HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 24, 2000
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 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 #00-001 Keith Horkey of Key land Homes is requesting a variance to the
required side yard setback adjacent to a residential district in the C-5 (Business Park)
District for the construction of an addition to an existing building on the property
located at 17021 Fish Point Road SE.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #99-100 Hillcrest Homes Variance - Resolution
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:IOOFILESIOOPLCOMM\OOPCAGENlAGOI2400.00c
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2000
1. Call to Order:
The January 10, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:33 p.m. Those present were. Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Stamson and
Vonhor, Planning Director Don Rye, Planner Jenni Tovar, Zoning Administrator Steve
Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
V onhof
Criego
Cramer
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the December 13, 1999, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
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.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated January 10,2000, on file in the
Planning Department.
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.
Staff felt 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. Staff recommended approval of the request.
Comments from the public:
Bruce Tilseth, 4636 Colorado Street, explained the zoning issue came up with a request
for a sign permit. It was discovered during this process the property was improperly
zoned. Mr. Tilseth said he was also representing the owner, Mr. Giwojna, who was
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNO I 1000.00C 1
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10.2000
recovering from an illness. Mr. Giwojna has owned and leased the building since 1978
and would like the property to come into compliance with the rest of the area.
Pat Heaney, 4642 Pleasant Street, stated he had no problem with the request. Mr. Heaney
questioned the zoning in the area. Another concern was for the VFW /Municipal parking
lot. He explained noise is sometimes a problem and questioned who would handle his
concerns. (Stamson responded if it is noise to contact the police departmeqnl~~Rye spoke
on the zoning.) Mr. Heaney also said most of his neighbors had no pro~lffrig~W:ith the
request and anticipated the whole stretch of property would be chan~~~!.~L
. .;:::;:;:1~~1\~~~::~::r"..\~~jllljj~b:::..
The publIc heanng was closed. \:tr: .<;:@~~~~l::..
:. ::FgmeOlt~nthtes arfreOamshthoeu ICd ObmelDl zo.n sesdiocne3r..: ...:.:.::..:..: ~..:::::.::,:..::::...::~:..::..::..~.:..;.:.j.::::....;:::;.::.;:.::.:::::.::..::.:::::::::.::.:.::.:.::::::.~::::.~.:::.::.:::.::.:::::::::.::.::::..:::.:::::::::l:.:.::::::~:.~:.~:~jj~~jj~\\\t~~~;:::\!lllj~:.:.. ..... ~
. .".; .. .::I[llllijb::::..
. Questioned the joining property. Tovar said all the ~tn&':p[gperti~~ are C3 and R2.
"'..............:....
. No problem with the request. ':q~I:~\~\}:::;..
1~jjl;~~~~:Itt~~::.... A ~q~::jjjjlljjft:::~:6J
There were no other comments from the Cbiillri'lliil~ne.rs. tt~:f:..
~~~k. ..<.:~:::~::~~::~ij[t[[:[~[[~[:::\lb:~:::..,. <'. <~F'
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRiE.G0~9f6'iMi.IMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE ZONE CHANGE FROMtiWi:..R-2 <MEQi6M DEN.TY RESIDENTIAL)
DISTRICT TO THE C-3<,(VECfAlWY USE dt}MMERCIAL) DISTRICT.
.~::~~jf~;~~::::. l~~~~~~~ ::;~~~~~~~:::::::~:t::.
Vote taken indicate<k$.ii.&. by all. .MOTION CA.JUlIED.
q::..... ..:::l::[[t:jj:!.~:\t:::.. ..:::::j~~~[jj~jj~:~:[ijj~jj~:jIMlWtt:ll:::~tJ~:..
B. Case File 99-1 00 .:::!:~~lItll{rest it"omes*U.. requesting a setback variance to permit
side yard setbae.ks.Jess thad:1W~::required 10 feet and a 5 foot setback for sidewalls
exc:;~roTted at 16340 par~ Avenne.
ZqmpgAdmlmstrator Stmt~ Horsman presented the Planmng Report dated January 10,
~ the om., the Planning Department.
The PlamiHl~l).~artnwjfreceived a variance application from Hillcrest Homes, Inc.,
proposing to..::a:: : .:...:.:l#ffi single family home with attached garage. Lot 7, Lakeside Park
is a substandard\..:::::)hfrecord and is allowed one 5 foot side yard setback. However, the
building wall is4fs 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)].
l:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nmOllOOO.doc
2
Planning Commission Minutes
January /0,2000
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)].
The Department of Natural Resources has.reviewed the survey and has no q~j~.~tions to
the variances requested. ..::::~f~!t:~~::::::f:::::::::t::t:t
'(.::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::::"
Staff concluded the requested variances not did meet all of the r~qmf~(nlw.~a for
hardship. A legal alternative exists to redesign the structure to m~lrelimin~t!~::9r reduce
the need for variances and the structure shall be setback fro~::Jh~:J~r!.perty liJi8tlt::::..
prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance. ..:::::::JJ~J::::::::::::::::::::::t:w" ~:\:tl!I!!~:t::f:tf::'
Comments from the public: ..::::::::~:~~::~I!!!~::~~::::" <:::;IIII:~~~:t:::::.. .::::i!~:j:::f:::"
~t~:::::::::::~:~~~jj~j~~~~~1t~j::::.. .;::{~r~:~:~:j~jjj~~i~jjj::::.
Chris Deanovic, Hillcrest Homes, 16091 Northwood Roaltt~~~::he felt the issues were
straight forward and would stand for any questions. Mr. DeMJiyic did say he was caught
off guard on the overhang encroachmentsftHe believes the n~at~.ms::are in the new
~~:; :~~::,~anovic said they ~JI1ding pad and
Commissioner Criego reques.l~m9~!aining fiqmfcomment~:::ihd voting, stating he was the
previous owner and ad~::t:,t::pf8'I:owner. .::tlllili~:t::::.::::::t:.
Jim Albers, 16043 l'f:li1.Ih)Vood Ro!!4fpointed outJleanovic' s December 21, 1999 letter
commenting on ma:itrliqgr:JJvi~g:~ipif:!;tft.~J9@,r~:;explained the new construction sales for
Prior Lake, indicating the:::ly~~ge"lirsrnoBF:gquare footage was 1,353 square feet. He
said he is co:g2:~pw4....ror the 'api!i9.~tion ofthis clause in the ordinance because people
will start.:.:g'igH1Hg::pmw~s with&ij~::;~X's and gutters. This will cause improper drainage
and ~~t~Fproblems"'::::~n.i:::~ffect o'~IIK ordinance is negative. The encroachment issue is
a pro1Uem. The Plannii1g::Departrii~nt should require a permit to add gutters and eaves.
