HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 13, 2000
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 13,2000
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 #00-010 Affordable Housing Solutions is requesting a Conditional Use Permit
for Stonegate, a 43 unit multiple family dwelling, for the property located in the
southeast comer of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue.
B. Case #99-100 Hillcrest Homes, Inc. is requesting a setback variance to permit side
yard setbacks of 9 feet and 6.08 feet to construct a single family dwelling for the
property located at 16340 Park Avenue.
5. Old Business:
A. Discuss setback requirements for building walls greater than 40 feet.
6. New Business:
A. Case #99-095 Review request to vacate lake access and right-of-way for Kneafsey's
Street adjacent to Lots 4 through 15, Kneafsey's Cove.
B. Discuss concept plan for development for Foxtail Trail property.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
....L:\OQFILFS\OOPJ"COlofM\OOJ:CA.QENlAGQ3130Q.DQC .
16200 cagle ueeK ,we. ~.c., Ynor LaKe, Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28,2000
1. Call to Order:
The February 28, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Cramer at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Gommissioners Atwood, Cramer, Criego,
Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
Planner Jenni Tovar, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary
Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
V onhof
Criego
Cramer
Stamson
Atwood
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the January 24, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Cramer read the public hearing statement.
A. Case #00-010 Affordable Housing Solutions is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit for Stonegate, a 43 unit multiple family dwelling, for the property located in
the southeast corner of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated February 28,2000, on file in the
office of the Planning Department.
On January 23,2000, a Conditional Use Permit application was received to allow a multi-
family dwelling on the property located at the southeast comer of Tower Street and
Toronto Avenue. The proposed building will have 43 units with underground parking.
No variances are needed. Staff has reviewed the application, and there are a number of
items to be addressed affecting the site plan and grading of the site. Rather than
presenting a plan with such changes recommended, the applicant has asked the item be
continued to March 13,2000, addressing these issues prior to Planning Commission
reVIew.
There were no public comments.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN022800.DOC 1
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28.2000
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO MARCH 13, 2000.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case #00-007 Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church is requesting an
amendment to Section 1107.808 ofthe Zoning Ordinance relating to in:$.ti:tutional
sign s. ..::::~~~~~~!!!!fr~:~:~:::::::tt~~)
.":.:.:.:.:.'
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated February 28'4.QP6:!\\~~'!!tUe in the
office of the Planning Department. ..::::~~tt~:::::'~::~~II~I\111;i. "::::{:!\:~~IIIIIIIIIIIIIII::\t}:::..
The applicant, Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church, is reql!:~HH~:::m~famendment':H~~\lA~t.::::::f::'
Zoning Ordinance to allow institutional signs greater t~.wifsix (~1 feet in height and:~\J.iJ~::::"
allow illuminated signs within residential zoning di~19i~. Insdti,lipnal signs and <:jf::"
illuminated signs are differentiated within the ordirliii8$mtmumjn~_~~igns are permitted
only within Commercial and Industrial Use Districts. histtl.~hal si'gns are defined as
signs which identify the name and other characteristics of a":~U.'$.li.9 or semi-public
institution on the property where the sign:;~il!::lHH~ted. A public::h~~I!f:mi1Public use could
include schools, public buildings, librarie~~\\:fe1iI!!W:}pstitutions, pIfKS, etc.
Comments from Scott County Highway Dllm~ere regarding the
specification of Highway ~:~~:;jDt::'I::~~~lare to*\I:~rists. .~~:j:ff:"
Staff recommended th~::ftg~cil apllve the am=~~nt as proposed, or with changes
::;;~~fu~Ch=hSi~COmritt~, smd
they ~BUld like to seg~li\j:~. foot liiJift::"The speed limit is 45 mph on Highway 13 and it is
~~ggl~t to have a ~aftflJp witWgood visibility. W~nter months ~ith snow would make
Idlmidmr:::to see the SIgn artihherefore McDonald felt It should be raIsed 1 1/2 to 2 feet.
Mr. Mg_'n~ld presentectitje proposed sign. The total sign would be 7 1/2 feet in height.
McDonafif!ll~l noted tb.~~liumber of signs along Highway 13 and felt it was important to
blend in witll:\1'~!f~"r!?:::"
..:::~~?:;~~~~~~:~..
Karl Tremmel (tip-resenting the Church) would like to have a sign that is easy to read and
depicts the information of the Church services without having to slow down. Tremmel
said it was a nice looking sign and would blend in with the surrounding area. He did not
see any public distraction. It would be a good impression for Prior Lake coming from the
south.
Mike Nelson (representing the Church) explained they spent a lot of time on the Church
Council and meetings trying get a nice looking sign to fit the ordinances.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc
2
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2000
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Agreed with staffs recommendation except the aspect ofthe collectors.
. Did not see arterial streets as a problem. ..:{:~:~:~:n~:::~::::::::....
. Felt strongly there should be no illuminated signs on collectors or l(?'i~::Uian::a5llectors.
The main reason for the ordinance was to reduce the glare in resi.9@iif:l~ areas.
. As it relates to Highway 13, a lot of advertising goes on and 9.iB::Hoi'::g~!:::t:::problem.
V onhof: ..::::t:::::::::~::tt;:::.!:!!!'::i::: ..::=t:::::::IIIIIIIIIIII::li:::::t:::::...
. Questioned staff on the height of the entry monume~tifr'S'taffsmd they were B~st::9:::r:'
feet. ..:::(::)r:" .:(}:::.. ..It}::::..
. Rye stated public signs are exempt from the pr9yj~!!n~ ofthil::;!m: ordinance. .:::r:"
. There are a number of criteria to meet the ordinance:7(}:rher.e.as::':~riWed for some
amendment to the language in the ordinance. "::::::::::::::1111:::1111:::;:::..
· Agreed wit~ st~f~s recommendation..3th:~?~ing i.ntemally':11]!R1i?~1r.d signs.
. Agreed mamtmmng 75 square feet fot::lP":::f~lIh~~ze. ":::~:::::::::::::::r:r:"
. Agreed with staff going 6 feet above th~::?dJac~~::lf~9:~...or c~Ilijef line whichever is
higher. '\::t::. ..:::::::{:r:....:.:::::::t::::tttt:::t:::::}::.
. In considering the sign or9mWlEe the Co.j~iHoners f,q}.ffid 6 feet reasonable.
:ta::::rtofuerc~ ~.
. Agreed with Cri@gH::D.mt illlW1li~J~4::i.iga~:::~:{nappropriate in a residential area.
. Has personal knowl~d~I:::9f=lir:;i'~~~~:=::::::::r:::::m::t:::r:::"
· The maJ9.IiD.i~::B:U~e Rl ill:.!t having any illuminated signs is inappropriate.
· ~~~i~H!;~:~~J,,~~;~~~f,IW!:~::,I' s lights would be more integrated. An 8
. ..:{~~ieed with Criego:~::I~ arterl~Is are a good compromise to allow illuminated signs,
':fr:::bU~llig~::along collect~lilftreets.
0.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:". :.:.:.:.:.:
~tw;~~V
Cramer:::::J:r:::"
. Agreed with Stamson and Criego that this should pertain to major arterials not
collectors.
. Height - 6 feet is reasonable. That decision was made prior to my coming on the
Commission. There is no basis or public need to increase the height, especially in a
residential area considering it is an illuminated sign.
. Support staff s recommendation, except pertaining to arterial roads not collectors.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\rnn022800.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28. 2000
MOTION BY CRlEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT EXCEPT FOR
COLLECTOR STREETS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Rye suggested for clarification purposes, the current ordinance language s.2~~~g:::;~ad:
Institutional Siens: Freestanding or wall institutional signs are pe~itt'-I~~::'~;::~se
District provided that the total sign area does .P'Qt.~~i'814;]5 .square
feet. Internally illuminated signs are permitiWlJf the s'iBti$. located
so it faces an arterial road as identified in:~:the'~~ompreh;flilie:.Land
.. ..::::::::::::$:~:::::::::::::.:.:~::::::: ..:::::::::::::::::::...
Use Plan. Freestandmg SIgnS may be..n~t:fiignet than 6 feet ati.9.t:e..Jh~
adjacent grade or center line grad~::::gW~the a<;ij.~cent street, whi~>>'lif"" is
higher. .:t:::::::::::i!:lllllij'lii:tt~::::.. ~':;::[I.II'I!!iii:::::~~::t~::::. .:tf::"
Tovar stated this item will go before the City Council oti.:tl~::'20, 2:boo.
C. Case #00-012 Eagle Creek vml\6kc is reqnestl~l!iPg for the
property located in Section 2, Townshia::\!:I'j,;::llmJ.,ge 22, Scott"'i.tirity.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansior presen~h~e~ebruary 28, 2000, on
file in the office of the PI'fi::~II:hent. '\:::!l!~l.l;;.;:" ,:~~ff:'"
Eagle Creek Villas, L~.Q;rhas filed :IMapplicatiott::{9.L~ Zone Change for the property
located at the northw~I::quadrant q~ihe intersect~9.~F6fFive Hawks Avenue and
Priorwood Street, dlf~gi~::!l~rtqJlJ~~Y~::iai!w:::$ch~ol. The .request is to rezone the
property from the PUD 82~1'ifhstncrt(rtiHH.t:::4 (HIgh DenSIty Residential) District.
Kans~~ZOning.
St~llcommended appiiNf:i1 oftli€"'request as the proposed R-4 District is consistent with
thf:::d~',~~ensive Plan .rd Use designation.
Creigo qti~9p'ed the II~t recent PUD number of units. Kansier thought it might be 60
to 90 units. ..:::tt[[!!IIIIIIII!!:::l:Mt::::fr~~:::'" . '
Comments fro-'~"the public:
David Bell, St. Cloud, from Freedom Development and Consulting said they recently
purchased the land from Eagle Creek Villas developers. Bell explained the situation with
part of Holly Court not being within the PUD. Their intention is not to have Five Hawks
Avenue go through to Cates Street, but rather build a walking trail that could be used for
utilities and maintenance. The majority of the buildings would be in the present graded
area. There would be one small pad built on the other side of the creek with
approximately 14 to 16 units. The intent is for a 54 unit assisted care facility. There
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2000
would be a 66 unit assisted care facility totally detached from this building. The two
would be a facility for residents going from independent to more of a health care
provider. The third would be senior condominiums for sale. Bell said their intent is for
the area to be developed and totally landscaped, and it makes more sense to access the
Holly Court property from Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street.
Kansier continued with the next report.
..::::{}j~~jjj~:~:j:~:j:~~~~1;t~f
D. Case #00-013 Eagle Creek Villas, LLC is requesting a COIm.1:l~hensive Plan
Amendment for the property described as Lots 2, 3 & 4, BIOC,~~~::i~::~Hfil!_ii~~~~.urt.
Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, filed an application for a Compre~:9q,*i~iIWlan ~~H.~.nt for
the property located on the south side of Cates Street, south:bf:m'S"fHatted end of'lIi:UY::::t::.
Court. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehen~te':PI~.::~and Use Map frotnUHe
current R-L/MD (Low to Medium Residential) desidipn to th~:::ikHD (High Derl~hy
Residential) designation on approximately 45,000 sqmWj,f:f.~.et ofl.I.~:::..
..:::~tI~It:::::::~~f~~::::". ..:::;:::.,
Staff recommended approval ofthe Comprehensive Plan .Arli~'mrent. The proposed R-
HD designation is consistent with the gO~:::Inf:t objectives in tHitt::118f.{ers a variety of
housing, provides open space and preserV~i::H~:I~J:*n.rral elemen'~:~~tthe site.
Furthermore, the designation is consistent ~Hh t1i~':'!!~;:!~,&tvaq.~eftommunity Goal to
provide affordable and life-c.y.....c......l....e.......h......o......u.... sing. ":::::~illl~:~:::.::~:.~:::.::::.~:~:::::::::j:::f:=::::.' .....::::,::::{:~...:..:..:.~.:.~~:~~.~~.~!il!I!~:::fr:::.
..:;:::::::::::::::::::::::~::::..
The public hearing was.::,~:j:JP~a:::t6tt'liirUbliC. \:j:iili~ii::t......::==,::.
Eric Johnson, 4341 ~9lwood Str.2f.=r; representi~I~:the Eagle Creek Villas Association
Board of Directors:sfaditi.::theY..:d::gpPEa:Jat%hanges: 1) The de-valuation of property
values due to increased taifi!:M@hcf"congeMtBfil='::.'Residents in the Association bought their
homes with e.~p:~f.t~~ions the::'zl$pg would protect their investment and quality of life;
and 2) ~Bfy::reert~~ft,::~ inadeqtlit~iJ>>frastructure to support the proposed project.
JohnsQd.Maid the speaU,ig::.on PrioiiYBbd Street is a consistent problem and very
cOI.U~lt~d with Five Ha\y'~~. scho6rfunctions. Regarding Attorney Huemoeller's
F~6m;IM:J, 2000 Memoil!~um to the Planning Department, the Association reject the
propos:~trr.Q;wacate PUD &2h2. Johnson said the Board is sympathetic with the need for
affordabi~::~!~:~ng bU~.::l'i the resident's rights should not be compromised. They are
not against th~rlit.~~isllil'::1iving project, but the high density.
..::::::::::=:::::=::::::;:::;:::::.,
Donald Fehr, 4~ilr;riorwood Street, stated he purchased his home in 1996 and was told
an assisted living complex would be built down the street. His concern was the high
density with 169 units. Appreciated the assisted living but the streets are not constructed
for the traffic. Most residents will have to back out of their driveways onto Priorwood
Street. There are a lot of homes in close proximity. It is a public safety issue. Fehr
supported the idea of assisted living but hoped the staff and developer can work out a
reasonable number of units.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc
5
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2000
Tracy Haaland, 4005 Roanoke Street, said he owns the last house on Roanoke backing up
to the proposed project. The reason he chose the area to live was the wildlife and privacy.
His concerns are for the runoff into the lake and preserving the trees. The area is also
used by Five Hawks School. Haaland felt a development like this would negatively
affect his property value.
Pamela Nelson, 16517 Dutch Avenue, qu~stioned the location map. (Kans.it.f~::~:~plained
the PUD and the R-4 zoning district.) Nelson felt there is enough buildi.ng~~g6tBg~:bn and
there is no need to disrupt the natural environment. Five Hawks Scho.9t:\!iJied into many
projects in this area. Kids need trails and woods to explore. Nelsou~:J::hth~t~~~pncern was
the drainage problems into the lake. ..:::::ft::::,,:::~\~~IIIII.II[ ..:::tt:liilllllllllllli~~\\::t::::..
Jeff Nelson, 4024 Roanoke, said he was grateful others ag:q~~grf'tbnservation::::a.i.tY:f:.
and safety. He question if City does concept zoning a119::jhe o~ers end up selling}\\I~gs
that for~eit ~y future z~ni~g. Supports the conce~!:~gl1li~or li~\Bi:.~ansier explairted
the zomng III the R-4 dlstnCt. .':,::- ..,:"ttlllllli[:\:::t~::,~t~~::::::f~f:::::,:::::t}::.
Gene Erickson, 4056 Roanoke Street, agreed with previou~.::H~'ments. Erickson said he
attended the meetings and stated all of th~~:p.~ighbors next to tlii~:ll!p.IM~rtY were against
the rezoning in 1983. He also wanted to v~l~~tljl:~pp:ipion againsf'lgKer density.
::~:::[:::t. . ..:.::::::t~::::~\[~[I:[:[tIt:t:::::::.:... ... .:{r:::..
Bob Jones, 4266 Priorwood Street, said his i\!igl},1,}pfs "hiV~:[:~~arized his concerns. He
was not opposed to some sort9j~P!xelopmenfl:J1lif concern~::.for the density and traffic
problems. With no traffic.,}ighi':BR\:lIghway 1 jt~d Five Hawks Avenue, a lot of traffic is
funn 1 d d P . --&~:S.:.:..tr t .::t~:~,~~:~: :t~~}:
e e own norwo.u.u.. ee. ::::::::::::: ::::::::::....:::::..
Bi.if~i{IP!ig, 16439 Park;llted he does not want to see high density. He was concerned
with lifmlhise buildings all does not want to put up with the congestion.
..:::tt\~:i~i~::::tt:::.. ..::{11:::\f:::.
Leon W egenet~:ji4J2&:~:>>Horwood Street, reiterated the egress and regress into the proposed
area. Wegener:::r..it::Ui"e streets are very narrow and should have limited traffic. There is a
lot of school bu$.i~.. in the area. One hundred eighty-six parking spots would be added to
Five Hawks and Priorwood. Wegener felt the access should be provided before changing
to the R-4 designation. Recommend not going to R4 at this time. .
