4.16 foot variance to permit a 10 foot side yard setback instead of the required
14.16 foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in length.
3. A 1.92 foot Variance to permit an eave encroachment to be 3.08 feet from the lot line
instead of the required 5 feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 10,2000.
Anthony Stamson, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
2
1:\99files\99var\99-100\denyres.doc
--- - -- ---- ---
- .._-~.- ---- - ----------
J
;0 -
CD
:S.
r.o
t
i ~ .......
s
I ~ iJ2.8
co
co
)>.
r-
P,1
/I
I\)
q
:Z"tl
Od
M"
" 0
r.o
CD
O:>:rr-Ulno.
~ at :J. :::: g ~ Q, ;j' C)
~O~~f4llo..Ci"a
O=~g.... no.~
....3~Clln~g~~
-~.. Q.. ..- 0" ~
~"'~c)~COCQ-t
<QO:"~OJ!:!:O
~Cr~aCO~ g"
CllC'<OOUl~r.oO
Q r.o"O Cll Ulfl Q__
nUl~'I.Q "d2:
Co '~d 0
c..::t:TOl~r+'"tl"tl ~
0.8 ~tor+'''''''''ll dl
'-10 N OCD-g
c..O"OUl t.J~: ~
Ul ... ~.Q ;-! a. a. ~
.Q -., ~Q".
. bO~ :>~o 01
"'~II!+ ~.:r
:-....., fDQ.CD
~8OJ~
Q :J Q ~
gCld.g
< C CI 0
o OJ ~. :!I
:rg~8
:: ~I"
o ~.:!>- co
.. !l ~ (,toI
-. 0 ~
0..5! (..
o . _
:J Q.
- CD
o :>
~ SlW
.. r.o
a. CD
~. ~
aa
g' :!I
o 8
--.,
H ~
c..N
(,.Ul
0l.Q
.,...
Ul;:J
fl.
;J
0.1
Cl co
_. '"
5 r->
~ '"
;--
... -
~.i
r.o .,
-CD
~~
o.n
-CD
~<!:
0..:<-
.. -
C :T
< Q
~:
Q :T
., ii'
~ ~
~<
., CD
-'<
;~
0"
2' ~ ~
r> CD
Q.'8
.,
-CD
:To.
eD
;'S;:S;
-Z;o
!'o(;j
:ZUlO
Ocz
~~R-
;;)oe>
'-';0$
OlVl(;j
01 0
01 :z
I "
'"
o
01
.,..
~Q
co
co
~
o
Cl
()
:::0
=0
::J
o
:z
r-
o
.......
_'-J
):
^
Cl
5
rTJ
~
:::0
^
f
z
f-lnor Lake
Water Elevation = 901.95
Token Feb. 25th 1999
Edge Water
r _ _ -=-_ -=- _
o .
~ ~
" "
o 9-
:- ::
- a
g "
~ ~
~ E
3 ~
! a
~ g'
- "
Q.
I ___
---
--
l-- - "904 Conlou~ _
~- - -S06-
- - ...
...
-io
....
--
-
...
...
o
,+
-
-
-- -
----
----
-
---
'"
t..
.,.-.....;. ---
'tr--.
r----
-----
&_~
-:/ ..
"'/ ...,
---
~
->
iiji
m.:u
~O
~~
00
m
:!l
~ ~
~...- ~
--, .---J
::l I Ul.-J.- I
~IQ) ~
.. ~ ~ ~. ---l
~ -:: ---'i- I
"'''' In
'J ~ ~ ---f
'"---. I
'IT!
--I-
,
---l
I
-~
o
*
~~
.i
I
--I
,
--I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.--L
..
'"
'"
0.
l/)
C
<
~
-+,
0
::
;!; m
r-
r- ><
0
;:0
n, :J:
(J)
-f -
:r: CD
0 -
s: ....
n,
(J)
)>
o
fI1
:::0
::j
2]
~
M
o
.,.,
(f)
C
:::0
~
EXHIBIT B
.~-_....
UU\S\~t;. v'';;''~'--' --"
. . Electrical, etc,
,..,..,
o ACCEPTED AS SUBMITTED
%-ACCEPTED WITH CORRECnONIM NCJIID
.' 0 NOT ACCEPTEO-CORRECr. ....