Al611~~jI"1~ the ordinance'::~IJjneffective and not practical. The design issue can be
remedi'&lIby,reducing th~j:jjize of the overhang and shifting the house to the side.
Howevei::::ij,l:j:m.~ not ft:;:9lWi was advisable for anyone to have that small of a house with an
expensive lon:~~~:f!ge~.::n6fbelieve everyone understood the impact of the 2 inches per 40
foot sidewall s'~t"i91r The building pad is not acceptable or workable. Albers urged the
Commissioners:::ttr'grant the variances. .
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
. No problems with this issue in terms of the new ordinance. There are many ofthese
deep, narrow lots in the Shoreland District.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nmOI1000.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10,2000
. Not sure how much of the design the Commission is going to get into with the
structures with this restriction.
. Not clear what the public benefit is. This may not be the proper forum.
. If not for the overhangs, this would not be in front of the Commission. The structure
would not require a variance and meet the letter of the code.
. Would like to hear the other Commissioners' comments.
..;....
Cramer: ~dt~I~!~~~MtMt
. Questioned the benefit of the 2" portion of the ordinance. Agre~H::~!n:Yonhof to
look at this issue agai~. . .:t~~::::::l:~~r:::.. '~~~~~~f~lth>.
. In the past, the CommIssIon has recommended desIgn ch~gestput this 'lilt~:l~:..
substandard. The garage has to come out the front. Thg~:~~i:~P9i\vay the g'~::~:::::::::::"
be detached. ,l~~~~~~~fi::::"'" .....:.:. .
. The City does not allow a detached utility struc~~(flrfront<o.{.the house.
. The home does need a garage. It does meet the::;v.lBmce critl1h~:..
. . . "-::.." .":::;=;:;:;:::::;=;::" .':::~:::::::::::::::::~::::::::"
. There appears to be a 15 foot buIldIng separatIon on..tii~~~pr@ertY:-i::::'
. Support the variance at this time. But would like the C61~i.~sioners to recommend
City Council look at this ordinance. .A::::::... ~'::qf:tt::::.. .':.
Stam,on:. ~. ^y
. QuestIoned staff on the overhang. Horstq!ll ~~onli~:~ltrproblem was the 5'
separation on the encroachm.~t issue. \I:\:::~f~r:. .J:Jf:::" .
. Agreed with Commiss!9.~~:~~ltthe buildi4g wall setb~cks. The ordinance is
creating variance re.9:giSis. It is~~li9t what the~~€.oqpnissioners envisioned.
. It is limiting dev.~19P!nent oflqi,jt There is nq:::p.tiblic benefit.
. Does not agree.:611::Ui;;~byerhabi;rdjjN.:e.::fee.ti$~~tiie minimum setback. Ifwork had to be
. . . --=::::::;:;:;;::;=;::. .-::::::::::~::::.:.:.::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::., . ..
done for utIlItIes or ~g~ It w(julCltie:::~~rproblem gettIng a vehicle In between.
open~ "
Rye.4~ifuinded Commiss~aAers thit~~=aisagreeing with a provision of the ordinance does not
jl$fit:::kumting the variaiil. If the Commissioners have a difficulty with a provision of
the oral_H~' the proce41eis to defer it back for study for a possible amendment. If the
variance ii~lbmted, th~:~g6mmission is obligated to come up with the Findings of Fact to
::::ey
This lot is substandard and in the past the Commissioners have deemed a garage is a must
in Minnesota. It is a hardship and the variance should be granted.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE
A RESOLUTION THAT WILL APPROVE A 4.8 VARIANCE 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 BillLDING WALLS 65 FEET IN LENGTH.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcrnin\nmOllOOO.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10,2000
AMENDMENT BY VONHOF, SUPPORTING RATIONALE TO THE MOTION, IS
THE UNUSUAL LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY VERSUS THE WIDTH, THE
SETBACKS IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT, IT IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT, THE
PROPERTY IS RIPARIAN AND THE LOT HAS SUBSTANTIAL GRADE.
STAMSON ADDED IT DOES NOT IMPACT THE NEIGHBORS AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DID NOT OPPOSE TH:B1:~QtJEST.
..::::;:::;:=:.,
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Criego abstained. MOTION C~I~it:::..
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO DENM:::~lill.92 ~~~'ll::!!:tt:::..
VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EAVE ENCROACHMEN11TO:i:i!tf::i08 FEET':FlIDM..::::i:::.
THE LOT LINE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5..::~:i~T::'" ..:t:::::.. "::::::illlllii!!!ft:..
Vote taken indicates ayes by all. MOTION cARRIEBl:!:!::::t::::.. :,::I::I:III!iit:::::t:::.
"~:{f~~~~~~t:::::t~f~~::::"
Albers questioned the Commissioners on ~:e.= Motion regardi~llli~~acks.
.:;=1= ;:;:::~:;:~:~:j::::::::.:.. . "::~i:~:~:::~:::j::::.:.:.:;::::~:::'
V onhof explained they could not grant a liit':~ce than wh:~~::)Vas published. The
intent of the ordinance was based on the Ci':nol'\vlnn&:i12pg pattow homes on the lake,
specifically the Shoreland District with the ~,kstilllaard::18t~;::::::}Yhen you look into the
practice, what is the sOlution?:::fWB'=i::f:ommissi"ners do not.;pant to force people into
building detached garages..{i::::rr:::::::::::::::::tt::::I:::\. \::@\
..::::~:~:~~::" '~:~:~:~:i:~:~: ::~:~:;:t
.-::::::;::::.- ::::;:::::;:: ';::::::;:: ":::"
Stamson remarked i~lii~lE.eral, the Qf.tiinance is a gaga' idea, but in practice when the City
is dealing with 50 f8bl'l~t~~!!::~~::::~jj:::mllli~l~m;:!:!:!:!!!!!::::::f:::r::::"
Criego remin.4.$.!4Jlw Co~igl~n. of a similar situation with side yard setbacks on
substandl:.UT.~f16t!:;4i::.::.decide(rtQ.:::gQ.:.;with a 10 and 5 foot side yard setback. It would not
be unpf#ifto elimi~~t~!!i't~ ordi~~j~i:::from substandard lots. He suggested the Planning
CommIssion could recorlllbend elHhinating this ordinance to City Council. Second issue
iSij116'!:Pr~ctical is it to c_ider 2" for every foot added to the side yard setback on both
side? "::Vl:yjs 18 feet th~:::i1agic number? These two issues need to be talked through.