Dave Bell addressed some ofthe neighbors concerns. Under the R4 designation the City
is capable of developing 30 units per acre and they are proposing 16 or 17 units. In the
event Bell did not follow through with the proposal or the zoning designation did not
change, his intention is still for senior care. Bell said they are not going to be touching
the wetlands and destroying the neighborhood. The path will be untouched. A bridge will
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2000
be built across the creek for residents to use. Regarding the number of vehicles - less
than 5% oftenants drive. The vehicle traffic will be staff and visitors. Independent
living will have underground parking. They are also looking at dedicating some of the
land to the school district.
,
Steve Nicholas, 16370 Albany Avenue, would not like to see the wildlife and woods
destroyed in the area.
Amanda Kern, 4171 Cates Street, adjacent to Holly Court, would lik~.:::ts.~~!~:::i:iii~::i:er
density senior living facility. She would also like to keep the wil~HtJ:?:::(:::~~~~~~~~~~t::::::..
Scott Schmokel, 4151 Cates Street, would like to hear more .~!B~;..!i'l.e eff~:~~!llil.~:~h.e 33
acre nature area. Dar Fosse approached many local clubs fgrMa~~&ft in the proj'~ii~~:l.tw~s
his understanding John Mesenbrink the developer was .8dlhg to .f.ontribute the lan(r:I::iK~
nature center. Schmokel's other concern is for the I],i"ff The'::~9unt ofrunoffhi~::"
increased considerably in the last 6 years he has lived':nt]h.~ are~lrtf{t::::::..
..::::t~tj~~tt~:~t[~1r:::" ..:::;:::.,
The public hearing closed. "::::i{:~::Itt::..
Comments from the Commissioners: ..................... ..::::t::~~~~.!:i.:.,:.!.::I::.:~:.:i:::::j.:i.:llil!~~~:::!:f}:'
Criego: ~
. There has been a long hi~,tf,~fM&y~!h this p~~fE" In 1997:::iHe Commissioners were very
pleased to have an ass.igetfli.::proposaL\:A~ the time, the Commissioners felt Five
Hawks Avenue sh~Jf:J~Fnot go tii9~gh. Instd~:?:Jjtwalking trail allowing maintenance
and repair shoul!;kl<li:&onstruct~'t The Coll1Ilj~Sioners did not want a large number of
units in that lodUiO'R~~.R..f~":::I~:::!Ii~}!9:;#y:iHg project was right for the area.
· The townhome area w~::pi$ed o'ii"'iCiiffift'6l~:r of different things. Adding 150 units to
that corn.~h::~w.iUJI.ffect th~::.~structure.
. APP.r9y.ih~:ll1~::i.::in 199'ji:.Jweserving much of the natural area.
. ~:~!1fgxplained th~:::~i}\\desi~~~:~~d cluster housing instead ofthe urban sprawl. The
d:.~:~ buildings wout~~:lr 3 stohes. The concentration would be on the existing flat
:::~:::::"'aF@t:::::The 3 main buildings are on 5 acres, the 16 unit is one and 1/2 acres. Total
builiQimtEea wouldJ'::6 acres, less than half ofthe total acreage.
. Criego::llg~J~oneq:::tPg' underground parking. Bell explained the soil boring tests
indicate tR~i::)YgJitd be no water problems.
. It would be illiHhcorrect move to change the density from 90 to 169. If the zone is
changed to 1i4, it leaves the door open for other developers that may not need any
special approval.
. Hesitate to change the PUD set forth in 1997.
V onhof:
. Also present in 1997 and agreed with Criego's comments.
. Explained a PUD and why it is necessary to protect the natural area.
. It is very important to have an assisted living facility.
. The right-of-way to Five Hawks Avenue was to be a trail system not a road.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\rnn022800.doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2000
. The townhouse development was phase one and the assisted living was phase two.
This was part of the entire plan and that is why the PUD was planned for that density.
. Reluctant to consider rezoning at all. The PUD is a strong tool. The developer might
want to reconsider. There is no substantial change from 1997.
. No justification for changing the PUD.
Stamson: ..;;;;;;;;;:;::::::::::::....
. Present in 1997. Was not on the Planning Commission when the tod~~~~~:::were
. i:"':;~th the PUD approved in 1997. ~
. Questioned staff - If approved as R4, would the developer haJi.~~lo com'~::i.i~k with a
CUP proposal? Kansier explained the platting and CO~9iU!b~~~se proce~~~t\\\\\~tt:::..
. Agreed with Commissioners. Prefer to see a PUD f9!t~fs'prop:erty. ..::tt;!l\\\~~tmtt~::.
. Zoning to an R4 also allows the Commission the..::~fie conttgw. The ConditioWittJse
process will control what level of units and dell..ty~~:iii:t~~::::., .j:1:l~it~h. .
. The R4 District complies with the ComprehenSIve Pl~~t~:N,Fstraitgly opposed to
zoning with R4. There are significant controls in the cii'~'~h,
Rye commented on Stamson's statement~ltiitmqgthe con~~~i!l't::li~:e process.
Through the process, if the proposal othe~~etffie~j~::~I::J~e cond\jiSns of the ordinance,
the Commission is obligated to adhere to th~i::: B~ij~:itlYiim!::9WY way to enforce some
kind of a lesser density through,...!h.~ ConditiorlilJ5s'e proce~i$Vould be voluntarily through
a developers agreement. I(!h~i:iawre meets:::~i:tbacks arilf every other ordinance
requirements, it gets diffidl1lrto sayHi a contraclithe building is too big.
Stamson QUesliOneAfit w~W.ed not ~e R4 even though the
Comprehensive PI~ shJ~i:j!:::gSrmgfiiiiiii.iI~~i.jKd there is no PUD approval. What
happens? Rye replied the r~I@~~:z:oning change was not approved by City Council, so it
gOeSb~19~.
St~~e.fi amended his st'lirents.p.tefemng Rye's comments.
~ilisj on townhouse d~i~.
. Questionea:::ijlftBn the relationship with the School District. Kansier explained the
1997 school:~~iti.rre center. A portion ofthe nature center is on the city park land,
school land 'l:i.nd the private property. The city is not aware ofthe arrangements made
with the property owner.
~
Rye spoke on the consideration in 1997 of amending the PUD through the developer's
agreement, if the property was conveyed to the school district, the City could recognize
the fact the property would be held as a nature center and consider the overall objectives
of the PUD to be met.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm022800.doc
8
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28. 2000
Cramer:
· Agreed with V onhof and Criego that this property defines when a PUD is used. Was
not involved in the 1997 request.
· Ignore the natural elements and look at the map, the high density in the middle of
where street access is not a major arterial area. It doesn't make sense to stick this in
the middle of a bunch of neighborhoods and a school.
· Support the idea of a senior care facility but at a lower density. ..:.::;:;:;:;:;:;:;::::.:.:.:.:....
. Not willing to risk at this time by changing the zoning to R4. ..::::~~:::::~r::::::::::.:.:.:.:.::::::::::f:
· Redevelop as a PUD. ..:~t::::{::ii:i:iiii:t::::..
· Agreed with comments with the infrastructure not supporting:!~m':::are:M:ii:i:t:}~::::..
Criego: ..:::t~!!i!i:i:i:i::::::t;;:::.:~!::I.ii::: "::({ii::iiilllllilllii::ii:::!~:::::.. .'.
· The PUD in 1997 clearly addresses the property in t4~!:way the"'community w3tdl!~Jjke
to see it. Mr. Bell said the proposal is the same a.~t~iP97 butwa.~h a higher den~i'?:"
The community is saying they want the projec~}iuti:nqt. at th~!iIJgb. density. '.'
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO,':~~al~:~G DENIAL OF
THE ZONE CHANCE FROM THE PUD..::&.7-12 DISTRICT":TQ:iiJ;J.IE ~-4 (HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT::~iii:i:i:ii::Iiii:iiii::::t~!t:::::::..... ..:::ti:iiiiiit:m:t:iif:::
Vole taken indicated ayes by all.~MOTIO~ /IF
MOTION BY CRIEGO, s~QPE:::i..Y VONttWF, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE.:::ptAN'JUIENDMElIDr TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION.
ValetakenindiCal~~D.
Kansier said th.~~.~.items wnl::li~~:~efore the"cIfy Council on March 20, 2000.
Arec~ an~edaI8:15P.m,
E.~:t!::iI:::::::t~::(:ase #00-014 Mgyin Mirsch, Sr., is appealing the Zoning Administrator's
d:~cist~R::tR not allow a ~IJtony to encroach into a bluff setback as is permitted for a
balcony::ti:::!p,croach b!fi:~:a rear yard setback.
Zoning A~~I~It~41::~:;:ve Horsman presented the staffreport dated February 28,2000,
on file in the offiij!~::ofthe Planning Department.
.::;;~~::::.,
The Planning Department received an Appeal Notice from Marvin W. Mirsch Sr.
regarding the Planning Departments decision to not allow a balcony to encroach into a
bluff setback at 15432 Red Oaks Road. On December 13, 1999, the Planning
Commission approved a variance for the applicant to construct a single family dwelling
with attached garage on the subject property (Resolution 99-24PC). The applicant then
requested the addition of a balcony and stairs in a letter the City received on January 24,
2000. The Planning Department responded with a decision to deny the request by letter
dated January 27,2000.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc
9
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28. 2000
An appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator is not site specific and affects the
way in which the ordinance is applied in all situations. In summary, the listed
encroachments permitted for rear yard setbacks in the general provisions code section are
not permitted in the special provisions code section for bluff setbacks. In addition, the
proposed balcony is not consistent with the variance approved by the Planning
Co~~ssion. The staff therefore recommended upholding the decision of,ll!;:~%?.ning
AdmInIstrator. ..:::tr:::::::::':':':':'::::::::::f:
:::::o:::::~:: St. Paw and seasonm residence~&1t
staff s analysis was incomplete and therefore the conclus~.9,MmbliY:f:"Mirsch said:~~tUjJ}.~}t>
words are not congruent with the dictionary explanati~.Rpt"setg:~cks". The ordinali~r:::"
commands the word "setback" be replaced with the .w9r4 ''yarcil:f:I.~~::~:Mirsch explainett~::::..
"Special" and "Encroachment" definitions from wtb'sttil!:PictipHitMl.. Mirsch felt there
is an exception in the definitions of rear yard and bluff setl,_~:::" He "liso explained
several definitions regarding the Shoreland district and the bl\ifti~pact zone concluding
he did not feel he was intruding in the bluff::se.tback. "::::\\Ilt::::.. ..,:::::;;
Criego questioned the size of the eves on ~th~}l,%ey would be 18
:::~::::n:::e;;t~ari.x;Iponded.
Criego questioned Mif.:iCh on the diitance from tIii.\13rdinary high water setback on his
property. Mirsch p6llim:~::~ .~,.:)t~III~~.:\IlI::IJ~head.
.:.:.:-;.::-,
Kansier and !:!gHnl~ explailiilttP.-e bluff impact zone; encroachments and setbacks.
. ..::::~~t~t~m;~;~~;;:~:~:~~;~~~tt~~III~~t~~::::.. ~<~~~~tll~t:::::.:.:;::::t::.
Mirsch:aI~puted K~~i~il$, explanliBRs on special requirements and overlays.
~earing wasled. '
CommentiU'"rom the C8.mmissioners:
Criego: ..::::~t\lli!!!!!!IIIIII~!I!:!::t\\\\\~\\\\\\\\}~::;'
. By absence;6r:the ordinance not saying anything, would indicate the decision of the
planning department that there should not be any encroachments is correct. There are
no statements on what can be encroached.
. Common sense says there certainly can be an overhang in the bluff impact zone. And
common sense says you could have a deck as long as you are not intruding on the 75
foot setback.
. Did not remember the intent of the ordinance. Maybe there should be no
encroachments at all. Did not recall hearing the difference in the past.
1:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn022800.doc
10
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2000
V onhof:
· Complex issue in matters of interpretation and ordinance. There is a guiding
provision in the ordinance for interpretation~
· Vonhofread Ordinance 1101.38 on conflict with special provisions.
· This issue is conflict. Using the paragraph in the ordinance as a guiding sense, there
is no other determination that the special provisions prevails. The Commission has to
go with the guiding rules. ..:::;::iI}tt:~::::::.:.
· When there are multiple regulations with land use and building, ther~fWnrhe:}:
situations that develop. When matters of interpretation come up,.Jlii:::C..ommission has
to say these are our general rules. And as a general rule, our J,w:'f;y:~~ttiimcts always
prevail. This has been for the entire code. . '\:ii~i~iii~r ..::::!!tiiii!!~i:::t~::::..
· There is a method to deal with conflict and which part q:i~tl~J?:Jinance preVg1:~:,=.. It .
Sta:::~ states the special provision prevails. L ~ y
· The definition of rear yards is defined by setbacks. ..:1t'~H~ J~JH(reQ.nflict. The setback
does not change the definition of year yard. ..::::~tti::::::::t::..
· Stamson read the definition of rear yar,4.:.. ..::::t::ii~Iiitt::.. .
· The yard is the area that your setback:il:!tfqRitx~ in the distd8m::::::mh~ special sections
says with a bluffthe rear yard is 25 fe~!\fioml1i~t!91tpfthe b!!nf. The special section
says nothing about changing the encroaahtnenJ~:1lif~t'a~::~!f9t::. .
: . ~;:;~~~:::~ackS. " .7
Rye said the issue of.x$.~F yard is iQihaterial. THi::iUestion is dealing with the bluff
setback requirementfTqi::}Y.hole..::i&lij~::i~::Jll~nL.N!Ything in the ordinance that allows one to
build closer than 25 feefHti:~th!}:lBif'6Nhijt61ijlr:"The answer is "no". That is a special .
provision. Ther~fore, it oU:~f:!gps any other definitions allowing permissible
· Look at thlW:~(~t. A rear yard and bluff setback are put in the ordinance fora set
purpose - to::,fotect the bluff.
· Agreed with staffs assessment on what the City Code reads.
· Support staffs recommendation.
The Commissioners and staff discussed the intent of rear yards and bluff setbacks.
Criego suggested to wait and see what the DNR thinks ofthe issue. Rye said he couldn't
say for sure, but had a good idea given their take on the rules. The DNR would come
down on the side of zero encroachment.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcornm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc
II
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28. 2000
Jim Albers, 16043 Northwood Road, explained the purpose for the ordinance bluff
setbacks to the Commissioners.
V onhof commented on Alber's reasoning.
Mirsch explained his interpretation of setb.acks in the ordinance.
The public hearing was closed.
.dt:j~~~~:~::::Itttt:::tt:,
... ..::::{~li~~~r~\:l:::lllllll::~j:t~::::..
Criego agreed with V onhof. It is a special provision and becaus~~jmcroac_nts are not
specifically permitted, there are no encroachments. The ordip;mg~~:jmands as":.h:e.n. Did
not agree it was correct and felt the Commission should 199~%inW~~~:6rdinance tri:~~il!l!fJt::.
should be changed. But as it sits, special provisions dq,l~fbvai1...::::fnere should not Bil::~Hr
encroachment. ~~f~~~t::lllllllj.:ill:jttt:.. ~:':.Jllillllll::jjt\t~::::. {J:::"
Stamson understands Mirsch's argument. In the conflic('~Ii9.K~ the"lntent is that nothing
::::: ::b:;;::,k~ECOND BY~TO AP~SOLUTION 00-
04PC DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE Z~~G:~II~ST.RATOR'S DECISION
TO NOT PERMIT A BALCONY TO ENC1\QAQ;tr[NTQ\jl~]1tUFF SETBACK.
AMENDMENT BY C~OK A~D1NAN~ FOR MODIFICATION
~~:~::~. .
DIscussIon. ....................... ..*...............
Crieg~lic~:~,t up some issues that need to be discussed in lbe
bl~:ti:ipcroachments. s~lfst starr-bring back the matter and interpretation with DNR's
cQ.ffiitl"~~:ijt::.: ]ll\~.:'ll~
Cramer sai4j:"~::Jhe ordiA~ce was written there are no encroachments allowed in the bluff
setback. BuFti!~j:kq#lssion needs to look at the issue.
..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.~
MOTION BY QKGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO HAVE STAFF REVIEW THE
ORDINANCE AND COME BACK WITH SOME ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
OF HOW IT IS WRITTEN AND INFORMATION FROM THE DNR WITH SOME
CLARIFICATION ON THE ORDINANCE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
1:\OOfiles\00p1comm\OOpcmin\nm022800.doc
12
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2000
6. New Business:
A. Annual Capital Improvement Program review.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated February 28, 2000, on
file in the office ofthe Planning Department.
The Planning Commission's function is to review the proposed projects.~J!jt~Mffiiie
whether they make sense from the perspective ofthe Comprehensive..gliB.. and make
specific recommendations about specific projects in the CIP or al:>..9M~~:pr6Jif~ not in the
current CIP which the Commission feels would better achieve C6iprehensi&!t:P'lan goals.
The Commission does not need to feel constrained to restricti~::,f;.oi.l~ideratioif:lj'y' to
those projects contained in the propose CIP. ~ ~
Comments from the Commissioners: ..::tI:Ir.. ..::,tt~t,::.. .~~~f:..
