Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 27, 2000 - - - - - - - -- - -- -- ------------------- - -- REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 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 #00-077 Angie Marie Cawley is requesting variances to lot area, impervious surface area, minimum structure setbacks and yard encroachment within 5 feet of an adjoining lot for the property located at 4260 Grainwood Circle. B. Case File #00-079 Brian and Heather Compton are requesting variances for impervious surface area, minimum structure setbacks and encroachments to within 5 feet of an adjoining lot for the property located at 16466 Inguadona Beach Circle. C. Case File #00-078 Robert Jader is requesting variances for a minimum structure setback, less than allowed combined side yards, and encroachment less than 5 feet of an adjoining lot for the property located at 14962 Pixie Point Circle. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. Case #00-080 Freedom Development & Consulting, LLC is requesting an Amendment and a Final Plat to allow the construction of 102 units for senior and assisted living housing for the property located at the north end of the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and priorwood Street. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: L:\OOfILE.s..\OOPLCOMM\OOps;t-~GI12700.DOC 16200 Eagle creek Ave. ~.c.. Priod_"ke, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ----- -------------------- - - - ---- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2000 DRAFT 1. CalUo Order: Chainnan V onhof called the November 13, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Tbose present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Criego Stamson V onhof Present Absent Present Present Planning Director Don Rye and Commissioner Criego arrived shortly after the opening for the public hearing. 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the October 23, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Public Hearings: Commissioner Vonhofread the Public Hearing Statement and opened the first meeting. A. Case File #00-076 City of Prior Lake is considering a proposed Amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is to amend the Land Use Map from the current R-L/MD (Urban Low to Medium Density Residential) designation to the C-BO (Business Office Park) designation for the property located in Section 24, Township 115, Range 22. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 13, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated as R-LIMD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Planning commission initiated this amendment at the request of the City Council to replace the 20 acres ofJand owned by Shepberd of the Lake Church that was recently changed from the C-BO designation to the R-HD designation. The purpose of the amendment is to maintain the available supply of commercially designated land. L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNl 1 1300.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 17, 2000 The purpose ofthis amendment is to identify those properties most suitable for future commercial development. The amendment would not affect the current zoning of the property or the current use ofthe property. The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives applicable to this request are as follows: GOAL: ECONOMIC VITALITY: Pursue a prudent use of available resources and the optimum functioning of economic systems. . OBJECTIVE No.1: Determine and strive for a balance of commerce, industry, and population. OBJECTIVE No.2: Encourage a diversified economic base and a broad range of employ- ment opportunities. OBJECTIVE No.3: Promote sound land use. Staff recommended approval of the Amendment as requested. DRAFT Comments from the public: Ed Gregory lives approximately 1000 feet from the property. Mr. Gregory questioned which way would the services be coming in and assessment costs. His other concerns were for the high traffic on County Road 42, adequate setbacks and the future intersection. Mr. Gregory would like to be on a list for any future rezonings. Kansier responded the services were in place on County Road 42. At this time the City has no plans of extending the services. The City Engineer would be able to answer the approximate cost. Kansier went on to explain the business office requirements. John Nugent, 13855 Crest, questioned if this is part ofthe 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the time line. Kansier responded it was developer driven and up to the property owners when they sell the land. Nugent commented on the growing businesses in the surrounding communities and felt this intersection had to become some kind of a thoroughfare, but not residential. His main interest was the time line. Kansier responded on time lines and developments. Paula Jenkins, lives on the comer of County Roads 42 and 18, stated she is not opposed to the change and questioned the process. V onhof explained the Comprehensive Plan land use 20 years out. Kansier explained the development process. Christopher Williams, 5671 Cedarwood Street, said one of his concerns was the high traffic on County Road 42. Williams questioned if the City has taken a look at how they are going to maintain the integrity of the residential neighborhood (Sand Pointe) stating L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNI1 1300.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 17. 2000 traffic noise would get worse. He supported the City's growth but said had he known of this proposal for development, he would have never moved into the neighborhood. Mike Orrie,5607 Cedarwood Street, said staff did not respond to Mr. Williams question on maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood. V onhof said the County controls County Road 42. Kansier explained commercial buffering and landscaping and that County Road 42 has been recently upgraded. Orrie questioned maintaining the woods. Kansier spoke of the City's Tree Preservation and Landscaping Ordinances. Orrie also questioned when the area was originally designated "Residential". Rye explained the original designation was adopted in 1982 and amended in 1995 to "Low/Medium Residential". The City Council requested the Planning Commission to come up with 20 acres of land to be used for commercial uses. Orrie asked if the City Council would vote on this amendment. Kansier said this amendment could go to the City Council December 4th and on to the Metropolitan Council. Jamie Gapinski, 5654 Cedarwood Street, questioned ifthis area could be rezoned to commercial in the future. Kansier responded it could