HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 25, 2000
.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25,2000
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 #00-071 Eagle Creek Villas is requesting a variance to lot area less than
the minimum of 7,500 square feet, a variance to lot width less than the minimum
50 feet, and a variance to permit over the maximum allowable impervious surface
area of 30 percent for the property located at 14624 Oakland Beach.
B. Case File #00-070 Bob Dittman is requesting a variance to construct an addition
to a principal structure and an accessory structure less than the minimum required
25 foot setback to a street right-of-way, also a variance to permit over the
maximum allowable impervious surface are of 30 percent.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case File #00-069 Shamrock Development is requesting vacation of a utility
easement located on the west lot line ofOutIot B, the Wilds 4th Addition.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCAG~92500.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
1. Call to Order:
The September 11, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
V onhof at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording
Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
V onhof
Criego
Atwood
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the August 14,2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Stamson arrived at 6:32 p.m.
4. Public Hearings:
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the first hearing.
A. Case File #00-062 St. Michael's Church is requesting a preliminary plat
consisting of a total of 3.842 acres to be subdivided into 1 lot for future building
addition for the property located at northwest quadrant of the intersection of
Duluth Avenue and Pleasant Street.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 11,
2000, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary plat for
the 3.85 acres located on the west side of Duluth Avenue, south of Colorado Street and
north of Pleasant Street. This property is the site ofSt. Michael's school. The proposed
plat will combine all ofthe property owned by the school into a single lot to allow for a
future building addition. A building permit cannot be issued over lot lines or on
properties described as outlots.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\mn091100.DOC 1
Planning Commission Minutes
September II. 2000
The proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and
Zoning Ordinance. If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the
following condition:
1. The existing dwellings on the property must be removed prior to approval of a
building permit for the school addition.
The staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat as presented sU1Jject to the above
listed condition.
Criego questioned if the tree preservation ordinance applied to this application. Kansier
responded it did not apply because it was a developed site and,are adding to that.
Comments from the Public:
Attorney Joe Cade, representing St. Michael's Church, said he was present to answer any
questions.
Criego questioned if there were any plans t<rad,d'trees to the area.RQl1and Brouillard, the
Church Administrator, said their intention was totep}.ace:3;S many.trees as necessary as
part of the building project. Brouillard explained theyWari.tlcfbeautify the area.
Cade said one ofthe existing homes on the property will be removed this fall and the
others will be used by the Prior Lake Fire Department.
Amy Lowry, 4374 Pleasant Street, aSked what the plans were for a privacy barrier
between the school and the homes.
KansierexplaiI1ed the'City did not have a site plan in for the addition. The school
addition does not require a public hearing. This project would be subject to the City's
landscaping and screening requirements.
Brouillard said the preliminary plan would have berming between the properties.
Comments from'theCommissioners:
Criego:
. Agreed with the overall plan.
. The parish should be sensitive to the neighbors to make sure there is enough
buffering with plantings to make it pleasant for both groups.
Stamson:
. Concurred with Criego, the landscaping on this project is very important. It
should have additional screening.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcornm\OOpcmin\mn091100,doc
2
~
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11. 2000
. Agreed with the plan.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Commissioners, sees no problem with the plat.
V onhof:
. Concurred with Criego. Make sure the landscaping requirements arecPlllplied
with.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENl)INGAPPROV AL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO ST. MICHAEL'S SCHOOL AS OUTLINED IN
THE REPORT WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THE ExISITNG BUILDINGS
BE REMOVED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CA.RRlED.
This matter will go to the City Council on October 2, 2000;
B. Case File #00-023 Consider an amendInep.t to the text o(the City of Prior
Lake 2020 Comprehensive Plan relating to the location criteria'for property to be
designated as low to medium density residential.
Planning Coordinator Jane KaiJ.sierpr,esented thePlanning Report dated September 11,
2000, on file in the office6fthe City,J)lanning D~~ment.
On March 6, 2000, the CitY,~ouncilditectedtlJ.ePlanning Commission to consider the
issue ofthe Low to Medium Density R:esidentialland use classification in the
Comprehensive Plan with the idea the City Council would have the sole authority to
determine whether a project should'be, built at the lower R-l density or the higher R-2 or
R-3 density. The Commission considered this issue on June 12,2000, and again on
August 14,2000. After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission concluded the
text ofthe Comprehensive Plan should be amended to add language specifying the
discretionofthe City Council in these matters. The Planning Commission then initiated
this amendrileftt.and directed staff to schedule a public hearing.
During its discus~ions, the Planning Commissioners noted they were comfortable with
the existing language. However, in order to make it clear how this language would be
applied to any specific application, the Commission suggested the following sentence be
added to the existing language: "The City Council has the ultimate authority in making
the determination of how this criterion is applied in any given situation."
Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment.
There were no comments from the public.
1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn0911 OO.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 11,2000
,
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. This is exactly what was discussed at the last meeting.
Atwood, Criego and V onhof:
. Agreed.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOM:MEND6ITY
{ ,- - ~
COUNCIL APPROVE THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case File #00-064 Consider an amendmenttotl1e Cityof,Prior Lake Year
2020 Comprehensive Plan for the property located at 5680 and 5690 Credit River
Road, the site of Prior Lake Baptist Church.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presentedthe:Rla.:mring Reportd~ted September 11,
2000, on file in the office of the City Planning Dep~ent~
On August 14,2000, the Prior Lake Planning Commission considered an application for a
Zone Change for the property located at 5680 arid 5690 Credit River Road. The request
was to rezone the property from the 1-1 (GeneraUndustrial) District to the R-l (Low
Density Residential) District. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
proposed rezoning. At the same time, .the COmn1issioners initiated an amendment to the
2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan to designate this property for Low to Medium
Density Residel1tial~ses.
This property is designated for Planned Industrial uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map. The exist~g use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designaiion.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. No comment.
Criego, Stamson and V onhof:
. Agreed with the recommended change.
. It reflects what was discussed at the previous meeting.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm091100,doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
September /1,2000
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND
USE MAP FROM THE (PI) DESIGNATION TO THE (R-L/MD) DESIGNATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
Criego questioned discussions on the bluff ordinance. Kansier saidst~tfffieL~ith DNR
Area Hydrologist Pat Lynch to discuss the original intention ofthebrdinance~dhow the
City was applying it consistently with State Rules. The purpqseofthe ordinance is to
preserve the structure ofthe existing bluff. It is also an aesthetic purpose, to preserve the
existing bluff, topography and landscaping. It makes enforcement more difficult in Prior
Lake because most of the lake is already developed. ThePNR cotl.sluded staff enforced
the ordinance as intended and recommended no changes. ", ...
,,:. : ~"',
Criego questioned the grading process. ~~!erand Rye explaill,~dthe>grading and DNR
restrictions. Basically, the staff reviews gt~diiigp~tp1its on a case'l>y>case basis keeping
in mind the intent of the bluff ordinance. In'fases whetet~~ blllffhas previously been
disturbed, the staffis more likely to approvegradin:g'thatisooth a structural and aesthetic
improvement. In case where the.bluJfhas notpreviously be disturbed, very little grading
will be allowed. The staffwill work with the DNR on aU questionable cases.