................................... ::::::::::::::::::"
.:::;:::., ..~.:::::::::::::::;:;::.. ';;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::;::"
"::::::;:;:::::;:;::" .;::I:~:~;:::::':':':'::::::1:~:~::::.
Criego: ..::::~~:ttt::::.::::::r:::..
· Need adequate funding for downtown.. ..::::ttjjlilllliljj::::::::::::..
· There is a lot of money going into str@I~:::~~ landscaping, b=qt::nQlJl.dequate amounts
of money are going into trails. Felt th~f~:::~1iqH!q:::!U~. a higher p:lcentage of funds into
· ~::::;:~:go~I~~::~~ :velopments.
Atwood: ..:::::::J:::::::;::::::::I::::l::jjllllllllllllllli::::, .=:::::IIII:i:\ ..:..
· Deerfield's trails wilfEonnect With neighbodfig.:ttails.
Vonhof: ~~
· Highway 13 should be:::i::pl~ay. The..'Shite will provide funds up to the curb. If the
City wanwitr~imJl1ey havg:m::P.ut them in. When the City improves Highway 13, it
sho919::iHgmd8::I@~!:~~~d wa1kt!y,t.
· &.fised the fire .dijlrtment ..4.~es not get their turnout gear under equipment
..:::{~ltjficates. A new ~tition should have something in it.
.:t::::...AI~ with Criego t~~i trails are important ties in the community.
":::;:::::::::::::::::;.. ,.:::::::::::"
Rye said.::~~ltttflffiCJ1~1:::~ecreased on Highway 13 with all the road redirection on 185th
Street and Cciu~II,;id 17.
The Commissidhers briefly discussed Highway 13.
Atwood questioned improvements for the Frog Town area and Shady Beach Road. Rye
responded it would be utilities and road construction.
In conclusion, the Commissioners recommended stepping up funds for downtown and
adding trails to Highway 13.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc
13
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28. 2000
B. Discuss 40' building side yard setback ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 28,
2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
Staff requested direction from the Commissioners.
Horsman said in reviewing plans and building permits he is seeing anY\Y1!_~[fi~Rveen 45
and 50 homes this affected by this ordinance. This does not apply t~:~d~li[~~bstandard
::::nl' from Ihe Commissionen: ~ ~
. The last place you want a straight wall is on a sqpfitdard lani:::.. .(f::..
. The Commissioners need to go back to the basfl:~:::::\\II:::pi4::~~'i[iq9:mmissioners pick
40 feet and 18 feet as an important measurement? ..::::~tt:llllllllll::;;;:.::.. ...
~on;;:';e is a number of sub,tandard lOI~Ai!1lback~ S feet, 7S feet
from the lake and 25 feet from the stre~t~::Muc1\~:jlllU~t&.~~ but of the lakeshore lots.
. It was really driven by the 50 foot lot wiaiR...::::~~f~[ff::.. ...:.::::::~tt:~lll;l:llll~[:[f~:::::.
. Rye said the DNR had c.Qll~~~:}Vith creatlnS the "wet effect".
. The square footage oW~,sh~.e;:::i$,I[:I~tting biglm-.
. Go with more scr(;.~jihg on ripdiln lots. TW$::\i:&:11nore of an aesthetic standard.
Stam,on: ~~
. The real pr??~.~m is the::~t~lll!r:~t, not the 4"2"" feet. It takes so much square footage out.
crieg~.;,:t[[[[[[[i:i[[[1[[[if[:::ffr::::::::::::::I:11lllllllll:ll:::::t~::::. ..::::~~t::ll!IIIIIIIIII:::::i:~:::rf~::.
. U1jlie idea started ~I1:pO foot~fibstandard lots, the 18 foot measurement was
::::::tHlwrrect. There is n~:::lay to have a two car garage without asking for a variance.
.:::.. R&lfitmg the 18 feet .11%;omething less may not be the answer. It may be multiple
cuts hiithe.side ofthe:1building.
Vonho~ ~
. A solution G9tUd be "A cut can be considered a third ofthe width of the residence."
. Extend the length of the wall to 50 feet.
Stamson:
. Allowing a 4 foot jog would be fine. It is enough to break a continuous wall.
Criego:
. Reduce 18 feet for sure. Increase wall to 50 feet.
t:\OOfites\OOptcomrn\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc
14
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2000
Rye suggested taking a couple of recent applications and bring back some scenarios. The
Commissioners agreed.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
The Commissioners received the 2020 Comp Plans.
8.
Adjournment:
..:::::::J::l::l:::::!:tt:m:::}:
..;:::;:;:;:=;.,
..::::t~mm~~I;::..
................... ..::::t:::~::IIIII.:1..~::.:j:::..::~'..:.:::::.i:I:::!:::.I:::::!..~::..::~)::)::.:1..~:.~..~.~.:Itf:;
~~...
\:~l:::t: ..:::(::t:r:;:" ...:.::::::::t::t~:::i:::::::::::::::f}'
\~f~::t~::::.. ..::~~~!~j::::"
..::::~t~~~~~iI1!1ii!1~~~ii~jiI1ijjiiit::. ::tmj~:. '.::;.'
,.;:::;:::::." '.:;:;:::;:::::;:::; .:;:;:;:;:.
..::::~t1ii~f~:::;" '\i~i~i~i1iiii':::::::::'
<:::(:::::::::1:111:::;;;::::::.. .<::l:::I:!:::::::'
..;:;;:., 0.::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;.,
":;::;:::::::::;:;::"
.::~i~r::::"
The meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m.
Don Rye
Director of Planning
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm022800.doc
15
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MULTI-FAMILY
DWELLING IN THE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT
(CASE FILE #00-010)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS
SE CORNER OF TOWER STREET AND TORONTO
AVENUE
JENNI TOV AR,PLANNER
----X-YES _NO-N/A
MARCH 13,2000
On January 23,2000 a Conditional Use Permit application was received to allow a Multi-
family dwelling on the property located at the southeast corner of Tower Street and
Toronto Avenue. The proposed building will have 43 units with underground parking.
No variances are needed.
The applicant had asked the item be continued to March 13, 2000 to address site plan
issues prior to Planning Commission review. On March 2, 2000, the City received a
petition protesting the project. Staff suggested a neighborhood meeting be held to answer
any development questions and identify neighborhood concerns. On March 7, 2000, the
City received a request from the applicant to continue the hearing until March 27,2000 to
allow adequate time for a neighborhood meeting. The City also received a waiver to the
60/120 day timeline for a decision on the CUP to be made by the City.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends a continuance of the CUP hearing to allow the applicant time to hold a
neighborhood meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Continue the public hearing to March 27,2000.
f: \dept'Elanning\OOfiles\OOeup \00-0 I 0\00-0 I Ope3 .doe 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY EMPLOYER
"
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REOUIRED:
Motion and second continuing the public hearing to March 27, 2000.
f:\dept\planning\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-Ol 0\00-0 I Opc3.doc
2
. 03/08/00 03: 37 FAX 6129492683
JEFFREY GUSTAFSO
~01
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS, LLC
13241 Boluek Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
Tel (612)- 949-2667
Cell (612)-710-7174
March 7, 2000
Ms. Jenni Tovar
City Of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior Lake. MN 55372-1714
Dear Jenni.
Thallk you for your assistance and direction in our city process. Enclosed is our extension request to
postpone the PI:lnning Commission meeting from March 13 to March 21, 2000.
We appreciate your direction is ananging for a productive neighborhood meeting to give us an opportunity
to present our ideas to the local residents and to air their concerns. Per our phone conversation, we will
have Charlie Radloff reserve the fire station for next Tuesday and notify the appropriate neighbors.
Please call me at your convenience if your department needs more information.
Very truly ours,
Atfordab} Ho ing Solutions, LLC
From SKI=lRSTEN
PHONE No. : 933 2839
Mar. 07 2000 4:42PM P0l
A FJc'()R)>'AIU~E 'H(lIJSJNG S()U.JT}(lNS.. IlfL.C
4]08 R.JUl OAK RJnGE .
Minne.l'Ollk., M.N !iS34!).
T~lc. 612.386-6063 .'AX 612 93S'~039
March 7. 2QOO
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Ptlor Lake. MN 65372-1714
Attn: Jenni Tovar
Dear Jenni;
We hereby request a contlnuanco to.March.27, 2000 for the plannlna
commission meeting. for our p~oject (Case *00-010). We need the. additional
time to 6eouro additional information, make .plan cbang.e5 and to hold.a .Jl'1Eletlng
with the n~ighbors.
Than~~/~
~~
Robert Skarsten.
Affordable Housing Solutions, L. L.C.
.
From : SKARSTEN
03/07/00 "n~ 11:67 FAX 8124474245
PHONE No. : 933 2839
Mar. 07 2000 4:41PM P03
CI'l'~ OF PRIOR L~
i1002
W AIVEIJ {}JC' 120 DA ~
MTNNBSOTA S'l""A'I'lTI'P.S SBCIlON 15.9~, A C6f'Y OF WHICH IS ATTACHED,
RRQ'OIRBs nIB ClTY OF PRIOR LAKE ("CITY") TO APPR.OVE U.l(. J)J:!NY A ZONING
MUTED ArI'UCA'llON w:rnIIN GO DAYS Of RECEIVING A COMPLETED
APPUCATION.. :}'H:I:l CITY MAY BXTEND llD:i"J'IMHLINE'DEFORE 1HE END O~ nIB
60-DA Y PBRlOl> By l'&UVlDINO YOU WlUTrBN NOnCE.
THE CITY RBCEIV.ED YOUR Arl'LICATION FOR A {! n"d,'f'i..."J IIse.. n,..,t AND
DJi'I"ERMINI!O IT WAt!!: COMPLETE ON T iiJ /1 "11 ~ 0 . . ON . ~ I J'l ~o 0 _.
nm CITY PROVIDED YOU WITH WKlTfHN NonCE '.lliAT IT WAS EX'IENDING THE
TlMEI.1Nli FOR RBVIEW AN AJ.)1)J'flONAL 66 DAYS UNTIL --1IeJ.l i),!.QlJ .
BY LAW. ANY BXTHNBION DEYOND ~(I1l:1 DO , MUST TiR
AJ:'tPROVBD BY 'J'HB APl-LlCANT. YOU HA v ~ lU;!QUl::STED/AG~D TO AN
UXi'ENSIUN DEVONO ~) J do) 0(2._. THE REASON POR THE .B.XTBNSION ~s AS
FOLLOWs: .
CQrl't"in ,,~,..~ of. ~')b'''c..ht'&l/''''j.JOf' fJ<<n fha';.~~ S
and n t;.t:ql,fi ti~~ -to hdl~......~!i!.~_~_~~~)f; ..._.~~~-:..,,!na.
DV-8IGNJNO THIS.WAlVER. YOU ACKNOWLE.OOE:
A) RBCBIVING A COpy Oll' MINNESOTA STA',l'OTE SECTION 1.5.~7;
B) iHAT YOU WERE ADVISED TIlAT lHIS W~VBR AFFECTS YOUR
1'1~OPERTY RIGHTS AND THAT YOU MA Y WANT TO REVn::w 1'1' Wl'ill
.AN A1TORNEV:
C) 'YOU HAVE AG:R.'BED TO 1HE EX'rENSJON;
lJ) YOU W AlV'n ALL lUGHTS U'Nbmc. :MINNESOTA ST ATUIH SECTION
. U:9~.' . .... .......... ....... .'A:;~~;;;i~.~ ... ~"';~n~~. /~
SIGNATURE OF THB A!'l'LlL:.A.NT: "r-~~'~~~".'" , ./ ~ "-'
, _,-;:=> / ,.I ,-~.......... ~
.t"1UNT NAME OF lHE APPLICANt: _~c'~f17 ~ ",,^gL~- ZeLt...
L5'- /cc.'
DATE:
I~twork\bl"~rm'w..i".,,"t>..
03/08/00 02:46 FAX 6129492683
03/07/QO TOE 12:28 F.~ 8124474245
JEFFREY GUSTAFSO
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
~02
1lJ"o 0 2
.
/'
WAIVER OF 120 DAYS
~OTA SiAnrrBS SEC'IlON 15,99. A COPY OF wmcalS ATrACHED.
REQUIRES TIlE CITY OF PlUOR LAKE (''CITY'') TO APPROVE OR DENY A ZONING
RELATED APPUCATION WInDN GO DA Y$ OF RBCEtVlNG A COMPLETED
APPLICATION. TIlE CITY MAY EXTEND THE TlMELINE BEFORE TIlE END OF TIlE
60-DA Y PERIOD BY PROVIDING YOU WRrITEN NonCE.
THE CTIY RECEIVED YOUR. APPUCATION :FOR A e ~..t"mJ Il~t.. f&lI'ltt AND
DETERMINED rr WAS CO'MPLE1'E ON~. ON .;}! 1&l1l> 0 .
11m CITY PR.OVIDED YOU WITH WlUTIEN NOTICE THAT IT wAS EXTENDING THE
TlMELINE FOR REVIEW AN ADDmONAL 60 DAYS UNTIL ~ 1:1.} O{,
BYLAW. ANY EXTENSIONBEYOND~ MUST BE
APPROVED BY THE APPUCANf. YOU HAVE RJiQUESTED/AGREED TO AN
EXTENSION BEYOND "J J;)oJ l>O , TIlE REASON FOR THE EXTENSION IS AS
FOLLOWS:
CIL':,ti/lll..nce. of ~bl"C. ht..t'~ ~~~Jj;:J~~
a. d n l.ldld -t-; I'-. fa hd tl t. , ~.;"., "j I
BY SIGNING THIS WAIVER YOU ACKNOWLEDGE:
A) RECEIVlNG A COpy OF MINNESOTA STAnrrE SECTION 15.99;
B) 1HAT YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THIS WAIVER. AFFECTS YOUR.
PROPERTY IUGKI'S AND THAT YOU MAY W ANT TO REVIEW IT wnH
AN ATTORNEY;
C) YOU HA VB AGREED TO THE EXTENSION;
D) YOU W AlVE ALL RIGHrS UNDER. MINNESOTA STATUTE SECTION
15.99. , J
/.,dk*J/;, s;.A.v17IJ~'f L.I.L
SIGNATUR.E OF THE APPUCANT: C, ~\:..f. 1M
PIUNrNAME OF TIlE APPUCANT: ji!. ~
DATE:
,:>.7''''d
l:\deplWOrWllllrildi'111\twivcr.dar:
PLANNING REPORT
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
CONSIDER SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR
HillCREST HOMES, INC.- Case File #00-012
16340 PARK AVENUE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
MARCH 13, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
On December 17, 1999, the Planning Department received a Variance
application from Hillcrest Homes, Inc., proposing to construct a single family
home with attached garage on an existing substandard lot of record. A public
hearing was conducted on January 10, 2000, and after reviewing the Variance
requests with respect to hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff
to draft a resolution approving the setback variances, but denied the variance for
the eaves to encroach. On January 24, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution #00-01 PC that denied the eave encroachment, and adopted
Resolution 00-03PC, granting the following setback Variances (Exhibit A
Resolutions 00-01 PC and 00-03PC):
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.
The applicant then submitted a revised survey depicting 6.08 foot and 9 foot side
yard setbacks along with the original building permit (Exhibit B, Survey). The
applicant was notified the survey did not match the approved Variance per
Resolution 00-03PC. On February 23, 2000, the applicant submitted a revised
variance request (Exhibit C, Builders letter dated February 23, 2000). The
proposed structure, a two story dwelling with an unfinished walkout basement
level, includes a total finished area on the first and second floors of 2,246 square
feet, with an attached two car garage of 550 square feet with 156 square feet of
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-012PC\OO-012PC.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
4.
storage area. The building plans include one foot overhangs, and to eliminate
the eaves encroachment within the required 5 foot minimum separation from the
property line they have requested a 6.08 foot setback (Exhibit 0, Building
Elevation Plans). The applicant is now requesting the following Variances:
1. A 3.08 foot Variance to permit a 6.08 foot side yard setback instead of
the required 9.16 foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in
length. .
2. A 5.16 foot Variance to permit a 9 foot side yard setback instead of the
required 14.16 foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in length.
DISCUSSION:
The subject property Lot 7, Lakeside Park, was platted in 1921, and is located
within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the SO (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 following criteria are met: a) the sum of the side yard
setbacks is at least 15 feet; b) a minimum separation of 15 feet is maintained
between all structures; c) no yard encroachments are located within 5 feet of an
adjoining lot (Code Subsection 1101.502(8) Required Yards, and Subsec.
1101.503 Yard Encroachments).
The structure is also subject to Code Subsection 1102.405 Dimensional
Standards (6), which states in part, "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 is a continuous 65
feet; therefore, a 9.16 foot setback is required (65' - 40' = 25' x 2" = 50" or 4.16' +
5' = 9.16 feet).