":~:::::::::::::::::::" ;:~::::::::.,
V onhof s~J1::lqi!ib~. g~~f~l sense, the City does not want structures 70 feet long. In
reality in lookiifg::ilj:substandard lots, the Commissioners hold strong on the 30%
impervious surftJt:e requirement. V onhof is not opposed to looking at something for
substandard lots.
Criego questioned if it is an ordinance the City wants applied overall or only to standard
lots.
Vonhofstated many of the regulations benefit the public, even setbacks enter into public
safety.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mnOIIOOO.doc
5
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10,2000
\.
Stamson commented the benefit was that it was more aesthetically pleasing. Several
homes 60 feet long would be unattractive. On the other hand, on a 50 foot lot it is hard to
avoid and construct a livable home. This would not have the same impact on a standard
lot. It is more reasonable to have this on a substandard lake lot.
V onhof said as long as the setbacks are maintained and the intent is to make the lakeshore
look aesthetically pleasing, then require s~reening. fl::::::.:...
..::~1~~~~;~~~~~;~~~;~jt1i~1f
-=::::::;:=.,
Stamson suggested sending the issue back to staff for research. ..': :':~:'
.-::::t;:::;:
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, DIRECTIN(P~'~F :." JREVIEW
THIS PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE AND COME BACK:::Miu A :qliiilit:::::,
:~~i1~i~XDATION AND OPTIONS FOR THE :r::!TING IN ~
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRlED~ttt:::.. .... ~Wh
5. Old Business: ~. ~
A. Case File 99-089 - Thomas and j(ltm.~i1:::Snouffer V a;iR~e Resolution.
'~~~~j~\ . ..:.:::::::tftI~1~1jIjI~~~t~~~::::::~.;... .~i~~;~:;:~'
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman preseat~.d !kj::pi:mqliiJttport dated January 10,
2000, on file in the office ofthe::lUanmng DejJadHient. .:i~fv'
..::f~~j~j~~ij;~1l:~:~~~~~;11~~~~~~1~~\ ":~;~~lj~j~::.. ~.'
On December 13, 1999~:::thgPlanni~liitommissi&h.he.ld a public hearing regarding the
.::..:::~:., .::.....:::: .~:::~::::::::::::::::..
requested variance onitllis propertytfAfter reviewmg the proposal with respect to the
hardship criteria, th~::::PI~g C.6i~~iQP.::4.4;,et~d staff to draft a Resolution approving
::~~n99~27PC:
..:::dt:.. A 9.94 foot set_ variant'e to permit a 15.06 foot front yard setback rather than
::::{fl~~~iliiii~ittthe required 25 f&i.t front yard setback [City Code Sec. 1102.405(3)].
. '::~~~~~iij:iillii::ii~~:t::;; .J::lllllf.. .
Commen:tStftom the Cimmlssloners:
..::::tj~tj~~t::;:.. ..::tmr::'
..::::~~~~~~t~~~t~:. .-:::t~~~::::..
MOTION BY ORmGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, APPROVING RESOLUTION 99-
027PC APPRO~G A 9.94 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 15.06 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 25 FOOT SETBACK
TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Vonhofabstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Election of Officers
l:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mnOllOOO.doc
6
.-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10.2000
V onhof nominated Cramer as Chair of the Planning Commission.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Criego nominated V onhof as Vice-Chair.
:~~~~~~~~::::::""
.':':':':':':':':':':':':':':'..
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. At111iill!::::jf:~~:::::::::::::::::::::::~~f
7. Announcements and Correspondence: 1j[11il;$f::::::~~~[[!li!!llllii~~11::t~::..
The City re-advertised for applicants for the Planning CoIl1111iMiQ~I~d Eco~g'~:J?:::..
Development Authority. ..,::t[:[[[[[[[[[f![l::f~it:~:::::::~::tt?. ,:t;j:[::~~iill!lllillil~I~:JJW:'
8. Adjournment: ..::::~:~:~:? ';':::.. l:~::::"
.:t~~~fjl:lliii~~tt::::.. .~~.:.::~:;.:.f:';.:;.:iiiilil!~~11j[:~,~?~..::::.,:.':':'. '.'
"::::~~:~~:~:~:~:::" . ;-.-. -. .
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. ~
Donald Rye, Director of Planning ~~:ing Secretary
. ..:-::::::::;:::::::::::;.... \j.1.:.:~..!.i.:.:..;.~.r:::.. .:::.1.~.}::::"
.':':':':':':':':':';':':':':':':':',
..::::{jj~!~~lr:~:::::::::::::~:t~~~111~~~~1ll~j:: :t1j11~~t.
...... ...... "~~.~.,~:,~.:~:::.'1:::1:::.~:::~:::.~::::::::::.:::.::::::::.::..::::;..:..~).
.,.::.::.~~.~f::iil~.:I~.:I:.I:.;';.::;.:':.:::.:::.:'.:::.. ....::.::.f.~~.I.t.?I:..!:.:I:.:I:..~~..~. . .
'.:.:.' ":';':':':':':':':'. .................................................. ....::;:;;::::..
. ..:q~::11~~iilllllllli::il!:I:::.:::::~~~~~tttt;mltl!:!~:[1111t1~1~1~~~~~11p::::..
. . . :':':::::::=???:::::=:=:=:=:::::::::':': : . . . ..::t~~~~~j~1.~.j:1:.f:.~:.j::~:....~::~:..:~::.::..::::....:...:.:....:...:::..:::.::.::.::.:::::::..:.:.::::: .::::.::.:.::..:::....
..::::::~~t::~:r~;~:~::::::::.:.:.::::::::~:~;~;~;~r1ji:~:~:~:1~:t~~::::.. . .'
~ "
..::~=:::::=:::::::::;;.. ;:::::::::::..
..::::~t[!ji~lll:~:::::::i:::::::.. :::l::l::::r:'
..::::ii~:~[jjiillllll:::1::t~~:::::::t[~[[[:!t~::::..
"::~~:~:~:j:~:~=~ ::::.,
:.:.:.:.:.:.'