The Commissioners briefly discussed the process. Stamson suggested having the DNR
(Pat Lynch) review the Shoreline~adit1gpermits. Criego felt the State should not be
involved any more than they,~e. now. Rye cotiunented on the process.
6. New'Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye pointed out there is 272 single family vacant lots and 291 townhome vacancies.
Although singlefamily construction is down this year, the City will set an all time
housing record.
Vonhof questioned the status of the downtown redevelopment project. Rye said the EDA
is recommending a proposal to present to the City Council.
City Council adopted the overlay ordinance for senior care facilities but in the process
amended not to permit senior care in the Cl, C2 and C4 Districts. Downtown is the only
district they would allow it.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\rrm091100.doc
5
Planning Commission Minutes
September II, 2000
8. Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\rrm091100.doc
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
6
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO GRANT A 3,515 SQUARE
FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT AREA OF
7,500 SQUARE FEET AND A 10.2 FOOT VARIANCE
TO THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 50 FEET, Case File
#00-071
Lot 16, OAKLAND BEACH, SCOTT COUNTY, MN
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
The Planning Department received a variance application from Eagle Creek
Villas, LLC, for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage
on an existing lot of record (Exhibit A Survey). The following variances are
being requested:
1. A 3,522 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 3,978 square feet
rather than the required minimum area of 7,500 square feet [City
Ordinance 1104.902 Nonconforming Lot].
2. A 10.24 foot variance to permit a lot width of 39.76 feet at the building
setback line rather than the required minimum lot width of 50 feet
(City Ordinance 1104.902 Nonconforming Lot).
DISCUSSION:
Lot 16, Oakland Beach, was platted in 1926. The property is located within the
R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts. The lot
is riparian by dedicated waterfront access to the shoreline as granted to the
collective property owners in Oakland Beach. The applicant does not own either
of the adjacent parcels.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
i"
The lot dimensions are 39.71 feet by 100.09 feet by 39.99 feet by 99.94 feet.
The total lot area of 3,978 square feet is 3,515 square feet less than the required
minimum of 7,500 square feet to be considered a buildable lot [City Ordinance
1104.902 Nonconforming Lot]. In addition, the lot width at the setback line is
39.76 feet or 10.24 feet less than the required minimum of 50 feet wide to be a
buildable lot [City Ordinance 1104.902]. The proposed setback of 21.56 feet
was determined by setback averaging the three properties within 150 feet along
the same block front as the subject property [City Ordinance 1102.405
Dimensional Standards (4)]. The side yard setback along the north lot line is
5.7 feet and south side yard setback of 10 feet. The setback from the ordinary
high water contour of 904 is 115 feet.
The proposed lowest floor elevation of the basement is 910 feet and exceeds the
minimum required one foot of freeboard above the regional flood elevation of
908.9 feet and at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation of 909.9 feet
[City Ordinance 1105 Flood Plain Regulations 1105.203]. In addition, the
finished fill elevation of 908.9 feet shall extend at least 15 feet beyond the limits
of any structure or to the nearest lot line [City Ordinance 1105.401 Permitted
Uses].
The proposed structure is 24 feet wide and 52 feet long for a total of 1,248
square feet. It includes a two-car tuck under garage with a driveway slope of 6%
to the street. The attached floor plan shows three bedrooms and an office in
addition to common rooms such as kitchen and living area (Exhibit B Plans).
The proposed impervious surface coverage area of 1622 square feet includes
the building and driveway. The total allowable lot area used to determine
impervious surface was calculated by adding the actual lot area of 3,978 with a
portion of the dedicated waterfront area between the projected lot lines to the
ordinary high water elevation. The combined total area available for impervious
surface coverage equals 5,547 square feet. Based on this calculation, the
proposed impervious surface is equal to 29.2% of the lot area. The use of
additional non buildable dedicated waterfront area has been a standard practice
on previous variance requests (Exhibit C Impervious Surface).
The Department of Natural Resources comments on this variance request are
attached. In essence, the DNR has no objection to the lot area or lot width
variances (Exhibit D Letter From DNR).
Finally, the Planning Department received a faxed letter from a neighboring
resident on Oakland Beach Avenue expressing their opinion on the requested
variances (Exhibit E Letter From Resident). This letter states granting the
requested variances would set a precedent and allow a property owner with two
60' wide lots to create three lots less than 50' wide. It is important to note this
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-071\VRPT -071.DOC
Page 2
,,'
variance applies to an existing platted lot and does not allow the creation of any
new lots.
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.
Lot 16, Oakland Beach, is an existing lot of record platted in 1926. By reason
of lot size it is nonconforming by today's standards. Therefore, a hardship
exists in relation to codes in effect in the period it was platted and the
Ordinances in effect at this time. There is no legal alternative to obtain
additional lot area or lot width.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
The lot area and lot width of this lot are somewhat peculiar in that most lots
platted at the time where at least 50 feet wide. New lots created under the
current ordinance are at least 90' wide.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
As owner of an existing platted vacant lot, the owner has a substantial right to
reasonable development.
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 unreasonably affect these
conditions or values.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-071\VRPT -071.DOC
Page 3
'..
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 affect these
conditions or values.
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 variances will not be contrary to the intent of
this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
The requested variances are necessary to alleviate undue hardship.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of
the owners of the property.
The application of the provisions of this Ordinance on the affected property
results in hardship.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Increased development costs are not grounds for granting this variance, as
additional ,lot area is not available.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff believes that by applying today's Ordinance requirements on
an undeveloped existing platted lot of record creates a hardship as required by
the preceding stated conditions in this report. The staff recommends the
Planning Commission adopted the following resolution approving the two
requested variances. Approval of this request should be subject to the condition
the lot is developed as shown on the attached survey to ensure additional
variances are not required.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\00-071\VRPT -071 ,DOC
Page 4
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 00-012PC approving a 3,522 square
foot variance to allow a lot area of 3,978 square feet rather than the required
minimum area of 7,500 square feet, and a 10.24 foot variance to allow a lot width
of 39.76 feet at the building setback line rather than the required minimum lot
width of 50 feet.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-071\VRPT-071.DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION 00-12PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3,522 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A LOT AREA OF 3,978 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE
REQUIRED MINIMUM AREA OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET, AND A 10.24 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT WIDTH OF 39.76 FEET AT THE BUILDING
SETBACK LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
OF 50 FEET.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
I. Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in
order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling located in the RI (Low
Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue,
Prior Lake, MN, and legally described as follows:
Lot 16, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case File #00-07IPC and held hearings thereon on September 25,2000.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The pre-existing lot of record does not meet the current Ordinance for minimum lot
size and lot width in the RI District. This situation creates an unbuildable lot and a
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-071 \aprsOO-071.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
hardship with respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the owner.