In addition, the south side wall is also considered a continuous 65 feet as
defined in Code Subsec. 1101.400 Definitions: Building Face, which 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 has an exterior angle of 270
degrees but is only 13 feet long and by definition does not terminate at this point.
This side wall requires a 14.16 foot setback (10' + 4.16 ").
The applicant now proposes 6.08 foot and 9 foot setbacks to accommodate 1
foot eaves required to shed water away from the exterior wall and foundation of
the structure and has submitted a letter with reasons for this request (Exhibit C,
2nd letter from builder dated 3/8/00).
L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\Oo-012PC\OO-012PC.DOC
Page 2
In addition, the applicant proposes to remove the existing shed and retaining wall
along the front property line and in the public right-of-way at the time of
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 this Variance request and
has no comment to submit with this report.
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 reducing
the size of 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 because this is a vacant lot without an
existing structure and is open to design modifications. A legal alternative for
a building foot print 34 feet by 65 feet, rather than 35 feet by 65 feet is
permitted in this situation as provided for in Resolution 00-03PC.
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.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-012PC\OO-012PC.DOC
Page 3
The granting of the proposed Variance's does not appear to adversely affect
the adjacent properties regarding the values as stated above 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 substandard 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 hardship appears to exist.
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 appear to be a hardship in
this case as the original building plans will require modifications to comply
with the adopted variance resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-012PC\OO-012PC.DOC
Page 4
Staff has concluded the requested Variances do not meet all of the required
hardship criteria. A legal alternative exists to redesign the structure to meet the
setbacks as provided for in Resolution #00-03PC and eliminate the need for the
Variances requested.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the Variances requested by the applicant, or any Variance the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this case,
the staff should be directed to prepare a resolution approving the requested
Variance.
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 #00-05PC denying the 3.08 foot and 5.16 foot setback Variance's for
as requested.
L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-012PC\OO-012PC.DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION 00-05PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 3.08 FOOT AND A 5.16 FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A 6.08 FOOT AND 9 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 9.16 FEET AND 14.16 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR
BUILDING WALLS 65 FEET IN LENGTH
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 Lot 7, Lakeside Park, Scott County,
Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case File #00-012PC and held hearings thereon on March 13,2000.
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.
1:\99fi1es\99var\99-100\dnyres2.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 #00-012 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);
1. A 3.08 foot Variance to permit a 6.08 foot setback instead of the required 9.16 foot
side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in length.
2. A 5.16 foot Variance to permit a 9 foot setback instead of the required 14.16 foot
side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in length.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 13, 2000.
Mark Cramer, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\99files\99var\99-100\dnyres2.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
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 A4.16
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKINSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED 14.16 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR BUILDING
WALLS 65 FEET IN LENGTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the 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, arid 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 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, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment ofan 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-I 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
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 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.wall65 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.
a~:
Mark Cramer, Chair
ClST:
Donald R. Rye, P
1:\99files\99var\99-IOO\appres.doc
2
~
>
0:::
::>
(f)
LL
o
W
l-
<(
U
c:
l-
0:::
W
U
<
(f)
I- w
~
- 0
m :r:
- I-
J: (f)
w
>< a:::
u
-...l
W -...l
:r:
t:
0
'+-
>.
Q)
c:
::l
.=11 11....=11 \ V /10 V CJ
3 .. tS.LO.o s
9Z"OS ~
'"zra
..
~
-........
\ \ \
/)(~
/ //
//
/
I
1
I ~
.
1=
..
,,;
.,
.
~
T
I
I__
I
I
I
I
I
I
I--
I
...
~
.
*
<! -
N
.
-
I
r d
1_-
-r-
I IU I
~: I
r l g:~
I ~;"'.o
.- g &;~G
I ~ CO'.
-r-- I:;:
~r- l-R
'A / =
.. 0
~ .---
,.r e~
'" -...
-
(
J /
~ /..
:" -y/
-----
-J
-- ./"!
..
- -.;;
.,
..;
-
--
-
-
-
--
--
----
--
-
+1
o
..;
..,
--
-
-
+1
"'-
..;
~ -
_905- - - F
- --:no\uo:l 7~ _ --\
.......---
-
.---.--- - -:::---- .J
- - - --=- --=- - - - JlI\OM 1I6p3
6661 '11SZ "qll.:l U:~~~M
S6"106 - UOllOAal3
" '-J r\"=,--_ iL"\~1
......
............
ti:
W
CO
WC!l
>2
0-
a: a:
o..W
o..W
<~
(!J
Z
W
--
.---
%
...
c
~ J:
c c
.. ..
E E
:J :J
C C
o 0
::I ::I
c c
~ ~
.. ..
.. ..
'0 "0
c c
c! c!
. 0
01
01
~
~
-
-0
.
.,
'>
..
II:
=t
J
~
a::
~
w
Q
~
:::c::
:s
,.....
.....
o
-l
..
Z
o
I-
a..
a::
u
(/)
W
Q
m
01
Ol
0_
..
"i:5
...
8.'0
..
... ..
0...
...J2
o
.~
>.-
.. ...
~{;
., 5
.!! "-
.c 0
->.
'0 ~
.c :J
- ..
~"
:e 6
0-
U"
~e
...!
i.!!
.c~
- ...
u ....
~ 8
tool
Z .b
Q co
!1l/)co
~:SN'
~i~
z~o
Ql/)z
!1 0 "
~3~
I
~
.;
D>
o
c
-e
"
g'O
~ "~
cu
E "~
."
~.!
III 0 L.
C ;,
-3 ~
1"1 !! 0.8
. .. c
~ ~~~
" ~ 01
~.re.!
0..0_
~"x ~ u
. .. ;, ~
8'f.2i
;; 0 a
ClfUOj'
-'0 ~ "".:
:5~<u ...;.....~
0., ~o.9cT
~ 'ti.g I") cT:g ... II)
:;l :'ti~ (1)0.01")
&'''0 N.......,....
e 8.........;co... gill
.oc 0.0.. .~U).c't:1")
~..eC::'ne;'1
.0...0.. CT 011)
- 0 e cTII) .. 0. .. 0
0"0(1)00> .;'''
Q. 5 __.0) f = .2 ~
.2 :; ~ - -.8 ~ ~ ....
~5~- 1).2
--- "t) ..n.
ii'ia-a~~so
{;"ua"u~_
o. o)....DO~
~e;g....g,g.~oo
"u~.9::t:<.ct-""
u
.,
&.~
~!!
it
'cT
C::II)
....
CTIt)
(1)1")
Nri
~.
. .
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 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-I
(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.
I: \99files\99var\99-1 OO\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.
I)/JL
Mark Cramer, Chair
1:\99files\99var\99-100\denyres.doc
2
Vl
~
r
!:1
~
.
N
o
Z"tl
00
r,1-g
~oto)>:r:r :;
N 0 ~. s= g ~ ~ Q Q.
_CDrot-CI) ::(;e>
g,_:eO()II o.cr"
3~:T 00.0
0" - ~ II ... 0 li
.....0 _::Itlce
)> ~. ~ ~:-" <0 g f ..
~gFoiO::ii1~O'
0'" <00 0"
II V!"8 () V!~ ~ iil 0
(.,.I~ClIl-fl.,,!l""
0,0:T0) ~O..g
....0 R'OI~' ".., g
(.,.I () "-l ....... gO""
0" !='....,
V)--a~ ",p-g
-fl r 0-' . ;-! .. CO
o ...,.Q.a. ~
~... II ~ )> g- c"
..... . ~ ii ~
II _ ~ a. ..
(.,.lit ........801"
. "-l 0 ::>.0 0
(.,.IV! crO.,a
01..0 ~C"oQ
.... ()OI~"
(J) " ,-. Q (3' :!l
-flr+' lCile:g
oS .,
~~. ~.
...l!\.
o~. :e
g . C4
...
o
C
.,
~
a.
lD
::>
~m
CD 0
..
Q.lD
:;. 3
CD CD
g,::>
<)' ,...
::> :!I
a~
Q.
9. lO
::> ...,
o ...,
oQ .
!D ...,
., -
CD
~.~
.....
~~
n
g3-
Q.~
~ s:
<1 0
CD ...
~g:
., iif
C
::> ..
o.C
~ ~
...'<
:T
.. :e
o
Z om
f> ~ ~
a-8
o
...Cil
lo.
~~
o
\~q:;
i:: r ,..' ~c
-. 0 - ::>
i ~ ,,~g-
.. .,
~. p~
c:~ 00.
o' C 0 =;-
CD ,... ;- CD
~ ~ ,0. a
~. ll~ g:cn
~ b ~~_.~
. ::> ,\ <1
coo. \ \, c;r
~ (I)' 0. ()"
Ol ~\ ~?
~ ag
o Q.
., g:....
~ [
3 -
tT
CD 0
:- 3
f~Q
. o!ii
ZlIIli)
:~:
;~~
Ollllli)
g: 0
~ ;z
o
Ol
...
o .
~ ~
o 0
if i
[ [
~ J::
:J g
c: c:
~ ~
a. ;!.
~ g'
:J
Q.
CJ
fT1
(J)
(")
AI
"'U
--l
o
Z
..
b
......
.:'l
):
^
fT1
(J)
CJ
fT1
~
::0
^
COO
co
"
;0;0
.. ..
~. ~.
CD CD
~~
,:::
~~
~.:t
010
810
Prior
Lake
z
Water Elevation ..
Taken f"eb 901.95
. 25th 1999
r Edge Water
- =--- =--- .=-- =--- ..::::--
------
--
------
~904 Contour -
----
",_ _ _ _ _,"06-
~ ~
o '"
1+ _ _ - __io
- 1+
-
--
.....-
/
/
/ /
/ / /
//
/ / /
//
.--/ /
_//
_//
_../" /
--../"
----
*
..-
t~
"
Z
PI
:a --t-'"
""~
.....
~
;.J../"~
--, ~
~IV! I ...-1
"~81--r 1
O~ 5'
!" ~ --i- --'
~~ '" 1
l:~--'
1T1~
I
---I-
~ I
:::-----'
l:: I
..
__' __ f")
o
I
-I
1
-I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1-
--r-
~
!"
co
-
~
-.......
......
932.6
(J)
c
:2
~
-+.
o
...,
..
:r:
r
r
o
::u
r'l
(J)
-;
:r:
o
3::
r'l
(J)
m
><
:E:
-
m
-
....
m
o
f'T1
;0
-;
:2J
S;
-f
f'T1
o
"
(f)
C
;0
<
~
FR~LLCREST HOMES INC.
MAR. 8.2000 11:19AM P 2.
PHONE NO. : 612 898 3364
HHI
E.X'HIBIT C
HILLCREST 'HoMES, INC.
1412~ Louisiaria Ave., ~avage> Minnesota 55'378'
(612) 898-7663 Oftlce (612) 898-338.. Fax
"A Builder Drfu~" By g~tJl Cnvbmumsh(p and Vcdua."
,.
.. ~~r~~~
. . ~::~~
. ." ,~t~$,.~.
",--+~)<c""~,,,,~<"l;ol"'~~ .
. . .c~~~~~~~w,..
. '. .::-::~~~~:{r.~~~~~~~".
. . . . . . .;\i~~~r~f~~~~f~
March 8, 2000 . . . . :),..... '" :..: ',', .:':{ ~~~: ...:;:i. : ~ . ~ .~. : .:.c..: ~ ":";....N':;..~:~.:t~~~~~~.:~;~~.c.~.;.
..' :'JF;:~~k,~'.:.';~'.: ~:'11;~H;~:;'j;.\~~~l?;Ei~~;.W.f.~:~;:))(~17.~~~1~~1!t~~~~~~~~.
PlaI1Illng Dep'~ment -' '... .....~ :" .'W '. . ~~..,... ...... .....:.. .'........ ..... ..,..",~,.~~";~~.;;-.~~-,,..,~.::
C. fn:,.;::.;.;:;t~ ..:.~. .::.,:' \.,: : .~ .\....: :~:-.'F":'.:':.:. '>~:T.+::~.: h': \: ~i~~~X.~'. ,.;.:-.:;.:~):~~?J~":j'l~.:~::.%~r~f.i~J;..i.;;.
Ity 0 .~~10f ~i:t&e.: ...... -. ..... .......... ... ". ...w~_" ,. .... ...... -.....,.....~....'t:m."'~".......~~~
"'B1f".:!..~.:: tr;(~..i!': 'A'" .:. '.:~'" ~~'~",.."':".:.'" '04h'~::'"'';:''' .:~.:. .:;..-::;~:.""':.::;~~.~:t':'~~~~'!;:~I~~~~'~~_
16200.' ...iile~er.eel'i.' y'enue '~J:;:' ."':.. ....,. .... ......; ':' ...,....-.-:., .".....;f,;....w..,:_...""',.,..............,,~~
. .~..~~....i... . ..' .y........:.~: ....... "". . .'...... .y.....':..:....:i.:...~.'>t-....,..;.,.c.c.~~~~~;.~~~......
p ." .tal(.. ;:MN' .SS.37:t.... ...... ..: ..('.,.' ,......:. ,. .... . ~,. ....~.~!,',ll\........,~~~-~.r.:.~. ........
~~~}~j':':;y:~',>:;';~2'{i;,C'~~~;~t~:~f;,j1~:~~~~~;~Ifft:_;:~c
AsY9U know, we:;~[e ~equesting ~:-~~riaI)ce to th~":~~~ yard setbac~~m one 5 fo~.
~ii~}~ foot t? .~~~.f9S. ~oet anf9.~~~,~'!~ot per;~~~~~~d survTt~f!t~:~20/0Q~_e
~king';for this ya,r...an<:e..l~ orden~~e-ep.ou( OV:1;f.Jj~!.1g~:~from e~"'~Wmg lnto ttl~OOt;.
y~d'i~~back. ;Q~-.64S\nal plai:'Jh~g~;:~9ver~~$~2j~~~.thodifie~J.it~~ as m.~~
~~s~i\i.~,~ and r~~~~.e~',~~~ oy~r~'E~~!?}2". Thi~~'s:.*~1~nimu!#~~~~rt~g tha~~
c~~~able buddmg. Overha~~~~for-. a reason. J:~ey s~eitlW~~ay ft,.. ~ e
eXt.eri9~ of the hO';1se. They al~-~~fep')#:ater away from the ar~~!ie wall{ii~ J~f
me~~'" "We are)\irial?l~:Jo decr~~e:~9::ur.:.ijverhari~'il~j)~,~:-slnce thi~~!.l1:Cf:~se l~ilii
penot1nance p.r~btems.'pertaini~8'.Jcdh~;.TOof a,,~::the:!iiidh.ofth~f.tlG.~/~:' . .;~~:~~'.;~:~;;:
::\"~:':":.:.::: :::.:,:....i:.:.L~...:,!-. 't;'>".L1~;:~~: '.::;:i~~'~~;I '. .~~~ k.;;,;:~~j..~;::
l'h4r~ftir~, we::ai:~:'-te#h:esting a~.~~~y~rtifsetbac~i~~"fjeet an'~~><"~~'~~ch wf' ..~ ~r~
alloW,its to utiii:i~:,the:rhinimut~+~:2~~':8~~rhang,::~~ek~Jthat ov . , 'om 'enclORc. ."~
.. 'h" 5' 'd . ...."t.'.-.'..b k .....c'~I> ., ..;....,~, . -............... ,.' ~
tnto t e 81 eyaru.'.set ac . ...: ::'" />:~ .:~ . ;:~;..,-=-.
Deanovic .
Build.r License' #:20036544 '. Memb.er ~j the Builder" 'A,99"ociati"".o/ihe 7\vin' Citiu
FROM~LCREST HOMES INC.
FEB. 23.2000 3:58PM P 2
PHONE NO. 612 898 3364
HHI
HILLCREST HO~S, .INC.
.14122 Lo.u1S1ana /s.ve., Savage:, ~esota.55378
(612) ~98-7663 Oftlce (612) .898-33S. Fax
'~ B.dtrl8r Drb,en BY' QU4Uty Cr~mansh1p ~ ValUe."
.<
'. .'. . .' );,;t,;~til~~l~~~,!~ .
February 23, 2000.. .........,.,' .,.,,,: ~., ..< . ,.'''' ""'. .,.. ;','.. . "... :.,.., ,'''I(<,:.,,~..~r.'{:..-:...~... ".
~~~~.-:.:t;i.r;;f;~i}i';'il.;'t?,\tI:;t:::>',::{Ir;~~lf~t;~1)~I~~~i;~*~,;
1620Q~~le';\)(eek'A:venue...sE'.": ','-::1' , .' .' '.' :. ':., -" ':" "'.~'~",!~':.:. ,,".;::.i'..;,-J'..~~~1.~,::..~:,::.~,,.
~~~?f ~~~~';:~~:~ ~~;?~;' .:...~:~..: ~~ . ::;~~':..:":;:,::'.. :.....:. '..:'i:'~::. ~i;::'.:::;::":.:: '~.:. ;'. :'~";'::"~:~ ;~?:;}::i~;fll~J~}~:~~';:i'~~1~r.:~~~r~r.i;~~~&;~{~~(, .
