HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 24, 2000
.I'
."
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2000
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-027 (continued) Mark and Robin Buenz are requesting a road access
elevation variance for the construction of a single family dwelling for the property at
14513 Glendale Avenue.
B. Case #00-021 (continued) Northwood Oaks LLC is requesting approval ofa
preliminary plat for the project known as Northwood Oaks Estates 2nd Addition, for
the property located on the west side of North wood Road north of Hawk Ridge Road.
C. Case #00-030 Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the
requirements for fences located within the front yard.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 E~~~I~t~~tf~~~:'t~#or:.~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.'
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 10,2000
1. Call to Order:
The April 10, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Cramer at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Cramer, Stamson, and'
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, and Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof
Criego
Cramer
Atwood
Stamson
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 27,2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Cramer read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the first item.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-027 Mark and Robin Buenz are requesting a road access
elevation variance for the construction of a single family dwelling for the property at
14513 Glendale Avenue.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 10,
2000, on file in the office of the City Planner.
The applicant has asked the item be continued to April 24, 2000 to address an additional
variance required for this site at the same time. The staffhas published a notice ofthe
new hearing date in the Prior Lake American. Notices ofthe deferred hearing have also
been sent to owners of property within 350' of the site. These property owners will be
renotified of the new hearing date.
Joe Whitney, 14492 Glendale, said he owns the property in question and did not see a
problem. Horsman explained the road elevation is too low based on the Flood Protection
requirements. Access elevation is less than 907.8'. Whitney went on to say fifteen years
ago the property was buildable. The lots were platted ten years ago. Whitney explained
meeting with the City several years ago regarding buying and splitting this property.
Horsman explained there will be a public hearing on April 24, 2000.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN041 OOO.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
April /0.. 2000
'.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO APRIL 24, 2000.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson:
. Is language from Model Ordinance the same as the language from the Zoning
Ordinance? The City should consider adding language clarifying that no other
encroachments are allowed.
. Rye noted that would be clearer. The general rule is - if it is not permitted, it is
prohibited.
1:\OOfiles\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\nm041000.doc
2
.'
Planning Commission Minutes
AprilLO.. 2000
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREP ARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADDING THE
SENTENCE "NO OTHER ENCROACHMENTS ARE PERMITTED TO SECTION
1104.303 BLUFF IMPACT ZONE."
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Discussion of Additional Setback Requirements for Buildin~:::}!Viiil:?t::::::
Exceeding 40' in length.;-...::::::::::::::::::f::::l:II:.I.ill:ii!::::\::::..
~lanning Coordinato: Jane Kansier presented the staff report date~l::~pril fU;::m920' in file
III the office of the CIty Planner. ..:::::{::::::::::::::i:i:::::@:t:::::.::!:::::: ..::::::::::::::li!::!illlll::t:::::::::::::::::::t:.
On February 28,2000, and again on March 13, 2000, tM?Pl~p:g Commission disQp'ss.ed
several alternatives to this requirement. The Planniqg::S;pmmiss\9ll.suggested the .:{:r:..
following requirements be included in an ordinanc6t.:.::::::::::t:::::::llll:I:ll:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::tt:::::::::::::::.
. Substandard lots: One wall at 40 feet, one wall at 60 Jeil::ene side the sum of 10
feet and the other side between 40 ~1i!::::~:R..~eet with a 1 t8ij,!::g({",t.
. Standard lots: Remain two 40 foot '1~~i;:::i~~lii::~i;:tt::::...::~.::~,,:::root breaks.
The staff attempted to write an ordinance in6ty:di.p,g:lhe .suq!it~d language. Under the
proposed approach, the ordirWA9!m!@pomes evi.d:::'fuore com,pHcated and confusing, and is
thus very difficult to apply:Jjii(felit~me. In stare~ opinion, the change to the ordinance
ho Id r . de a simplet':ipproach ::::::::::::::::{:::=:,
~eUpl::g c04p~~,l:uggested a need to limit the
building length, or to provi4@,::!:::breaitiif:niifbttilding wall. The purpose of this is to limit
the bulk of ~:J2P.i.:::BH'pding ~m:J:::9:n. the adjacent property. In order to accomplish this
objectiv~tWnr:smrpfi&ige som(fijil1fWtk relief, the staff suggested the following
ap~;i:~:IE. ..::::::::::::::ili:llilll...:l:::::::;:i:i::::::rr:..
..::::::::::.:Uiib;!se the initiallilgth of a building wall to 50 feet before an increased
set6~i~t!'~ required~):::Jf the building face exceeds 50' without a break, the setback
must 6ij,::~!frease4:::~Hnches for each additional foot of building wall.
. The addniiji~l_tback will not be applied if there is a break in the building wall
equal to 10o;;::jbfthe entire length of the wall. For example, a 70' long wall
requires a "1~::..break.
This approach will be simpler to understand and administer. It also accomplishes the
objectives ofthe original language. Finally, this language would apply to all lots.
This approach would require an amendment to the setback provisions of the ordinance, as
well as to the definition of a building face. These amendments require a public hearing
before the Planning Commission and review and approval by the City Council.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn041000.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
April 10.. 2000
:I.
Commissioner Comments:
Stamson:
. This approach makes sense. It is simpler and accomplishes the objectives.
V onhof:
. Agreed this is a simpler approach.
.................
..................
....................
.........................................
...".... .......
"."., .....
....... -..
............ -,
Atwood: ..::::tJi@J}:::::..
. Likes the idea it applies to standard as well as substandard IO~~~:i~~::r~?'. ..:::::ti::1ii::ii::~~):::..
'.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ":':':':':':':':':',
"::::;:::;:;: "::;:::;:;:;:;:;::::"
~~:::e:::~:o:~:::~:O::::wOOD~STAFF ~
PREP ARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDIN~giJ)ERT~G TO SIDE::~::::..
YARD SETBACKS FOR WALLS GREATER TltAl'r4~1:~:E5#fr~:::::t::i\::::.
'.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.'
..:::::~t::1::11::t~:~::::..
..: :::: t :~: :::::: ::.1.\: ili1i:~ ~ ~ ~: ~::: ::: ~ =='
.::{r~::::"
6.
New Business:
There was no new business.
..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.....:.:.:..
7.
Rye distributed a h~gilt.announ.mng the April .~,rineeting on the downtown
~~:~v~:;~~~:~ plan:::.. Dl~~~:~:~f~IIUl:~!iltl:~'::lrcomposite plan. The idea is to get some
.....:.:;:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.....
'';'::::':::::::::::':::::::;:::::::::::::::::'::'"
8.
Donald Rye ..:::::::i::If:::::..
Director of Plariffing
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
1:\OOfiles\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\mn041000.doc
4
.'
,
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4C
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES LOCATED WITHIN
THE FRONT YARD (Case File #00-030)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
..lL YES NO
APRIL 24, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance relating to the requirements for fences located within a front yard.
This amendment was initiated by the City Council on April 3, 2000.
Analysis:
Section 1101.504 of the Zoning Ordinance allows fences in the front yard if the
fence does not exceed 4' in height and 25% opacity. The City Manager received
the attached e-mail request from a Prior Lake resident suggesting the ordinance
be amended to allow 50% opacity, which would allow picket fences in the front
yard.
Staff has reviewed the notes from the workshops where the City Council debated
the new zoning ordinance. The City Council discussed the issue of height and
opacity for front yard fences at some length during the public hearings on the
Zoning Ordinance as well. The Council determined at that time the present
standard would allow decorative fences in the front yard and still provide public
safety protection. Attached for your information are the staff report and minutes
of the November 2, 1998 public hearing as well as an excerpt from our notes of
the December 7, 1998 workshop confirming the Council's final decision. Public
safety appeared to be the Council's primary concern.