. 'Thesecomments..tcir,..... .1 - ..........
In full compliance witlllll........................ .<
quiremenlS Including ItemI nat II*AfIc;IIIr .............. .' . ~ ..
KEEP THIS PLAN SET ON SlTEATAU...-. _ .;!~':t.,. ':';;.; ,~',
. ,(i. '. 2.:;i..,.~f:' ".1'.::,'0,.
" . "~y~.'~{,\'
'~XC?\
" . ~~"""'.';;',J_
'>:,. ~rE'.\'i.'...o!~.,
.~ '1';;(1' ,; '" _,,' '
lor Leke's A ;t",: ; 'i
C.".CIIy ~ "'o...rt..... to' '. . "'" Co .:_~ ~ :,,: I: J
EnglneerlO~ ection before .' ~Ajtf . , -t '. i~ '
finalg~ade'ns~7.4230 ,', ' .. .~ ,.~,'.:' ~ ,'.
installing sod. . ' .A-. >c'. ',., m~'1.,:'~.,,~~ 'o*,~~.
:/~..~.,.,..,. "j... ~..r.
. . .;. 7"', .,:.:;'
;,......'
\4h
'r~
.,,!It.
~;.
I~f
.'
~~'7/t:
l.':'
--t..
<"
1<~~1{
",' q
a',
"j
-;;.
'0/<
"
..(
..
... ;~......
- o,i.;'\ e,
.:' ;)~\~ ;";;::;:'..":";- ':;:"..
.:"":...,j~. ~:~'.
Tr:~:!~;;;~;~'~~;t~
":or
1
~~
~~~;~
)1
~ .~~~.;~
1i~. ~~. r.?:::1
: ;:..:;jI..,. t;;.;. "" . ., ~
., r:;r....:r~. "
:.I; iiL ..A'.....,
I..
';.1;;,"
"
:t.
-~,
if.'
"{#
~"6,...--..~
~Vij;~
..~ .
..~(
;.C,?? :~/..-
,.~....~t :;'-"
.'
~~;.t
~f&:~r~:::::t .-~
';}.:':i;1, r.
t~~~,tt. : ~
r: f. "'.:1'
~.~.; ..
,-..~ .\"
~'~ f't.
'!...~;f",.,+.
-.;
''1. ~
~ ~:~:
.j:?', <0
'~~J~,~~1tf:f' ~.
.....'~;;~.e~./,~.-...~.~' '.
f';'\'4 -;.f~ ).Ot-.-. '~
d' ;"~;:<',::'::~'i~~",
:..
~+-1,~' ,~~'
~?~r
'-
,
!
~11 J.:
~'~F~,; >
.'....
'.:,
':" .'.
{i...
,;",'~~:.:"'~ ...~ t._
.....~ 'i.<""~: ~
-,,:""';'.7<
<:0""
,...
e!~
~
~
fLMl",6.>r~~'.~b~(p~:t1);i:~7{' "
:~,.::','.r;", c ...., .Ll'lf>~~l>~
.,0.;,"
"\"~,,:, :;
"
.
.;\
~.. .
~:.~~~'.:.. .......
;'1i:~O-'.~ c
, .
'p;;..
~
~~l""
h'lo-
O:,",\"
/.':.,
fA
;'\""oo:f
:'.
.1
~~
J.l~
l'!'I
..
:~:~: '.
;
-'~~~'i~~
. ;.'.~ ,,;":.,'W~'''' ~
;~l.~-. ~ l ~~~ ~ /~ ~
'.'~<: ~ ., ; ''Hi,'
~i-:.;':~~. :~~"'.,.~/,:"-""'<('J ~:!.-~ '"4':'1.- J:ri>...~.~;"._.;d
,;..~...~;.;~" r:-J ,.1(,..< JIi' /~.IJ. ~..,
~.. ~"f:5:f.~W-- c~ ~ '~-~~-il)r,::"":':"'\~.~;)'!:~~~----"!; .;;-..
.. . ".~......." . -f' '......"j- ~,". ".:'", ';~,
~ {>,~~~.... "t~~i;.:~~~{~:;::.:(~f: . ,',:,';
.' ,:'.~;~;',tfi;"1r~.~"~; ''z' .,.