. ., .. Y ....... ,.."'I '$ ~I'~' ,.;',.. ..: . " .' "I".: -.)" ..." ':',,: . '~'. ~~ ~i" . ..... ." . ......)....~. .~,.~"*)~ ..,." .l...... .:~!'; ..~..~....~~~.).,......t.. t.1~ )..
'. .'i~.ii~j;'i ."'m'.': .' .')'. .::i:"i~:Lj..;':\-;i':':~;\r;i': ;\';f!~1::;;!'~!"{~@tf~f~t~Jr3>~:'
We :;~e requesti~~: #)~~~riance to .~~~;j,i.~e 'yard se~~~qk: ~om one 5 (,(~~t...andone '1 0 J~~~r~o
op~A~08 fo'ot ~ri4J5.n~'.5? foot p~r;~~~tf:~~~sed sUrV:~y:,p~~~d 1I2o/Q~l:;'~~,~, that wc;~r~;;.}.~:~~: .'
~~i1:9,i,~ withi~:'~~::~~~l s~~eY~4.7~~?~~:k of 1 ~J~~;fJ'~owe~ex:'~~vfr~~~~ over~f~:~~~;'.:';
eI1~dl1ehment .w~'Wo.u)t:l hke to',jt,ilft. the house'o:ne. (ootto the sOUth;::.:: :. . '-:'..l1;~:'~;'.;:.'.:.~.
~r'::',;::;;~':. ':':>}.:.:.~'.~':::~-::'. .~'T';~L;::\t/..' :'~";.:.~.;~::'::f.>b" . ::;~:;~:~)~:.:::;;..\(; .. . t[,1~t=:~~/.
ltj~~tny underSt;md'i~g 'that thi~:W~(j$ussed du~kg'~the initial';~1iriirt~~':hearln~{(~f::;~*:~
liO~~v~r when st~ffdirected tn~:~~~pg commission ~m' actio~:jt~'W~s :~9mehowJ~~.:~irt
ftli' fi 1 ;, ..j.....:..' :'~ '.' ..,..,,'., . ...'..0.... .,y.-..~~,..."...,. ~.i!1'~'~'?<'
~~::r::y:~T-~~~n~j.~~D;' . ';:2~~:{~~\ '1~~t,t~1: ~I~~ii
sl ... 1 .... ~ . ,', ."" "oil ">i ~~...~.~..,.-:... ,A. .~; ~,). . .....,)...
'krD:~~~:"<I;,~,";:i;;;,~:',;;;;: };':~;~i.:~';:'~;:;jlt:~~;;~~~~';',;~':f~;ii;:;{ft!
" .
. .
B~i/der License. # 10036544'. M~he; Dfthe Bu{~ders ~s3oCiQtiD~ ofth~ 7Win Cities
. ~. \.)0';
,'.- ........'-
.,.~..
:: n.;,t-i~.im~~t~
, . : ~:~'. Jt,"d'.~.-~J1'
~lti!.1 :"
.... Ai
. .,-..~'r.~~~~'~
~-. "f#l.' 't~>: .':,""!~~
\.\. A '. to
~. J" :>- .~. .'
, ... ,. . ...
'J . ~.', .'
-
~
"\\ ~.~"
h -~.- ~.,i;".....
.f :~r ~f(::
:.~ ;~t. i.' ,"
o.t ,:. ~:~r<.:
. ~ ,~
;'. '-: I~
:.' "t... ~.;~~ "~~:.
'f" .,;'\" -.'!-..\
" ": ~'t::.
".."
"
". \,;:
..~ .{:~~~
";c,,~
;;~
,c. ~,
.', ~>~
,..,~-
;'.).'~'~;
j":i"~~"
':,':':.-~\~~'
'.~...~ ,t.:~ ~.. ~r:~:',~..t.;..
,,'. .,',,"~
' ~-:--~~~~i
..' ,::\;
''-;''':. ::. ...~:-,.: :,
.-...;..;:.;. "!...
.t...'"' ~ .. ..
~'. .
oj
'f'
.~
!.t
,..
. ".:(
1'~':
'~i
:'!'
,I'
:_i.~~,: :.
~ 11'~;; .~.:
:1'" . .....'.~.
,,' .
, :,:.>~.,'~~~
;):,.~.:< ~,~
.' . ~
.~~
',f ,f
.,'-',
Jit,:,
,'.. "
I
~:~;~';,:~>;,
. ..~ ~ ~~:il:';.
- -~... ~:~;~:~~.~. j.,:. ;;~~.
........ ."~ ~~.")~',.....~""" '.
.-I.'~',. -:,..
:',..~t;;~;i2~1:?!~}t;.~~::'f:, :;.
:~.~,:.;f-,~,1;,::.
. ....t.,....._.-... ') ~\.._
,- ,':.~':t~_!_.... of...
.:.,......'~'~...i...
.', i:'\:~~~:rr.
, --. ..r .r\......' t:;,_, .,
;:~::.~~~~;
... "
"',:,,:'~
....~~~.
:.,,'- ~.
...,,"":
t;t t4~'
'r' ~~.~ :,
.,.:. ":.T;.~,, :.
.....,
~'t-~~_~ ~..-~#
'.' ::;:,j.~,,:~4~,..
" " .~.. ~..~ J......:~
__ :.~ i ~; ~~:;~ ~::~; ......
, ..,,, .~. ~lD
. ::,:':',~. :-:..".::.....
.~ .;..<f<:.,-' ',~
',-~):,~'i~~~~f.~~1?~{-~: ......
',,' ""'l;."("''-::--""." ,..,....
.:f.~~:)~..~:~i",- '.'WI
~ .. ---',y:_ ,.ll,<<,l_'f/'4
";. ~~~tl,.~~.~r_;. ~.
: ~)'...rr. 't) ...
~-~jj~:,Y..:.-;.: '.:::
" ..!~.~~..,..;...
"1 '.~~:~~:~
~........." t t
~~;"
.::.~ ~ .'.
.:, ]}:
.~-r.. .,~
~~".;.
"
'.,:.~,~~
:'-':~. "';~:""
'~_~'-.f''r.'''-''<'''
. ......~;..l..,t.;,J;,.
~~' .~:l,;' .
"-" ~r~:I~;" .
. ~'~~;i':
:g~ ::-,~~.~~;.~':
'. . . ':t?~::~0:">
~. ... ."'t'::' .t." ,.
:,?/~fiL
. ~" '-':.-c.}1I.'
::~";1idt~~~~.
i~{~f~~~\
. .."~' ~
'.\ '>..7.~{'..:,' .":
~,:~rj
'.'.-': l ~'~
.~ ~
"....~. ,
" :~'... .
t ~ :..'
"'.' ..
....'
~:1. ~.
"'....,
i'.K.-:C.
."r.
.,.
. ~.."~:j~ '.'
.10.
~,.
. . ~.-
~ ,{~
'Ill"'
~'~
3;..,,'
.,.
, ,
:.
. ~ '~-'-~.:...'~ ...~,~..~"
- ".'
~.. ~
;:.;,.:,
I.,!;
~. ","
.,;r~~~i.:tj~.;~~/"~;-~\~~.~'~;~~~k~~~:~~~;~~~:;~~}~ftrr~~';::,~~;",',--';"~"~.?.':71.;~:~~;;,;:
.1~"~~~!C:';:~~J~!:~~~~~:~~
r'" :.
. .
"~:' :~~~'.~.':~.:<~
.... ....,
. ,.-'
'., ~-"... ~
.,/'~ ."
. ....: ,~'3}~':
. .....',.
. :i"~'
n ;"
.;;.
~ -;:.; ':... '.'. .
: ~..
....l. .
~ '~,: ~.' '.- .
...... . ....~ .
"'.'~ /i;:.
~..- ~.'.
<
.
......;'""r". ,
,..,' "f'
.... -:.. ~....' ;.~~. t~..
.;{."
"
.J!_
'.C ~.
~. ~'\..r "
'::.~' .
'. .
J'....-
:- -~ .
.~: -.
" .::
, i..::-.,
"
'.. .....
.~ ~~ .... ~-
,.
'.~', c
.:-';.:-r
-.; ~!"'" i..
"'. .
... ~r
- ~.,;..
..-;-..
. ..~.~~'~..::~~.
:~ ."",, .'
-....
-.-""
~.;.
:, -.~.... .,..:
.:.... .-..,:~~:.;. .
.~~.t -: '~~"':" {~~.::;.: ~~. '
'II....:....
.;~ .'1
'it ~, . '.. ."
....<.i '"r
.-;~
..: ,t'
(.'
...."'.7:
r:
.~ ...~.-
~: ~:
-r.;
.,.
.~.
'h..
,- >;l. .>,,~ ::;..y
....
~;. -.';.. '~,.,
,,': .
..;..1;': .
... f'-
..~ . a;.
. ~ _ .~ .:10. ..... '.' -'....
::;~~.;}f5i'::iiJt:.~~.
- .. ~. ...-". ..
.: "t
'.,;". ..
: -.. ~.~ ~
~ ':" ,
,:
...' ....:. .~- . '." ;; "~ ,"..:~;." :.J.- 'j
.'
. ....
:~, ,;.,~. v.:;;.
_ r-"';.~: '.-
~.,...._.
t,.. ~~. ~.
..~; J .....
..J' "
. ... -"!.'"
"#'., ..
'.-"::
..;..
. ....
;....-.. .
'-... .'::'.
""..'
\.
." u
f-J"~""
. :':";'
~ :--:... ..' ..
.. . ~ V'.'
, ,
"
.....J.. ~
.:
,- .:-t."-'"
..',-., .~
: :..'- ....
. -:.~,"t
;.-_..
-~.
:t '.,'
- "..~.'~'. ..-,;
-, ~ ...
. ''';'.:
'....
.,,' ,..
':<;-~'
.' .~~
-..,
....l;:.:.:..... :-.
..,i:.;'
~, 1~'
..~ a-',
'.'!-:
~. ~{~~~
.... {~ . ~"'i
;,..."
-',-
~.
. .
'. -~ :
" ~:
.:.:'~~-;'
.',
.>
,,'
;~.
q
; ~\-
'.....'
!-
: ..::.~ >-
;.._;-.. '!'-;1-
......'..
::-... .."-.:;.;~'
'.~
'.-aO
:?~';-..
-.'......-
. ._~..-
..,.j.
.<
T'
,,":
c --..
..f.. '."" -..:
.' ,::,p~
-:......-;.. -
.~-:..
~
. :5'
-" .c
~ ~..:'
~"~'
.:z.~>i:/~
-~; .;.~~.~ ;;:..~.
'.t..:.;.:;_:
;:),til~;,.~ "
~::;{"' ",1'" ;'f~t ::.
f.~:.~':Y :~.~.;.,:.',..;.~. .t_:.:F-....,.(..~.t~;:. t
'.~ i~~'" "'~ _ .;}.".,,;...:'.;~~
_ . _ . ";:~...<;.:..' h ,~".., .~.
~~. . ;" ~ ,< ~':" ".' .'.' ,.. .. .
--~~ ~:~~'.:..,.."~".:-~. ~',-' ..:'.1,r ~..'..'....:..'..~,:'.,~..'T...;~:'~' ,~" . .
. '.::.". -;~~\';)"'"
.~i.
- '. ......
,:5 ~
~.rji~..:.~~:~..
->~~~~i,'"
-,
.'-
...~:~.:~ ~~,
,. -. --. .
· ":.~s'[fJJ E)1', .'
:.',0
'.'
.... r:r
. - ,'"
~::k:~':'.:"", .....
;'~l?:~<:.: t.
~,-I'
,,' ,:Jri~~ti~~;'~
~\:.~~.;., '
,..;:-' .:'-.
- '~r '..
!~~;~~~i..i~
....-.. . .~...
':;"
~. -:,
...;"4:
":;i
.~
.,:_'1"
,-
~~. :,'"
,"- '
.-~:.
.- ~;
~,.~-::~~-
,,~,-..t-
. .
. ..- .,'!
..~?-<. .....
.':/0-
..;:!~ -:- :
,.....-.1'_.
'. ~"O .
.~. .......;
:::;.'"
,"-~'
........-...
.;,~ '-t
1."--
.,
..-...,.--.
,:.J":
.7"!
.:, ~~~~
~ ..;.;-
. ' ..!~~~} .
" .
,----':
':"...:
!:
...;
..........- .
. ~~~-~~~~~~;:
.~~0;
~".
~~;
...'" ~~
:'
.;-..
.. . ~ ,
."
.:i, :-,>,:~~~
.e <//. '~'>"~~~O:~~~.~F:_'.~"'-
--...;.}' . -.'
_-....s...:~. '"
l ~.;.;;~:..~:..l ".
::-...*': ';.~:'
:.~ ....-:
" ..~; ...-.
..
, -
7.1r~ '
- .~.'. ;;.
" >.,,~...,;i ";'1:"
-; :.~:-:. ":" .;~~~::;:.:. ..
"" .'"
.- ~...-.
> .
;.~ ~:;.. .
.-" . i., :~'~ '
,i.
,-_:.tl
;.~
',~ '-:~ ;
'\-'
"r',,_,
.,..
"
, ~l;
'{E;'",;~;~~~~t;>,,, ~
; ',' ~t--:t._,
"". . <t
. .:~.~c; -~}\
'.,
- ",' ~
, .~,:;
'f "
-v'.-
. ~...~
'. ~~'. .' ",'
''''~ .
'U~ ,,- '~,
'._< :"
.:;.,.:
-~,~..~..,....'
-:f~ -) _.
~..: ).:::-~.-'-"
. ,~~.':;'"',
'r,f\~~~~~~%~;';:!~<;
"
'.;:-;
. ~l .
:J
~.. '.
- ;, ,~:.
- ~ -".
.~.) :~~".~~~~.~.
..' .
;!
",:';
~::~;
.;:';""
.~:'!.' .'
;_--1.,
,~r
. ..~;.~
~;;.y,.'
..~'.;.~~
..:~ .
,..- -~
j:' .u~." .,'~~
- --'" .~. ;-'>.
~t'
,.....
,"
...."-'!-'
,'*~:,
j".
,,~i!_:
,..",...,.
.A_~".
'.t;'
.~' i:~
.-'f.";..
~ .,"
~.~:.~ ~~~
!1':",
. ~ i-,.
C_'..
"
,W'A~i~,~ti~>.ij~~.~~I~~
" '~':~;;~:~;:/~2.6 .1~tL:'1 r:h. : "
" .: '.':, /'~ -/'l!)','
" ,
r
~.-~,
,",.z.
Y.
'~
'"-:,,,,-,
,~.
~ .... .
. ~ -: ,.'
- '.}~
~,...-
- ::~~.~~~~~
;:~_~V:. - ~_~'~~I }' ...._i...;;:.i...._~:.r F: ."" ,:.. .~.. .
'.';" .
.... .
I ~
~ <: : "
i ..-<1'.
.~;-
.... . ~
"l'". . ~
,~
"
"
". ........... .::..;
','
'.~ :.
.'. ~.' ~~.
.:.:-..
..
'.'.
d-",'..
t~t'f:.;/, ',;
y
. ~... ,..::;
. '... :.:~;~- ._~ ."
.'_ . ~.lo~"'''''''
'7"
^ ,
- ~/.: ~.::.
,.1:
-.:'~~~'; '-L~" "'-~'
. .l-~ ~:,.
:'" -"..'
~~ .
;:~
i~:"'. .
"" ''',
. CITY OF PRI
,.~~
_'~SPECT ' " ,,'-,..
DATE fA -t7--Fty.; ,
-0 ACr.F=PT!:n^~ 1:lla~
.. ~:
i... ....~.;.
";.. .-,'--"'-
'.';.~ l. "'~~
,';"
, ::' -~.',!-~'~:~:._~~,
.'
r
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
SA
DISCUSSION ON ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING
EXCEEDING 40' IN LENGTH
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES _X_NO..N/A
MARCH 13, 2000
SETBACK
WALLS
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
On February 28, 2000, the Planning Commission discussed the Zoning Ordinance
provision requiring an additional side yard setback in Residential Districts when the
building wall exceeds 40' in length.
The purpose of the additional setback requirement is to reduce the effect of the bulk of a
long wall on the adjacent property. This is especially important on. nonconforming lots,
where the side yard setback may be reduced to 5 feet. With that in mind, the Planning
Commission discussed several alternatives to this requirement.
Attached are several examples of houses exceeding the 40' wall length and the
corresponding surveys. These examples include both substandard and conventional lots.
The plans also include different breaks in the building, as well as continuous walls.
ANALYSIS:
There are several options available to the Planning Commission. Some of these options
are listed below:
. Do nothing. The Planning Commission would continue to review variance requests
on a case by case basis.
. Remove the requirement for an additional setback completely. This alternative is
the simplest to administer. The required setback is a set number and is not based on
the length of the building wall.