The height and opacity of fences in the front yard are limited for two primary
reasons: public safety and aesthetics. Height is often limited to 4' or less to allow
access to the property. This height allows fire fighters to pull a fire hose, ladders
and other equipment over the fence to reach the structures on the lot. Opacity is
a determination of visibility through the actual fence structure. By limiting the
..J:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zolling\O.O~03Q.\oa030Qc.doc
16200 t.agre L-reeK Ave. ~.t.., Pnor Lake, "lVllnnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
"
f
and other equipment over the fence to reach the structures on the lot. Opacity is
a determination of visibility through the actual fence structure. By limiting the
opacity, public safety personnel are generally able to see through the fence
structure from their vehicles. When considering opacity, the Police Chief points
out that shrubs are often used with fencing and so the combined effect of the two
should be considered. He added that a 50% opacity does not create a public
safety problem from a police perspective.
From a property owner's perspective, an argument could be made that the fence
limits young children and pets from wandering into the streets or away from the
household. This point could arguably be seen as consistent with the City's public
safety concerns.
Height and opacity are also limited for aesthetic reasons. Maintaining a more
open fence creates a more open space look from the streets, as opposed to the
barricaded look of a wall or solid fence.
DISCUSSION:
The height and opacity of a front yard fence are policy issues. The staff has no
objection to increasing the allowed opacity of the fence. To address the public
safety issues, we would recommend the some limitation on opacity, probably 50
percent. We would also recommend that the height be retained at four (4) feet.
The proposed language is shown on the attached draft ordinance.
At TERNA TIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Amendment
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-030\OOO30pc.doc
Page 2
'!.
From: Dana Wheeler <DWheeler@mape.org>
To: 'fboyles@cityofpriorlake.com' <fboyles@cityofpriorlake.com>
Date: Friday, 24 March, 2000 11 :04 AM
Subject: Fence Ordinance
Page 1 of3
Hi Frank,
Thank you for any assistance on this matter.
Jean and I would like to see Prior Lake change it's ordinance that pertains
to fences. We would like to put up a picket fence on the street side of our
house.
Our goal is to keep pets and children in our yard so as to keep them safe as
well as to restore comfort to our neighborhood friends who are less than
excited by Riley's "at their heals welcoming technique (Riley is our
friendly and rambunctious dog). At the same time we want to put up an
attractive fence that will enhance the value of our home and keep the
neighborhood attractive.
The current ordinance, revised 5/1/99, has an opacity requirement of 75%.
We understand the city chose that level of openness so police and fire
personnel could easily see into the yard as a safety factor. We believe
that standard is too open. Further, it is not unfair or at the least not
citizen friendly because in essence, it mandates the type, design, and
materials a citizen must use to erect a fence. The only choices for fence
material, presuming the purpose of the fence is to keep something in or out,
would be metal fences, chain link fences and wire mesh. Non of which add to
the attractiveness of a property.
To support our contention that the opacity requirement can be relaxed to the
satisfaction of all parties I have attached two photographs of wood picket
fences. Both allow a person to easily see through the fence to what might
be behind it. Non of the examples would meet the cities 75% opacity
requirement. As I've driven around and looked at a great number of and
variety of design of fences I would expect that a 25% to 50% opacity fence
would allow the citizen greater flexibility in fence choice and meet the
safety concern of city personnel. The only exception being corner lots
where the observer must look through two layers of fence if they wanted to
see around the corner. In that case, as the attached photo exemplifies,
even a 50% opacity fence allows the view to be reasonably clear.
Please let Jean & I know of we can be of assistance in furthering this
matter. We'd like to put a fence up soon. We know the process requires
some time but hope you can assist us in moving the matter along.
03/28/2000
Page 2 of3 .
~
~
<<Picket Fence.jpg>> <<Sample Pickets.jpg>>
Picture Attachments:
File: Picket Fence.jpg
01/7 R/? 000_
~
Page 3 of3
.
File: Sample Pickets.jpg
03/28/2000
.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 00- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1101.504 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
Section 1101.504 (1) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
(1) The height of fences and walls permitted in required yards shall be limited. The height
shall be measured from the ground level to the top of the fence or wall section. Fence
posts may extend no more than 8 inches above the required height limit of a fence. In
the case where the fence section has variable heights, the height of the fence shall be the
average height. Fence heights shall be limited as follows:
>- A fence or wall shall not exceed 6 feet in height if it is located in any side or rear
yard.
>- A fence or wall may be located in a front yard if the fence or wall does not exceed 4
feet in height and ~ 50 percent opacity..
>- A fence or wall shall not exceed 8 feet in height if the yard in which it is placed
abuts State Highway 13 or County Roads 21, 42,82 or 83.
>- A fence or wall exceeding 8 feet in height may be allowed if placed in any side or
rear yard separating a commercial or industrial use from a residential use, a school,
church or other public building.
>- A fence or wall may exceed 6 feet in height in any side or rear yard when it is
installed as part of a bufferyard, but may not exceed 8 feet in height.
>- A fence or wall in one front yard of any through lot may be at the height permitted
in a rear yard if it complies with all of the provisions of subsection 1101.506, is used
as a rear yard, and the fenced yard used as the rear yard does not adjoin a yard used
as a front yard.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of
, 1999.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-030\draftord.doc
PAGE I
.
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-030\draftord.doc
, 1999.
PAGE 2
<.'
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4B
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE
KNOWN AS NORTHWOOD OAKS ESTATES 2ND
ADDITION
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-Nt A
--
APRIL 24, 2000
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
Northwood Oaks, LLC., has applied for a Preliminary Plat for the property located on the
west side of North wood Road, north of Hawk Ridge Road and south of Arctic Lake. The
preliminary plat consists of 23.96 acres to be subdivided into 33 lots for single family
residential development.
BACKGROUND:
In 1997, the City Council approved a preliminary plat for the development known as
Northwood Oaks Estates. The approved preliminary plat consisted of 34.15 acres
subdivided into 46 lots for single family dwellings.
In April, 1998, the City Council approved a final plat for the first phase of this
development (the area south of Hawk Ridge Road). The final plat included 18 lots and
one outlot. The outlot, which was to be Phase 2 of the project, is 23.96 acres, and was
originally to be subdivided into 28 lots for single family development.
This preliminary plat consists of Outlot A of Northwood Oaks Estates 1 st Addition. By
reconfiguring the lots, the developer has removed four of the lots from the Arctic Lake
Shoreland District, thereby reducing the required lot area. This also enabled the
developer to increase the number of lots in Phase 2 to 33. Since the number of lots is
greater than that approved by the original preliminary plat, a new preliminary plat is
required.
The Planning Commission considered this preliminary plat on March 27, 2000. At the
time, critical information was missing, incomplete, or incorrect. The Planning
Commission tabled action on this preliminary plat to allow the developer to submit the
necessary information.
1:\OOfil.ei\OOs,ubdiv\preplat\nOl'toak2\Qoak2pc2.doc "'p'age L
16200 Eagre creeK Ave. ;:'.t.., Pnor Lake, Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~) q41-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
...
. ~
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site area consists of23.96 acres.
Topoeraphy: This site has a rolling terrain with elevations ranging from 980' MSL
along Northwood Road to 910' MSL along the wetland. The site also includes about 11
acres of steep slope (20% or greater) in the northwest comer of the site.
Veeetation: The northwest comer of the site is very wooded. The area directly adjacent
to Northwood road has historically been cropland. Development on this site is subject to
the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Wetlands: There are two wetlands on the site totaling approximately 2.33 acres. The
largest wetland is 2.06 acres in area and is located in the northwest comer of the site, just
south of Arctic Lake. The 0.3 acre wetland is also located in the northwest comer of the
site directly south of the larger wetland. The developer is not proposing to fill or disturb
the wetlands on the site.
Access: Access to the site will be from Northwood Road and from Hawk Ridge Road.