always happen. Anyone has the right to come in and make an application for rezoning. She went on to explain this is not a rezoning but a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Gapinski questioned the business classifications for Office Park. Kansier explained businesses allowed in an Office Park designation. Guy Beck, 5634 Cedarwood Street, presented a photo of his back yard adjoining County Road 42 and felt there were no adequate barriers. His other concerns were for the trees on County Road 42, the entrances and buffering. V onhof stated all of these issues would be addressed at a future time when the actual development went in. Ed Gregory said he used to commute around the seven county area and dreaded driving around Scott County stating there are no good roads. Mr. Gregory went on to tell the Commissioners not to make decisions until Scott County made road improvements and had knowledge of a good system. -Paula Jenkins, said she understood Mr. Gregory's concern and said the traffic has been noisy. Prior Lake is behind Shakopee and Savage in commercial development. Her property has been used and abused by snowmobilers and others. She feels she is on two main thoroughfares and it is part of the process of development. Comments from the Commissioners: DRAFT Stamson: . A number of concerns have been addressed. The Commissioners reviewed the corridor to replace property that went from commercial to residential use. Only after much consideration the Commissioners felt this particular piece was most appropriate. . This smaller piece of property is not going to bring all the traffic down County Road 42. In comparison to an R1 District and the traffic it generates, the traffic L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNl 1 1300.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 17, 2000 generated by commercial development may be more or less, depending on the type of use. · This intersection is a more appropriate use for business office park use. · Supported the change. Atwood: · Questioned staff if one resident refuses to sell, does the Comprehensive Plan have to be amended? Kansier responded it would not and explained the development process. · Pointed out that she lives by the existing office park that does not have a buffer, yet it makes for a good neighbor. · The traffic on County Road 42 is already present. Agreed with Stamson that a lot of acreage will produce differences in traffic. · Does not feel her property values lowered and does not feel it would be a huge Issue. · Encouraged the neighborhood to stay involved with the process. Talk to staff and the developers about your concerns. · Concurred this area is a good amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Criego: · The Commission has reviewed this and felt because of the location, it probably fits best as a business office park. · Prior Lake does need more businesses. It makes sense to the Commissioners with the traffic to use this parcel. It does not remove a large number of homes, yet it provides 30 plus acres for development. · Agreed with Atwood that this is only the start ofthe process. This is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. A far cry from development of the property. · All the Commissioners are suggesting to the people who come into the community that this particular space could be developed as office space or light industrial. It does not commit the City or the existing property owners to selling. There are several processes that take place after the amendment. · Concurred with Commissioner Atwood to stay involved when and ifthis property is developed. · Agreed with Commissioners to amend. DRAFT V onhof: · Thanked everyone for coming and offering their comments. · The Commissioners look at situations city-wide with the Comprehensive Plan and what fits together. · Because ofthe intersection of these two major roadways, this property has potential for this type of land use. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE 33.5 ACRES OF L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN111300.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 17. 2000 LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 115, RANGE 22 FROM R1 (RESIDENTIAL) TO BUSINESS OFFICE PARK. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go before the City Council on December 4, 2000. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: . Kansier passed out meeting schedules for December and January. . The City Council appointed Vaughn Lemke to fill the Planning Commissioner vacancy. . Rye said staffis going to have a workshop the early part of the year and asked the Commissioners to think about what topics and issues the Commissioners would like to discuss. . Stamson recommend meeting more often with the City Council on a joint workshops. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: DRAFT The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNIl1300.doc 5 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 4sA CONSIDER A REQUEST TO GRANT A 2.3 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 22.7 FEET FROM A PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING A STREET; A 5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 5 FEET, A 1 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EAVE ENCROACHMENT; A 1.66 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EAVE ENCROACHMENT; AND A 582.6 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA OF 2,847 SQUARE FEET (37.7%), (Case File #00-077) 4260 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE NE STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR _X_ YES NO NOVEMBER 27, 2000 The Planning Department received a variance application from Angie Marie Cawley for the proposed construction of a 24 ft. by 24 ft. detached accessory structure (garage) on a lot with an existing single family dwelling. The following variances are being requested: 1. A 2.3 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 22.7 feet from a property line abutting a public street rather than the required 25 feet [City Ordinance 1102.800: Residential Performance Standards; (8)]. 2. A 5 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 5 feet from a rear property line rather than the required 10 feet [City Ordinance 1102.800 Residential Performance Standards (8)]. 3. A 1 foot variance to permit an accessory structures eave to encroach 4 feet from a side lot line rather than the required 5 feet [City Ordinance 1101.503 Yard Encroachments (1)]. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER '" 4. A 1.66 foot variance to permit an accessory structures eave to encroach 3.33 feet from a rear lot line [City Ordinance 1101.503 Yard Encroachments (1)]. 