.:tf~::::"
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nmOl1000.doc
7
.J
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED SIDE
YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ADDITION TO THE EXISTING KEYLAND HOMES
BUILDING IN THE C-5 DISTRICT, Case File #00-001)
17021 FISH POINT ROAD SE
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
JANUARY 24, 2000
The Planning Department received an application for a variance to allow the
construction of an addition to the existing Keyland Homes building on the
properly located at 17021 Fish Point Road. The existing building is setback 20'
from the south property line, where it is adjacent to a Residential Zoning District.
The proposed addition to the building will also have a 20' setback. The following
variance is therefore requested:
1. A 55' variance to permit a structure to be setback 20' from the side yard
adjacent to a Residential District rather than the required 75 feet (City
Code Section 1102.1406).
DISCUSSION:
The property located at 17021 Fish Point Road SE was originally platted as Lot
2, Block 2, Waterfront Passage Addition in 1993. In 1998, the applicant
purchased an additional 1/2 acre of land from the City Economic Development
Authority and added it to their existing lot in order to construct an addition to the
existing building, as shown on Exhibit A.
The existing building was constructed in 1993 and met all required setbacks at
that time. The property directly to the south was annexed in July, 1997. Late in
1997, the Comprehensive Plan was amended to include this property in the
MUSA and designating it for Low to Medium Density Residential uses. In 1999,
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~
the property was rezoned to the R-2 district. Once rezoned, the 75' setback
requirement from a Residential District became effective.
The building envelope on the subject site meeting all setback requirements,
shown on Exhibit 8, is approximately 165' long by 135' wide. The building
envelope is primarily located on the north half of the lot.
The proposed addition is 150' long by 100' wide. It consists of a shop and
warehouse space. The loading docks and parking are located on the north side
of the building. The proposed addition is located 20' from the south property line
and 45' from the rear, or east property line. The setback from the south property
line is consistent with the setback of the existing building.
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.
While the lot itself is not exceptionally narrow, the location of the existing
building on the lot limits the placement of an addition to the building. If the
addition were to meet all required setbacks, the options for the placement of
parking and loading docks are very limited. This location would nearly
eliminate the use of the building for warehouse purposes.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
The existing building complied with the required setbacks at the time it was
constructed. The subsequent annexation and rezoning of the adjacent
property created the additional setback requirement.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The property owner purchased the property from the City for the express
purpose of building an addition to the property. This addition cannot be built
without granting of the variance.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\00-001 \00-001 PC.DOC
Page 2
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 addition conforms to the location of the existing building, and will not
impair the supply of light and air to the adjacent property. The addition will
not significantly impact the public streets or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The addition setback conforms to the setback of the existing building on this
site. The required landscape bufferyard located along the south property line
will provide screening between this site and the adjacent residential district.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of this variance is not contrary to the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan. When the applicant purchased this property, he
entered into a development agreement with the City. That agreement notes
the further development of this site by expanding the existing building is
consistent with the development objectives set forth for the tax increment
financing district.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
The location of the existing building limits the options for the location of any
addition to that building. The granting of this variance is necessary to
alleviate a demonstrable hardship.
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 annexation and rezoning of the adjacent property created the need for
the larger setback than originally required on this site.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-001\OO-001 pc. DOC
Page 3
This variance is not based on economic hardship.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed request appears to meet the hardship criteria in that the greater
setback is a result of the annexation and rezoning of the adjacent property, and
the location of the existing building limits the options for the placement of an
addition. The staff therefore recommends approval of this request.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
denying the variance requests.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 00-002PC approving a 55~ variance to
permit a structure to be setback 20' from the side yard adjacent to a Residential
District rather than the required 75 feet variance to allow an addition to the
existing building as shown on Exhibit A.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-O01\OO-001 PC.DOC
Page 4
RESOLUTION 00-002 PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 55 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING IN THE C-
5 DISTRICT TO BE LOCATED 20 FEET FROM A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 75 FEET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Kevin G. Horkey has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of an addition to an existing warehouse/shop building in the
C-5 (Business Park) District located at 17021 Fish Point Road SE and legally
described as follows:
Lot 2, Block 2, WATERFRONT PASSAGE ADDITION, Scott County, Minnesota
together with that part of Lot 1, said Block 2, described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast comer of Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North 00
degrees 10 minutes 44 seconds East plat bearing along the east line of said Lot 2, a
distance of 228.00 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 2; thence South 89 degrees
49 minutes 16 seconds East along the easterly extension of the north line of said Lot
2, a distance of 100.52 feet; thence South 00 degrees 10 minutes 44 seconds West a
distance of 228.00 feet to the intersection with the south line of said Lot 1; thence
North 89 degrees 49 minutes 16 seconds West along the said south line, a distance of
100.52 feet to the point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case File #00-002 and held hearings thereon on January 24,2000.
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, 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,
1:\OOfiJes\OOvar\OO-OO 1 \rs0002pc.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
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 location of the existing building on the lot limits the location of any addition to
this building. An addition meeting all required setbacks would nearly preclude any
parking and loading areas for the building.
6. The City of Prior Lake Economic Development Authority entered into an agreement
with the applicant for the purchase of the property with the express purpose of
constructing an addition to the existing building. The Development Agreement states
the development of this site is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Tax
Increment Financing District.
7. There is justifiable hardship caused by the location of the existing building on the lot.
Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance to
permit the addition to be located consistent with the setback of the existing building.
8. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant,
and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #00-001 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 Exhibit A:
1. A 55' setback from the south property line rather than the required 75' setback..
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. The resolution must be recorded and proof of recording
submitted to the Planning Department. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant
to Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null and void if the
necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within one year after
adoption of this resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 24, 2000.
l:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-OO 1 \rs0002pc.doc
2
17021 Fish Point Road
4
........
WAlERFRCX'JT
P.ASSAGE 2!\D AWN
o
I
400
800 Feet
!:J.
N
't~
I
;-
,,_
co
-
1:
><
w
00
~
01
I
ii5
OCD
~~
"'I..:
.~~ ~
o _
Q.lui (7)
.~~ .-
~~ CO
Co fD
~~~
NC_
..... CD
N::;.......
w 0
Z..ao
0'" 00
~~
~~ "-
zi'N
~:2 to
<om .......
I!!
e ~
~ ~
~ I
~ .
~ I
~
01
C
ilL
WII
If-I ~...
*001*
If- - C If-
*0.11.
....*
/t5'5
~.Q.