..L-t""'j~-' - >
:-':'I~":"~~~}.~: '::~"J .
1
l;il
~
I=;
." ~
';p.'.~~..r.
....,.
~.~..-&. ~
.
,<" . . .., 0:'
,t;" :~, ",
''''..::~~Igt<. i
,"::~: ;",; J...
:..~ .,
~~..-~~~ .,
-.
./ ..;;,
...
./
,/,
,..,.~,.
I'
:- ':"~ ~~.:;~'~~;.[~~:~ '~i~~.~, ~:.~:t;:'.~
- "" ':.;' "'.- .' -~~"'......~".:;
1~t(~~~~r;.:'" ~(;'~:~~~
....".~.iA~'"i:'-. l".,-~...
.f~..~:~~~~t~~}~G
-:,.' "I. ,:?~,/:,' ~.,\.>;! -t.:
~;JJ;~~?F
," ::::'.;!-:~' .~:, . ."'\.~ -
. "'f:-:.::<
. .,..~:
{~f:t~~
,.- .'
';-'. :!'~'.;.
.- ;.
~.i~~~"'.
.'
.'- "j
. -", ~ - ~-;;..;. !:
...
.', ~-~}}.
:.. _':..~.t
~. '-,.~~~~. .
~'t......~.._::..:'!'l.
.:' .r -'ifr.~'"i:,;:<:':\
- ....,;:--- ....;.~,.;
:- .....;'r.-: ._ r!; ~ ,-:. >:.: .:~
-' '-" '.. .
. -:~:. " >~-.:' ~:4 ,
.'
. .~. ...:. .
;':';~~;:~~'_ it>
~~~~r,/; ,
. ~.' .
z.
~,
" !'~~;~mW~;'/~l~;
::r ~ ."i ~ ~. .. : .~.~ ~ ~ . ~ -.
. . ..- r=
,;;
!'~~~:
~1.-:-~"
.,
. ~:.:~: :~'~
.'
h~.*~: .-
'--"'-
""~
;, .~,
....
.J. ).
.1':
,>,., .
"I.:~~, :~< ~,r;~.
. ~. - ;~._~;.:'.:. ~ ~-.1~~: .~-
- ;. ....
.-..
.-; ~\;
. 10. ....._,.
'~""""':;"\"~"
.. ~, .:-' .~.
~;:".~ :~~; -:~./~:. ".
:~,-,: ,,'
~: -.,~ '-'.-::..
. ~~:'<:': "
o ,~~"':'..
.' '!:'I(: "_'~ "', ~
;.t' 5:. t~:...i :~- ;::,
~ '.'"' ".
f;:h-~;:,~E\~:~:;t '
~t .>~"".~. ".
~;~y\ .
~";" ,,,
'......'.;
.\':
!"
"
<.
-~. .......
,,". .
::;'....}..
1:" .;,.-.
'-i1.'-"
.";- ~J-;~
't...
"~.' ,
~~.~ .
r....-.
.~. .
.- ,.
}l~*?:.~r~
,
- ...- "....:~
;,\
n'-'
.~- :''; -:'!""':'"
.;. .~ ':-.~-~- :::t~~,
;; :,})~:.;{
.i'" :..,
'.'
~--~~~ -
.;."
':. .
...~ .
~
.'
..
... ~t
, .~'
,:i>z.;'
~'- ;.
:..~.r
Il~
':" :..:..-
,. ,'r..
\" .
. .
~... .;.. .
.. -'~ ,"
~' :'
~'
:.:
... "t"
r..;
"
';..';;~:~2:".~;.~,,-.~-:/ "'''~-\ .... '..i- ."
'. " .. . . <~ '..:' : .:;. -'., ., "'''.' "<::~>lo;:.
,:".- . '''~.~ .;'" _:'~ '-~;:J":'_.:~-:~'~~~'''''~''' 1;"'.: ":f' -. .....
"'T:'. ;:::~:~:~;~ '~}J~,~;}~";:i~:.~Y(;.:'.i~~~~~
>, . ,,"~ - .....:...., (:,,,,~.." "'....,,,. -.. '."., ....r ,<~f>'.~ )~~.-.:;..;,ri'l~'~"-'i~
..' - ~.~ :;' '~,,~_~?,"J _::.:~:~'. '~~~;:r:.r;_: t:~i~ .,-t -;."';:', .~ ~A.,~.., ":v~~ ~ ::;~.~R~ _~~' ~
j"" ..; ".