5. A 582.6 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface area of 2,847 square feet (37.7%) rather than the allowable impervious surface coverage area of 2,264.4 square feet (30%) [City Ordinance11 04.306 Impervious Surface Coverage; (1 )). DISCUSSION: Lot 6, Subdivision of Outlot A, Grainwood Park, was platted in 1946. The property is located within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the SO (Shoreland Overlay) districts. The lot is not riparian but is a corner lot. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels. The lot is 51.7 feet wide at the rear property line, approximately 68 feet at the widest point and 125 feet deep at the interior lot line with a total lot area of 7,548 square feet. The existing principal structure is setback 50 feet and 30.1 feet from the two property lines abutting Grainwood Circle. However, the principal structure is only 3.2 feet from the interior side property line and is considered a nonconforming structure (Exhibit A Survey). The proposed 576 square foot detached accessory structure is to be used as a garage because there is no existing garage on the subject lot (Exhibit B Garage Plan). The proposed structure is setback 22.7 feet from a property line abutting a street at its closest point and requires a 2.3 foot variance to comply with a minimum 25 foot setback to a property line abutting a street [Ordinance Section 1102.800 Residential Performance Standards (8)]. The second variance request for 5 feet is to permit a 5 foot setback to the rear property line. The minimum rear yard setback for an accessory structure is 10 feet [Ordinance Section 1102.800 Residential Performance Standards (8)]. The applicant's reason for this location is to save the existing oak tree in the rear yard. The removal of the oak tree would allow the structure to be relocated 10 feet from the rear line and eliminate this variance request. In addition, the structure is proposed to be setback 5 feet from the interior side yard. This complies with the one minimum 5 foot setback permitted for substandard lots [Ordinance Section 1101.502: Required Yards/Open Space (8)]. However, with the structure wall setback at 5 feet the eaves will encroach 1 foot into the required 5 foot side yard. L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-077\VRPTOO-077 .DOC Page 2 The third and fourth variance requests are needed because the eaves encroach into the required 5 foot yard area to the side lot line. The attached garage plan submitted by the applicant proposes eaves/overhangs of 1 foot on the side lot line and 1.66 feet on the rear lot line (Exhibit B Garage Plan). The City Code permits a 5 foot structure setback provided no encroachments are within the 5 foot minimum setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard Encroachments (1). The two encroachment variances could be eliminated by moving tne garage 1.66 feet closer to the existing dwelling, and 1 foot closer to the street and revise the street side variance to 3.3 feet). A legal alternative site exists nearer to the principal structure. This site will accommodate a conforming accessory structure that avoids the need for 3 of the 5 requested variances. The fifth variance request is for 518.6 square feet to permit an impervious surface area of 2,783 square feet (36.8%) by adding 576 square feet to the existing surface area of 2,207 square feet (29.2%). However, Grainwood Circle encroaches onto the subject lot for a total of 939 square feet as depicted on the survey and noted on the impervious area worksheet (Exhibit C ImperviOUS Surface Worksheet). The applicant is not responsible for this condition and by crediting this encroachment area of 939 sq. ft., the total impervious surface area would be 1,844 square feet (24.4%) and within the allowable 30% as permitted under city code [Ordinance Section 1104.306 ImperviOUS Surface Coverage (1)]. An 8 ft. by 8 ft. hot tub was recently added to the site prior to completion of the survey. This adds 64 sq. ft. to the proposed impervious surface area for a total coverage area of 2,847 sq. ft. (37.7%), and 1908 sq. ft. (25.2%) when credited for the street encroachment. The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this variance request and the note is attached. In essence. the DNR believes attempts should be made to keep the impervious surface coverage no greater than 35% (Exhibit D DNR Comments). This would require eliminating approximately 204 square feet from the proposed impervious surface coverage. Finally, city staff has inspected the subject property and determined additional items will need to be addressed at the time of building permit application, such as drainage, and the surrounding grade with slopes exceeding 3 to 1 on the south and west sides of the garage. Retaining walls will be needed in these locations for the accessory structure as proposed. VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS Page 3 L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-077\VRPTOO-077 .DOC 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 variance requests 1 and 5, undue hardship does exist, as the platted lot of record is substandard in dimensions and area, the city street encroaches onto the subject property, and the subject lot has no garage. Regarding variance requests 2,3,4, an alternative legal building site does exist without the need for rear setback and encroachment variances. 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 conditions that apply to the structure and land are 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. Regarding variances 1, and 5, the proposed garage improvement to the subject lot is not possible without the two requested variances. However, for variance requests 2,3, and 4, there is a legal alternative location for the accessory structure that eliminates these variance requests. 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 requested variances would not adversely affect the above stated values or endanger the public safety. 5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area. Variance requests 2,3, and 4, could affect an adjacent property owner from constructing a future addition or accessory structure to within 5 feet L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-077\VRPTOO-077 .DOC Page 4 from the adjacent lot lines. Variance requests 1, and 5, would not affect the above stated 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 variance requests 1, and 5, will not be contrary to the intent of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The granting of variance requests 2,3, and 4, will 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 granting of variance requests 1, and 5, are necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. Variance requests 2, 3, and 4, appear to serve as a convenience to the applicant and do not appear necessary to alleviate 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. Application of the Ordinance provisions does result in hardship regarding variance requests 1, and 5. The alternative legal building site eliminates variance requests 2,3, and 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 variance requests 1, and 5. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff has determined that variance requests 1, and 5, meet the stated hardship criteria needed to approve a variance request. However, variance requests 2, 3, and 4, do not meet the hardship criteria as described in conditions 1 thru 9, and are contrary to the intent of the City Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff therefore recommends approval of variance requests 1, and 5, and recommends denial of variance requests 2, 3, and 4. AL TERNA TIVES: L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-077\ VRPTOO-077 .DOC Page 5 '~ 1. Approve Variance's 1, and 5, as requested by the applicant by adopting the attached Resolution # 00-015PC, and deny variance requests 2, 3, and 4, by adopting attached resolution # 00-016PC. 2. Approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate under the circumstances. In this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings approving the variances. , 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. ACTION REQUIRED: Staff recommends Alternative #1. This action requires two motions. 1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 00-015PC approving: 1) a 2.3 foot variance to permit a detached accessory structure to be setback 22.7 feet from a property line abutting a street rather than the required 25 feet; 2) a 582.6 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 2,847 square feet (37.7%) rather than the allowable coverage area of 2,264.4 square feet (30%). 2. Motion and second adopting Resolution 00-016PC denying: 1) a 5 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 5 feet from a rear property line rather than the required 10 feet; 2) a 1 foot variance to permit an accessory structure eave to encroach to within 4 feet from the adjoining side property line rather than the required 5 feet; 3) a 1.66 foot variance to permit an accessory structures eave to encroach within 3.33 feet to the adjoining rear property line rather than the required 5 feet. L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-077\VRPTOO-077 .DOC Page 6 RESOLUTION 00-0l5PC A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 2.3 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 22.7 FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM A PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING A STREET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET; AND A 582.6 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 2,847 SQUARE FEET (37.7%) RATHER THAN THE ALLOWABLE COVERAGE AREA OF 2,264.4 SQUARE FEET (30%). BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS I. Angie Marie Cawley has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a detached accessory structure on a lot with an existing single family dwelling located in the R-I (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts at 4260 Grainwood Circle NE, and legally described as follows: Lot 6, Subdivision of Outlot A, Grainwood Park, Scott County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #00-077PC and held hearings thereon on November 27,2000. 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, including substandard lot area, public street encroachment, and the location of the existing structure, 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 existing platted lot of record is substandard in area and the proposed garage structure does not meet required setbacks. This situation creates a hardship with l:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-077\aprsOO-O 15pc.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 respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. 6. There is. justifiable hardship caused by the substandard lot area, the public street encroachment, and location of the existing structures. Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance to permit a garage improvement to a single family dwelling. 7. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. 8. 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 #00-77PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following variance for the proposed structure as shown in Exhibit A Revised: 1. A 2.3 foot variance to permit a detached accessory structure to be setback 22.7 feet from a property line abutting a street rather than the required 25 feet. 2. A 582.6 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 2,847 square feet (37.7%) rather than the allowable coverage area of 2,264.4 square feet (30%). The following conditions must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed structure: 1. Applicant to submit a revised survey (Exhibit A Revised) to be approved prior to recording of the Resolution. 2. The building permit is subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable agency regulations. 3. The Variance Resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning Department within 60 days. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within one year after adoption of this resolution. I: \OOfiles\OOvar\OO-077\aprsOO-O 15pc.doc 2 . Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 27,2000. Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-077\aprsOO-O 15pc.doc 3 . RESOLUTION 00-016PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A 5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 5 FEET FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 10 FEET; A 1 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE'S EA YE TO ENCROACH WITHIN 4 FEET FROM THE ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 5 FEET; A 1.66 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE'S EA YE TO ENCROACH WITHIN 3.33 FEET OF AN ADJOINING REAR PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 5 FEET BE IT RESOL YED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Angie Marie Cawley has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a detached accessory structure on property located in the R- 1 (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland) District at the following location, to wit; 4260 Grainwood Circle NE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 6, "Subdivision of Outlot A" Grainwood Park, Scott County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #00-077PC and held hearings thereon on November 27, 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, such as, the existence of a legal alternative buildable site, and the proposed accessory structure's location with regard to the surrounding property, the proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. I: \OOfiles\OOvar\OO-077\dnyrsOO-O 16pc.