.~.~
o
~.~
~~
/. ~.tx
" ' ~i5
~ /,
" I
r.........o<.:J
\ \ ~8 II
"\ J Vl~
1;- 5ffi I'
I "-
z./ "-
I' "-
I~~
Z. I I
I- V
"-
('~
";-
" ,
"""'"
:a""" "'"
00
~
~
~
I..:
WN
;!:....
~g
LL
,.:0
~~
~::;
"';!:
~'"
"'0
;5z
....
wZ
"w
<::;
~~
<<
"'w
~~'"
w::;ffi
/
L
'"
i
x
~
x
, /
v
C.)
()
_-1
('('
_ !....J
,
,
,
I _
- - - - ---d-.,~,:,,!$,
:s \~~I'
~ -,
w
o
0;
avo~ INIOd HSI..:I
(/)
w
:::E
0
I
0
Z ~
<( 0'
'"
....J !lo
>- :::1
W <:i"
O'z
~ ~:;j
:>
L ~5
.. ..Jl&.
0 ~ ; ~~
4- ~~
>.. !E ~;;/
<l> ~!'i
> ~~~~ ~ 3~
L ?5 ~~
:J ~~~o 15 ~o
(/) .c~o~
:Z :Z :Z ~ ~~ CD .. i~
4- 0 0 ~~nii ~ ~!;!..
1= 1= 0
0 ~ ~ 1= ili ","~
<l> J: w w ~ sUB ~ ~g~
-' -' w
..... w w -' '" ~
w ~~~~~~ . iS~~
0 '" '"
U 0 0 m 000000 ?5 ~i2~
0 0 < 'uuu I "gO'
t;:: ~ -' -'
m '" 9~i
..... .... LL w HlitH
L -?~ '" 0 " I!: ~l!;e
<l> ~ <
0 a. '" ~ ~
g g <
" i i
~
,.
CDllf
g~
f~
8
~e. ' I!!
cw~ ;
1;5 ~
utw ~
15m;!; ili
~ol!s 0
..,~~ :~
~"'g 3~
~ill", ~Oo~
O'l!;~ ..
~~e. l;8
~:::d~~ z~
~~~ ~~
~~i5 Io!~
~~~ ~I
Ci:!O ~~
8,.llf ~~
e.~o u'"
~~~ i~
~ ~
o 0
z z
....
o
-'
J:
a
'"
"~~ ~
~
x
'"
~
I
'N
I
I ....
, 0
" -'
"
/(
Ii
o
o
w
'"
,
,
/
/'
N
::an
:\:ci
..-
.q-
z
'"
;!;
~
ii
s: I
~ I
D "
(
I
,
I
I
,..
.ti ~
~ ~~
0
z
0
;:::
<
....
z
w
'"
w
'"
a.
w
'"
....
0
w
'"
'"
0
0
0 ....
z
< z
w
w a
;)
~ >-
< m
~ 0
w
0
'" :>
~ 0
'"
.... a.
" < i5
i2 ;!:
'" 1=
0
0 Vl a.
is !!I w is
::;
~ ~ 0 13
J: 0
~ z ~~ -'
'" <0 <
~ s:!Vl "
Ii m w!!! ~
0 "''''
t <
~ ~ ~~
... '" >-5
'" ! t:':m
:>
" "'w
~ ili tjj!:
u ~ >-LL
'"
I!' i! fflo
..
~ ~ "'>-
CD ~~
~ ~ '"
i 0 ~~
z
..
~
o
>-0
~w
-'....
;:::<
;)0
<
~>
'"
w>-",
"zw
~~S
<Vl
"'<>-
owm
LL
o
rr7
~I ~
@~ ~
[i!i!Je
~~'~?
o
~
~
'"
;)
'"
Vl
<
'"
N
'"
0>
~
0
J:
Vl
'"
<
>-
a. 0;
w
0
x
w
u;
....
z
w '
::;0
58
<N
o.
",>-
J:'"
0<
z;)
wZ
<
",-,
OLL
",0
>->-
~~
~;!:
~<o
a.",
::;-
-J:
;!: >-
oz
J:O
Vlo;
0>
>-'"
w
>-a.
"';)
OVl
&0
;)w
a. 0:
>-0
0
z>-
",::;
w'"
Ow
00
~~
o
g
..
.~ ;
::;2
~:E
c~
50
0"0
..
:::~
o ~
u u
"'''
..
g~
;:::
ou
00
<iii
~:2
< 0
Vl"
Vl.
<-
a.~
~.3
0-
",0
LL~
0: ~
WO
....0.
~o
.<::
N~
oX:
g 'j
iii~
..
..<::
N~
..
~'"
00
-' ~
o '0
ON v
~ 0 en ~ 0;2
~~~~:~~
~ 'g g g.!:5:5
5'0 ~5'~ gg'
:5 ~ ~....o E ".g
.- v os.:
~.; :5 5:: ;:
0.0 ..'jj; v~:t:o.
:2::~~:~'2
g:5.3 t-8.Qa'~
'0 C7':2z..o'ii~.x
N.2 g.! ~ c;o
0.... VI..._.....
U g' ~ 2 ~ .5 titS
ffi '€j E ~ CI ~~ ~
."a-u.....cu
~ ~ ~ g' ~ ..~fE:5
o!2 tit 52 - -en 0
~~ ~~~]::
~ :g ~ S ~ g ~!;
~~ C~~crl~N
a '0 v '0 . ~-oll')
og:5a:5_cn8
~ ~ 2 ~~ :~:
CI _ 0-0
~ :: JP~ ~ 2~ t
g ~ 0 ;.B.!!.,g
v:;C?~.!!~gV;
:5 .S re.5"O 0 ~~
..... ENE 0 w- 0
00 O?lN~;:.;
.~: 3 VlO~O~
~ :: c ~...J c:-'s.:
.~ t;, ~ &:2 8:2;
CD~:o-8g::gg
I-
W
W
U.
o
to
:c
o
:?:
W
-J
<
o
Vl
~
6
.,;
o
on
...
en
~
m
1-,
-
m
-
:I:
><
W
~
0>
I
Iii
oCO
;H~
on1&.
h....
o ....
u.; OJ
.~il
e.'v Iii
,!:I: G
oS!:! .......
~.g N
.di Ui
N::l!"-'
....
/~:5
~-Q.
,:( 15
~'o..