..~:.,,:
"
. ""'~ .'
-:
.!
t. ........:.
r-.:
. - .J.. '.~:,.'~'r; .'-.
~.:~~~ .
~;
<.J.
~<-~ ....~.
;' ...
'-.
.~~~
.;~'~.>
i '"'-
':;lfti ;.. .
. ~~:" L.IIl ~.::'
'.. ....... -'# ~
'.,:~;~t~~',.'.,<~~.>;. r
~:.:r:'~:'
.~-;',~ - ..
-~ 'I;
.~.
'-...... ,.;.
-.....
:---.:,
/i;;~.~~~~'~ ~~ '.
:.'~.",.. ,- ..
~~5;';J>"~
'--'--.' .~
'.:..
~
., .,:-"
',.
-,. %
.~""f ,. --:. .
~, ~'- ,.'
~ - :f~-,~,:.,~ i~'
....;,:.t
_....~... :-
:'~:EI
~:'''
.-:.,~-:
"
;......
','
..:-:....~~ .: j'::':i#
: .~.~~.~:tq~~
1 ".'
. ,J;;;~
~'~;J :~'~':"
:'.-'1"1'_'
.~1:-.::~ .
-; - ~ .
;'~~'~"!'
;~~:~:;:
~~
;;.~1;J
~~~:
;:1:~."-,'~
fi'l1,''c
~
." ~
. f"_~
',-',
"",,". S.:~ ,~~,,;-~-'.~:-';
,.:~>,~t~B:;;:~' >
~~ ''''~r..
:-~-,~,::;
';~
-: .:i- '.
.~~:i~:C . _
.. ~:fi.J"
- '
,F,
',.,l" 'to. ~
-:",,;;':,
.,;. .~~ . ,~ '
;~.: -. A" "
:-." ....'.
.....,.
... /
: '~;'~ ,.!"
""...
l~
'~'~.; -~""'-:'-~....
,;
l;;,
:~,;;-.
:~~-
., i~,.c
'.
"
. "',
=1:\!!~~i5~:,f'.~ .,
1!,' .
..;~.
~~~'4.~t
'-. ~,
:-'-....
-:, .
".,
- -\. ~
'.
, :5.",,,
"
...~' '-.'
....It..
;'
,':'f,.
;,....
-",.; \"
..---.......
1.._ .'.
,~ ,
:...;
'.',' t
f.{~i1;~'1
)';;\'1, ~: ,
~ . . ' ,.~t::~;-
~~}:i\~ .:~~ '\;
~ ~~
"
. ;:':"
j l.
- 'j..~.
;:;
..-......" ""J-_ ;'<."
. .:/.~.>;.~\;"-pf ,;. -
..' .., --..........-.
. . - -, . . ~
;.... '>:":1'
"
\;....
r
~
.\-' -:"~'"
..:\.~~j~,kn19~
.....;'7~r'~/~A ~'" /;f~ LI"} II
~:-' .,.........7 .~,~.,T~ -- .~~
. .~~,;..;.
'.
. '1-'
~,....-
'.:
llerb.-: ev~'
.:~' . 't.>::'.~'\" ,: J~;'{:: :
" .-
~.-.;,.
'1",.
,',
. ; '. ~.
....;.:;.
F:
'l'-
...... .. ..... .~.
>...
1:-
i~"" .
CITY OF PRI
INS~Ec::t~:Rtt
'OATE U - l7~9;F I'
r-t A _______
-~:~i~ .:-
.....- ~
.~ ...:
/-
,'/.
=.
;,
>..' ~
.,......,..
\...
FILE COpy
December 21, 1999
Chris Deanovic
Hillcrest Homes
PO Box 456
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: City of Prior Lake Review for Application Completeness for Variance Application
Dear Chris:
On December 17, 1999, the City of Prior Lake Planning Department received a variance
application from you. Based on the survey submitted the following variances are necessary:
1. Side yard setback variances for side walls over 40 feet long. The required setback is
increased 2 inched for every foot over 40 feet long. Therefore, the required setbacks
are 9.2 feet and 14.2 feet. You are proposing to be setback 5.0 feet at 10.0 feet
respectively.