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 5. The proposed accessory structure increases the existing encroachment into a side and rear yard setback. The applicant has control over the location and size of the accessory structure, such that the hardship created has been created by the applicant. 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 ~ariance. There is a legal alternative location for construction of the accessory structure without vanances. 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 #00-077PC 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 an accessory structure (as shown in attached Exhibit A): 1. A 5 foot Variance to permit 5 foot setback for an accessory structure rather than the required 10 feet setback from a rear property line. 2. A 1 foot variance to permit an accessory structure's eave to encroach within 4 feet of the adjoining property line rather than the required 5 feet. 3. A 1.66 foot variance to permit an accessory structure's eave to encroach within 3.33 feet of an adjoining rear property line rather than the required 5 feet. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 27,2000. Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-077\dnyrsOO-O 16pc.doc 2 Location Map N"t ~ at ;t' 5 10 1 N A 200 I o "~ ~~~ Location of 4260 Grain\AOOd Qrcle PRIOR LA 200 400 Feet I i- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Angie Cawley EXHIBIT A SURVEY ~~. For: ~ o C,\.,t.. C\\' OOD o ~\~~<:iOO'S G,..... ~66 I I\T L_V I -7 / G) ;0 )> - Z <:::- FOUND IRON PIPE LIES <: NORTH 1.12 FEET AND o WEST 0.12 FEET o o o - ,;0 o r f11 FOUND IRON PIPE LIES SOUTH 1.07 FEET AND Z EAST 0.48 FEET . f11 . EXISTING WOOD FENCE LIES 0.24 FEET TO 0.14 FEET SOUTHWEST OF PROPERTY LINE ~ ~ GRAVEL DRIVE \ TO BE REMOVED .t \ \ I 1\, L_V I ,..... ::1 ~ a t;: <'i ~ I I\T LVI ~ ~ ~ c ~ '" 1:0 ~ Scale: 1"=30' Page 2 of 2 James R. Hill, Inc. ~ , <:::7' - : ~ ~ ~'\..-~ \\ -- C6~ - \~ ~/ ' q.) .s:.. ~/ ~ ~ ~i ~ , m >< ~ - OJ - -I OJ -0 r- )> Z en - - EXHIBIT C IMPERVIOUS WORKSHEET CITY OF PRlOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (70 be Submitted with Building Permit Application) For All Properties Located in the Shor~land District (SD). The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address tot 6)- SfA...id'l/,'s/on of O...f/o-t; It J {,"Ofl"w~tJo1 ~"I\ Lot Area 7.5lf8' Sq. Feet X 30% = .............. ,Z 2 b '(. ~ .*.******~**.~*.*****************.*.*******~*********.*.*********.***~~ LENGTH \VIDTH SQ. FEET I3CA~Yu::;----\.-: HOUSE x = 5 8' g'" ~:= ~ '-' ~ / .s;r. /1. x = 6 ""'A-"~ j of 23. 6 01'0 ,.J ATIACHEDGARAGE x :: 576 O~,..~_~~,~~~~) TOTAL PRlNCfpLE STRUCTURE......_.............. /16ct DETACHED BLOGS (Garage/Shed) x X TOTAL DETACHED BUTLDL"iGS....................... DRrVEWAYIPAVED AREAS .&~JP()J~oI. x. tJ",,'vew4v = SO$ (Driveway-paved or not)' X /:= (Sidewallc:lParlcing Areas) !JS1/?lt4.If 1"'0';' 4. ell'I'~"J,,,,(~ '13 C; TOTAL P.-\. \'ED AREAS......................................... /4f1'i PATIOSIPORCHES/DECKS O(..,/( h.~ (Open Decks 'I.- min. o;:cning beC\lle-e1'l bc.uCs. with a p~l""ioc.:s SUlUce b~!o'"". are not eOl':sidercd tQ be imFc.rvio\JS) x Mr'tII. O/t'/ltl~ = X ' = - C 011,-I'~ft... X 51d c>d , := 30 30 TOT.-\.L DECKS. .........._......._..._._........ ......_......... OrdER B,,;cK: X 5,~;,)t "Jt>.L = / '1_5 x :=; I 'Ie- I~ TOT.U OTliER..... ....u.... ._.___._......... ..... ...._...... Company ~1't~S frJ ;/ /~,,. f. fir'/ /,j 1;1 C. 12783 I r 5J$.t 1 I Date /0/1 g-/oo I I Phone # &'"10-60c/c( TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER~yi~ Prepared By Pa-l"ic *: )0/00 MON 16:30 FAX 6124474245 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE _~06 EXHIBIT 0 DNR COMMENTsil((j A"j"'" C"o.Il~ U~ I h.. ve reviewed the attached proposed request [Name & 085& ] , Water City Code Grading Sewer Storm Water Sians Zoning V Flood Plain County Road Access Parks Natural Features Legal Issues Assessment Electric Roads/Acces's Policy Septic System Gas , Building Code Erosion Control ,7 Other So \;~L.\ Rei: lmmendation: Approval Denial _ Conditional APproval _cor.. ments: A '0 ]) ~ /Vc. WI? ~mW'f~~ ~f~-Tta- t ..alf-.e-,LJ-/s $tu.u/~ b~ n1J:1,,-/-?- "'" + i~~",'II"iJ .~uffl~) -til ,II( ,H11";.-Hnt,, /-~d.'7 n4'J At.~ ~~ -'. _ ~6" % ~,.".....+ ~IA. -!,...,t!.N -1-. _i. _I. ---t Sigr: d: ~~L-~: -Date: ~\ \...Y~4\ f\I1 'D~ ~ J Ple~I';e return any comments by November 7,2000, to lO/,:sl Jrm , I Ste" , In Horsman City . If Prior Lake 1621;:) Eagle Creek Avenue SE PriOI Lake, MN 55372 Phol!~: (612) 447-9854 Fax: (612) 447-4245 1:\001' Is\OOvar\OO-077\rfr1-Q77 .doc Page 2 6124474245 :::> ,TEL::: 10/30'00 15:24 t' AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 4B CONSIDER A REQUEST TO GRANT A 1.3 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ATTACHED GARAGE ADDITION TO BE SETBACK 23.7 FEET FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE, A 5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4.4 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, A 1.6 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EAVE TO ENCROACH 3.4 FEET FROM A SIDE PROPERTY LINE, AND A 483 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA OF 1,983 SQUARE FEET (39.6%), (Case File #00-079) 16466 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE SW STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR _X_ YES NO NOVEMBER 27, 2000 The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian & Heather Compton for the proposed construction of a 20 ft. by 28 ft. attached garage addition to an existing single family dwelling. The following variances are being requested: 1. A 1.3 foot variance to permit a structure to be setback 23.7 feet from a rear property line rather than the required 25 feet [City Ordinance 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (3)]. 2. A 5 foot variance to permit a structure to be setback 4.4 feet from a side property line rather than the required 9.4 feet for a minimum combined yard of 15 feet [City Ordinance 1102.503 Required Yards/Open Space (8)]. 3. A 1.6 foot variance to permit a structures eave to encroach 3.4 feet from a side property line rather than the required 5 feet [City Ordinance 1101.503 Yard Encroachments (1)]. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~. ( 4. A 483 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface area of 1,983 square feet (39.6%) rather than the allowable impervious surface coverage area of 1,500 square feet (30%) [City Or~inance11 04.306: Impervious Surface Coverage; (1 )]. DISCUSSION: Lot 55, Inguadona Beach, was platted in 1924. The property is located within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the SO (Shoreland Overlay) districts. The lot is not riparian. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels. The lot is 50 feet wide by 100 feet for a total lot area of 5,000 square feet. The lot is considered substandard by today's ordinance requirements, one 5 foot side yard setback is permitted. However, the existing principal structure is setback 5.6 feet from the south property line (Exhibit A Survey Dated 10/21/00). The proposed attached garage addition was originally depicted as a 494 square foot addition under a building permit approved in 1999 (Exhibit B Survey Building Permit #99-1144). This permit application was submitted and approved for a second story room addition only, and did not include the garage addition as shown on the survey. The applicant /owner decided to expand the garage plans subsequent to submitting the garage permit application. "There'is no existing garage on the subject lot. However, the owner has recently poured the footings for the garage addition without permit approval. The proposed revised addition is 20 ft. by 28 ft. plus 8 sq. ft., for a total area of 568 square feet (Exhibit C Garage/House Plan). The applicant is requesting a 1.3 foot variance for a structure setback of 23.7 feet rather than the required 25 foot setback from a rear property line [Ordinance Subsection 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (3)]. Staff believes the garage addition could be moved forward 1.3 feet or the structures dimension of 28 feet could be reduced to 26.5 feet. This eliminates the need for the requested rear yard setback variance of 1.3 feet. The second variance request is for 5 feet to permit a 4.4 foot structure setback from a side property line. The minimum side yard setback for a structure on a substandard lot is 5 feet, provided the combined side yards equal at least 15 feet [1102.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)]. As proposed the combined side yards total 1 0 feet (5.6ft. + 4.4 ft.). The planning staff believes the minimum 5 foot setback should not be compromised. By reducing the garage size to 18.5 feet wide, the setback would be 5.6 feet, which would minimize this variance request to 3.9 feet, 15 ft. - (5.6 ft. + 5.5 ft.) = 3.9 ft. [Exhibit B Survey B. P. #99- 1144]. In addition, should the adjacent property owner decide to rebuild or construct an addition in the future, a ten foot setback would be permitted without the need for an additional variance. L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-079\VRPTOO-079.DOC Page 2 The third variance request is for 1.6 feet to allow the structure's one foot eaves to encroach within 3.4 feet of the north side property line. As proposed, the existing house structure has 1 foot eaves and matches the garage eaves for a uniform appearance. City Ordinance permits a 5 foot structure setback provided no structure encroachments are within 5 feet of the property line [11 01.503 Yard Encroachments (1)]. However, staff feels the trusses could be designed with 6 inch eaves, which would eliminate the encroachment and requested variance for an 18.8 foot wide garage plan as recommended by staff. This plan would permit an eave to protect the building wall from adverse weather conditions and comply with city code. A legal alternative site for a garage addition does not appear to exist on the subject lot without the need for variances. In the past, the Planning Commission has found hardship and approved variances for properties without a garage. A site and design exists that will accommodate a garage addition that avoids the need for 2 of the 4 requested variances. The fourth variance request is for 483 square feet to permit an impervious surface area of 1,983 square feet for 39.6% [Exhibit D Impervious Surface Worksheet]. Building permit #99-1144 includes a copy of the survey that proposed an impervious surface area of 40%. The applicant explained that the proposed garage addition site had been an existing concrete driveway and parking area that has been partially removed to allow for the garage addition. However, by removing the portion of driveway prior to verification, the city shall require variance approval to now cover this area with an impervious surface. The survey submitted with B.P. 99-1144 does not specifically document the existing impervious surface area as described by the applicant. There does appear to be an existing concrete driveway in the area of the proposed garage addition on the approved building permit survey (Exhibit B). Had this area calculation been documented on an impervious surface worksheet or the survey at that time, the applicant would be permitted to replace the existing impervious area, but not expand or increase the total impervious surface area [Ordinance Subsection 1104.306 ImperviOUS Surface Coverage (1)]. As proposed, the applicant will remove 89 square feet of private road that encroaches on their lot. In addition, 113 square feet of concrete driveway will be removed by cutting the driveway back to 5 feet from the side property line in order to comply with minimum setbacks per City Code (Ordinance Subsection 1107.205 Driveways). The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this variance request and the note is attached. In essence, the DNR believes attempts should L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-079\VRPTOO-079.DOC Page 3 " be made to keep the impervious surface coverage area to no greater than 35% without treatment (Exhibit E DNR Comments). The applic!=lnt has submitted a written statement describing their reasons for the requested variances (Exhibit F Applicant Letter). Finally, city staff has inspected the subject property and determined additional items will need to be addressed at the time of building permit app'lication, such as drainage, and the surrounding grade with slopes exceeding 3 to 1 on the north side of the garage. A retaining wall will be needed in this location for the structure as proposed. 