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the minimum lot area and width required today
and the platted lot of record. Reasonable use of the property does not exist without
the granting ofthe 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 #00-071PC 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 3,522 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 3,978 square feet rather than the
required minimum area of 7,500 square feet, and a 10.24 foot variance to permit a lot
width of 39.76 feet at the building setback line rather than the required minimum lot
width of 50 feet.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. The lot must be developed as shown on attached Exhibit A.
2. The permit is subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable agency
regulations.
3. 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 September 25, 2000.
I: \OOfiles\OOvar\OO-071 \aprsOO-071.doc
2
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-071 \aprsOO-071.doc
Thomas V oOOof, Chair
3
r-..
~
o
Scale
.
30
in
feet
-
60
~--
J
I /
I
/ ~
) I~
/ (i
~C) f.1:J:
( v&
\ . \
\ \
\
\
LEGEND
o IRON MONUME~T
-0- POWER POLE
m TELEPHONE BOX
1m GAS METER
'0 HYDRANT
t><I WATER VALVE
PLAT OF SURVEY
FOR: MESSINBRINK CONSTRUCTION
LOT 16. OAKLAND BEACH
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
EXHIBIT A SURVEY
\ - - - - - - - 11.80
\
\
\
\
r--------ir-
\
\FD IP FD ~P
~-------i-~~. \
\ 13 ...~. '\
I \ \
90 \ \
\ ____J
r - - - - -;:'''~ - - \
\ f' "........,,1' \ '10.25 \
<2).... I
t.l ... ~- 14 \
~,~ \
,~\ ...1.........' .,
O~,-," \ \
I
\
\
\
\
,----4
'-'
l_J
".
<!."
'-""
,,--'
\
\
\
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
LOWEST FLOOR 909.9 FT
GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT
_ OE - OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
PROPOSED ELEVA~ONS
BENCHMARK:
TOP .NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF
fI 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING WALL
APPROX. 50 FEET EAST OF SE CORNER
LOT 16. ELEVA ~ON = 928.00
~ DIREC~ON OF DRAINAGE
Drown Checked
I hereby certify that this survey
.u__ .......n."'....t"t hv me or under my
1.1"7 tlan..sen l~orp I
LEI DBO
24' 0'
~
~~
txjtl)
(f}~
t-r1~
- ,
9'-9" 4'-6" 9'-9"
- ----- ...,
~!z I I
,I a: .-tJ I
NU I
I =n.
I I I
r--!
1-- p!
I 1
I 9-112"GPI JST
1 19~2iiOC-
I 1
--I
I 1
I -I---------~-------
1- -!
I I
i'sl ~ I -I
1 r-
es. i'sl I 1--
M I
in -
N I -
I - B
-&
I
0/
'/r- =
r --
/.~
~ I
f [t 1
/ _nl:8-5f- / )
~ -
I..l
I I I \ 1
. 9-=1L2~P.LJST
-~n- I 19.2"OC I~ lrQ/
I-
I I \ 11-0
I -- -----
I
\ --- _._--,----~-- n~_
~
--_._-----------------
1!;"FLRJBUSS___n ---
19.2"OC
---. ---_._-- "------..--.-- -
i'sl
1 ________u -~--
N
N
--
r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .,
1 --
I
--J I -
I _J_____ __
---
I I
- --1---- ------- - n___n__ _---n--~----l---- ------ --
o -----L-----~--------lax8 OH--GflRDR W/--- _~___I- _ _ __no__
I HOR AS RED
I
i'sl
N
IJl
,
m
><
:J:
-
m
-
-I
DJ
-0
,...
)>
z
en
1:L-:H:H:l N.:IdO 1.:1 US vo'55(;
~3~~ ~OOl.:l 1.:1 ~S 9~vv6
,,0.t=,,\./t 31~JS
NVld H001.!! l3A31 H3ddfl
~ - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ::"~l~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - t - :-
I, . /1
I ". ./ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1____
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I /
1/
"- -
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
------------~~-----
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
g
o
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1"-------7.)
I " / }
'------( /1
I I /
I I /f I
-1---1'------ /~-+----t--
I I / I I
I I // I I
I 1./ I I
_L _ - - - -\. I
I // '\. I
J:.--------~
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
-_._-~~------------
/
/
"-
"-
"-
"-
-----~-------------
-,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I L_ _-1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
I I W
~ tsl
I I"
I ~
I
I
I
___J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
~
I
~
11l
~
I
~
, nN
1:0 .
", ~~
I
I'.)
"!
I
~
,
~
- !
I \
\ J !
- I
-.
I I
-- ---~---_._---- - ...-.
!I I I I I 1/
r- "", -!lllli
- \1 -"I_n~!J III
(
J I / '!ll
- -.J /
II~ I~"t- - - - - - - - - -
'\/ u ~
/'\ ,-- I'.)
ll:!
I W
~ CS!
I
-I- ~
-
I
--- --i-
I
I
I
----------------r ,...j- -- 1-----------------
i ! I
.. - n I I I
--'-- I
I
- .. I
nl'.)
I ~ :no
z'
L -IlSl
- -
..6-.6 ..9-.... ..6-.6
-
..13 ....2:
,
1Il
"!
~
09/06/00 WED 16:47 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
~ 003
J
EXHIBIT C IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
.Impervious ~urface Calcu]a~on~
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
F or All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distn'"ct (SD).
111e Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Add ess Lot 16 Oakland Beach
Lot Area -2,. 547 Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. 1 ,664.1
.*********~! ~**********************************~****~*~~*****************
HOUSE
LENGTII
52
WIDTH
x 24
=
SQ. FEET
1248
it
,."
ATTACHED Ci ~GE
x
==
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE........._..._.~._.. 1248
DETACHED E ~DGS
(Cann IShed)
x
x
TOTAL DETACHED B~DINGS.._..__..__......_- 0
nPJ.VEWAYIJi i\VED AREAS
(Driveway.. aved or not)
(Sidewalkfll rleing AreaS)
22
x 18
x
= 396
=
x
=
TOT.>\L P A"YED AR.EAS................._................._... 396
TOT...U DE CKS...............a..............-..........................--... 0
x
X
,."
OTHER
=
TOTAL OlmR...............--..-.-.-.--..........-...-.... 0
TOTAL I IlPERVIOUS SURFACE
· SO,;'! ~_ <(") /1 N, -) -
Prepared Bj ~ 'C:::>~ Date
I 1644
l 20
9-/Z-c90
l
l
Company ~ III PO /"., e....
Phone# t:j5z.. -Z3Zc:j-07~D
t
"
,
,., ^ ~~-r"'~"-r"'r -. .-.-
""/_\ It- .,., ~ to"'" '", I
., IL_.~, .,\..11"1
I
I
I
I::
I . .
:~'. ...'".. .'":" .....,.. -..:.., .....;:
I
I
l
'~r...' '-'F'^""
" '< \.J /-,'...1
,'_1..) .
~~ - --
Clt~O( ~~
----ct__~-
f
,.