~.~
l:{3
;.. :J'VI
" ,,~
'" ~ ,
...... ClCl
f.J ~~ I,
1;- ~ffi I'
I . ,
l.....' ...... I
I'
I -J,
<..; I
j... '-I
"
"'r
" ,
~~
-~
~
~
,...
~
1&.
('~
hi 0
::i. :s
2~""~
........
"
t.~ ,...
X tfc::i"
on's ....
....2 CO
",m,,-,
(/)
w
:::E
o
:c
a
z
<(
.J
>-
W
~
II
,! I
,-
~I
~
t:
o
'+-
tJI
C
1EL.
IIIU
'III U
*2 c ic
*051*
* - c *
*o.u...
ic...*
" /
.:!-
w",
~...
~g
....
>-,0
c:i~
~:J
I>:~
\!!a:
3~
...
w(5
~{3
;!;VI
~i.5
a
al: VI
w:Jffi
l:a
:JI!!
F<
:>u
<
011>
VI
w"'l>:
~(5~
~~o
<VI
1>:<>-
awm
~
:>
o
III
"~",~~
.. i
.
/
L.
~
'"
o
u
w
")
,-
/
/
"
()
()
r
D
~
~
~~w
z
:J
w
u
z
w
.. ....
:l ,
.. I
,- ',' ~ I
N.~} ~~'
.. ,
I
I
..
~ ~ oC
..
...
o
z
o
F
<
...
z
W
III
W
I>:
n.
w
a:
...
u
w
I>:
0:
o
U
o
z
<
w
:>
l!:
---'
('('
_ LJ
OVO~ !NIOd HSI.:I
>-.
<I>
>
L
:J
(/)
I
\ \ !!il
z z.. ~5~~ i
~ ~ ~ IUlh
~ ~ ~ I!IIII
~ ~ I ! ! 1\ t tt
~
~ .. ~
g~ ~I ~
II ~i, ~
Is ~~~ S ~
~ ~~ ~l; i ~;
ll:i ~/2~ /2.... ~ ~
i ~~ ~ai i~ ~ ~
t ~~ ~~~ il i :
I i!~~"'u 11I
I ~1iI!d I'lil"' !ll! ~ 0\
i ,.:a n~ ~~ ~ ~
i i~1 ii~ 5i ~ I
i I!i !Ii i! i !
~ ~ ~ ~
i i i i
"-
o
<I>
-oJ
o
U
l;::
:;:;
L
<I>
U
~
~~
ii
<
!!! ~
VI :>
~ 51
... n.
< z
i!' ~
VI n.
w 5
:::I! VI
o w
:r: a
~ti..: ..J
...0 00(
~VI Cl
wI!! ~
lI(~
g~
t6
Fm
a:w
tli!'
>-....
CjO
a:>-
!l!~
0:
~~
"
;;
..
..
.~ ;
.2.2
~:B
t- c WI
15 g"
o u~
lii ~'5
VI:;
.'0
aN
Ex
au
0"
<iD
~~
VI"
VI .
<-
n.~
....3
~o
rr:
...~
~~
~o
s:
N~
...:5
g ';
iDt
N:5
..
~'"
.s.s
.'~~.~
~~
I!!!!I --.--
~ ~
=
~
@ ~
~ l;l
rs~~~'~:? ~
s ti t
>- Z I>:
~ .,;
:> J
tIl It: c
~ ~' ~
~ ~ .3
o
:r:
III
III
<
...
n.
w
u
x
w
~
Z
~g
~~
~>=
ij~
ti~
<
a:"'>
0....
l!!0
~~
;:EO
~i!'
51'"
n.VI
~~
~Z
00
ililil
~~
\oJ
...n.
a::>
OVl
& t; .
K~
"'0
~~
III
~15
00
~5
iii
I-
W
~
" '0
grJ .. _
o en ~ 0:2
~-'''':5~ ~a
~ ;q 5 ~ " =:5"
u~ &1:.!:5
u_"'e:J:lgt
~ 0 .:5'~ &5
:5 " 5 - ,,'5
"',!!:5 ;2:5-;;
-K C (-.-it : i;l g. w
"u 5'" ",5 ~
'0 u 0';( i'g"~ u
" :5 j .,,, ~ g'g. (f)
'0 g'=B~8 ~=.x
N ~ .: ~ :5 j~ '0
is "," 11 il.S liS
S.~ b..V1 ;.!'g,
~~ ~=~ ,~tt
",D u",i'sE:5
o -0 -;; 55 -Ot 0
=: 2~-;;.!::
o II ~ II "8:::1
t~ c~~ 'i-
Ell.. 1I1I1~'O~
8i5'58_en8
-;; ~ !:! ~ - ""'-
2"_flOft~o
~ ~ J! ~ ~ 2~ ~
i:;8:;~oll,,5 ~
_ - w u....
:S ,~ cd ,a ~ 0 ti~ 0
~ E ~ E " -;;:5 " ..;
00 O~N~;:. ~
.,.- _ _I: ,....
.~ E ~ E ~ 1~~ ell
'2' l;. ; z.:9 u:9"
m~'o'Oa:llli
o
10
:r:
o
~
~.
\
\
\
\
z
<(
...I
D.
W
....
-
en
I i I
K p. ~ ~
, ~~ ~ .
~; i I.B ~i i I
:~ n~~~~ Q 12 ;! h
H '~;8U ~~; t~ !!
Ii II~f~1 i~~~gt ~!i
~ 'r~" UiliUUi
i I t H;~;~~;a .
~ ~~. UHin~d Llh I ---r~
~ "I~I~ ~l~}'
s I fi a i tld 0 I
;h5~ ~ h ~~f~ en. 0:
- U~! ~ ~~ u~~ i~' I
ll~ H..I Ii l jinl~ s!lli
I J;J iH~ ;. ~ feU ~ ;1 3~ :
~.Ult ul_ n uu J ~
l !:~~; ~i , ~H I U!~ I '. f
i ii~ i ~ t II i I
~ h ~ .~ 9 i i Ii'
I U~ ~ B ~ i~
~
31~~
hH
-...-
.~
5l=J8p.1pJY .
JIiJUUn PlAeQ
'"
UI<(
..~I-
ItO~
o III
IL Z
zIZ
o :l:
l-Q -
~z:i
~~~
w '0
z--&_
-<}-R:
W
~
"'~.......~
'H1olOH ~
~ I t.-
~ H~J-<
.....,.,;;we
. I
..! I ~ ~ :;
H I q n ~h I
.' ~ ~ It. Iz i I
c' 'f ~ ~ ~ I a~
n n I n i~
&1 :c:~~n;;;2
~
I II h,
! I
~
li
L.