. Redefine a building wall. For example, the break in the break in the wall could be
reduced to 10' rather than 18 feet.
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\sidewall\sidepc2.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
..
\,
The second and third options require formal amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
These options will require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and approval
by the City Council.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Provide staff with specific direction.
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\sidewall\sidepc2.doc
Page 2
EXAMPLE #
1 22 Enterprise Drive .
ndota Heights. I.lN '55120
;51) 681-191'" FAX:681-9488
_ -mail: PIONEERCPRESSENTER.COI.l
625 Highway 10 N.E.
Blaine. I.lN 55434
(612) 763-1880 FAX:763-1663
E-mail: PIONEER2CPRESSENTER.COM
lJ.HO PlANN[RS. I,.AHDSCAP( AROI1'tCTS
Certificate of Survey for:
THORSON HOMES
15H7 WOOD DUCK TR N.W.
LOT AREA =13.050 SQ. FT:
HOUSE AREA =2.282 SQ. FT.
DRIVEWAY AREA =632 SQ. FT.
COVERAGE =22.3%
----
- ----- - ~90D DU
959.9 -- - -E....kTRAIL
N78" 9;7.9 - -- _
0617'"W .--
----
It)
37
(VACANT)
BENCH MARK
TOP OF PIPE---_
ELEV.=960.35 --...
...
It)
~
955.0 (9SLJ
'--- _7-9)
1141
Iv)
-"""
Iv)
!0
-
-
~
"LJ
Iv)
-"""
Iv)
10
....
-
2:
35
(VACANT)
-~--_.-.
--
S78"06'17"E
90.00
-
q9- /032-
946.6 --
(Q4(P.4)
NOTE: PROPOSED GRADES SHOWN PER GRADING PLAN BY: OLIVER
NOTE: BUILDING DIl.tENSIONS SHOWN ARE fOR HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION
Of STRUCTURES ONLY. SEE ARCHITECTUAL PLANS fOR BUILDING AND .~.
fOUNDATION OIMENSIONS.
NOTE: NO SPECIfiC SOILS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON THIS LOT BY lHE
SURVEYOR. THE SUITABILITY Of SOILS TO SUPPORT THE SPECIfiC HOUSE
PROPOSED IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY Of THE SURVEYOR.
PROPOSED HOUSE ELEVATION
LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION: q 52. 5
TOP OF BLOCK ELEVATION: Cj(,,() to
GARAGE SLAB ELEVATION: Cleon; 1-
TOB C LOOKOUT ELEVATION:
x 000.00 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION
( 000.00 ) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION
_ _ _ DENOTES DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
DENOTES DRAINAGE fLOW DIRECTION
__ DENOTES MONUMENT
-a- DENOTES OffSET HUB
WE HEREBY CERTIFY TO THORSON HOMES THAT THIS'IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A
SURvEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF:
NOTE: THIS CERTIfiCATE DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW EASEMENTS OTHER lHAN
THOSE SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLAT.
NOTE: CONTRACTOR MUST VERifY DRIVEWAY DESIGN.
NOTE: BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMED 01. TUl.t
LOT 36, BLOCK 1, THE WILDS 3RD ADDITION
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA . :' '!!bt (,:';J-.\i";,;:';
.' . . 1. ~ \:, ": I. ! I ; 1." ....
IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCHROACHM!NTS.' EX'CEP~
UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION THIS 9 DAY bF AUGUST. 1"99. ','..;'
..i ,0 " SIG ED:
.11 .
, I
SCALE : 1 INCH 30 FEET :::- "';': BY:
. ,,14,::
99426.0.0. JJS, ;! " 1"I\.'t.,1
";.1 r
.A.
I'
Lorson, loS. Reg: No. ;19628
j', '1'~OF 2
"
\
\
:;,
\.
~1~ ~;~"...
,. .;.~
1f15
.~: .~~S
~~'~ ")2 9
~~.; :~ . t
-;~;;.... .)'I?
:}7 ;~iJ '
,s:' ,,', 01
~~{ :i~~.g
,.... :I!.,
~j.;~. g~~.l
(;{;; ;J~r.
f.t ~it.;~.::;:
~: .:..z'
EXAMPLE # 1
./.
.0.
.:~. ~-.....
':..' .
....,..
~. II f'"
;rt!.i;
-al./I
O~ :.~..~ 1.-
c _.
':ilj}..
, ;: .~, ::. ",' ..
a:.:.....
. ,:,'
. ~. . ..
....... '!w
': ..,
-........
';h :j~f;~/:...
.,
.. ~'... :
.,' '"
.,.....
~'I
'{. ~.~~f::.
~ .i:
..~. :';:;[.:~~:~ :.... ~ ;~- ;-:.
...~~~; 1 :':t...
"-:,! .
?:; .... ~ .
~~:lW\;
:~; !-~gf;/~
:;.~, l~~~~-'" . '
.~.. .<.\:'..'
..::,: ~,.,' ..
...:;'5 '!.-~
1I~~l
.. :-
';'..
.:.;7i....
..:.......:
, ~ ,...
. t, ,,: ;':".: '.,:~:":
. '.~~ ~ <t:.- '.
".\.".'';:-:
'~.
Certificate of House Location Fe
Ratilaff Construction, Inc.
EXAMPLE #2
LJ.OO}
DELMAR H. SCHWANZ
H99179
LAND SURVEYORS. INC.
AeQltI..-.t UncMr l..... of !I>e Slo'o of IIIlnn..."'o
1.4750 SOUTH RoeeRT TRAIL ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA J5~8 f'.VV.423-178~
651
935.9
.3@
Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
e = Iron pipe ITOnument
previously set
o = Set ~ hub at building
offset
-I-
1tfl.~ = Existing spot elev.
o
f
= Propos€d elevation
~
= Proposed direction ~
'--of drainage
CDt area = 13,270 sq. ft. g
:louse area = 2,990 sq. ft1fj
~ 9
~
...,
~
~ SIGNIFICANT TREES
o
~
.
"
lO
...,
Proposed garage floor
elev. 11/5.0
Proposed top of block
elev. 9 -15, q
Proposed lowest level
elev. tf36. (1
~
90 0
. 0 878.
06 · j 7. C
3RD ADDITICN, according to the record plat thereof,
qq/10zk
,,'I',IlI;I!I:I!/II!II/Z
.\"" . I" ~ II',
,.,$~~ T~ ~'~ I:: ,~ 0 /:...
I hereby certify rll!lt this survfl.Y, pll!ln, or reportwu ~~~:}':':"""""""""..-":j:':~1.<. ~ ~ Ii I j
. . ="'" '\.. o. ~ ..." 'I
prepued by me or under n.y dIrect supervision and ff / '.... *~~" ',/ i
that I 1m a duly Registered Lind Surveyor under ~ *; DELMAR H. \ % '/J r.:,h, . j /J . //,.~. ih ,r;1..11 /
the laws of the State (If Mlnnesotll. ~ "'f SCt-!'~^NZ i :~ _.!l.Y~':f.!l.&_..{ .:.L.J.i ?.:i.~~J.{1 ((',L~~
~ \ 86"';; - J fJ' O"'!':lor I-i. ~chwanz f)
Dilled OR-ll-QQ ~~.<'\ - . ,,-, "O:D:i MllnlMota Re\il,tratlon No. ,e25
.~~ '1 --.. .... $.:~ .
:::.:: ..-z; .... ..' A. ~
~ 0 ...-.......:\(;. ~~
>:-... ~lln-' ..-:,~
Property Description:
Lot 33, Block 1, THE WII.ffi
Scott County, Minnesota.
Also showing the location of a proposed house staked thereon.
..
EXAMPLE #2
IIi
.:f....1.;~i;
~~...;...';....;-.... .
I.:
;.
;.
D
'..:r.jo.J..l ~
D
D
:~ tB8'
~~
ii' hi
;!< B
-..}>
q;::!
!~
~'
. ~r..:~. .
............
:.~.~ ~ :r
J~~Tf[~~J::
~Ir I" .
~'~:.: I' ~:: .. ,.
. ; t;.~;;IB b;j=
. . .~ :..:::JZ '13.~~: -: -..' ~..
"'. ..,;~~fl::, ',0'. ."
. .,.. ....".'-' ;,.,""'...".....~""'~,~.. , ,. '0' m r.
..../:~!.~~;J;i~td~~{..:';~=~g~~u.:<:..;:..:.
n~
,,0
if
.
~
e
~ B
~
f.
..-
f
Ql
.
r
d
/II
f
~gt
!!!f~S
l\W~'i
::L~ 5'3
~-'? !if
. ~ ~at
~a.:Gl
. ~s~
,,'P Eo
:0 CD
~
a-fg't>>
. !!.'2.=
E'!l i!l
.; !. ~ <
1-;-2,
,~3";~
th{
~i:>e:
.." J . .
t: r i.-
!i
D
~ S';!DlSID~ ill
~;i;z~~ ;x
m~Sssaon m. !:l
!i:i!ij3>mm't;p
-<i=!o:!l:!l I
~~ii~~{S
"'h~ ~~~ I
Cs-:ri9:t!cn
ZZ!.18o(i
en.., 05:
~n.iSlSl~
O.Ir!l!:m
zlh....g
~Jl!'i...O
m -pi:D'Z
!l: m..
~i;.~!i~
~;ll~~
s:_oi ~ "'
llliil' 0
~~8'
. 'P i
(,
j ~:'<:~f;:~1~
ROBE CONSULllNG ENGINEERS,
" PLANNERS and LAND SURVEYORS
ENGINEERING
COMPANY. INC.
1000 EAST 148th STREET. BURNSVllLE, MINNESOTA 55JJ7
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
Legal Description: LOT 9. "GREENHEIGHTS
. SCOTT COUNTY. MINNESOTA.
0]..7,?> " DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION
(q31 5' DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION
~ ' ;I). INDICATES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE
q31,8~ = FINISHED GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION
4~: ~Z :: ~E~~~O~~~~~ll~~t~~ION
EXAMPLE #3
. .ANSEN CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT NO. 9470.00
BOOK Mt:J
PAGE '1
'.
* Non::: 9t.UV0,4,e.y I 7P,P49Mf?JI~
AVo (FT jl'eiC. IPI?IMM7'11J<1
I'MWtJEb 7/J /'RtJBE E'(/~/'vC9IMS
FIlMI "VlIR/II.vCG GUeV€Y'
Pl'61JA/?cO IN VALLEY 5'tJRvC}/IJJ6 CIJ.
f)l7W ~. tJ~O, /998.
APPROVED
ENGINEERING DEPT
~A~L-- Date#,
'Ul'SIRa -
cO
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a tract as shown and described
hereon. As prepared by me this 2/5"1' day of ~€/I\eaz. . 1912...
I AH h! ~ f1. /
, '" __L1L
EXAMPLE #3
~
~
~
f
t.
-=
I"!
?;I-S
:6 V1
--
-.(,
OCS"crl
flU: C
~ cil~
~ck. t
~ p
~
~~
~\>f
.,
,.
....
:?tl
'l'i.,:~~~
-i~ .~~
",'.~I ~~
:~ ~~:&-t
, :I,. ~~~1j
',' r
1 ~I
\
\ -
, ~
.~.
ii"~
.. _i. n
il\i
\\\l
~ia.
i~
lid
,~i
CD ;;-[
..'@ fA
n!! :;:~
pa.~~3
:; .
~,;1
" '&
\
EE3
[[J
i~ rn
.~
~
B!?'t~1 EXAMPLE
-
#4,rE
LE/N
APPROVED
ENGINEERING DEPT
~
o
~
111e proposed hOllSC localion, elevations and I?\;;:~~ a~ll ~~~d~~
verbal inslru~tiO(~IS o~ lr~~~~:: ~~~~il~;~:(lI\NW~.~ U~ . grades
OWI1a1 and tl.e . >lJOO' s , Is 0\100 Wooed
and IQi~:\tions \0 d<;IDnnino if th~ lit the ~,.~::llll:en Ilt:ms 0 lte lot
'om;\) :"tnd how I: \;~ wm alle(:t ,nil fulum 1l1,t.f1aO'~ pa
!1:u StlivWc,r should be notitie<! if arrJ cha;~~
.,f .,1\ Ie IOClltilJo, grades or elevallOllS need
- -- __ ~ made.
-- 952.8 35 -- -- - --1 ~
$",. ~~ \ .:... __ ~ ~ EHOER&I>.sSOGIATES,INC.
.{ ....... $521"12) 452-5ffi1
~' 0 \
~ '. ~\
<."'.I .
947.11-.0 . 1O.,
Xl!") ~
..- .~ .
~
Date 't11~~1) ~~
l?555.~ 5 ",J 10
Jb.t
~
, 0
~
SIgned ~l1;/P1 A
'-
.......
86
.34
_ ,.a~
--
- - ....
~."\
----
----
.... 939.555.00
STREO
SOUTHWEST 'c.
-----
~
---
t
N
I
(~f'
'c. PERSl-HN,r
----
----
APPROVED
PLANNING OEPT
Signed ~ Date 0$LPJ
~
Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
Area = 8.311 square feet (0.191
~L .>f
aarO :
/"'-,'
,,", 'j
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct '
representation of a survey of the boundaries of
the land above described and of the location of
a proposed house.
Doted this 4th day of May, 1999.
REHDER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
.~~.r"f A.,../7.-L~--..,.../'
Alvin R. Rehder, Land Surveyor
Minnesota Registrolion No. 13295
Revised May 25, 1999
Revised June 10. 1999
Revised June 16, 1999
Revised September 3. 1999
Rehder and Associates, 'nc.
,
CIVIL ENGINEERS AND lAND SURVEYORS
:UfO r_ DrMo . s.llo 240.' ~ _01. . _ (451) .52-_'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 35, GREEN HEIGHTS, according to tnti recorded
plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota.
First Floor Addition Elevation = 952.84
New Garage Floor Elevation = 944.50
Existing Firs I Floor Elevalion = 950.34
Basement Floor Elevation = 942.00
JOB: 994-1139.011
I I'i'
, i;: !,
,.,
i I': \
! 1,,1; 1
" "1',
;. 'I:
i' di;
, ::1i
I";
EXAMPLE #4
".,
---~=-~.~J
If
I
II
II
II
"
II
II
,:
II
,I
I
I,
'"
I; i
i I ! I ':1'1
" ' ! Ii
~: ' ii, I'
'Dl;'!, ,--
I ' 1-\ ! I --
: Ii I! : I
: . ' i I
:! "i
:1
I'!
i
;,
~
o
x
Iii! d
~
~
i7,
~
..
~
a
a I
'I
illllll
a
t;:
~
~
~
- ---rL-
I
I
!I
!jl
.11 :1
ill
;i1 ~,
,~! ~ j ~.
~
g
"
- - ~- :-' -_::~ ~
.. '"
EXAMPLE #4
D
o
I
~
'"
'i
~
;<
oj
z
0
~
~
011
:r
t<
0
7.
-~
'I
I
II
Ii
I
I:
i
, I
II
-0
f,~
:~~ '~-lJ
". .-. c
;-.. :...:.~
r::;P2
Ml1
::~:lo
.:;J ~
-~~
\ \ i \ ;! \:
\ '~ ' i
\ ~', \ '
1 : '
: ~ i: '
\ I \'d \! \
" I ::
I, I ' i!
d I! . ., 1 \ 1\61.' . ~
! !, \; i i \ Iii I \ \ \ \,:;,
: I I, I I I
i;\ :,"~Ii mllDl i. \ !
l;:: ' :, I
\" I' I ~.
I 1,1 I i I
I "I I
'I .. .. i i
~ '
"
~" 1111. r
.. i'is ..~
P~hltH
it"h.~l!
'Itr~~le,,3
..ir. -;"i
U IL~hh
~
il
611 ii
,full l\
'mH ';
~:,H I:
h~u n
!/!U
.~h'
~.~~l!;{:.
I~i~~~ ;.
z ~ ::
- ~ ~
L.Ll '" ...
.-Jo
2-
LL1 D- t
.-J Ii
Z lLJ~~
o =f-$
_ '-.) t::I s
r- ~ Z ~ d
o u.. Q :i
o :Z.!l
-< z.
4. r-~:o
\..J,.J " ...
--l f ...
:l ::\ ~
cL'l
cO
_ __.l.
z
o
~
~
UJ
~
it
~..
U
U
N
....
I
~
N
Ul
~
r
P.1
~
.
N.
q
2"tJ
Oa
r.I-g
co
-iO>:I:b"UlOlt
~ ~ ~. Ef g ~ ~ a ~
~Oca,...cauo...Q
o:;eg.ca na..~
--3~(Du_g~~
-- Q. ~-~
- "'" . 0
~"1EC')-lOc ~
<OO:"~~C!:o
~(r~-,co- g"O
..c-.gOU)~coo
Q " "8 G (J).p Q-
ng><lH~""a~~
~~:rCb~~"8~ ~
Oln~oo........coo
....... to..) P&."8 (Q
(.,t 0 "Q en ...,. : loI
~...~~ t:1g.p.;
. b ." > ~ 0
,,-u~ n.:;:
=-'"...... Gl Q,s
~3 ~
Q ::J Q ..,
go~.g
< c ..