\
o
f~
-.f'
: :.
-----
...
..
...
...
%
.
CD .-
f,O .;._~
..
"!. :: ~ ~
'. ~ '.
.... ..... ....- 1.111
.... " .. ... ' .~
.... .J~ \J) 0;\
!" U." 8
IT1 .' .'
,;r'I
--,
r- -
."
~.
~
co
!'l
00
..
'10.37 .~. ,....~\~....
..
!o"
'"
...
L
-~
~
~..,d-~ "
~t7Lt7t7219 :01
908L-628-219
r-
-)
-.....
> .
~.,., -
I _
t'
,
,"':7
~-.'
4 ,...""" .....,
.-oT-.-- -
.-.1
u.
-I-
I
I
(4 ~J I
,,~.
~"\ \ I
-\7'
(J. I
."1
.> -,
I
I
I
I
I
..,
<:> I
..
'"
__1-
-~.
--
~.
C
4/
Od1H : WO~.:l Lt7: t71 000;::',
I
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 5
Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-
~
.'
EXHIBIT D DNR LETTE
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
September 18, 2000
Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
RE: Dittman Setback/Impervious Surface Variance and Eagle Creek Villas LLC Impervious Surface Variance,
Prior Lake
Dear Mr. Horsman:
I have reviewed the materials you sent relative to the subject variance requests and offer the following comments
for consideration.
Bob Dittman Variances
Would like to see the proposed 36.7% impervious surface reduced. The city,allows up to 30% impervious, which
is 5% more than the 25% allowable per state shore land rules. Is the shed a necessity? Can any of the existing
bituminous driveway be removed to reduce hard surface? Although not opposed to the proposed variance, DNR
would like to see effort made to keep impervious surface coverage no more than 35%. It has been documented that
watersheds that exceed about 10% impervious surface have water quality problems associated with stormwater
runoff.
Eagle Creek Villas LLC Variances
The subject lot area (5534 square feet) is less than 75% of the 7500 square foot minimum lot size by city ordinance,
and about 37% of the minimum lot size and 53% the lot width for a sewered lot on a Recreational Development
Lake as per state minimum guidelines. It is assumed the lot has been in separate ownership from the adjacent
Lot15 since the ordinance was adopted, otherwise the lot must be combined.
Modification to the building dimensions could eliminate the impervious surface variance. A structure about 3.5
feet shorter than that proposed would get impervious surface to conform to the ordinance requirement, eliminating
one of three variances. Please consider requiring same.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed variances. If you have any questions, please
call me at 651-772-7917.
Sincerely,
\-d
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 . 1-888-646.6367 . TrY: 651-296-5484 . 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste
02/04/1997 21:40
6072774631
DAVID FELDSHJH
PAGE 01
EXHIBIT E RESIDENT LETTER
..
Dayid Feldshllh
14612 Oakland Beach Avenue, SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55371
Fax: 612~447-4245
Subject: 14624 Oakland Beach Ayenue; Planning Commission meeting ofSepteOlber 15,
2000
I have owned the property at 14612 Oakland Beach Avenue since 1979.
I do not support granting a variance to allow a house to be built on a property with less than the
required 50 feet of lakeshore at 14624 Oakland Beach. Unless the Planning Department intends
to offer similar future variances in order to increase housing density (3 houses where there arc
now 2) granting the prescnt variance request is not a wise precedent. It promotes the notion that
an owner of two sixty foot lots can now tear down those dwellings and erect three houses each
with fotty feet of lakeshore. This type of development serves neither the character nor the future
of Prior Lake. Furthermoret this particular area of Oakland Beach is already crowded and the
property in question was pllrchased with full knowledge that it was not a "buildableu lot.
There is no compelling reason for the Planning Dep~ent to abandon the SO foot regulation.
There aret on the other han~ a number of practical reasons to maintain a longstanding regulation
that has govemcd many others who have built lakeshore houses on Prior Lake in the past.
"
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4B
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO GRANT A 17.4 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ADDITION TO BE SETBACK
7.6 FEET FROM A FRONT PROPERTY LINE, A 15 FOOT
VARIANCE AND 13.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 10 FEET
AND 11.5 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINES ABUTTING
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS, AND A 91 SQUARE
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN INCREASED
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA OF 2,467 SQUARE FEET
(36.7%), (Case File #00-070)
16530 DUNKIRK AVE SE
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
The Planning Department received a variance application from Bob Dittman
for the proposed construction of a covered deck addition, porch additions, a
rebuilt garage addition to an existing single family dwelling, one new
accessory structure to replace two existing accessory structures (Exhibit A
Survey). The following variances are being requested:
1. A 17.4 foot variance to permit a covered deck addition to a principal
structure be setback 7.6 feet from the front property line rather than the
minimum required setback of 25 feet [City Ordinance 1102.405:
Dimensional Standards; (3,5)].
2. A 15 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 10
feet from a property line abutting a public street rather than the required
25 feet [City Ordinance 1102.800: Residential Performance Standards;
(8)].
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-I
3. A 13.5 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback
11.5 feet from a property line abutting a private street rather than the
required 25 feet [City Ordinance 1102.800: Residential Performance
Standards; (8)].
4. A 91 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface area of
2,467 square feet (36.7%) rather than the existing impervious surface
coverage area of 2,376 square feet (35.3%) [City Ordinance11 04.306:
Impervious Surface Coverage; (1)].
DISCUSSION:
Lot 11, Green Heights, was platted in 1928. The property is located within the R-
1 (Low Density Residential) and the SO (Shoreland Overlay) districts. The lot is
not riparian but has dedicated lake access rights. The applicant does not own
either of the adjacent parcels. The lot is approximately 50 feet wide and
approximately 135 feet deep with a total lot area of 6,721 square feet.
The first variance request regards a proposed covered deck addition that will
expand an existing nonconforming structure setback of 7.6 feet and continue for
9 feet to a projected setback of 7.9 feet from the property line abutting a public
street at its closest point. In addition, an 8 foot x 8.5 foot screened porch
addition is proposed along the interior side yard and is setback 5.6 feet which
complies with the minimum 5 foot setback permitted for substandard lots under
City Ordinance 1101.502: Required Yards/Open Space (8).
The existing structure includes a single car garage with driveway access on
Dunkirk Avenue. The attached floor plan submitted by the applicant also
proposes a new room addition over a proposed new rebuilt garage in place of
the existing garage and three-season porch (Exhibit B Building Plans).
However, this addition is not depicted on the survey submitted (Exhibit A
Survey). The Zoning Ordinance permits vertical expansion of nonconforming
structures provided no increase in encroachments or lessening of existing
setbacks are proposed. In this case, building up over the existing structure's
footprint (including eaves/overhangs) allows improvements to the structure while
not increasing existing setbacks so no variances are required.