Please provide a written response verifying the variances being requested, as they were not listed
on your application. The Planning Department has determined that this application is complete
and will begin formal review. We will notify you of any pertinent issues, which may arise as a
result of your internal review and preparation of our staff report.
We have scheduled your request to be heard by the Planning Commission on January 10,2000.
The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is located at the Fire Station on County Road 21 and Fish
Point Road. You or you representative is expected to be in attendance. If you cannot make the
meeting, please let me know. You will be receiving a copy of the public notice and a copy of the
staff report with recommendation prior to the meeting.
The City approval process can be substantially less than 120 days, and we intend to move this
matter through the process in a timely manner which provides a complete, professional review. .
Occasionally, however, due to meeting schedules, it is sometimes necessary to extend the 60-day
review period. This letter also serves as your official notice that the City is extending the 60-day
deadline for an additional 60 days from February 14,2000 to April 14, 2000.
If you have questions please call me at (612) 447-9814.
r~e~ j~
yJ Tovar
Planner
f;\dept\planning\99files\99var\99-100\complete.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
FROM HILLCREST HOMES INC.
JAN. 4.2000 2:15PM P ~
PHONE NO. : 612 898 3364
HHI
HILLCREST HOMES, INC. ,
, :14122 Louisiana Ave.; Savage,'Minnesota 55'378
(612) 898-7663 Office, (612)898-~3,64 Fax
'::4 Bufliler,'Dnllen Bg 9~~fty CJ"qttsmanshfp and,VQlue."
""
~p~igH1~lt~i\~\~",
...;'i:~{~: 4~~~~
::~~~: ~
",:,,':~1:;:~!'~ '''{''~~~~(..
;~;;f~;~:~t:~i?:Sl;itf~]~~~;'~~:;~:~~!~~~!;C~1~~~\~~"~X;'~k~~
16200:Ea~e 'Creek (\ven~e;,SE', C;,_' " ,.; ,: :' ,'.. ,";' ) '~;, ;': '" ;", k'
;~t:y$~3~<'.:::':.;1\~!;~Z',:g)";7~;~~i:t~~~'~1Y~S~~'~,~~:
~',t~ponse to you~:,letter dated D~c~tnber 21; l~~~~:~ou 8~ked th~~~~xp)8in the e '
tQ~t:we are req1ieS~i~~',for Lot ?::,~~~l~e;, We;g~~~~~k!~gfor a,x!~Mi~;~i~o side,,"
s~backs for si~~i;~all~,pver 40'.fe~Jj,O~ngth. ~.i.~)~~~~ck req~g@~~~~~;i!,1c;reas
yard s,etback 2 ,i.nc1:t~..!.6r everyJc;,qit:qx~r 40 fe~l~:;1eJjgth. Sii{::' '''''' 'n is 6
lefigth~''We would be"r~quired t~~,:na:v.~;&rde, yard;:s~tliac'R~: of9.2 ;~~ ,.} (, ~2:;instea
st.:~ndard 5 foota.rld 10 foot. T~#~:~~&~use woiii~l'h;~'e"to be'~f:i!i[~~tely 2 ',_",,;;;:,,~~
Wl~.... . .' . ." ';.,;i/0~0.,:,",;(",,~ ". ~oi~ .".-.;~
A ,~~~~e ~onta~~i~~/ai\:p~erall'\Yrat~A~;2~.~ is'~~:#.';~~onab~~~;~~gJJpild. E~~~~$i'~~}y
sp'~lql)g It woulct~'lj~Jl"nlghtmlU;':~v,,[ji',~tJdltlotJ,;:abc:eidmg to thfS:1.(i.tdJ.A~nt:e the '.. ~~d '
" fj;' \~:,would '1'ia:~e ,th:sta wiftiiiF~~1S~foot wid~h:i.iha';~E40-foo'~;.' ><'''''' M" at w' ;";'
gQ ..~'" " .'.. ' y ''',,'., ',. ", . " , ,t;",,,, "w""'<>", ,
fht,'~~iriaximuri(biJ~t:~~g pad of::~P.9q~::i400 squ~~[~~f,~in(;ludir! ,age. '
statldard garage of.22' x 24' (528;~q/~) that woul~n~ave 872 'squ:~~. eet for livi e
qp:'~he first floor. ,Jqs unrealistic#p.ib.uild a home~'~1:h onJy 872'~ci~~e feet on'theimtt'P:
tl()()FQn'~ ~~pen'siv~: la~~h9t~J9.F,~:Thetb;qIQ'~:lhii:tFwe'" ," "",. ',itt.Jli:liS(;f;Y~Q~y~rlf56
s~~~~:;'tL'~i<~ri~~~~~~:~~;~~::~~~~ti.~~ijs.;;t~~~~~;~;r1i~~;;~C, >~!~~i~\t~~i~~~~~:[~
somewhat smaller than the average new two story hOllie UI t In Pflor ,Lake ounng the
last five years which averages abou~ 1350 square feet On the main floor excluding garage.