Zonine and Land Use Plan Desienation of Adjacent Property:
North: The property to the north is zoned both A (Agriculture) and R-l (Low Density
Residential). This property is also located within the Arctic Lake Shoreland District.
The 2020 Comprehensive Plan designates this property for R-L/MD (Low to Medium
Density Residential) uses.
South: The property to the south is zoned R-l and is developed with sitigle family lots.
This property is designated for R-L/MD uses.
East: Across Northwood Road are single family dwellings, zoned R-lSD and
designated for R-L/MD uses.
West: The property to the west is developed with large lots single family dwellings, and
is located outside of the Prior Lake city limits. This property is zoned "Infill" on the
Scott County Zoning Map for Spring Lake Township and is designated as "Urban
Transition" on the Scott County Comprehensive Plan.
PROPOSED PLAN
2020 Comprehensive Plan Desi2nation: This property is designated for R-L/MD uses
on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Zonine: The property is zoned R-l, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation. The property is also located within both the Prior Lake Shore land District
and the Arctic Lake Shoreland District.
I: \OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\nortoak2\noak2pc2.doc
Page 2
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of23.96 acres to be subdivided into 33 lots for single
family residential development. The proposed lot areas range from 12,746 square feet to
over 100,000 square feet.
Lots 1-4 are located in the Prior Lake Shoreland District. The minimum lot area for these
lots is 12,000 square feet, and the minimum lot width is 86' at the front building line. All
of these lots meet the minimum requirements.
The remaining lots are located within the Arctic Lake Shore land District. Arctic Lake is
a Natural Environment Lake, so the minimum lot area is 20,000 square feet, and the
minimum lot width is 100' at the front building line. In addition, the comer lots must
exceed the minimum lot area and lot width by at least 20 percent. Comer lots therefore
must be at least 24,000 square feet in area and 120' wide at the front building line.
Revised lot area calculations have been submitted. The proposed lots appear to meet the
minimum lot area and width requirements.
Streets: This plan proposes three new public streets. Lake Bluff Circle is a 320' long
cul-de-sac providing access to 6 lots on the north end of the plat. This street is designed
with a 50' wide right-of-way and a 32' wide surface The street also has a 5.7% grade.
Shady Cove Point is a 560' long cul-de-sac located to the south of Lake Bluff Circle.
This street provides access to 12 of the lots. It also has a 50' wide right-of-way and a 32'
side surface, and a 7% grade. This street exceeds the maximum length of a cul-de-sac
(500') required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
Lake Haven Court is located south of Lake Bluff Circle and is a 360' long cul-de-sac
providing access to 9 of the proposed lots. This street is designed with a 50' wide right-
of-way, a 32' wide surface, and a 2% grade.
Finally, four of the proposed lots have access from Hawk Ridge Road, and one lot, Lot
33, has access from Northwood Road.
Sidewalks/Trails: There is a sidewalk located on Northwood Road adjacent to this
property. In addition, the plan provides an 8' wide paved access to the stormwater pond
located in the northwest comer of the property. This access is intended for maintenance
of this stormwater pond.
Parks: There are no parks located within this site. At the first preliminary plat, it was
determined that parkland dedication for this development would be a cash dedication in
lieu of land. The dedication requirements for this site were paid at the time the first final
plat was approved.
Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer will be extended from the existing sewer located on the
north side of this plat. The sewer line will be extended through this property to each cul-
de-sac.
1: \OOfi les\OOsubdiv\preplat\nortoak2\noak2pc2 .doc
Page 3
Water Main: Water main will be extended from the existing water main located in
Northwood Road. The water main will be extended in each ofthe cul-de-sac.
Storm Sewer: This site generally drains north and west to the large wetland at the
northwest comer of the site. Shady Cove Point and Lake Bluff Circle are designed so
runoff drains to catch basins located at the end of each cul-de-sac. Storm sewer then
directs the runoff to a stormwater pond located along the east edge of the larger wetland.
Runoff on Lake Haven Court drains to a catch basin at the end of the cul-de-sac. Storm
sewer then carries the runoff to a sediment trap located adjacent to the smaller wetland.
The developer has submitted revised stormwater calculations for this site. These
calculations indicate the design of the storm system is satisfactory.
Tree Replacement: The developer has submitted a revised Tree Inventory and Removal
Plan, consistent with the grading plan, which identifies a total of 3,490 caliper inches of
significant trees on the site. The Zoning Ordinance allows a total of 25% of the caliper
inches of significant trees to be removed for the development of roads, utilities and
drainageways. The ordinance also allows an additional 25% of the significant caliper
inches to be removed for building pads and driveways. The plan indicates 10.4% of the
significant caliper inches will be removed for initial site development, and 17.1 % of the
significant caliper inches will be removed fro building pads and driveways. This is
within the allowable tree removal; therefore, no tree replacement is required.
Landscape Plan: The Subdivision Ordinance requires two subdivision trees per lot. The
developer has submitted a landscaping plan identifying these trees.
Finance/Assessment Fee Review: This development is subject to a stormwater
management fee and a collector street fee. In addition, there are outstanding assessments
for the Northwood Road paving project in the amount of $1,298.48 per lot. The
stormwater management fee and collector street fee are collected prior to recording of a
final plat. The special assessments are collected at the time each lot is sold.
ANALYSIS:
In general, the proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision
Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. However, there are some engineering and ordinance
requirements which still must be addressed prior to approval ofthis preliminary plat.
One of the outstanding issues which must be addressed is the disturbance of the slopes on
this site. Section 1006.605 of the Subdivision Ordinance states "whenever possible,
slopes of twenty percent (20%) or greater should not be disturbed and should be retained
as private or public open space." This plat has several locations in which slopes of 20%
or greater are disturbed, either for the placement of roads and utilities or the placement of
homes. This issue was also addressed with the original preliminary plat. At that time, the
developer submitted additional design options for this property, including a "strip lot"
concept, a "loop" road concept and a townhouse concept. The Planning Commission and
the City Council both determined the proposed cul-de-sac design had the least impact on
slopes and on Northwood Road. In its recommendation to the Council, the Planning
I :\OOfi les\OOsubdiv\preplat\nortoak2\noak2pc2.doc
Page 4
Commission should address the impact of the development on the natural features of the
site.
Another issue which must be addressed is the length of the cul-de-sac for Shady Cove
Point. The maximum length of a cul-de-sac is 500', based on Section 1006.202 of the
Subdivision Ordinance. A variance to this provision may be granted if it meets the
criteria listed in Section 1009.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance. This section states
"[TJhe Council may grant a variance from these regulations upon receiving a report
from the Planning Commission in any particular case where the subdivider can show by
reason of exceptional topography or any other physical conditions that strict compliance
with these regulations would cause exceptional and undue hardship, provided such relief
may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without impairing the intent
and purpose of these regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend variances
from the requirements of this Chapter in specific cases which, in its opinion, would not
affect the intent of the Comprehensive Plan or this Section. Any variance thus
recommended shall be entered into the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting,
setting forth the reasons which justified the variance." This issue was also considered as
part of the original preliminary plat. The Planning Commission and the Council both
agreed the impact on the steep slopes is less with the longer cul-de-sac, since not as much
of the slope will be disturbed by placing the wider portion of the cul-de-sac bulb further
north. In its recommendation to the Council, the Planning Commission must also include
a statement of the findings with respect to the cul-de-sac length.
On March 27, 2000, the staff noted additional information was required to determine
whether or not the stormwater drainage system is appropriate for this development. This
information has since been submitted and is satisfactory. The staff also noted the need
for a revised tree preservation plan. Again, this information has been submitted. Finally,
the Planning Commission noted it had received a letter from the adjacent property owners
questioning the lot line location. Prior to the meeting on April 24th, the developer will
field stake this property line for clarification.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
cul-de-sac length variance and on the Preliminary Plat.