The plans include a handicap accessible ramp, and complete replacement of the
existing structure's roof. The proposed garage and room addition and covered
decks do not encroach more than the existing garage/porch corner setbacks of
6.5 feet and 7.6 feet as proposed. However, the existing nonconforming setback
will be expanded horizontally by the proposed covered deck addition. Starting at
the existing house/garage corner setback of 7.6 feet and continuing for
approximately 14 feet to a proposed setback of 7.9 feet.
L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-070WRPTOO-070.DOC
Page 2
The second and third variance requests regard the removal of two existing
accessory structures (sheds) and the construction of one accessory structure 14
feet by 12 feet. The proposed accessory structure is shown with setbacks of 10
feet from the property line abutting Dunkirk Avenue (public street), and 13.5 feet
from the property line abutting Roosevelt Street (private street). The minimum
required setback for accessory structures is 25 feet from a property line abutting
a street [City Code 1102.800 Residential Standards (8)]. A legal alternative
site approximately 168 square feet in area exists near to the principal structure.
This site will accommodate a conforming accessory structure that avoids the
need for setback variance in this location.
The fourth variance request proposes increasing the existing impervious surface
area of 2,376 square feet (35.3%) by adding 91 square feet for a total of 2,467
square feet (36.7%) of proposed impervious surface area (Exhibit C Impervious
Surface Worksheet). The applicant could remove 91 square feet of bituminous
driveway to compensate for the new impervious surface and maintain existing
impervious conditions as permitted under City Ordinance 1104.306 Impervious
Surface Coverage (1).
The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this request for
variances and the letter is attached. In essence, the DNR objects to increasing
the impervious surface coverage as proposed (Exhibit D DNR Letter).
VARIANCE HARDSHIP S1 ANDARDS
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.
Regarding all submitted variance requests, undue hardship does not exist as
the nonconforming structure may be repaired and improved without
expanding, extending or intensifying the nonconformity (City Ordinance
1107.2303: Non-conforming Land Use; (2) Nonconforming Structures.
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.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-070\VRPTOO-070.DOC
Page 3
The conditions that apply to the structure and land are not peculiar to platted
subdivisions of this era.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
Improvements to the existing structure are possible without the requested
variances. There is also a legal alternative for the location of the accessory
building. The amount of impervious surface can be reduced to its current
level.
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.
Placement of the proposed accessory structure will affect the traffic visibility
at the intersection of Dunkirk and Roosevelt.
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 variance request does not appear to affect these conditions.
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 variances will be contrary to the intent of these
Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
Demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty is not apparent in this case.
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.
Application of the Ordinance provisions does not result in hardship.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-070\VRPTOO-070.DOC
Page 4
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
This condition does not appear to apply in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff has determined that the variance requests do not meet the
hardship criteria as described in conditions 1 thru 9. The requested variances
are contrary to City Ordinance 1107.2303: Special Requirements. (2)
Nonconforming Structures. a) Permitted Construction. Construction which does
not extend expand or intensify the nonconformity. Staff therefore recommends
denial of this request.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this
case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings approving the variance requests.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. In this case, the
Planning Commission should adopt the attached Resolution.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative #3.
Motion and second adopting Resolution 00-011 PC denying: 1) a 17.4 foot
setback variance to permit a covered deck addition to a principal structure be
7.6 feet from a front property line; 2) a 15 foot variance to permit an accessory
structure to be setback 10 feet from a property line abutting a public street; 3) a
13.5 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 11.5 feet from
the property line abutting a private street; 4) a 91 square foot variance to permit
increasing the existing impervious surface coverage area from 35.3% (2,376
square feet) to 36.7% (2,467 square feet).
L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-070WRPTOO-070.DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION 00-011PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 17.4 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 7.6 FOOT
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK TO A PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING A
STREET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT SETBACK. A 15 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 10 FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK
FROM A PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING A STREET RATHER THAN THE
REQUIRED 25 FEET. A 13.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 11.5 FEET FROM A PROPERTY LINE
ABUTTING A STREET, AND A 91 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT
AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA OF 2,467 SQUARE FEET (36.7%) RATHER
THAN THE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA OF 2,376 SQUARE
FEET (35.3%).
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Bob Dittman has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit
the construction of a covered deck additions to an existing single family dwelling and
detached accessory structure on property located in the R-l (Low Density
Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland) District at the following location, to wit;
16530 Dunkirk Avenue, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 11,
Green Heights, Scott County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat
thereof.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #00-070PC and held hearings thereon on September 25,2000.
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
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-070\dnyrs070.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
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed covered deck addition and accessory sructure increases the existing
encroachment into a front yard setback. The applicant has control over the house
design and shape, such that the hardship created has been created by the applicant.
Reasonable use of the property exists with a smaller building footprint.
6. While there is an existing structure on the lot, there is no justifiable hardship caused
as reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure
to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case #00-070PC 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 a future covered deck addition to a single family dwelling and
accessory structure (as shown in attached Exhibit A);
1. A 17.4 foot Variance to permit a 7.6 foot principal structure setback from a front
property line instead of the required 25 foot front yard setback.
2. A 15 foot Variance to permit 10 foot setback for an accessory structure rather than the
required 25 feet setback from a property line abutting a public street.
3. A 13.5 foot variance to permit an 11.5 foot setback for an accessory structure rather
than the required 25 feet setback from a property line abutting a private street.
4. A 91 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface area of 2,467 square
feet (36.7%) rather than the existing impervious surface area of 2,376 square feet
(35.3%).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 25, 2000.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-070\dnyrs070.doc
2
L.J""'.... '-"", 1 I......
SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (6/2) 447-2570
16530 DUNKIRK AVENUE
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
\
\ /.~.C"1. /'"
/ 900.1
~ \'~.'
/ ~O'.
/'"
EXHI~IT A SURVEY ~
,,,6
0....
0013 q\6' 6"" .
~f(j 1 ~q;
~O.~~.
~O.
~~~\"
~C;
y.. f(, \ ~ y..
!].
/
9~9 ,19
1.
~
II>
'(JI
(JI
'\ ..
II' ....
./
/'
~
'(JI
~
~
ll~"
'i<0
~Gf.
G~'" f.'"
~,,~\l.,
<f>' ..
.-:'"!I;" );~
.~
9~':\
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 11, GREEN HEIGHTS, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of
all visible improvements and encroachments on to or off from said property if any as
of this 14th day oOuly, 2000.
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 948.20 T.N.H. @ se quad. Dunkirk & Green Hts.
Trail.
951.6 Denotes existing grade elevation
x
Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
--.. Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage
20
REV. 917/00 TO SHOW 10' SHED SETBACK.
...."'Contractor to verify house dimensions prior to construction....'" REV. 8128/00 TO SHOW CHANGE TO SHEDS.
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that
...._.___"--'~_~_..J ~_________....._.IftLf_f".
o
40
EXHIBIT B PLANS
r ..,.-
'-N'/!'W I
I
~ : :
I 1\
---'~r~~
5f'i r/~r;{ s
FF:.DNT-ELE:VAT1.CU:J.~ .
.Sc:...Al.e ~~ r c:.?
rn
_'.N'~.