In addition the number 'of homes built during this same period that hav.e less than 1000
square feet on'the main floor is 3%.
I put forth great strides to desigfl and build within the lImits set forth by the City. I do not
intend to build a massive home that'dwa,rfS'the lot, the neighbors, and requiTes e~tensive :
problems for drainage and impervious surface. 'However. I would, like to be able to have
Builder License #. i0036544 . Member of the Builders Association of the :TWill Ciljes
FROM HILLCREST HOMES INC.
JAN. 4.2000 2:16PM P 3
PHONE NO. : 612 898 3364
a home that. is reasonable ~nd comparable in size a.nd scope while still maintaining an .
esthetic quality that is tune with.ot.her homes o~the lake. .
: "
SENT BY: DNR METRO;
12-29-99
-..,...,.....,,'"
3:31PM; 6127727573 =>
I..J. U Ul" !'JUUK LAKE
#1/1
ll!.IOOJ .
6124474245;
I have reviewed the attached proposed request on case file Ss..1 00 for the following:
Water City Cede Grading
SewQr Storm Water Signs
ZOning Flood Plai" County Road Ac~ess
Parks Natural Features LeQal Issues ,
Assessment Electric Roads/Access
Poli~
Septic: System Gas Buildin~ COde
Erosion Control Other
Recommendation: _ Approvel
Comments:
Alo
DdlC..
Denial
_ Conditional Approval
CJ -BJG"C.n Q N
TD _ VA-.efA-N"C.,C,
fl~ ~ era 1./...iiiS' n::c> ..
S 6'~./C. 50 )tJ/2e" I\.tSr
,C;fj012EL.A/"lD 12ut../"ES'.
-
=
/m/J/1t;.~ (}P
OF" ~N(.~
0;</ TJ.II S
SI~'~D
"I J.I~ <;;;}bEy'A~{)
rT-t:>LJ.lZ.l?:.5S G"1::l IN sr-4-~
W 0 lJ.J lEV e .e.
7'HE:
VISV.A-L-
S"/CGY..~ Se-n:?ACtt:::.:S:
"'f7;) DN R "
/912€
N""~/Z.olA1
Lor'
4?peAR
-rHo;;; _ p(2-<;)Posen
RE+\soN~-
~
(0 D,.t "(ii:. .
Signod:
~<L-~ _ Date:
/7/1 t,t;,.J "
I I"
Please return any comments by 12.31-99 to
Steve Horsmar'l
City of Prior Lake '
16000 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake. MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9854
Fax: (612) 447-4245
1.\t8mplate\\l6rlllnel!ll\ref9rr~l_doc
6124474245
=>
7671
post-it" Fa)! Note
To C"l \Ie, +-\O~ V\
CoJOepl. 'i:~:~:"..:\ MM"'''' ,
Co
Phone /I
PMnell'
Fax"
Fax /I
t 1C.1:IC I:.
,TEL=
12/28'99 09:05
/
({O\,- J- CO~L
.~4
C~f~ 1) I
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
9CJ - t.{j()
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E./ Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714/ Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zoning) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zoning)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinan~e IIOJ. I 4- if:) ( w )
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
Variance
o Other:
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
Applicant(s): HII!w>, lJo~S -:5;JJC-
Address:~'O ..150(( Lf5& ~/'l(D1.