Variance: The variance to the length of the cul-de-sac appears to be justified. This cul-
de-sac will not be extended to the north or west property lines due to the slope and the
wetlands. In addition, the length of the cul-de-sac appears to lessen the disturbance of the
steep slopes.
Preliminary Plat: This plat is generally consistent with the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance requirements. If the Preliminary Plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the
following conditions:
1. Show the 100 year flood elevations for each of the wetlands and storm water ponds
and identify the required 30' structure setback.
1:\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\nortoak2\noak2pc2.doc
Page 5
2. Identify driveways and garage locations on the grading plan.
3. Revise the plans to include the following Engineering changes and requirements:
a) The Proposed NWL on the plans for the south wetland, on Lot 9, is shown as
915.9. The outlet pipe invert for this wetland is shown as 916.87. These two
elevation must match each other.
b) The outlet pipe elevation for the above wetland is called out on sheet 5 of 5 as
the overflow elevation, this should be called the inlet elevation.
c) The plans call out to "Cut Swale To Adjacent Wetland" from the small wetland.
The plans need to show this swale being stabilized with riprap underlain with
erosion control fabric.
d) The outflow hydrograph and associated water elevations for the south wetland
are incorrect. The numbers should form a smooth curve instead of erratically
going up and down as shown. Check the outlet pipe used in the calculation, it
shows as 0.1 inch diameter pipe. The spillway is shown as 916.91, but the
grading plan shows 920.0 contours around the wetland. This needs to be
resubmitted correctly.
e) The Pond Outlet Elevation on the hydrograph file for the south wetland must
match the NWL for the pond. These two numbers currently don't match.
f) The above comments, 4 and 5, also apply to the NURP pond hydrograph file
calculation.
g) The outlet invert of the pipe coming into the NURP pond on Lot 19 needs to
match the NWL of915.5. Move ST MH 2 accordingly to make this work.
h) Show a plan & profile for the outlet pipe from the NURP pond.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the above conditions of
approval and forward this recommendation to the City Council. This
recommendation must also include a recommendation on the variance to the cul-de-
sac length.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Defer action on this preliminary plat to a date specific to allow the developer to
submit the required information.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #3. The date is dependent on the amount of
time the developer needs to submit the required information. The City Council must
consider this preliminary plat no later than June 19, 2000. This means the Planning
Commission must take action no later than May 22, 2000.
I: \OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\nortoak2\noak2pc2 .doc
Page 6
ACTION REOUIRED:
A motion and second deferring this item to a specific date.
1:\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\nortoak2\noak2pc2.doc
Page 7
)~ I
~ L
~
~
III
~
N
Northwood Oaks Estates
2nd Addition
I'
r--
-
-
-
-arj'lill U E t
~ ~'I-_I-
..t \\1 .4 ,,~ r:::
v 1\'>1/ ~l<
f\' !T': ~~
/o~~ /I
~ ~WU'-J. \.,rI
'---- \ ,1IH r-
~~ ~ 'f .
'\:::y U II-... ,..., ~
-N'.... -
!. ~tJ:.(~ I ~
t ! liT r y
\ ~ r l~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~1'
I Site Location L
~'\
.......~
~~
-
~
\J
H
lLI -= ~
\ 1
---......
11 ,~Z~
1:... ~ ~
~
~A
~ nm"i
--'IA~'0~
lITramrl V ~~~
""'-. ~~...... - --
" " '"'v
o
.~~
1000
I
o
1000
2000 Feet
I
.~.
\n
"Z-
'?
..
..
,l'
..
~
~
...
I
i>
S
":~;;~~~i"'"
~..
~~;~ en "'111(1101
~~g!i <~ i~~~ ~ ~~gg g
o ",a,,"IZ.-~<
'Cit<=ll! PI~!"'.::r.l:Z - z
;:;.~..,.. -c !:'",S:Vj PI ~l"'88 PI
_ o. 0 NZZ ,., ~E~ ::a
:;J:::$~ :::a t:: O~ :a !;!,.zZa
'1';<...... Ii: il!9 ~ i"
_ ~c: I .....~ .. 2i!
~UI"':O 1:;1:: g l.t:.r'l,c;
109!"a gotgz ~~""r
:: ~ rig OCl~~
<;
o g
~
,
I,
i'
\
N
(J1
:::3
S I..
I';,
~,:...:-C.=~~:-- .
. '
, .
N
,-,
'-'
. .
'-'
.,: I
. I i"l
i ~
I
, .
< .
.\'~,
,.,
'.'
,.,
'.'
/ "
'.'
Ii
~~
I I
!!
~IU
I~~~
~~~~
1_-
~ni
~~~~
~;!I~
~
~..
tll;
~'-
a
i
z
~~
(/) --t N
fT1:r: ~
n=E ~
00 ~.
zo ~
CJCJ ~
)>"0 ~
0)> ~
S2^ ~
gUl ~
Z (T1 :0
~~
~~
fT1~
(/)
.
i ----
"
~C'l"'r1~O"'" '"
-<
:ZN:a~~gti::; D
....
;< "
n r
~~~~~~"'~ i l>
~::l~""'''~; z
~ -I
zZ,,~~!;IQ z z
r'1Jl>ItIJ-<~ 3:t:::lI Z Cl
a~;;~ ~:t,... l> II>
"
~ 2~ %J:;z '" n
~ r1 ~ :J:
1"1
c z t::l
n C
c: r
'" 1"1
NNNNNNruN '"
;::l
~""", '"
..~"l";!~"!"l"! ..
===:==== 8
....
r :IPi
!fl:l aF~ ...z-
IN ~o'
till "J:
....0 "'~o
... '" z
r r'l1 ..."'.... ;:g!:J
%"'''
ftll Zfll=
"'~'" o"~
;!"'~ "q:
....r
"'%F On. Z
:a~ . ...
<> ~:';iIi 0
~ 0"'.
~Zl"'t n;lS -I
. .......
~~~ 6"'- I'T1
",...z
_'" en
!"'I"'t,., z ...
ai ""'"
. ..n
<..
"'0
....% z:IE
az 2=
.... '"
,P '"
...
:IE z
o'
'"
%
a
..
...
'"
%
...
El
~
~
a
i
z
C)
\
\
"e .;\
' ~;\11.J
1\(\1)\
\:;e\ '
~ \~g
_~~u
"__~~j.J
~
:z:
~
(J,
b
!<
~
z
-t-C 0
:::0:::0 ::::0
fTlO -I
fTl:::o~i
-crOO
r)>OO
)>"zc
ZfTl-
-tw - 0
Z3::~~
G1-C^
zcen
-cz-
rfTl::!fT'I
)>(/)0(1)
zoz-t
-t !i
)> fT'I
(/)
N
l
~f"I'P,O(;1
DJ>"l
':Z '
o
':::0 '
-i
x'
~
o I ~h,'~C';;r
o l~-'.ft
:::0
o
)0-'
:0
If~.... Plt'.:[
\
\
\
\
_ /,r---
/
(
\
\
\
\
)
/
/
,,/
'"
----,
I
I
i
I
I
<..
"-
,
'-
, , I (
\ " --'
,
,
$
'[
i
l'-
'H
i;.t
~l.
[<1
if!:
"f'
Iii
h-
Ili
;~ ~~Ii~i;;; I~ \
sl ,. < < ,
\\'
. I I~ \ \ \ \
II . \ .
~s ....c.: \' ,
P:-t '" Ql Fij~~'" :;} \\\
i~ ~ . N z~ I Iii \\ \ \
\ ..