~.;;/b~':'lck B'7CN
~ ~/,~....
IT1 rn
~l
,
I
I
\ -
\
I
I
r..)Q'.s..z:L~~
F?-Ic>NT a..C:VATIQN
~/ I J,.
',1~ -
Pt.,,"-.bC:_
l".ANb'~ -
i
I
Ll-
,
i
c.,., UI ~ b ~j
I 1 ~-l ~ ~!
I ~I
I ~ '! i
,
r--~ - ",
"'...: iith ~i lJ\'
c-f'J ...
...,.. Q>
i !;! ~ ~ ~ ~
I - f!'
~ -{ :>-
I n ~ ~ ~
~.
~
~
. ,
I
-
ct-,
~-
"'"
)\
"\
}
~
L
~
i
>., ,
~
~
2
i
~
\
j
j
~
:-A.
16'
I'
I
~
I/\.
~'
I
~
"i
\
.
'/)''/1(...1''/ ~::J. ,..
J:n-Z~~f' 3,., r ._'.!.__ ~g,
c:.~R:- .~."l-~~G.:._---==-
.......,l(l..:::.c.c:c.......-=e..~ .
<9- "':1~ 8c"7::IJ~ .
Z ~ ~o-
-I,
1.3 'o~
i
I
I
~
1~'
r fJ---
H
l~ ~] ~ ~
~ "~t ~ :
~ ~~ ~ ~
~ I "," R 'I
.1 " ., f
II ___1___:,
~- - -==..;::-~
--. p '-I
'(I""~ ~ !
: I.!.~^"'<
, "'~" ~
I:s~~ ~
l'l~: 0 I
P ,,",. 'k ,,:t;., ,.J
I' ~.,.rr~=_ '-o~~:-~,..... 7':C;#;lT ;
-.-- "---.--.
N1=G., R"l""T"4">ll:.
-----.-,
-,~I,
~i ;~:~bCU"
., :~ " .... ?4'f' "
-. ,I: I I
::'~: k
, I
,: 17"
ii
I~
.-=-..-8
I r
I ,..
I ,..
I
i
I
!
.~
::<;
\i
~
'\
;
i
r,'\
!,..
io
I,
f-
! r
, f~
j ~
I .'
It-
! I <
i I ~~
i I~,
!~ ,I ~.' ~i~
I" I ~ t ..
! () I ~ ; ~
, · I~ II '
It'l t\
Ie; ~
! '
~
I
I~ I
II,
iO
/'
~
----.
I' G,,:! (:7,.:;-::. _:.
....
"" ..- --_.-. -. -. .
Z.;".:e"
~~~"~~'~~ -~<~
~-;~'-'"N.
rL<::,=<..: ~c.O''-'''''t::.I)..Lqs/7'
'::::1"7"' rt -.or".sr-/Nt::' f'+O(J ~e:
:::....
\.~.
i I
,I ~
~ ~ ?!! ~
~! ;!TI ~
~ i ~..
^', '" i ...
~ ;fi):'
~ i n:~ ~
" ! ~......
/I' [;
~ )-
: I r
~~ r
t:>~
~"\'\
Ill,
~~.
I}
f
I
:I :J.. l:' !-I<<tc{cl' 17" t'" """'.(, ....', _.1
D~J"""'-;CC ~'CAD-~W-.._ rl
----,
If'I
(-
.;
...
l
11,
ft)
li\~
:'f:s
ij~
~
~~
~ I~
~
~
\
tv
~:
61
II
i,
'!
t
,k
G:: <: "
'" :.1':. .
/~.:o-
"-
I
,,1_-
.z...,z. \.oc:...__
~
i
,
i-:
I
)
I
: j
--- _.....~
i'
iuJ
~~ ~
..c.T- '"
~~ R
}~ l:!
,tI' ~..
~ ~ k
, ~
.:;~ R
Ii
--';
:"
~
LI\
~
~
~
D
R
~
f~-
I
. Ai;':' '-',.., f J"t.
:/,"'-1;::;'1.0,,,)
~ -n ~ ],.,...,
~ ~ ~ ~;~
~ ~ .:: ~;
, ... =.-
- ,,,,\ -:;: :.'::'
r -' ,.." '\
"
- .
'(;.,.
~'~.'
'"
'-.
,.
(' ,
~
('
~'
.'
-,
-.::
"
:, .
,
-
{;..",,;:.,.', E~.I';''''', ......-::/ l
/..;" /".;. I:" ~ :.,/.. 'it.
/
---L
t.'>ii:":':":':':~'l':.L.~.'{-."..;<.,::.'::.':~:~ii'~::-':. '.~~:'~~'t~~'. ..-i'~~&~ :....::~:\~~. cii~' ...~. ". (<e.p(~<,~,:_:',".:~,~~",\.t.J.~"~"..
- ..l\c,..s. ... Q -0 00 ..... .' : .. ..,'. " . -'.. . . .... "...
\ ."t~'~'.\:~: :..s.\'\;;~,:"':+::"(.~~>:':-'i ,,<~~,~'::r~'f ":';/~~~~" :to: '.' ~~..'. ..~-50 .~+~ : ..: 0 ~.~.~: .:... .::......
. '. ..~ .;. ""',":.. ...,.... '.' '" .... ......:.. ..... ...., <:.". CITY"otfPRrOR LAKE . "';'"
. '.,;:."'::;';{..::;":;.:>i~~e~ous~urfltceCalcUlatious' ... ... . . ..... .:. "':.
:....::...:.......::;::.........::.~:.:"'.UJ.DIT..:(!~::~~.raitil~~..~rVi~Ji~~o~~.I.iR: cA.C...E:.... ....:; . .... : ." : .
'....: ....:...":.;....~.~.~l.l?rp~~ellJll::lreIQ~V~~WQ)l~~'..K. .' ,:.'. ::.' '.::'. .
..... .:~. .:'. .: :.~. .:.'the,'!YfaXiirit,th1' ~iTIpervfo'.u"{$uifac.e..C..oy~r.age Pe'rinItted' in'3 0 Pe~ce~t. ". . ....;....
.;~6R~~~~:d~;~s~'t~.s~~5'.~\>n\<;~id~~~. ..... ..... . ..' '.' .' ___
;.' . '. "
.' ;'. . " .~
1. '. '. .: -. : . " !. ~ ,.. "
:.;::~ot.~e.a..:::':);tb12\.:.,..:...: .:.~:::.O':..:~:,.:-<..:..;..->....$.q.Fe.it>.{.30~:= u:...~..:.......:-z.o::\ ~. ... ':'. .
. .:, **.*>fC lje lje ljIlje 1jI +* **'14 lIC'* l{4l/i*=loi<ljI~**.+lfc lfc* l{4 *.'\C.* * **l/l* ,fll{c.***** ** ****l\C * * * ** *.**.* *** * * *-* * ** 'Ii.,
. ...:. '..~'.: '. ..~~': ..':":::':'::..'::~:~/;' ;~. .": ....:L~~OTif.:... .:,' '. :.'WI~'!~.'~.:. .:.:..:.:'....:... SQ'. FEET .... . ". ".' . ..>:..;:.::....