Home Phone: ~ I Z. - g9'e --7tk3
U-Itl.. ruN Ss 3"11-
Work Phone: \0 I'Z. - Sc;-~ 7(,-~ 3
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone: Work Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee _ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement-----,-
Lega\Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
Lo.,- { UlCtSl(k pAQLL
Ap .
of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
a read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
111 n t b P ocessed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
t Z -(, -7 i
Date
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
lu-app2.doc
Date
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
SA
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99-027PC A
VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR
THOMAS AND KATHLEEN SNOUFFER - #99-089
15142 FISH POINT ROAD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES 1L- NO
January 10, 2000
On December 13, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
regarding the requested Variance on this property. After reviewing the proposal
with respect to the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to
draft a Resolution approving a variance to the front yard setback.
The following variance is included in Resolution 99-027PC:
1. A 9.94 foot setback variance to permit a 15.06 foot front yard setback
rather than the required 25 foot front yard setback [City Code Sec.
1102.405(3)].
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 99-027PC approving the front yard
setback variance as directed by the Planning Commission on December 13,
1999.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Resolution 99-027PC approving the variances requested by the
applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems
appropriate in the circumstances.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
\',
Motion and second adopting Resolution 99-027PC approving the front yard
setback variance.
L:\99FILES\99V AR\99-089\V ARRPT2.DOC
Page 2
RESOLUTION 99-027PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 9.94 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 15.06
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK NSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 25
FOOT SETBACK TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Thomas & Kathleen Snouffer have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance
in order to permit the construction of an attached garage addition to a single family
dwelling located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts
at the following location, to wit;
15142 Fish Point Road S.B., legally described as Lot 3, Maves First Lake Addition on
Prior Lake, Scott County Minnesota, also that part of Lot 2, Maves First Lake
Addition on Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: (attached
legal description, Exhibit A Survey).
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #99-089PC and held hearings thereon on December 13, 1999.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The pre-existing lot of record and the location of the existing structures creates a
hardship with respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the owner.
1:\99files\99var\99-089\appres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
(
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the existing structures location on the lot.
Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance to
permit an attached garage addition to a single family dwelling.
7. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant,
and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. Without the requested Variance the garage addition as proposed is not buildable.
9. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
10. The contents of Planning Case #99-089PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following variance for the proposed structure as shown in survey Exhibit A:
1. A 9.94 foot Variance to permit a 15.06 foot front yard setback rather than the required
25 foot front yard setback to the front property line for a garage addition to an
existing attached garage in the R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland)
Districts.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. Subject to all other City Codes and applicable agency regulations.
2. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. Pursuant to Section 1108.415 of the City Code, the
variance will be null 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 January 10, 1999.
Anthony Stamson, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\99files\99var\99-089\appres.doc
2
j"'-
:;:::V3~g!ifb
2.0"0 < (I c: r+ >
"""8~n'if~ ft;o
R'~ o' a '" ~
tDQ.cct~~~
~.>cn-..,JCnCnm
~~~tf)tf)~~
"~4..p.o tf)
~gg"Tl~~~
ftRmr+".....'
~ud ' ~~
"'"
nUl.:""
~~~
. . ~
'"
Q).." III
.Jlo.~.p
.w ~
,./
'<lara
~
~':, ,~.
e.~bb'~
g~-3:J
\C N3~
III ~. 0 ~ ~
~ a. Q. ?
2. iii'.g a.
~lIlo-OCb
:~~;~
~b2.Cb~
or+-,,(/)o
N..-OU)
a. U1~
-. ~, :T-
S-~Ngg,
::J 0 ~ (I) 0
O:TCb_~
Cb iii' ~ 0 !'!
o ~, _ Q
-f\ ,- :r :J
NU1CbCb
U1_g .,
_ It Cb '2.
Cb-Z
~Zo:g
o ;::I. -,
0;::1. if a.
,..:Tob
;~~r+
"'Ocn::!.f\.)
2, E, '< 0
:J0.0:J
,.. a.
Vlo.
2.g~2
0'":r0 5
Cb Cb :J _,
\C00:J
5' III Cb <0
2. r+ a r+
::JO ir
'fl~"-::J
::J ~ 0
Cb -..J Cb
.., Co :E
~CDU;
b~:
r+,...o
NO ::J
.' 0 \C
- -
:T -0 :T
~ 2. Cb
~:[
o:J:T
e _
g: i 5'
Cb
',\1'"
a>-
~g
"q
COco
co
2.