~I ..~ '~
Jr-
J;l I~~~ ~ - \ \
- co . ,,~ ~~,- ~ \ '
~ ~:I'o~", ~g~ I \ ..
i = b~Q \ \ '
i ;l 1 \
g li~ ! ; g
, ,
~ ~IG ~ U ~Ii! I~ l!l , :
,
il;~ o~
s II
-- a
. ~ Iii!!
~ INiJ
~ ~ 1I~ .
= ii~:i
M Mii ~ I
":ha I
jll'~
~~'I I
la;
" ~I
!2 q
lI"
i;
I
i
~
I ~l~B~
~.~iin
:l;~
e PI
-
,
.
Ii
e
I
IOI'IIU1" III
oJh!i,l:i
"1\'111111.11
';'iI,:h't,
1IIIlWlnll
11'~:il:111
I ;lIijl~lll
Iljl:'jl;,ij
! ":~ JI \
I!:
Cl
'" i
]>
."
%
c=;
..
n
]>
r- g
PI
...
8
~!~
:~ \ I 'M
!~ !l~L~
'" 1 ·
~ l! ......
r
'"
!
~
I
I
i
f
;
i
l
r"
'<-
-
_mn1~\__:::':rnnT-----:::;(_-.n'.J-
II~z
!
I
~
~
);;!
::0 :::
~ ~o
~~~~
~~8o
.;"'U i:5 t:::l -.,
~ ::b.~ \]
:::-i t:::l?;;: :;0
sa S2Vj 0
~ B!."'"l :;0
"'- <t Vj
-~ ~s;
::-i"
)E ~fT1
~
~
,
i--'
~ to,.. m ilt1pHHtH S>I:I's-.l'>:--
'" '" ~I~
-;:.. ~ 111111111111'111 II~~~
... <II
-;;;. a I~I II ....., I I
... . "ii I I ~~~~m
2
~i: I~ I ~~;; ::c::
~
ill ~~il
.. Ii
8
~
~
I
'"
a ~
- !il~
~ ~!2
<II i...
!2 ~!:I -'
...
.',-
CD
......
rrl
<0
(f)
~z
.' )>0
lIIsat
~ ~
N ~ 0 ;0
I'l
~
.... (f)
:r:
~
~ N
U1 - 0
Ol
N
o
~\
,,\\
!\
t
.
I
I~
I
~:~~il;~ii~~
iti11li!ij
!! B! !!..i.
- _I h~~a
~ ~;:\ a~Qli~
Po I h'~
E ~~
_ fl Ii
ill
~
:~.. JUll
.8 ,nn..' ..--
I \,-- __-n-
. <n en-5}
"
::u
2
,.,
~
z
?
i
(f)
en ~
-I
rr1
(f)
:"I ,. ~~~N"-
~:~~~B~:~~;~
~~~~~~Iiili~
~! Ill!!!!!
e~ 2i ~!~a~
"5 ~i hill~a
!i! A.. a~~"lil~
~ 6'" ~ ~'l
g r- ~~
S "n
.. i
N
.
1l
;Q
~
a
rr1
(f)
-I
~
rr1
(f)
I: ::.:
~~
I.:
I
1 .
I.
I
I
.:..:
::'
::
..
:
c....O:llE-
lili2j~ili
ate!h5
~s;~;-<
.Og~!i~
.
s J II ~ S :1
..;:.. ':':. .
...: :...
:.:. '.:.: ...:::
....
..
:.,:
':
...:
::::
:::
. .
.
.
. .
:. ...:: :.: .:.
.. .::.. :... ..:
...: :..'
::. ........
.~, -^ .. :'::'"
:::.
llH2
'- ....
"~:~ ::
.~.."--- ...
:.::~it.. ..: .:.s. ::::
':: ". ~,' ; "-
.. :.:. ~t:. .:
... :
; ::.: '.. .:.."-
:,:op "
:....~. ....~.
'..:. :.. S
:.
C I
-
..
"
.
:,'., .
.
.:
.
... .
'..: ;
.
. :.
:. . .
. .
:::io :~
m,' _""
~
.~.. .
:.' " tM1
, ;g",;,@
, ......:.:.;q; IiiiU
,"" :0
... "~'.'~~~~'-~
:: .liiiiI
~~::.:.~)
: I '.:..'
!2 il Iii:
a -;
~9
8 ~I
~
.
~
.
. ..
.... ".".
,:. .:..
..:: :.
.
..
..
,
..
.
.:
..:
. .. . .
,
. .. .
'. '.
'. :,,:
:.
..
.:::
:::./ ... .:::
, ,
""
~l\ :.:'
~'" ,
~ """\.
\
.:'::
::0
:::::
>
:::"
:.
.:.
::::.: :..:.
I
"
iA~I!l=i
[;~5;~liS
ill ~I!aai!
p S:~ic:a
~ .t, .~i
.. c:-"'i
~ i ~~; .....:
i _N :
:;e .
1
~
i 1,-,
f--= -
=1...
~ ;~.~
<: -....
-
!IO
"-l
..
. .
. .
.::
"
.'
I .
i... .
~5
:.
.
:
.
.
:. :.:.. .:::
.' ....: ~.:':\
...- ::: .::
.: ..: .:::
...:: :..
I. '::
0:: .... ..... '--'
... i //
'':' ...
T /:
:... -,..:/1 ..'
J/:
, / .
. .' .
':. . '.
.
:
sml 'I
~
t
~ .R
\ ',,:
:
OIl .'-:'
...
':."
.:::
,//>; ,I
, \'\,
.~,/ ,," \ VI "
,,<;'>'" ~, I'
~ 'i < '\ ~ ~\ II
'-'i ~ ',\. ~ \ jL----
;~, '~~'\ '\ "r::~:~;-------
'\ '"," ,,' I I
~... ,< I I
''''' " II
.. ,\i \~, I I O'l
'\\\ \ U1 II
\ \\~~. ') \\
r' \f\ ~ III I I
" \ \ \ rLA.KE\~YJN
I: l'----JL ·
r-.r ~..- ------ - I
't '::::-
~':'Iorr~~~-c--o ~
, " I"~ III.'.
, : ,. I ~~ "
" MC I ~
, I ,., ,~-<~~,' ~ rr.;;
'fll /8 @"'VI I I N I~ ~
, :, l::l~ I .r- ~ -
, i, '!:l'fi I' Il'l ·
, I 'I! ,.'1 "',' a .j
I~;. Wt___ J l ~ If t"l-
i' " I r----=7 J
I " /" '-
: , "
1" "
* t3' i~ ~ I I
i , /8 -J>. "
I' I "
!:It : :' "
(5 i L SHADi I COVE
,. /&~Ir\.: ---_--1 L ·
t:I:1~J..!~. - I
, I s..-Y.~i"- ---- ---- - -
': It' ---- -'"
: Hr. ;;~~T p.~fIT -.!7 -;-~""
I r, I;E!:!' 'U II -- ,'-
, ' I 'i~fiI II II
, :, I:~~ I I II &....
, :, I Cl'" N II 11}3~~'tq,. .
f<:II~ -!-f' I ~'" U1 II N II ...t,o,; 1/
iU _ ~, I M~ I I -I>- II 1.1
~ --L1t&' I "';)l I I II <.1 II
.-rl ~ Ii II I.'
, I' 12 II II I. '
, I' L _ _ I , II 1./
", --.JL II I.,
, I, r-- - I.