':i~~f~,~;' ,;;;\,,~f;'::;(.;'. ; ..,.... .....';.. ..:.... . ':' .':' ..... .
;':'ATTACHED.GARAGE ....... ...... .'. .,: .... ..' x.. ,':' ':......." '.=
. .,..... ...... .,.."....... ...,:f>.),;::::-:.~>.::;.+;TiLpRi.N~;PLE::S.T~uctfu.;~.;..~fU:";.:;:';,,:;"" :'\~~\~'
',';;:b~.~.:.'~~. : HE. . :'6 B-L6'd'~ . ....:.::..)~;;{~;?~..!}.;;>;.<,'D<.l,'~J:.~. ..",. .... ...... .' .::",' .' ~ . , .' '.' 4";;" . "C
;.;...J" '. 'I", ....~'... . ...... :. 'P".' '..:d.,~... "~"'. . '. ~ ':~""'o\Ml.
. c>'..;'>< (~tg~" >.'::,.':'. <~:s ~';l~;'...'. '. .'....... .;' . It' ..... . '~:.' ;... ." .' ":., '::. ::s;;.~~t.~
.'. ,:',:,";,.:,.:' ..:',. .~..:..":".'" ....:.:TOT~PEfJ\C~~DBV1~DINGS...........;~~...:...~~.....:...\'1.~..,.. . .', . .,'....
;b~v~iiYIP~ViD:~X~\;~>;;.;/;,'!:."t,;'~<';:,! ~,~.& .~: . . ." '. c'.;.. .... . . . ,'. .'
6;f'; .(l?r.iyeway~pav~d..~~...,jo9.~:...: :.... :.' :.: :.,:x...... .:'~=." '..' '
~~~:""(~l.deWalkIParkin'~.Ari:as~i!f':'~:;.:'.' " :.:,'.. ~;-/'.' .....,. .:....:.~,~<. "'3~'\:P.. . . . '.. . .' .'.
"." ..'.;-...\.::....T01' AL PA YED AREAS...i.....;..........;......fU~...:fU;;... ,. 'H~;Z: ..' .....
,F~tib$jp6RCa$S~~c~~f\;;./,: ;x,' c.', _ .'. '.' .... .... .... ....... . . .:......... .
.:" (Op'eri)J'ei:ks:..V.:.~j.n:'op'e"lrigbehyeeri'.;'." .. . '.' ; .' ',. .)\' ,<,:' .,~ '.:.......'.,: 0:.= ~'.. ';'
:::'.-,"l>'oaraSi wlth~.pei'viollS.~urfacebeJ6w,...>. "'.' . ....... . '. . . ....
":. . ale no~c?n*ered rq..beimp~rV.i~Us.?' > " ..... . . .' ..... '. ..' '. .
'. .. ..,;" .:-........ ..,::....... ..<x;.':..... '. '.,:::. .....
. '. -.'
..... " .: :.',.....:..;,; :.:: ::.:.:-::;..;::..':...:...::.... :...... .:. '.' ....: . '. '.'
..... :':. :,,:':..~T~~.A..L D E GKs.!.....i~..........................;..;...........;....... '.' ,
. . . ".
~ ': - '. ..." I . "
:' " ,-
;.
.:: ~'
....., "
.... ....,.
.... .:.'
'. . ".
"" ':.. .
'.
. ....,' .
. '. " .'
..:9:~(H]:';R",;,.:';:" .
,>. '.
. ....:
":::" -:.,: '....x'::'" .
...... 0"'- ",
. .... ',.
. ,:';'- 0 '.': :'X ...".",.'
. ~'" "':'~.'.:'.\." ...... .' :./:;:~....foiALOT:H~~.~:.::~:j.~?..~.;'..;..:..;;~...;.:;;'....~..;:.~....;.:......~.;... . :.' .... ..' ,
',' ", ..' ,'. '.:.. ':" ..'.' ",~' ';" .... ',.'..... ,':"', . ~:,':' " ~ ;"',: '. . . ". .. ,
."r.qT AL.:l1yi~E~VI9tis:OSVRJfACE.:..._.~'. .:... .. ,.."",. ,.... .~.
.:.'.~6~~'~.;"~i....::...>~.'..:.........;.:.:>.. ", ..... ..' .:'.
l'reFk~.c1:ri'0,:D!>.,"~~~~~' .. ..... ..... . . ..... . . .' .' .... ....
'C6ihPan;:;.":.....?2;j)<~>>,';t,.,~ '.' .~, 'Phon~#" ~\l;~~i.';''16 . .'~ .....: . .'. .
~.o:~ .;:::c':~~~;i:.~..~\;~.....:;:;4~~~.r :'.:,'::;~.'f .....;CC\>. :"f~~eo$~&. . ~Ol TI.O~5.~...\;~.'e~~\ci~ S
~~2.~'~~; :'~~i<.~6."~\\\ '" \htY--et,(~~.'~\ :SCi~~'';~A\C.:-'...,.~..L...L...\_'A _~_.<.'_' 'u~:,..~'.. rl.. '.~.I_-
" .' .'
",.,
.: ."
",':-.
-
EXHIBIT D DNR LETTER
Minnesota Department of ~a:lural Resources
Merro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (651) 772..7910 Pax: (651) 772"7977
Sepl.ember JR. 200()
Steve Horsman, 7"'(.lning Adrninistrat.or
City flf Prior Lake
16200 Elrlgle Creek A venue SE
Prior I.ake. Minnesola 55372-1714
R E: I >iullulT\ Sethack/lmperviouli Surfac.c Val'iance amJ Bagle Creek Vi Ilns LLC Imp~rvious Surface V Hrianct::.
Prior Lake
Dear Mr. HOl'sOlan:
I have reviewed ("he materials you sent relalive to th~ subject. variance requesLs und offer the following CUTnlllenll'i
for consideral.ion.
Bob Dittman V llriance,
Would like [0 see the proposed 36.7% impervioull surface reduced. The city a1Jows ur II.' 30% impervious, which
is 5% more than the 25% allowable per state shoreland rules. Is the shed a n(:eessiry? Can any of the ex.isting
bituminolls driveway be remuved to reduce hard surface'? AlLhaugh nol. oppos.::d lu the proposed variance, [)NR
wuuld like tu see crfon mllde tu keep impervious surface coverage no more than 35%. It has been documented that
wlltersheds tha~ c}tceed ~buut 10% imp~rvjouli surface have water qualit.y problems ltsliociated WiLh storm water
runoff.
Eagle Creek Villas LI.C V Mriances
The subject lot are~\ (5534 square feet) is less tha.n 75% or the 7500 square foot minimum lot Si7.c by city ordinance,
and about 37% uf the minimum 1m si7.e and 53% the lot width for 8 sewered lot on a Recreational Development
Lake as per state minimum guidelines. It is assumed the lot has been in separate ownership from the adjacent
Lot 15 since the ordinance was adopted, otherwise the lot must be combined.