Ii
rt
-------
.p. .. I
'I
,
I
I
--~----
..--.---
_..z..-.._~---...--~--;;.~ .
:7 _ ..-J.. '_' .
........, avOl:lJ.NlOd I'ISI.! 1L__
.-
-----.
Zd Wd0t>:t>0 OO~ H 'u-er
: 'ON 3NOHd
51::>311 ~ ~Il aI f\l:1a : WO~.:l
Planning Case File No. 00 - 00 I
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake .
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.I Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-17141 Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zoning) sheetslnarrative if desired)
to (proposed zoning) A &.d.. ; +-70 ~C'...1 W '3.. '"" ~kr::r~e.
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinan~e
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
Variance
o Other:
Applicable Ordinance Section(s): 110 2 _ 140b
Applicant(s):
Address:
Home Phone:
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy ifthere is not enough space on this sheet):
Lor).(!,fot!.il. J.. \J6..+c.y-/\..~",,-f- po..~~c-.t-e Add;4-r'olA Pl(J.~
T\-t:e W~'"-> Pc....,..~~J P, St"'l- A1-Io..~" M~iI-+-
To the best of my knowledge the information provided in thic Qnnll"..H^"~ --..I _..L__ --..---. . .....- u__-'-_:L-
. . .' PROPOSED LEGAL OESallPnOH PARCEl.. a
addition" I have read the relevant sections of th ""'T PA"'"'AGE 'nDllION Scott Count" Mlnnesola
., . Lot , I Block 2. WI. IERFR",. -. ,.... I'
apphc ons wdl not be processed u td deemed c elCc.pl ~at port 01 said Lot' de.crlbed os rollO'll'S1
aeglnnlng at the loutheosl oomer of Lol 2. Block 2, or laid plot; U1enc:, NOfUl 00
ckgre.. \0 minutes 44 lIecand. East plot beorItlg along the .ollllno of 1014 Lot 2, 0
dlslance of 228.00 reel to the norlheoet e<<ner of said Loc 2: thence South &9
degrees 49 minutes \ 0 lecondl (olt along thl _teny elCt~lAal?l1 cf the north line of
Mfd lot 2 Cl dr.lance of \00.52 feet:: thenC4 South 00 d'9re.~ \0 mInute. 44-
..cond. ~s\ a distance of 228.00 feet \0 the nt'n1e.c:Uon ..1\1\ the loutn line 0'
.alel Lot 1: th.nce North 69 develS 49 M&lvt" 18 IlOOndl WC$l olong lhe laid
loulh IJn.. 0 dlatonce of lOO.52 f.,t to 011 point of beginning.
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
5A
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 00-01 PC
DENYING A VARIANCE TO YARD ENCROACHMENT
AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 00-
03PC APPROVING A VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD
SETBACKS FOR HILLCREST HOMES, INC. - #99-100
16340 PARK AVENUE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES 1L- NO
JANUARY 24, 2000
On January 10, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding
the requested Variances on this property. After reviewing the proposal with
respect to the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a
Resolution approving the Variance to the side yard setbacks but denying a
Variance to yard encroachment.
The following Variance is included in Resolution 00-01 PC:
1. A 1.92 foot side yard encroachment Variance to permit an eave
encroachment to within 3.08 feet of the side property line rather than the
req u ired 5 foot.
The following Variances are included in Resolution 00-03PC:
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.
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.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 00-01 PC denying an encroachment
Variance and adopting Resolution 00-03PC approving the side yard setback
Variance as directed by the Planning Commission on January 10, 2000.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution 00-01 PC denying the encroachment Variance and adopt
Resolution 00-03PC approving the variances requested by the applicant, or
approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the .
circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 00-01 PC denying an eave
encroachment into the required 5 foot side yard.
Motion and second adopting Resolution 00-03PC approving the side yard
setback Variance.
L:\99FILES\99V AR\99-1 oow ARRPT2.DOC
Page 2
RESOLUTION OO-OlPC
A RESOLUTION DENYING 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 ofthe 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 Lot 7, Lakeside Park, 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 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. 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.
1:\99files\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
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 #99-100PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following Variance for future single family dwelling and attached garage (as shown in
attached Exhibit A);
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 24, 2000.
Mark Cramer, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\99fi1es\99var\99-100\denyres.doc
2
z-o
oCl
S"8
co
G
O>:r:r-IIlO"-
(".Io'~ =Oa2.::;.C')
0_ .OC _.!!--,
~ 2. <i -en II "- G 8-
O_~g.G ..."-G
-3~"a~g!!.~
--0" ~ ~ 0" ~
~"~Q~COca-l
<QQ:"~;;!!:!:o
~(r;i="tO- g-o
..c:- .go(l)~"o
Q .. "0 .. (l)fl 0-
(1)0.0 "''''0-
Uc:an'~Cl"g
VI=i.:TOl"" "'''',..
o.g llI'OIr"~g Cl
...... t.) P:t"8 co
VlO"O (I) t.). : (,0
(J).....~~ ""'-Ja.a._
-.' VIa"
flso." >~o 01
-.,-U:+ (')Gg:
=+......, (ila.ca
~8~~
o :J Q a
O"S".oo
o c G
<i ~ ~. ::J
-oao
if.~'s:
co ~ .~
0-. co
.,.. ~ (".I
O~' ~ C
o . ..
:l "-
- ..
o :)
~ a~
G co
,,-G
:;. i
ii.a
g' ::J
o 8
-.,
n &i
Vlt.)
c...(I)
01.0
....
(I)~
fl.
~
i
i
-1
;0 -
G
S.
co
G
~
- "'
S
~
co
co
ii'C~
-2:;0
l'o(;j
ZIIlO
Ocz
~~~
i::ioQ
......;0:;0
0I11l(;j
01 0
cr ~
t.)
o Z
~ r>
-. -
.!:T
-. G
co -.
-..
Go-
~'<
"-...
-G
g a:
0...-:<'
"-
Cl co
:i" ~
o t.)
co i-"
!"
o
[;l
()
;0
=u
:::!
o
z
r
o
......