,r, I - - I r _ ~ - .J ( 1./
, i' I I I - --.. ' ../'l <<
, I, I II ',) (
, I' i II I'
: " /8 ~ II 1/",', I
, !;'iL ~'_ II N II ' \ I
fi'ii I I II -..J II "vI
, 1.' I' L II II "
, 10 I l.A _ II 'I N 'l
: 10 ~ I 8L1T'1:t.../1 (Xl)
, _,," .. ---1 c_ u~i"llrw A
, J: ~'~f-----_ '.'Oif-J 4'!.'IR~1'~
, i:1~ -- -\of. -.-,.~:--. -
: : "q~)[ ~ f?, f ----~-~ _",pi
, :'. i~!i<~!:! 8 f f'''' /0 ~~ (' -:I"~
, :'t I ~~"fiI II ! ' w ~ ~
, 1/:' I cMg~ II -" .. '-.. ~ I i~
, , 11i.,-< r- II ' ' ,~ ~ I ·
, :, 18 ~Cl~'" II" /Y' /
"e" I ~~ ^.... /
."'.' n::l~"'~ I Ir-" " /
, " I EM:Z: II ' ' /
, '! VI ",'" ;)ll I I " v
, :--1, ~L Nl'l 1/ VI II )
, Ie':, I, :;: II ~ II ~ /
, I,} (,-L lil II II /
". '- -1 II /
t':.+'..' ;: --=--::::::..)' L_// ~!Ii
,~, 18 VI ---:> -.-'
I:,' [ VI / ~~=~A
, ;, r -:. -:. -:. _ _ _ / / ; 1\ I i1lci ri
, I ~ 0 I ----:.---/ ~ ..
: ". I -7 .~SD
I" I // ...m .
" "
N
i i~l!~
Of
:
..
--'
.. "8 r~
~~
I
~~
, ~ S
'I~
F-F-
. .
U1
, :::
s
I ~
!
'+
8
:.
:
::
.::::
.."
:
:'
.
n
en
co
;;,.;.
:::.:: :::::::::::-::::::::::::::::....'
:.:....; ...:,....'....;h...:.....;.......;.. .....m.........M._,
R D
:;
~
. '
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5A
CONSIDER A VARIANCE FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS
BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIRED ELEVATION OF
907.9 FEET; AND A VARIANCE TO THE 75 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER
ELEVATION OF 904 FEET, Case File #00-027
MARK AND ROBYN BUENZ
14513 GLENDALE AVENUE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_X_ YES NO
APRIL 24, 2000
The Planning Department received a variance application for the construction of
a single family dwelling with attached garage. The public hearing was opened
on April 10, 2000. The agenda item was continued to the April 24, 2000
meeting. The following variances are being requested:
1. A variance of 4.12 feet to permit vehicular access to be 903.78 feet
rather than 907.9 feet as required to be not more than 2 feet below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) of 909.9 feet [City Code
Subsection 1105.203].
2. A 46 foot variance to permit a structure setback of 29 feet from the
Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM)of 904 feet rather than the
minimum setback requirement of 75 feet [City Code Subsection
1104.302(4)].
DISCUSSION:
Lot 4, Block 1 Oakland Beach 5th Addition, was platted in 1976 (Exhibit A
Survey). The property is located within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and
the SD (Shoreland Overlay) districts. The subject lot (parcel 2) is adjacent to a
remnant lot (parcel 1 ) that is riparian. The applicant has purchased both lots on
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.
- .
a contract for deed from the original owner of record Joseph Whitney who
resides at 14492 Glendale Avenue SE. The subject lot is approximately 86 feet
wide and 172 feet deep with a total lot area of 18,526 square feet. The remnant
lot (Exhibit B Plat) is approximately 5,663 square feet in area and is not a
buildable lot and is considered to be joined with the subject lot and the two
parcels become an individual parcel for the purpose of this Ordinance
[1101.501(C) Lot Provisions].
The proposed structure is 52 feet wide at the garage end, 70 feet long, and 22
feet wide at the porch/deck end (approximately 2,121 square foot area). It has a
three-car garage with a one stall tuckunder from the second story. The proposed
floor plan includes three bedrooms and two baths on the second floor, an office,
laundry/utility rooms, in addition to common rooms such as the kitchen, dining
and great room area on the main floor (Exhibit C Building Plans).
The main floor level is a slab on grade with no below grade basement area. The
proposed lowest floor elevation is 911.16 feet, which is 1.26 feet above the
required Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation of 909.9 feet. The proposed
impervious surface area is 20%, well within the maximum allowable impervious
surface area of 30% (Exhibit 0 Impervious surface worksheet).
An alternative building site exists on the lot by moving the structure toward the
street and to within 15 feet of the south lot line and out of the shore impact zone.
This should increase the structure setback from between an estimated 7.57 - 10
feet to approximately 36.57 - 39 feet from the OHWM, rather than 29 feet as
proposed. In addition, the garage area could be redesigned to add to the
setback an additional 1 0 feet, increasing the setback to approximately 46.57 - 49
feet, and with minor house revisions an additional 1 - 3 feet could be added to
meet a 50 foot setback. A small retaining wall may be needed at the south
property line to maintain the 910 elevation (909.9') surrounding the structure as
required by City Code Subsection 1105.401 Permitted Uses. In the revised site
location and garage/house redesign the driveway slope shall not exceed 10%
grade elevation from the slab to the street.
Another alternative is to move the structure to within 10 feet of the south lot line.
This option may eliminate the house redesign, but will require a redesigned
garage and trigger a third variance to the side yard setback because of the 70
foot long building wall that requires a minimum 15 foot side yard setback (70' -
40' = 30' x 2" = 60"/12" = 5 feet + 10 feet = 15 feet). In addition, permission from
the neighboring property owners to grade their lots to maintain the 910 foot
elevation surrounding the structure would be required.
The City Engineering Department has reviewed this Variance request and
responded that Glendale Avenue is a public roadway which is not in the 5 year
capital improvement for reconstruction.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-D27\00027PC2.DOC
Page 2
Patrick Lynch with the Department of Natural Resources has submitted written
comments on this request (Exhibit E DNR letter). In essence, the DNR believes
in this particular case, because of the existing homes on Glendale Avenue that
do not have the required roadway access elevation, and because of drainage
issues created by bringing Glendale Avenue into compliance, the DNR is not
opposed to the requested access below the required 907.9 elevation. The DNR
recommends a plan be developed to address how emergency personnel, and
the home owner, will access the property during flood conditions. Regarding the
second variance for a 29 foot setback to the OHWM of 904 feet, the DNR
suggests the need for redesigning the home and garage, as well as, moving the
home toward the south property line to increase the lake setback to no less than
37.5 feet, and out of the shore impact zone.
Attachments: Exhibits A, 8, C, D, E.
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.
1. The public road elevation and vehicular access is a condition over which
the applicant has no control. In addition, raising the road will affect drainage
and may increase potential flooding on neighboring properties.
2. There is an alternative building site on the subject lot which will increase
the proposed lakeside setback out of the shore impact zone but not eliminate
the need for some form of setback variance for the lot to be buildable.
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.
1. The existing vehicular access elevation is peculiar to the subject lot and
adjoining properties.
2. The property is an existing platted lot of record with a location and
elevation peculiar to this site and surrounding area.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-027\00027PC2.DOC
Page 3
The variances to vehicular access and lakeshore setback are necessary for
the lot to be buildable and preserve a substantial property right of the owner.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The granting of the requested variances will not impede these stated values
nor endanger the public safety provided an emergency management plan is
prepared.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the requested variances will not unreasonably impact the
character of the neighborhood, or diminish property values or impair health,
safety and comfort of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
As an existing platted lot of record the granting of the variances is not
contrary to the intent of the Ordinances or the Comprehensive plan as long
as all other Ordinances are met.
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.