.. ~ ~,~
;:~tt~
ca CI~ .,
CD = '~
0-. co
.... ~ (".I
oJ!'. t:
O' co
:> 0.
- CD
o "
~ ~w
CD co
0."
~. ~
o "
C!:-
g :!l
o 8
... ..
. ~
UN
l...U)
0l.Q
.....
~~
~
I~
1"\~~~fI
f
.. -
.e.;
co ..
Ci3-
~'"
0.0
g.a
o.o?
~~ ~ l! s
!" 0 (;j ~ ~
Z(J) 0 i-
9 c z .., ~
~~~ ~ II
0:;0(> ~~
~:O$ ..~
",Ill {;j S
~ 0 CD '"
I :z. ire
~ ~~
OJ ~ CI
.... 5L-g
s~
..
0-
Ill",
13
Ch.- ~ ;
" -.~
~b 0-
:~
co
0,
<io
~g.
CD C
" ..
co ..
CD .
0.
a
5'
o
'"
!"
-0
CD
CD
!"
t
'"
:0
~
OJ'
~
-
"
..,
~
CD
CD
o
f'Tl
(J)
o
:::0
=u
-I
o
~
r
o
,...
"
~
f'Tl
(J)
6
f'Tl
~
:::0
^
.f
EXAMPLE #5
Prior Lake
~
Waler [Ievallon - 901.95
Token f eb. 25th 1999
o .
:i' ~
II !a.
i :
~ ~
~ '"
g ~
3 ~
a ~
~ g'
- :>
a.
Edge Water _ _ _ .=-- ..=:=..:- _ _ _
r -- _ I
-.::::- - ----
--
--
I- - -gQ4 Conlou,:-- _
--F - - _S06-
- -- ~
- --io
--- ,.
~ - ---
.+ -- ---
---
-
---
W
->
i1i:g
m:o
~O
~~
00
m
~
!>
...
I
I
r-
I
i' J
:t
~ t
l!. I
I
/
/ /
/
// /
~ J ( /y
-- \ \ \
...........
*
lS-
~'i
..~
...
.....
U2.'
- .:. 50.28 -
S <107'54" E
PARK AVENUE
---t
I
~j
I
...-l
I
--J.
I
---l
I
-- ~
o
I
-I
- I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-
---r-
~
..
(J)
c
:2
~
-
o
:1
:r:
r
r
()
;0
ITI
(J)
-i
:r:
o
s::
~
()
fT1
;0
--i
"
()
)>
--i
fT1
o
"
(f)
C
;0
<
~
~
EXAMPLE #5
::s.
'.
o
..
t:
~")
~~
~~
\\~
~
~
~
0,
o
o
~
(l'-
-\\ 3-
~ : ~ ~~'if:.,
~~ 2 \ "~ .. .~*- I
~Ul ~.. li{i;r:;
1 ! ~ ~ :.'.':, . ';ii~' "~:::~': '
~ ,",. '. ?:,;i: :<'~}:,
"S:
~
,~
';
~
~~
~~
.}-
~~
"';.')il~ii t 'i~:~'" .~.~ ~~ . ~_:J': ...
:"
~I
.::::.~
i~
<t
1
~:'\.~" I
. ; ~I:"
"
\l
..
. "' .~. .
;1:.:
~
.; . ~. ,.
>,",:,"::
Q;:;>.; l ~
;t,'.:..,~ 'j
.~".: \\\ ~
., ."~
.... '. .
'"
..l~~~
"';'" ,.
.-'.l," [1
CI
~
l
~. .....~
't' ~
~' ~'.
".I"
. :ii-;
" ~'. f"
'.' i;t-\;I{~:;t\~l::/t.:.:. .
~!.
i.:
,I:
((,
i~.
:';~~ . f
"
'.
I.'
I,
"
i.
:~I'
.'
'::::::. .
it
Ill,)
iT
1~
,\\ ~
N.
~.
Certificate of House Location For:
Ratzlaff lIanes
EXAMPLE #6
1199261
DELMAR ~-t. SCPWANZ
LAHD IUft'llYORS, 'Ne
....:.,..... Un_ L._" ,... .,... at ....~.
14750 SOUTH AOIJEAT TAAI' AOSEMO'JNT. MINNESOTA 550el
:):;a/42~ 17~'
651
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
. = Iron pipe rrorl~t
o = Set iror:!..pipe at building offset
"';'1 = EKisting spot elevation
o = Proposed elevation
~ = Proposed direction of drainage
Proposed garage 'floor elev. J1Z~
Proposed top of block elev. 94??~
Proposed lowest level elev. 1?'7.1t-
lDt: = 12,135 square feet
House and Garage = 2,142 square feet
No significant trees
lUea of Driveway to' property line = 600 square feet
lUea of front sidewalk & stoop = 76 square feet
2828
12135
= 23\ coverage
Property lIddress: 14987 Appaloosa Trail
,-.J/ C.B.
"--1 ~5
~,
"/
,
0/
&/
,-.J,
i/
~,
/
Scale: 1 .inch = 30 feet
, ',:
Property Description:
lot 9, Block 1, TIIIRD JlDDITIGl TO RASPBERRY RlIX;E, -.
according to the recx>nled.plat thereof, Scott
COWlty, Minnesota.
^lso showing the loCation of a proposed house staked
thereon.
~950.9
"-~/
Benchmark:Top nut hydrant North Quadrant Raspberry Ridge
Road and Afpaloosa Trail = 945.57
/
003
,0
00
I h"febr certUy thalthl, IUrY'Y, plan. or r.rort ""I'
p'''l''lred by me or under my direct IUp,.....I,IO" and
thlt t 1m a duly nftOlll.red llnd Surflyof under
Ihe la.1 01 the Sh.e 0' Mlnn..ola.
'~\\\r;l[~S'f1!~~II/~,*
,\..........1. "f' ~<k
~......... .......~~.. '"'\
-If! DELMAR II. \sl. ~
f SCHI'V'lr ! ..
~~,:,-~y
Delma, tI. Schw.nl
Mlnn.totl n.Olllf.llon No. 8'US
O.,.d ~-.1.99'1
EXA'MPLE #6
"
1"'1
"T"J
-I
~~
MO
..1"'1 E3]
.;::
"',1"'1
.,
_1"'1
,<
"\)>
::!
o
2
~
~'"
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
o~
~
,I."
"'>
;;!
~
o
;"T"J
tA:i
o
",2
g~
I~
~I~
~Ip
~.~
~. ~ :e~f en
~ 6 t=~== CJJ
2 !;l
"
c
~
"
'"
"0
o
S
E~
."
IH~~~s I
! IUn : a ~Q
d&i~~: -~
iliitl' ~
~lhlllt s;:
~"ill~ ~ ~"
ilfl e & ~m
!lIh" ,
Ji l ~
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIII
;0
<:)
I
-I
.,)'"
\!2
o
1"'1
1"'1
,
1"'1
<
)>
::!
o
2
El
~
~
o lfl
Hi
i~:!lii
meal
~~ll
a~ fl
~ifa
~~~
S.~m(')
~ !!!.~. ~
li'-f
I !j9.
. il:r'l'
:~" f
~f!f
~[I..
2 ~
EXAMPLE #7
<>
I: 11:
I: 0 ., I-
N' .... 0 :;:; 01 0.
.... :;:; 0 0 ~
!!!.~' ' I: ., 0 > I: W ~
., III > II 00
1',- ' E II W '0
~.~'~' >. 0 ~
:J .o- W w(!}
COON" . I: :JI: 't:l >z
!2' . . 0 :x: 0 01 I> .,
:::E I: Ol U 0-
vI: :;:; 0 0 0:0:
I: O.Q Ol 0. .... o..W
0 0 0.... ~ 0 o..
~ ~!i! o.. :J o..W
z H 0. III
': Ol It :3 <(~
wo- Ol Ol Ol
., 1! I> 2 C!J
~z~ .... -o.;j
~ai~ 0 0 a 0 z
5 I: o.. I: I: I: W I
~~1II 0 I> 0 I> I> .,
01>.. 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 + f/)
0
0
0
)(
.
<
.
~
...
t!:J
Z
t-4
~rt.l
~~
>~
~~
::,Jrn
rn
~
~j
Z
j
I
~
~
:s
e
t:::
~~ 1:!
t~ .~
:r - ~
Ow
goC)
~~I
.,1:1')
~:i~
...,
00
01>
"Ol
10(3
c
q
~
!:)
c..
::s
rIl
.:Jt.
U
o
iii
o.. o.. -*
0 0
0 0 V'
Ii: Ii: 1
., .... 01
01 Ol
0 I> .5_
o.. ~ :!! ~
0 0
Cl -' ';;
v 't:l m IV
III III (;
Ol Ol
0 0
0. 0. III
0 0 ~
o.. o..
0- 0- I-
....
o
0.
o
l-
v
III
Ol
o
0.
o
o..
0-
11 ~~
~
z
~
~l
_ - -; \.l1\L\1'<
5 r ~R~\N~Gt:.
; \
\ Loo~
y. \ 'Z@) 1
~ t.~.. ..tr
15.75 19'-0"
\
\
~
i:i
III
I:
01
iii
vJ~\~
q
r-
'"
S"
'0
I
ixl
N
~
\- -~
-7"!' \
L-~r-- 1'1\
<C~ro ~
I' )tQ-= 0\
'- </) to 10
<C ~
> , \
~~
\-Ie.:;
~o;-
f
\->:
~:
co
PROPOSED
RESIDENCE
~
~
13'-0"
0
0
~
...
-<t
rl
A
:)
0)
at
...
c
.l!
1)
.. 81 J
.D
1
2: 1
~\t~\~ 0 Is. II CJ -
i= '" ~
j ......
B cc
::10
0 1 li~ ~
<(
~~' :x: .Ii e; . ~ -?
I- -000(
..,. '0 >o.!! - =>>
-' 1 .aB':~
I- -' t" I: -, J
.. 5: g~3
0. 0;
ow 0 m '0 i...... ...
wo 0 aa a 0
>~ Z i iG! ~
o h' :lo:: 'li. _...
_en
0: .'- N I f~:s F
0. "': :lo::
0.7- u '; il... '0 ...
<5 0 I .!!ti E
...J
0- m 5 .
...lj- ,!!
N 0_. :5
,Ii. l! :5t:5
l- i ~ !l
f/) 0 i i a.~ >.
-' iI c .a
II U ::I
1 i! t I
~ ~~cil OJ
Ul
,'upyWril"Q;l
,'-:2" ::2'-8-
Il~I_I--
~~ "!"~
.~ L
.' ~~ . q
F:I .
I-BQ:..-
. -
; J;::'.'
~~
[,~
,,0
~Z
~>-3
trJ.
~
<l
ll>
>-3
>-l
o
Z
EXAMPLE #7
.~
~~
)o~
~~i
b~
n~
:r t-'3
8. l:r'
~ ~
I
~ ~ ~!;f.l.
~ "
l\.
)\ 8 ~
)I~ '"Lj
~. 0
"' ~ ';d
~ \_ t:J
oJ! ~ :.\
~ tJ:j
~ 1_ ~1II~f- ~~~f- ~:~~~~
~ ~~d[" "Ub-S! g,n c,~l\
~ ~ ~ n-~I I i~~ ~~!\l:
~ ~.~ '~ii\~ !~g~ ~1II~~
~ fTJ ~ ~~~. ~~~ ~~~~
::1 UJ I 11~ '" I ~ l~. r;;"
~. ~ g1 !',II~ig~ ~~~.. ~~~~ .
\;fll~ ~~l~ I)~[J' ~~~
:' nlJ tdl ~r~
I-I ~~. m. 0:\;<
Z -:!~ '~-I
() r- n il~
~s
~>-3
~M
~
<l
ll>
:j
o
Z
'"
9_-8
itg;
mf:2li
~"'l~
~i~i
~iH
. :E~'i
lD~1:!
~. [
~ ';d
\.0
~bj
-. i-j
,\
M
~
<1
ll>
::l
o
z
\\ I
-
~...
. I
~
,~
~
m
~
, ~:.
I ~. \ ;
>-I l....~
-.l r--
0: ~~....
~~ 2'i ~- '\. .
. ~~ ""j -
j l~'. "!' ~
.\ tq
'-.: ~,.
. ~}v '\
.~" ~
X:~
II
~
--; ~
~
~ ~
r. ~
R'
~ }
~ l'I
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE LAKE ACCESS
AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR KNEAFSEY'S STREET
ADJACENT TO LOTS 4 THROUGH 15, KNEAFSEY'S
COVE
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_YES X NO-N/A
MARCH 13, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
Kneafsey's Cove was platted in September 1946. The plat dedicated the
roadways and waterfront to the public including a 30-foot wide roadway located
between Lots 5 and 6. In September, 1999, the City received a petition from the
property owners of Lots 5 and 6, William and Margaret Righeimer and James
and Nancy Samec, requesting the vacation of a 30-foot wide lake access and
roadway located along the waterfront between Lots 5 and 6. The reason for this
petition was to allow the adjacent owners to assume ownership for maintenance
purposes and to reduce a hazardous vehicle situation with respect to parking
and vehicles entering the lake.
On December 13, 1999, the applicants requested this item be deferred to allow
the petitioners to amend the original petition to include the entire waterfront. On
February 9, 2000, we received an amended application signed by Steven and
Linda Erickson (Lots 12 and 13), Raymond and Kathryn Cornforth (Lots 14 and
15) and C. Richard and Patricia Kuykendal (Lots 9 and 10), in addition to the
original petitioners, William and Margaret Righeimer and James and Nancy
Samec. These petitioners constitute more than 50% of the property owners, so
the petition includes the entire waterfront adjacent to Lots 4 through 15,
Kneafsey's Cove.
As required by State Statute 462.356 Subd.2, the Planning Commission is
required to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposal or
acquisition of public lands as it relates to compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
1:\99fiUls\99'fac\99-095,\rwised\99095i>c.2.do<;; ,. L
16200 Eagle CreeK Ave. ~.t.., Pnor Lake, lVunnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate
easement or right-of-way by resolution. The statute also states that "no such
vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the public interest to do so".
Minnesota statutes also require notification to the DNR on vacations involving
public access. Certified notice of the public hearing, scheduled for April 3, 2000,
was sent to the DNR Commissioner on March 2, 2000. Attached is a letter from
the DNR. The DNR objects to the proposed vacation citing existing and future
limited access opportunities on Prior Lake.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of
the existing easement comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public
need or anticipated future need for the dedicated property?
Comprehensive Plan Review
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss lake access. The
vacation of the roadways and waterfront is not inconsistent with any specific goal
or objective of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages
regulation of the privatization of natural and historic features to preserve public
interest.
Public Need
On October 17, 1994, the City Council accepted the Lake Access Study as
prepared by the Engineering Department and the Lake Advisory Committee.
The study recommends the vacation of the dedicated waterfront in the plat of
Kneafsey's Cove. On October 2, 1995, the City Council approved the
recommendation to vacate the entire waterfront within the plat.
As determined by the City Council in 1994 and 1995, there is no public need
(with respect to lake access) for the dedicated waterfront within the entire plat.
RECOMMENDATION
This proposal is consistent with the Lake Access Study recommendations. The
Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this request.
At TERNA TIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the proposed vacation of the
roadway and waterfront as presented or with changes recommended by
the Commission.
1 :\99fi les\99vac\99-09S\revised\9909 Spc2 .doc
2
2. Continue the discussion to a date and time certain to allow the staff to
provide additional information specifically requested by the Planning
Commission.
3. Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny
part or all of the applications based upon inconsistency of the proposal
with specific regulations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and/or
specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative #1. This proposal is consistent with the recommendations in the Lake
Access Study adopted by the City Council in 1995. Contrary to the DNR
comments, this area is not easily accessible to the general public.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the vacation as
requested.
1:\99files\99vac\99-095\revised\99095pc2.doc
3
~
,
~
~
PbRTIoN OF \N
16 Be \'A ~FrU>foJ1")f
,<e~
)
131175
~
_u 600 -- -'
.-. "
\..-. -...
/" .-"
- -- 8S8.3C -~-
.." ....
,.. .---
u_ 1461.40 --
EXHIBIT A
REASONS FOR REQUEST TO VACATE ACCESS AND WATERFRONT
The access, at the end of Cove-Avenue, was included in a 1946
plat of Kneafsey's Cove. Cove Avenue is a 30' wide street, and
the proposal is to vacate an area approximately 25' from the
lake. It is simply not located in a place that is desirable for
a lake access, and is too small to be suitable for lake access.
The site has never been maintained by the City as a lake access,
and for practical reasons, the City is not able to properly
manage and control the site as an access. Maintenance of the
area, and removal of-debris, has been performed by the adjacent
homeowners.