Modification to the building dimension:> could eliminate the hnpcrvious surface variance. A structure about 3.5
feel shorter than that proposed would get il1\p~rviouli surface: to conform to the ordinance requirement, elitninating
one uf three variances. Please consider requiring same.
Thank )'ou fur the opportunity to review llnd commentlln the prnl'osed variances. If y~'u have any qucstimu., pkusc
callmc at 65 1-772-7917.
DNR Infurmation: 65\-296.6157 · l-tcKK-646-6367 . 'ITY; 65J..29h-;'i4H4 . I KOO-Ci57-3929
An (;:qual OPllllrlllUily E.lIlployer
Whn Vnlucs l)i\":r~I\Y
".'i.'J-. "rtnhld on Rt,,:y\:lcll rapcr ('.ollllllllllll: a
'to.. ..;$ Mi'Iirnum olr 1(/% "051.(.'0"''''''':' W~sl"
- - ..- - ',.-- .. .~-
. .
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE A 10' WIDE
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON
OUTLOT B, THE WILDS 4TH ADDITION
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_YES X NO-N/A
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
Outlot 8, The Wilds 4th Addition, was originally platted in September, 1997. As is
common in all new subdivisions, the plat dedicated a 10' wide drainage and
utility easement along the outer boundaries of the property. Shamrock
Development, the property owner, is requesting the vacation of the 10' wide
easement located along the west property boundary of the outlot. The purpose
of this petition is to allow the platting of this property into new lots.
On September 18, 2000, the City Council approved a final plat to be known as
The Wilds 5th Addition. This plat includes Outlot 8, as well as approximately 10
acres to the west. The plat subdivides the property into 37 lots for single family
dwellings. The existing easement would run through the middle of several of
these lots.
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.
Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate
easement or right-of-way by resolution. The statute also states "no such
vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the public interest to do so".
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?
1:\OOfiles\OOvac\OO-069\OO-069 pc report. 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
"v
Comprehensive Plan Review
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss utility easements, other
than as a function of ensuring access to public utilities. The vacation of this
easement is not inconsistent with any specific goal or objective of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Public Need
There are no utilities located within this easement. The approval of The Wilds 5th
Addition dedicates the necessary easements to serve this property.
RECOMMENDA liON
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is satisfied by the dedication of drainage
and utility easements in The Wilds 5th Addition. Furthermore, the City does not
require the existing easement with the dedication. of the new plat. The Planning
staff therefore recommends approval of this request.
AL lERNA liVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the proposed vacation of the
easement as presented or with changes recommended by the
Commission.
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.
RECOMMENDA liON:
Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the vacation of the
easement as requested.
1:\OOfiles\OOvac\OO-069\OO-069 pc report. doc
2
..
.
____~'!S3'43.E ..
S01.6a ----.
, ~
,. u
~ r1 E
386.1)
".
!Xl
-~~~--- ~,~~~~C:.~'er.~j'----~--
o
- - -- -~f;i.:~--~ h - - - - - ~7J:l-"~ -_ ~~'-
~ ...\...$
--oo_ S57.0J _.,/ .
588'08'20.E
~ r---.--T---.----~
~: (~:~# _ i ''';:4~ ~ i
I ,.., ~ I . /...... :
~----:>. :l!~--j
: ., ~! ':/t- I
....~('. "'
g I '~'>. ; i .,:>-!
~ L_______i._______J
8~
;)0
3:l ~
~~.
~;r::::
~!"
{J)
()
! . :.-
f;;
. Z
l!
.~ .i ...,
l"l
~
if;:!
;~-=(,JI'
0. Q. 3' c -
g3i~;
;"~:'3
ftO':7
!i!il
r-: &,!.'
~-l;.~
w ::J 0. 0
~'.a (I" Q
0_ 2. ~
fPl
~.-! ~
i i
i I
Ii
II
I
1
I
i
I 'ir~ ~fe
I ,~in
i ~~ i!;Y
. ..
.. .;!~
J; 1f~
, ,
@ i
,.
"
J ~~
le~ l..
#~p_ Nll8'40'~2'W I ,~
,,- ~ 1949.15 ---~ , , :Ii
/'~ -. -r" --i::..lL.-- -. - --
i~s
'''~
~!:Iq
!!!
-~ <---
.
I
,
I
I
1--..
,
I
I
P1
;)0
VI
~O
~~
iilf;
~ _L ~~
r r P1~
VlO
:I:
oc
~F
:l~
c
~
I
I
r-"
I
I
I
,
NO>
zm
C>~
~~
g~
2~
~a>
S?~
:~
~~
~~
C>z
Zt:
~z
:;jm
~I;l
~g
~6
,,~
,!~~i!; it
H I :~~~
:;:~g.~~13
~a~-;g~i!
tg'~ ~:&i
~3~ ~~I2.
~i: g~lf
a~ Q~$~
;g i!~;
1'5 .~~'<
I;l'"
~~
.:1:
o~
~~
;i
:<
"
,
\
,
\
\
\
\ ~
\
, ~
\ \~~
\ t::rj
..t1!..\ ~.
.... .., ,'it.-
':~\ ~
.~\ ~ ~
" i _0 ~
I ll:~ t"'"4
I -< 0
I I . ~~ t:::l
I I ~ C
I -l '" en.
r
, 0
-l
() ~
<:..' ~
~
'...:\ >
t:::l
t::1
~
~
-
0
Z
I
I
I
I
, Y
If:>.:o
/jg~
I~li~ <:..'
"
,
,
I
,
-\ <:..'
\
I
,
'i.
I,
1~' -'
!~
I
'.
~~
o
~
H
:H
'.;~
~>
~i\
..
I 101 Wloe:
V EASeMer-Jr
I TI ,....
I r tto'P~o '0
v~
'Be
~J
~e -,
"l!" "
"'0- 1i
'I'" 0 <:..'
'" . c
;:I
0
-l
lD f"
.
Si
~l
;~
h ,
3~ ~ '
\",'-. ~; .
~~.,jPi ~
.~ t
$. I
~. I
.' I
I
~:
~I
::II
I
~I
ill
I
r
I
I
I
_---- - - -- _2.!!'!E_ ____ _ _____J
52_4'
I
f--
I
~
~
L
~1'8
- ,
c ~
~ ,
j'
o
g
~
,.
~
~
51
c
~
~
I;
.'
"
L
__.~:>=M
4:"52
SOUfH lJ"'1' OF OUtlOT t: ~_-
650.07
NB,,04Q'S2.W
.,=1...." II 1 ~IL:)C.-:--r '/'....1""\ ;:,.~ ~",'
'::...~~_.r.~_:_::~r_:~L.-_~__!2\...i, I \L./. ~~~ 1
~- .-------..- - -': ---.---.
'.
I(>i~
8i'~
,,,:
I
J
,'c
~ . .!~.r=;~:o~~~.
" "'!~-;
-, ~~
~~~
~
~