Without the requested variances the lot is unbuildable for a single family
residence. A hardship exists and the variances are required to alleviate a
demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
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 public roads elevation and the lots proximity to the ordinary high water
mark are existing conditions and not a result from the actions of the owners of
the property.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-027\00027PC2.DOC
Page 4
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
The existing conditions of the subject lot require the need for the requested
variances, and financial considerations alone are not grounds for granting of
the variances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff believes that all of the Variance criteria have been met with respect to
Variance (1) vehicular access elevation, and to Variance (2) structure setback to
the ordinary high water mark, with the condition that an alternative building site
location be found and by redesigning the structure to meet a 50 foot lake shore
setback out of the shore impact zone. In addition, staff recommends four
conditions be met by the applicant prior to building permit approval and issuance
for the subject lot: 1) Combine the subject lot with the adjacent remnant lot in
common ownership with one property identification number (PIN) and legal
description to create one parcel, with proof of recording at the county; 2) year
round occupancy of the property be subject to submittal of an emergency
management plan to be approved by the Police Chief and Fire Chief; 3) all
Resolutions adopted by the Commission shall be recorded and proof of
recording be submitted, along with the City Assent Form, to the Planning
Department; 4) submission of a revised survey with a minimum structure
setback of 50 feet from the ordinary high water elevation of 904 feet.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
denying the variance requests.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution #00-007PC approving a Variance of
4.12 feet to permit a vehicular access elevation of 903.78 feet rather than 907.9
feet as required to be not more than two feet below the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation of 909.9 feet; and a 25 foot Variance to permit a structure
setback of 50 feet rather than the required 75 feet from the Ordinary High Water
Elevation of 904 feet.
L:\OOFILE5\OOV AR\Oo-027\00027PC2.DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION 00-007PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 4.12 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
VEHICULAR ACCESS ELEVATION OF 903.78 FEET RATHER THAN 907.9
FEET AS REQUIRED TO BE NOT MORE THAN 2 FEET BELOW THE
REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION OF 909.9 FEET; AND A
25 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 50 FEET
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 75 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH
WATER ELEVATION OF 904 FEET.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mark & Robyn Buenz have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in
order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling located in the R-1 and SD
(Shoreland) District at 14513 Glendale Avenue, and legally described as follows:
Parcell: That part of Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott county Minnesota,
described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southeasterly right of way
line of the 33 foot road in Boudin's Manor 2nd Addition, according to the recorded
plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said
County, with the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the East
and West quarter line running through said section, with the Government meander
line; thence in a straight line and in a Northwesterly direction to the most easterly
comer of Lot 5, in said Boudin's Manor 2nd Addition, and said line there terminating,
said last described line to be hereinafter referred to as the "Court Judgment Line":
thence southeasterly along said "Court Judgment Line" a distance of 331.04 feet,
more or less, to the shore of Prior Lake; thence westerly and northwesterly along the
shore of Prior Lake to the southeasterly right of way line of said 33 foot road in
Boudin's Manor 2nd Addition; thence southwesterly along said right of way line to
the point of beginning.
Parcel 2: Lot 4, Block 1, Oakland Beach 5th Addition, according to the map or plat
thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott
County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for Variances as contained in
Case File #00-007PC and held hearings thereon on April 10 & 24, 2000.
1: \OOfiles\OOvar\OO-027\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
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 the subject property's location in relation to lakeshore and the existing
road elevations for access of the subject property and on the surrounding property, it
is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will
not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger
of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health,
safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance
and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The pre-existing lot of record does not meet the current Ordinance for minimum
vehicular access elevation and lot elevation in the R-S District. This situation creates
an unbuildable lot and a hardship with respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right ofthe owner.
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by vehicular access elevation and lot elevation
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 ofthe applicant.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #00-027PC are hereby entered into and made a
part ofthe public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following variance for the proposed structure as shown in Exhibit A:
1. A 4.12 foot Variance to permit a vehicular access elevation of903.78 feet rather than
907.9 feet as required to be not more than 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection
elevation of909.9 feet.
2. A 25 foot Variance to permit a structure setback of 50 feet rather than the required 75
feet from the ordinary high water elevation of 904 feet.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-027\appres.doc
2
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. Combine the subject parcels in common ownership with one property identification
number and legal description to create one parcel, with proof of recording at Scott
County.
2. Submission of a revised survey with. a minimum structure setback of 50 feet to the
ordinary high water elevation of 904 feet, and to be in compliance with all other
Zoning Ordinances.
3. Year round occupancy of the property is subject to submittal of an emergency
management plan to be approved by the City Police Chief and Fire Chief.
4. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. The resolution must be recorded and proof of recording
submitted to the Planning Department. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant
to Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null and void if the
necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within one year after
adoption ofthis resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 24, 2000.
Mark Cramer, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-027\appres.doc
3
Glendale Avenue
O~Ir~
S I\ID
~7-1y ~~~ XOOS.191
~D^,
v i\t X905. 2
.
~
N
flROBE' CONSULllNG ENGINEERS,
PLANNERS and LAND SURVEYORS
eNGINEERING
COMPANY. INC.
l 1000 EAST 146th STREET,
YORWAY HOMES
PROJECT NO. 9477.00
BOOK 2. 'J'l
PAGE /~ cf- 17
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
Legal Description: LOT 4. BLOCK 1. OAKLAND BEACH 5TH ADDITION.
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
~h'J DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION
(1/Q.S) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION
- 8 . INDICATES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE
q~, .3 ... FINISHED GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION
_~ ... BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION
q/I./6 ... TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION
9//, lfe, :::: M/JI# FttrJ~ - GUS tJN GMIA: ELEv/177IJ,U
.----..-
SCALE: 1" = 40'
Be,Jm tdAfJl!.: /11# t Zt? Ff. W€57"
tJF I11tJS7 J</6S7Z'/UY uT eat<.
T, '" 901, 0:7
APJJRCSC: /4-513/ 6I..CN/JI'lLC AVc,A./l/E
~r IIf?01 ~ /~ 52tJ 5~, n:
h'tW: M61 ~ 2/2/ 5~ F/.
.O~<Ao 'l.l'lJ
(fIl'f' qlT"
..&.~.. "'P
~~. ~~J!
.
,''-)
l;~9o
:\
~ 1\
~ :~~
~t-: l't!~
. ~
20
166.21
582'52'11 "E
F,vp, I,P'
HIIB = '0{,.72. ":' I~)
~ !~
~'V
fN'tJ/?J:fti:J ('liD. 0/
/5.f) PT 'p6"(q/lf(;7l;~
"f}~R
20
~
W
.
m~
lX?~
I")~
f'b
o
z
'"
'"
\:i
it
;~~
'-.III ...
l~l ~
;gsI~
-
: r-. T ~
'-- ,., I lJ
: r-, T
'-_ ",,-, I
EXHIBIT A
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct representation of a tract as shown and described
hereon. As prepared by me this ~ day of JANVItR.Y , 2JJOO _
f6/$87 $_II-Utv) , AW 'ii:.~ fbltClf /N!"CL; It I ~
Ad/) f'~fDfCb (zltl,a) ~.AI,""IL. .MAD'.t. . Minn. Reg. No. '<JOB"
J/DfJSC '
A1f!GvN~ IIouft I '> FT. F/Z-I"1' 1?6V1fEJJ 'f.b -'ZNf} : At:rJ 904 ~e ~~ .." sG78,J1C1! t'~"""5
R.4/(ch ~~;/IV7e €UV,477WJ
f'lV/>EO J. Z/) -/10 : /IatJ RWN F~/2.. - StA6 tI</ 61ZN6 e{.GvA77",V,
---
I
+tv . I
v'r ~ / I
--l."~/ 0/ ~ L-
~ ,,"'...... ./ /' /' '-~' Ci.L C:X::>''-;.-l
~~~.<. /';/ ~ --~~.. .:e.1l~~'~~~!21~8
%-/ J-J ~
"// o:~
~./ ~ ON
\ ~ . 1
.. gi : 0 ,
\ ;1$ 2
\ \ ~~f --~::~~~~-::;==-
8 Z : -3..?~rl90N-
^~:)\
~ \ ~).,
l~(). \: ~
~~, ~ ~
~ ,"t. ~~
'\ \ ~.