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. Regarding variance request number 4, as a platted lot of record the subject lot is substandard in dimensions and area, and it appears the existing impervious surface area of approximately 40% is equal to or greater than the proposed impervious surface coverage area of 39.6%. In addition, the subject lot has no garage. Regarding variance request's 1, 2 and 3, an alternative garage site and design does exist without the need for the side and rear yard setback and encroachment variances. 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 conditions that apply to the structure and land are peculiar to the 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. Regarding variance number 4, the proposed garage addition to the structure is not possible without the impervious surface variance. However, for variance requests 1, 2 and 3, there is an alternative design and location for the structure that eliminates these variance requests. L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-079\VRPTOO-079.DOC Page 4 , 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 requested variances would not adversely affect the above stated values or endanger the public safety. 5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area. Variance requests 1 and 3 could potentially affect an adjacent property owner from constructing a future addition or accessory structure to within 10 feet from the adjacent lot lines. Variance requests 2 and 4 would not affect the above stated 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 variance request 4 will not be contrary to the intent of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The granting of variance requests 1, 2 and 3, will 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 granting of variance request 4, is necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty as the subject lot has no garage. Variance request's 1, 2 and 3, appear to serve as a convenience to the applicant and are not necessary to alleviate 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. Application of the Ordinance provisions does result in hardship regarding variance request number 4. The alternative legal building site and revised design eliminates the need for variance request 1, 2 and 3. 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-079\VRPTOO-079.DOC Page 5 , These conditions do not apply to variance request number 4. However, they may apply to request's 1, 2 and 3. - RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff has determined that a revised number 2 variance request, (a 5.5 foot setback), and variance request number 4 (impervious surface area) do meet the stated 9 conditions of hardship criteria needed for the Planning Commission to adopt variance approval, because the subject lot is substandard and does not have an existing garage. However, variance requests 1 and 3, do not meet the hardship criteria as described in conditions 1 thru 9, and are contrary to the intent of the City Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff therefore recommends approval of variance request number's 2 (revised) and 4 as requested, but recommends denial of variance requests 1 and 3. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Variance request number 4 as requested by the applicant and variance number 2 as revised by staff (3.9 ft. variance) by adopting the attached Resolution # 00-017PC; and deny variance requests 1 and 3 by adopting attached resolution # 00-018PC. 2. Approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate under the circumstances. In this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings approving the variances. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. ACTION REQUIRED: Staff recommends Alternative #1. This action requires two motions. 1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 00-017PC approving: 1) a 3.9 foot variance to permit a 5.5 foot sideyard setback for a 10.1 foot sum of side yards, rather than the required 9.4 foot setback to maintain a sum of side yards of at least 15 feet; 2) a 483 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 1,983 square feet (39.6%) rather than the allowable coverage area of 1,500 square feet (30%). 2. Motion and second adopting Resolution 00-018PC denying: 1) a 1.3 foot variance to permit a garage addition to be setback 23.7 feet from a rear property line rather than the required 25 feet; 2) a 1.6 foot variance to permit a structures eaves to encroach to within 3.4 feet to an adjoining side property line rather than the required 5 feet. L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-079\VRPTOO-079.DOC Page 6 RESOLUTION 00-017PC A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3.9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 5.5 FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK TO A SIDE YARD, FOR A 10.1 FOOT SUM OF SIDE YARDS RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SUM OF SIDE YARDS; AND A 483 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 1,983 SQUARE FEET (39.6%) RATHER THAN THE ALLOWABLE COVERAGE AREA OF 1,500 SQUARE FEET (30%) BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Brian & Heather Compton have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an attached garage addition to an existing principal structure on a lot located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts at 16466 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, and legally described as follows: Lot 55, Inguadona Beach, City of Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #00-079PC and held hearings thereon on November 27,2000. 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, such as substandard lot area, location of the existing structure and no garage, 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 existing platted lot of record is substandard in area and the proposed garage structure does not meet required setbacks. This situation creates a hardship with 1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-079\aprsOO-017pc.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 respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. 6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the substandard lot area, the location of the existing structure and no existing garage. Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance to permit a garage improvement to a single family dwelling. 7. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. 8. 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 #00-79PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following variance for the proposed structure as shown in a revisea Exhibit A: 1. A 3.9 foot variance to permit a structure to be setback 5.5 feet from a side property line for a 10.1 foot sum of side yards rather than the required 15 feet sum of side yards. 