~-VCOQl''''\? 0
~/ o"i- f"\~
~ ~v 'Ov
.'toro
~~~
;;0
Cb
<
iii'
~~6:
Cb ~,
o
Z:J S'
00-'
< _:J
Cb \C
3 g.-
0'"00
~~ur
9' o-g
a.
~(I)O"
tOOe
tOQ.=
Cbo.
. S'
\C
III
r- ,--
~ ~
.!'.l VJ
;:: ;::
~ ~
",
", Vl
Vl
-.. ~
;.0 ;;0
Vl
Vl -l
-l
~ ~
^
^ ",
",
~ ~
0
0 0
0 =i
=i <5
<5 Z
Z
0 0
::J ::J
\l \l
:).
., 0
o' .,
.,
r r
0
0 ^
^ !D
!D
Vl Vl
0
0 0
0 ::::
::::
0 0
0
0 c
C ::J
:J ~
~
~
:J
:J
Cb
III
0
0-
Q.
III
0
-
:T
S,
U
0
;::I.
2-
~>
('"-
'()
--\
en
Q'(j~~
...
...
!l.
,.,
o
'0
Q.
Vl
o
o
if
;- -b.
VJ
q
;IE 03-
~'<:T
m III Cb
;;0 a."
o -.Cb
0 .......(ti0"
::E 0'<
Z --
:T 0
~ Cb III (1)
c;::l.
Z Vl-o :::;;
0 -Cb,<
s,<
Vl (1) _.r+
1Il:T
C -'0
~ 00_
-:J
-
~ 3::0::T
S'::J iii'
Z :Jo.
~ g r+ ~
Z o ~<
--(1)
0 P _':.<
0-0
30
::J
0
0
a."
~.,
,<Cb
-0
;;00
(1);::1.
0 \C
0 iii'~
- -0
(1) ~ III
a. Cb
0.-0
.,
r(1)
0-0
0 ::J 0
I o.iil
a.
N Vl
(Xl cO'"
I <'<
to
to ~3
o Cb
.,
C 0
:J .,
o.c
(1) ::J
"0.
_(1)
:T"
Cb
Z
o
-
~
Vl;;o ::E
::T(1) 0
~ ~. 8-
(1) .,
00.0
a. ~
'Q:z ~
:J '
5'~
\C(1)
3 0
1Il0'"~
Cb (1) ::J
T'"
0'" VJ ;;0
O' i-
o '
^~ Vl
III to
tOz
tO~
o
:J
-
::T
Cb
3
('"....
'J
c....-\
/J
t: ~~\OO
Z
o
;;0
-l
:I:
:!1g>~
:!,., 0
1Il'-o
if :!l :il
0.0(1)
00.
.......,
-II",
o _
o (1)
.,to<
II NO
NC:
to' 0
NtO::J
VJ !'!
t...
~S\~
o
;::0
0(1)
~ 5
3lb
(1) III
~::;-
, 0
::J
m
><
:t:
-
OJ
-
~ ----I
(Xl
0
VI )>
0
0
\lmO
......::r-Cb
0000.. ~
)(::Joo en
(1)3'
'Ol~' ~ ~
- cn,.....~ c:
t\)-O::J
'-"N:> c ~
co"'-"'''' (D :IJ
U1003::Vl
~U1Z0
I ~ c <
~1U1'"
N~U1::r
O)o~Vl
OOU1Nc m
U1U1if
N -<
N
00
'"
'"
~
Ul
~ ~
Z CD
(')'<
o
::O"'%J
o
~
00
~
~~
~~~
(II ~
Ci:m
Cb;:Q
~~ t:t
~~(1
r-
!"
o
to
0
~
to I 1
0
VJ
(}l I
x &
0 0 0 \l
Cb Cb (1) 0
:J ::J :J ~
0 0 0 (1)
,.. ,.. - .,
(1) (1) (1) -0
III III III 0
Vl ", ...... (b
-0 x Cb
0 iii' ::J
,.. c: 0
", :J (1)
_ \C
(1)
< 0
0 0
...-
0' ::J
-
:J 0
C
.,