Parking is not available on or near the site. There are no nearby
pu~lic streets available for parking. There are three narrow lots
to the west of Cove Avenue. Each lot has a driveway to and from
Cove Avenue that prevents members of the public from parking on
the west side of the avenue. On the east there is one lot, the
entry to which is at an angle from Cove Avenue. On occasion,
persons have parked on Cove Avenue and blocked residents'
driveways, and so as a result, the City posted it as "No
Parking."
It is hazardous to simply allow the avenue to end at the lake
without a gate or warning signs. On at least two occasions
drivers had driven down Cove Avenue and right into the lake.
The access has not been available for use during many winter
months. City crews frequently push snow down Cove Avenue and
pile it on the site.
The Council has previously vacated the water front adjacent to
lots 2 and 3. There is simply no reason not to vacate the
remaining portions designated as water front in the plat.
The Prior Lake Advisory Committee recommended that the access
site and water front be vacated, and the Council approved that
recommendation following a public hearing on October 2, 1995.
Minnesota De artment of Natural . I
East Metro Area Trails and Waterways
~ 200 Warner Road
aul Minnesota 55106
Phone 651.772.7937
Facsimile 651.772.7977
February 23, 2000
Jane Kansier, ORC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
162.00 Eagle Creek Avenue Southeast
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Subject: Petition to Vacate Kneafsy's Cove Lake Access and Right of Way
Dear Ms. Kansier:
We have reviewed the information concerning the amended application for the above vacation. The
amended application includes additional waterfront on either side of the original proposal. Our
department continues to oppose the vacation of the portion of Cove Avenue that abuts the lake
(west of and adjacent to Lot 6). We have no comment on the remaining waterfront proposed to be
vacated.
Vacating the Kneafsy's Cove Avenue Easement would be a very significant loss:
. The shoreline is highly desirable with a gradual slope, sand beach, and southern exposure. It
provides lake access for the second, third and fourth tier homes in the neighborhood.
+ The proposed vacation is located in an area with increasing population. This opportunity for
current and future local and Minnesota residents to access Aior Lake should be preserved.
. Prior Lake is currently under-served in terms of public access. This site offers an additional
long-term opportunity for the public to access a public lake.
Generally, the Department of Natural Resources opposes all such vacations of public right of way to
public waters for a number of reasons:
. It is impossible to project what potential public uses and value these rights of way could
have in the long-term. Once vacated, they are lost to the public forever.
. The state owns the lake bed. Therefore, public access to public water should be retained
whenever and wherever possible.
The street is currently owned by the public; the public has the right to use it. That right
should not be given away to private interests.
. The public can use accesses like the Kneafsy's Cove easement for a variety of purposes
including shore fishing, canoe access, winter access, swimming, picnic areas, sightseeing
and others. These opportunities should not be given away.
Considering the limited public opportunities around Aior Lake, the unique characteristics and
opportunities the Kneafsy's Cove Avenue site offers, neighborhood interests, and long-term interest
of the public, the road vacation proposal should be denied.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have further questions, - please
contact me.
..~ d /dJ~
Sco J. Kelling ( ,
Area Trails and Waterways Supervis r
c: Bill Johnson, DNR Region 6 Trails and Waterways SupelViosr
Pat Lynch, DNR Area Hydrologist
Joan 8chhorst, Office of the Minnesota Attorney General
H:\priorvacat&-kneafsy2.wpd
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
MIKE HATCH
ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUITE 900
445 MINNESOTA STREET
ST. PAUL, MN 55101.2127
TELEPHONE: (651) 297-1075
December 22, 1999
" D ~<srnD~~
OEC2191l
Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16000 Eagle Creek Avenue Southeast
PriorLake, MN 55372
Re: Proposed Vacation of Kneafsy's Cove Lake Access & Right-Of-Way
Dear Ms. Kansier :
The purpose of this letter is to support the objection of the Department of Natural
Resources to the proposed vacation of Kneafsy's Cove Lake Access & Right-Of-Way by
providing the legal backdrop regarding the issue. Minnesota law prohibits the vacation of
property dedicated for public use unless the persons requesting the vacation prove that the
property is useless both now and in the future for the purpose for which it was laid out. It is an
extremely high standard which is rarely satisfied. The standard is justifiably high because if the
property is vacated the public will lose forever another public water access site. It is important to
preserve lake access for the public because development occurring on lakes impairs, and often
eliminates, access and enjoyment of lakes by those members of the public who cannot afford or
do not own lakeshore property.
The standard for vacating property dedicated to public use is extremely high. Land that is
dedicated to the public should not be vacated unless it appears that the property "is useless for the
purpose for which it was laid out." Minn. Stat. ~ 505.14 (1998). Property dedicated to the public
for its use is rarely vacated because it must be shown that the property is both currently useless
for the purpose for which it was laid out and also that it lacks any potential future uses as well. It
does not matter that the property is not currently used or that it may be difficult to develop for its
dedicated purpose. It is also not a balancing test as to what is in the public's best interest.
Rather, the focus is on the public's right to use the property and whether the property is useless
for its dedicated purpose. Three key Minnesota Supreme Court cases set forth the rule.
In Schaller v. Town of Florence, 193 Minn. 604, 259 N.W. 529 (1935), the plaintiff
sought to vacate property located on Lake Pepin. The Court warned that careful consideration
needs to be accorded such vacations and that it is the public interests and not private interests
which govern those actions:
Facsimile: (651) 297-4139. TrY: (651) 296-1410. Toll Free Lines: (800) 657-3787 (Voice), (800) 366-4812 (TTY). www.ag.state.mn.us
An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity 0 Printed on 50% recycled paper (15% post consumer content)
e
Jane Kansier
December 22, 1999
Page 2
Whether this very desirably located area, solemnly dedicated to public use, should
be restored to private ownership and thus, perhaps for all time to come, lost to the
public and made an appendage to private enterprise for individual profit or
enjoyment, or both, is a matter that sh?uld receive our most careful consideration.
The present trend of public opinion is directed toward restoring to the public
access to our lakes, our parks, and our forests for recreational and other proper
uses.
193 Minn. at 614,259 N.W. at 534-35 (emphasis added, citation omitted).
Likewise, in the case of In Re Petition of Krebs, 213 Minn. 344, 6 N.W.2d 803 (1942),
the petitioner sought to vacate a street leading to Lake Bemidji. The petitioner claimed that the
street proposed to be vacated was not used by the public and was not kept in repair. The Court
rejected those assertions stating that mere non-use is not sufficient grounds for vacation and
future potential use must be considered:
Before it can be vacated, it must appear that the street is useless for that purpose.
The evidence shows only that the street is not now used. This is not sufficient. It
does not show that the street may not be used in the future . .. Moreover, we
must not forget that the public includes persons other than those in the immediate
vicinity. The general public has a true concern in the recreational facilities offered
by the lakes which nature has so freely given us in this state. Their generous
sharing by all will make for a healthier and happier people. The many not
fortunate enough to be able to acquire the advantages of ownership of lake shore
properties should not be deprived of these benefits.
213 Minn. at 347, 6 N.W.2d at 804-5 (emphasis added).
In Krebs the petitioner also contended that the street should be vacated because the public
could get to the lake more conveniently by other routes. The Court firmly rejected that
contention refusing to give any weight to the existence of other means of access: "[T]he question
for consideration here is whether [the] street is useless, not whether some other street is more
useful. The burden of making such a showing has not been met by petitioners." 213 Minn. at
348,6 N.W.2d at 805 (emphasis added).
Finally, in the case of In Re Application of Baldwin, 218 Minn. 11, 15 N.W.2d 184
(1944), the petitioners attempted to vacate an unconstructed dedicated street providing access to
Lake Minnetonka relying on the alleged non-use of the street and the fact that there were other
means of access. The Court disagreed emphasizing the rights of the public and directing that the
statutory term "useless" should not be given any restricted meaning:
Jane Kansier
December 22, 1999
Page 3
Apparently lost in the shuffle were the rights of the public in the lake itself, for
neither party seems to have given much consideration to the value of the Lake
Street, located as it is on the shores of St. Albans Bay, in providing lake frontage
and shore line for the use of the public for recreational purposes . .. The contest
here is not a mere bout benveen private individuals with members of the public
acting in the role of spectators. The public has a real and substantial interest in
the outcome. .. Keeping in mind the value to the public of free access to and use
of the lake shore, we at a loss to know how any part of Lake Street has become
useless with in the meaning of that term as commonly defined. The word 'useless'
which appears in . .. * 505.14 . . . should not be given any restricted meaning.
Courts should ascribe to it the well-accepted connotation: 'not serving or not
capable of serving any valuable purpose; being of no use; having or being of no
use; unserviceable; producing no good end; answering no desired purpose. '
218 Minn. at 15-18, 15 N.W.2d at 186-87 (emphasis added, citations omitted). As the Court
warned: "[A]ny decree of vacation must be supported by clear proof that the street has in fact
become 'useless' to the public in the full and unrestricted meaning of that term." 218 Minn. at
19, 15 N.W.2d at 188.
In this case, DNR asserts that the facts demonstrate that the property can be used, both
now and in the future, by the public in numerous ways throughout the year. Vacating Kneafsy's
Cove l"ake Access & Right-Of- \Vay would be a significant loss because of its unique features.
The shoreline is highly desirable with a gradual slope. sand beach, and southern exposure.
It provides lake access for the second, third, and fourth tier homes in the neighborhood.
The proposed vacation is in an area with increasing population and access should be
preserved for current and future residents. Also. Prior Lake is currently under-served in
terms of access, and this site offers long-term opportunity for the public to access to the
lake. As a matter of law, it does not matter that the property may have been used little, if at all,
by the public. This is especially true in those cases where the public is not even aware that it had
the right to use the property. It also does not matter that the property may be undeveloped.
Finally, it does not matter if there are other public access sites on the lake or that if vacated the
property may return to the tax rolls. The essential and only issue is whether the property is
useless both currently and in the future using the unrestricted definition of "useless" ascribed to it
by the Court in Baldwin:
not serving or not capable of serving any valuable purpose; being of no use;
having or being of no use; unserviceable; producing no good end; answering no
desired purpose.
If the facts show that the property is useable in its current state for its dedicated purpose
or that it has potential future uses, it cannot be deemed useless and cannot be vacated. To do
Jane Kansier
December 22,1999
Page 4
otherwise would clearly be unwarranted, contrary to well-established law and detrimental to the
public's recreational needs by taking away another public water access site forever.
Sincerely,
~LL (y\ ' ~lCGUv--
JOAN M. EICHHORST
Assistant Attorney General
(651) 296-0697
AG:336696, v. 1
..
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6B
DISCUSSION OF CONCEPT PLANS FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF FOXTAIL TRAIL PROPERTY
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_YES X NO-N/A
MARCH 13, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
Wensmann realty, Inc., is considering development of the property located on
the north side of CSAH 82, about 1/4 mile west of CSAH 21 and directly east of
Wilds Parkway. Current access to this property is via Foxtail Trail, a private
street.
This property is presently vacant land. The property is designated for Low to
Medium Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map, and is presently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential).
Wensmann Realty has submitted four different concept plans for the
development of this site, along with an explanation of how each of these
concepts was.derived.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this item is to discuss the concept development of the site, and
to allow the Planning Commission to voice any particular concerns or ideas
about the proposed development. This discussion is for informational purposes
only. Any future plans must be processed with the appropriate hearings and
public participation.
ACTION REQUIRED:
No action is required at this time.
1620 1:\ODfil.es\OO&ubiec\OO"o09\pcdiscus.doc , L
o Eagle creeK f\ve. ::>,t.., J-'rlor Lake, Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
fi(-.
~'"
ADI)ITiol'\
~\
, ,
~~ .
..
.J€~
I . i ' .Jt
:~.ms1im=.
I
~....... .1
CSAH 82
'-'j I
J~lo.\J
~-rt~.!
I
I
~
....,,_.
.,.-
$'
- -""
-.
.~..
\
UPPER PR!OR LAKE
~
-.I"...
\/
CW~~tfNNJ
,
\.. ,-
-.-;
\ '
March 1, 2060/:
,'/ ./
City of Prior Lake
Planning Commission :! \
Development I{eview Committee
16200 Ea~le Creek Avenue
.wior Lake, MN 55372,
Dear Plannf~g COI!!n1i~sion and DRGMembers:
'/
'I
~ "
"
//
~'
~
I . / . i _, \
WensmanllRealty, Inc. is requesti\i1g a review by the ~lanning Commission, Qf concept sket'1hes fqr a ____--.'
proposed townhome'devel6pmentjustilorth of the cUrfent Glynwatersubdivisionalong Foxtail Trail.
. \' .' ",',
ii, ' , ", " II I I , ..
Th~ ~urPos~ .ofthis're~uest is to discuss ~penly,wit~ you, tl!ePlanning S?mmissi~~,variciuspptionlsand. .
desIgn layouts we have looked at to proVIde you WIth a better'understandmg of the Issues before we submIt .
a formal preliminarY plat application. We realize that the pl~ing COmmission does not always'hav~the \
opportunity to see the thought process and arenot involved ilntil we have settled on a final de~ign. We are
seeking your input on the designs/ we have already worked with to date, including one already reviewed by
the DRC and obtain )four input. I ~,I I '
, ". ". '- -- . ., - / \ .
To.assist you, in this process, we have provided colored concept sketche~ of possible layouts: Detail~ o,f
each design are attached for discussion along with,both our comments and the input reFei~ed from
neighbors during a neighborhood meeti~g.: _I J !' ,
/ .,"":--
~, ,
Thank you in,advance for your review and any comments you m.ay have. Jl1ey are aI?preciated.
Sincerely, , I
~~rf'
Assistant Vice Pres~dent' '
j'.c
>ee'
'"
'''',/J
,\
/
/' " /
/
.....
l
.....
--.//
~\
/
/
" .
r-'~~G"f /:.:----;-...~.~,....
"1 j ,
i~~G~,1~ 1lW'
(
:.~,
\i
\
, 1895 Plaza Drive
Suite 200
E~an, MN 55122 j
I i \. . ~12/423-1179
,II
Concept Sketch Number One
Total of 147 Homes
112 Townhomes
35 Zero Lot Line Single Family Homes
This sketch was reviewed by the DRC in February 2000. After the meeting, Scott County notified us that
provisions would need to be made for an access point to the east. In addition to this comment the DRC had
the following:
1. Re-Zoning would be required. .
2. Part of the property is included in the Wilds PUD and would require an amendment.
3. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan
4. Ordinance does not allow a private drive to service more than one building. Once it serves
more than one building it is considered a private street. Private streets are only allowed under
the PUD process.
5. Wild Parkway is considered a collector street, driveway access must be limited.
6. Provide passive recreation areas to serve the community. Sidewalks on one side of the street
will be required.
7. Encroachment on wetlands/ steep slopes must be reviewed
8. Access points seem acceptable.
iJ
MAR
~.. .-. .,_~._.,._-,-,_ I l !
U II Ii
2. i/II!I
!I~Ji
1\ 1,. i
-".J i
I
.
\j!_---
,
t..._~___
-
Concept Sketch Number Two
Total of 163 Homes
128 Townhomes
35 Zero Lot Single Family Homes
Concept that was initially prepared that does not have shared driveways otherwise, the same basic layout as
concept # 1.
-,::~T~--\(::::::'r~--[J'\\~7 is ~~::--;
I'. ,L'.:, ~? :_~-=< - \:...! L.:::J I \ "
f I _._ '___B _. .h ..--------, I I
~:i:{l MAR 2_ ill Iii
;,_h~L._--- 1~1
, !
l.._____.__- I
(Y .
Concept Sketch Number Three
Total of 159 Homes
124 Townhomes
35 Zero Lot Single Family Homes
This concept meets all ordinance requirements. This concept does not make a provision for access to the
East that would have to be added. Issues we see and the existing homeowners have commented on, are the
number of driveways that access the street. Homeowners to the north were also not happy with the number
of townhomes directly across from their property and the impact that would be caused to the pine trees on
the north end of the property and the steep slopes in that area. After listening to their comments, we have
completed our latest sketch, number four.
MAR 2 2000
Concept Sketch Number Four
Total of 148 Homes
120 Townhomes
28 Single Family Homes
Based on Staff comments and the neighbors comments this is the latest sketch we have designed. We have
tried to eliminate as many driveways as possible along Foxtail Trail by utilizing side-load garages. We
have also kept the access points along Wilds Parkway to three, again utilizing side-load garages. This
makes a better street appearance with windows rather than garage doors lined along the street. We have
provided an access point to the East, have reduced the impact to the trees and steep slopes on the north, and
given consideration to the single family homeowners by removing the townhomes along the north line and
replaced the with a single family plan.
_~.:~) 1'[J~7 ~ I~\l
/,\1 MAR ~- ~ IMi 1,:/
,,'.1 lJL- I U
---ll
L__ _
. <t--