1, ~d)..~. '"' ~
<:) \ ~-~ h: "
"yJ~~~ '~~
"J <;>~ \ ~. ~~1-
, '\ l: ..~ "
~ ~I ~ .
.J I ~~ ~. ~"2. , '0<2.
~; [; ~ ~ ... S-='l'O~~ N
I J cro'O~ M.L"Z.<;'.
r(J~ tV ~r.. \.. L~ 'cal- \ _ - ~)
i.l. "... _' -p P)':;'
li R \ '\"c --:.. - "3 L"Z ...., . ....3.J-~...,"3 ;Il
-. r,onaa;_3-NI1_^l --
" I
-:;',. <:" I\~" "'''J ''..!
~"L "I.", .....
... ""
, ., "
~ ~
,~. _.'\.' .
0(')
c:--,--
"3 Vi L I CIC::> N
- , .
-- c...~ ''Z"E. ~ -_
...
~~
o
V
~
'J
,... .f
~. r. I\l
ltl ,t
\) ~ ~
(t)O
N
~
I
- -
N .-
. N
J I/J
J '
- ~
:z
....
-
m
-
]:
-. ><
7w '1'
~."
~ 'C.<;..dB
~" /
.' ,
..
".
,
\........)
...
/
,'"
iJJ
...:
/
...
\
I).. ....1 ;-
,"' ;~ ....
..1 ~'.
c' _.
" ... -
\J } ~J
. ~ (,
I ~ .
~, (: ~'I
.~"
;~ V ..
I <!
, ~I
...
. r
. u
i\J <i
w
to
I'
lJ 0
tr
-- Z
~
J
~
~
a.
o
\uJ
',2
'J
.,
-.
'.
~
o
>- ..,
.J ~2
. ,
z o{.
..
'-I
lJ
",
~.
.~
'J
,t
N~
,t r
~Jl
z
.UJ
Il~
J.
"1\1
~v
to'
tJ~
:Jl
~1
r-:
-
o
o
~
A ,
,
J
~L-
I
, ..,
--
..... \ I
I I'
\.....
o
I-
-
III
-
:I:
><
W
'~': I
'.--;-.
EXHIBIT P
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface CalcUlations' .... ..
. . fI:o. be ~ubm~ with B~iJding Permit Application). .. . .
for All Prop~~es.Lo~ in the Shoreland District (SO).
The Maximum Impervious Surfuce Coverage Pemutted hi 30 Percent.
Property Address /45/~/ 'Gt6V~ #,vvG
Lot Area . /8; G 2b . Sq. Feet x 30% =' ......~.~..... 5~S 7, 8. .
************************************************************************
LENGTH.
WIDTH
SQ. FEET
HOUSE
x
==
x... -
ATIACHED GARAGE
x.
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE.......... .
2/V
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage/Shed)
. . ." . - .-- -'" X:.. . .
x.
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS..--_..
#A
~RlVEW ;d)A VED AREAS
(Driveway-paved or not)
(SidewalklParking Areas),
x
x.
X
==
lZ,i~
==
==
,
TOTAL PAVED AREAS.... I11T .-.--.................--
/~/tJ
X.
.x
== -LBO .1
ECKS
==
x
==
. ...... . . ...',
TOTAL DECKs.,
... ~. .~~tx7 ..
17- X d-
X
==
/~B
OTHER - t::;Cue.>
po(lOl4
==
TOTAL OTHER.. .
1 1 liT I"
/6&
I 374'f, 7
I lIPS, /
J - 4- -ZoCD
43 Z. - ~()t)O
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
(UNn~VER.. .. ~.
Prepared By' I ~.' '..
CompanyY~L ~:. . :~C~.
. fltN/$t!x> - ~-II'-"lr;iJ6, /JitIp $&U6/ ~. .
Date
Phone ~
SENT BY: DNR METRO;
4-18- 08:20AM; 6127727573 ->
6124474245;
#1/2
-
"
r l
~jnnes<.>ta Depnrtment of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road. St. Paul. MN' 55106-6793
Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax; (651) 772-7977
EXHIBIT E
April 17, 2000
I-a:
~~ ve +-\ u( S~0-."'"
..~ (,..E..S
~7
c.-.
.Mr. Steve Horsman
City oiPrior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
ff:' .-'t=~. L~f}j Ci-\
~.p up '1~ ~.~ l;J d/:- J
.Mark and Robyn Buenz Variances. Lot 4. Block I, Oakland Beach S. Addition, Prior Lake
RE:
Dear Mr. Horsman;
I have reviewed the information sent to me relative to the subject zoning matter, and offer the following
COJlU1'1CDtS on behalf of the Minnesota Department orNatufa! Resources:
With exception of the variance requested for minimum vehicular access below elevation 907.9., the
proposal appears to comply with the provisions of the city's floodplain zoning ordinance. Under many
circumstances, DNa recommendation in cases such as this is the elevation of the public road to bring the
building site in to compliance with required tloodplain regulations. Each variance, however. is reviewed
01\ its own meriu. In this particular case, however. because ofthe number of existing homes which front
Glendale Avenue and do not have the required roadway acx:css elevation. and because of drainage
issues which would render bring the e:rdsting Glendale Avenue in to compliance. DNR is not opposed to
the requested variance from the floodplain requirement of vehicular access no lower than two feet below
the regulatory flood protection elevation.
If the lake were to reach flood stage7 the proposed bome would be an island, surrounded by approximately
five feet of water. It ill rccomm.cndcd a plan be developed to address how fire. police, ambulance, or other
emergency personnel, as well as the home owner, will access during flood_ It would be appropriate that
such a plan be written for all homes on Glendale Avenue which would face similar access issues.
To avoid paying flood insurance. the homeowner may be required (by a lender) to apply Cor and receive
a Letter of Map Revision (LOMa.) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
acknowledging the home has been elevated in compliance with the city's floodplain ordinance..
I note that some of the tin proposed to elevate the site encroaches in to the adjoining property to the nonb.
Does the applicant own or otherwise have authorization to place fill on that parcel?
The second variance requested is for setback from the ordinary high water mark. The drawing which
accompanied the hearing notice indicates a minimum sctbac:k of 29 feet to OHW. measured from the
northeast comer oCthe proposed garage. I scaled offa setback closer to 23 feet from the garage to OHW.
J')NR Infnrlllwil,ln: 651-296-6157 · I-RNl:<-646-(i3(,7 . 'rrv: 65I..:!96-5',P~* . 1-I:SO()-657-.W.!~)
All E4ual O"I'llfllllliIY Elllpluycr
Whl' Valu!:, [)i~"'I"ily
.f3 Pnnled on Ihn:yr;1IJ1.l Pap.,. GlIllluir'ing iI
..- MInimum ul 10% PO".GIII1."""'''' Was'.
SENT BY: DNR METRO;
4-18- 08:20AM; 6127727573 =>
6124474245;
#2/2
. ~.\
April!? 2000
PlI8c 2
Please check this to ensure the setba.ck proposed i. accurately depicted on the survey.
The proposed home encroaches in to the shore impact ~ne. If the home were redesigned with the garage
on the southwest portion of the lot. the lake setback could be inaeued signiticamly. Also. sliding the
entire house south toward the south property boundaJy would also inaease the setback. DNR
recommends alternatives be explored which increase the lake setback to no less than 37.S feet, the shore
impact zone.
Finally, I believe there is a typo on the survey. The width of the west side of the garage is shown IS S2.0
feet on my drawing. Should this read. 25.0 feet?
Thank you for the opportUnity to review and comment on the proposed variance. Please advise me of the
outcome of any hearing on this matter. If you have any questions. please can me at 6S 1-772-7917.
r~~_. ~
Patrick 1. ~ ill
Area Hydrologist