'"
~
^
[;l
"3
ITJ
~
;0
^
-a
co
co
co
t
....
z
o .
i i
~ ~
i i
a a
:> :>
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
a a
~ ~
- :>
0..
f
~
e>
Z"'tJ
m,.,
mJJ
:00
~rt1
00
m
~
~nor Lake
t Elevation - 901.95
Wa er 1999
Taken Feb. 25th
Edge Water
r- __ _
I ___
- -
--
--
l-- - -;04 contour:- _
J--_\i06-
- -- ~
-- --eo
~ 1+
t: _
<> - ---
,+ ~ ---
~
---
---
-
-
-
~
---
--
/
-
--
,
-
..
...
-b
*
.,-
""I
:..~
'"
I
--I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-- I
I
1-
--r-
...
'"
..
..
!
gJ2.a
..:. 50.28 -
S ()"07.5...... E:
Vl
c
<
Cb
'<
....
0
::
:c m
r
r ><
0
;U
rrJ J:
(J)
-l -
:c m
0 -
~ -I
rrJ
(J)
)>
o
(Tl
::0
-f
"
o
~
(Tl
o
"
(f)
C
::0
<
~
RESOLUTION 00-03PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 4.08 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 5.08
FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 9.16; AND A 4.16
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED 14.16 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR BUILDING
WALLS 65 FEET IN LENGTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; .
FINDINGS
1 ~ Hillcrest Homes, Inc. has applied for a Variance 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 SD (Shoreland) District at 16340 Park Avenue
Prior Lake, MN, and legally described as follows:
Lot 7, Lakeside Park, Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case File #99-100PC and held hearings thereon on January 24, 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,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 does not meet the current Ordinance for minimum lot
size in the R-l and SD Districts. Because of substandard lot width and substantial
grade elevations, this situation creates an unbuildable lot and a hardship with respect
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
1:\99fi1es\99var\99-100\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 minimum lot area required today and the
platted lot of record. Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the
granting of the variance to permit a buildable lot for a single family dwelling.
7. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant,
and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #99-100 are hereby entered into and made a part
ofthe 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 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 yardsetback.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.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant to Section
1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null and void if the necessary permits
are not obtained for the proposed structure within one year after adoption of this
resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 24,2000.
Mark Cramer, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\99fi1es\99var\99-100\appres.doc
2
()
):0-
r )
~ P.1
-"
.
II
N
C2
Z"tl
od
;;I"
.. 0
'"
..
t.I-lo"'J:b"~Qo.
o a ~. s: g .... a: a ~
~2."_"'11 '"&'
o_~g." no...
-3~<llU-g!!.~
-"0" Q. ~ 0" ~
~~:E<;):-~c5L-l
<00- ~-.o
~crx=,U)- g-o
..c..gOVl~,"O
o "'"Q .. Vlfl 0....
U g'~ Ilfl..,~ Ii: ~
t.I ~ :r Ol .., r" .g " ~
o,gPl-Cllr"__2d
...,.. N P~'8 10
t.lo"Q VI N. :: VI
(I)-'-~~ tjg.F-:-"
flb"o.., "''"00>
~-H~ oi';:
~ '-J (iI 0.. &
... n ~ ()
....... 0 Q
o ::J Q ..,
gcrli:,g
< c: ..
.. ~ ~. :!I
-Q~o
if Ii:~' Sl
co '" .
o!!. ~ 10
.jlo ~ i3 ~
o~ ~ t...
o ' '"
:J 0.
- '"
o ::J
!:i Sw
" '"
0."
-. 3
Ii: ..
aa
g' :!I
o 8
-.,
q '&
t.lN
(,.,VI
(J1.o
.jlo,
VI~
fl'
~
i
I
.., -
.g.;
'" .,
-..
~~
o.n
-..
g C!:
0..::('
~~~
!'or;;
Z(IIO
Oc:z
~~R-
~oQ
.......;0 :6
OI(IIr;;
01 0
'f ~
~ z
~ p
0.
a co
:l" N
o N
oQ j."
!'
'" -
c: :r
~g.
~;:
., -.
'"
9 ~
~<
... ..
-'<
:r:lE
.. 0
0'"
~"
'" .,
..
0"
....0
.,
-..
:rOo
"
o
IT1
(J)
(')
:::0
"U
=:!
o
z
r
o
r+
.......
):
^
IT1
~
o
IT1
~
:::0
^
-0
10
10
!D
:It
....
;0
..
<
ii'
..
~
-
~
S
co
z
o .
i i
~ 9.-
i :
if [
:>
~ ~
~ ~
3 ~
1 ~
~ g
- :>
0.
f
m
z
G)
->
Z'1J
m"lJ
m::o
;;go
~rii
00
m
~
--f-lnor Lake
Water Elevation - 901.95
Token Feb, 25th 1999
--
--- -
Edge Water
r- __ _
I _-__
- -
--
\- - -go4 cantou~ _
J - - _~06'-
- --- ~
-- __ia
- ,.
..---
..---
-
t:
o _
,. - --
- ----
I ...--N ?;2'52" ~ ../' \
-----c --50.1 K../' _ <'
- -:::::- ...c:::::,;:r- ~
__ Survey Line ~
./ ./
-- \~ <ON /
. ......() 0-' /
,./ :..", /' ;,.-
Y ./ ./ ~/ J
--:.../ ./ /
/ ~l!t./ :~., ./ ./
/ //~./' '././ /'
//./'./y.//
./' .., /'./'
/ / ./' ./"/ /'
./ / / ./' c,\~ 1 / /
./' '/.y./
./ / / ././' '.............. --
// / ././' ~ I /'
./ '..1
--./ /' ./'
-- -- ./'
- --
-
--
--
-
--
-
--
-
/
----
<0- II>
~~ ,.y
-- '"
!!. <0
'0- -- ~
--. ..-l
: I VI .--.!:- I
'""01 ~
..~~ &' ~
!" -: -'i- I
~~ i --4
I.~ 1
'",
-I-
-I
-I
I
-
-
~
-0
*
N-
'"'''\
..~
,.,
I
--I
1
--I
I
I
I
I
-- 1
I
1-
.J
~
<0
...
'"
..
-
'"
g,
.....
832.8
-- ':'-50.28 -
5 0"0T54" E:
n ^ nl/ ^\Ie-,'" Ie-
(f)
C
<
(l)
'<
-
0
:"1
I m
r
r ><
0
;0
ITl ::I:
(J')
-I -
I OJ
0 -
s:: ....t
ITl
(J')
)>
o
~
:::0
-i
"
o
)>
--t
~
o
"
(f)
C
:::0
<
~