0 2. A 483 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 1,983 square feet (39.6%) rather than the allowable coverage area of 1,500 square feet (30%). The following conditions must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed structure: 1. Applicant to submit a revised survey (Exhibit A Revised) to be approved prior to recording this resolution. 2. The building 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. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within one year after adoption of this resolution. 1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-079\aprsOO-O 17pc.doc 2 Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 27,2000. Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-079\aprsOO-O 17pc.doc 3 RESOLUTION OO..018PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A 1.3 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A PRICIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 23.7 FEET FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET; A 1.6 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE'S EAVES TO ENCROACH WITHIN 3.4 FEET FROM THE ADJOINING SIDE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 5 FEET BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Brian & Heather Compton have applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a 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; 16466 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 55, Inguadona Beach, Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #00-079PC and held hearings thereon on November 27,2000. 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, such as, a legal alternative site exists, and the proposed structures location with regards to the surrounding property, the proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-079\dnyrsOO-O 18pc.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 5. The proposed garage addition structure increases the existing encroachment into a side and rear yard setback. The applicant has control over the location and size of the attached garage structure, as such, the hardship has been created by the applicant. 6. While there is an existing structure on the lot, there is no justifiable hardship caused, and that reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variance. There is a legal alternative location and plan design for constructiqn of the attached garage structure without the variances. 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 #00-079PC 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 an accessory structure (as shown in attached Exhibit A): 1. A 1.3 foot Variance to permit a garage addition to a principal structure to be setback 23.7 feet from a rear property line rather than the required 25 feet. 2. A 1.6 foot variance to permit a structure's eave to encroach within 3.4 feet of an adjoining side property line rather than the required 5 feet. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 27,2000. Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-079\dnyrsOO_O 18pc.doc 2 EXHIBIT A SURVEY DATED 10/21/00 OERTIFIOA TE OF SURVEY ~o~ BRIAN dOMPTON -o-{ . Bohlen Surveying & Engineering 31462 Fonage Avenue ~ 4735 123rd Street W. Northfield. t.4N 55057 B E ~~~N 55378 Phone: (507) 645-7768 Phone: (612) 895-9212 Fox: (507) 645-7799 Fox: (612) 895-9259 1"=30' ~I 1. I ~: I..., ~I i( ..... '01 . 8<1 I d tz:Il...g~ 10 a:3 0:;"'0 -' ::!: ::J: a::~"" ....i ~I~~~ ...,::!:al (,)::>0 01 ~: CI ": )..'r < ~ \\9~J'" V _::> co, ~ -01 ~ " Z 'O~;p, -\ ~ 10 f2 Q ~!:lt ~go !ice'" 8Jtf::! A - il 56 EAST 100.00 L EXIST 94JJ(J HOusi: J 94Jxl . f.J""O 9Jti _.--:-" ..... ......,... 91 ....,.'6 91" 1 947x50..... 65 ~ ~ 8 %\ d -', ~ 10 z! ~ C ~\ 'it,-~ ~ ,,/ ~ ,'-I..J :1/ % ....u...u..u.....~.:;~\ t j'\: tree "94 xO .," ,"- '.';k> \I/~ ~ ,I. 1/\ \ I. \ . 54 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 948xO 16.0 32.3 EXISTING. HOUSE 947x8 949x4 .0 5.6<: ...... 950x5'~:"t,.... ~~ /" 0:1 EAST 100.00 ADDRESS' 16466 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE PROPOSED GARAGE FlOOR ELEV.= 948.3 PROPOSED TOP BLOCK ELEV. = 948.6 BENCHMARK - T.N.H. NW QUAD INGUADONA &: PERSHING = 955.95 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 55, INGUADONA BEACH, CITY OF PRIOR lAKE, SCOTT CO., MN. ~ DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION OOOxO DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION - DENOTES PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION . DENOTES IRON PIPE MONUMENT FOUND . DENOTES PK NAIL SET IN BITUMINOUS NOTE: ALL HOUSE DIMENSIONS ARE TO OUTSIDE OF FOUND A TION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION A~ THAT I AM A DU. Y REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ~NNESOTA. DATE' 10-21-00 REVISED: 11-1-00 fjenome: BRIANCOMPTONCERT .S90 -<":.,,,:,,:~/ . ...;^/ ~;.',';'t9? I . )'. :\.. <1\_1\ ,.AI',',:" ~,l"'lI'It:.:lV I .'" '-~'..~/j / .' I , i :"::T 2.g I I i I I LCJ! 3.; ... ::-: T ...J;;;? : ':;'~~'~'_ ~-ll;1l.;t~~~{~ ,". ~ E>\til~IT B B.P.SURVEY I I ..~ --' .---- - -- - _. --- -- --. ,-- _n. 0, 'J!I"-!:'.'l' LOT 56 j~~ :I~o:rn ~I:@~~l _' 89"21 ':33" l-P U I "-' I .J t"".' i.-:' i y: 11..iU,.L tj (.'..€.d5'.) i .." I .' ;.-' ii r/ .....! ;: :'~.: , ~ ..... . I I ! i t(....". .......- ."""".._.,.....~ ~~""==....=.~_. .oJ"'.';n..-.<.'-.".=.,=,.,.,,.,....,...-'("~ II f---~--'- '~~ i-~~-;::-i~'i :1 roD . PVJO;1',''l'"'' t '.. ! : : . C::<:STNG CONCilt:TE ., ... - "'.."'''' 0 . I j , .' ::; ca.R.l-~f1l~ ow :i ~ ,..~.. =":~9~~:~;~~1~ l:jr .. ......;-- ..... '-"'''W '1'(' ~f I [/! T t'}....j 1~~.-~-. <1 . ^'., " ~~.-.", '....' - t. W '.1 J.2.JS co; HO..".SE ,~ ! 1 . .. i ,J ' i t .3~"~ Gi! ~ I ~~..-::: '~c,.a- -. ~ . ,> ":'\t\~'::\h.-!,...~~_~..:~.;.;.4 ---.-<'J I I < ... ~. ~.. ~. r.'l;~ -;:::. 1-.; .~ ,. i 1<::> .~ ;c:i 'll ! J ;.~ '" ~. ~ <::::J ~O -' to ~-.J v lC\ C\i .. 1.'1 ~\ I~j ~ ~J ~~(J l.{J (\) ~J '. C::J ~) O~ l,o.J () ,', ~ i;) ,Ii ., no .: 0 ~ .L (..I' ,10 (Ve,4;'.) ~ I c.;" a9f.':?'1133'" E ~~=mT 54 I ~:()., I ~j~~ Date~ APPROVED PLANNING GEPT L -r;4t:1w-. I~J~lq . Signed Oate_' L:~:T !iF::>. == 5,(;':)(; S:). ;:'",. ~X:STIN:? 3L;fL):f\iG ,i:.REA = fiB7 SF t.i;}S'7il';C"; BUll D1NG f~.'\TiO .. : :1.7/:: NO TE': I 1 0.~O::;Jr~SF:[) :.~t.F.:..GE ':::'.R!:A I I' ~~,....7 _"",';:)I:'''-:.-S:-;:' r I -. ~ ' ""'.,. . CC':-.!~~E:~ DR\Vt: t'...RE;\ = :'\C'\.~I; ,-:; =:,:,2 S.F. Vl~.'l?il,r.t f./L1-~' ~''.A :"/(}i'iS: 6 j).IJfEN.5'jO:'y~C: PPlDR 'i'r. PROPOS::D 3LJ:LDING RA.-:-iO = 24..1% '\ - .~- - .~"\\)O.'"1'""\~...",., .: 5" \ ,:"." Ir\2cf, 1~1...'..:;.7' CONSTHUCTlON I;'~ ,:; ,\"\ \.'} -,' 'J [., .\ " L.. ~) . 'or I,') SOG S.F. (:~ r.: ~". ,:.. t,? f:'::j'...;~. (......{ At; -:. '."-}- Q ":::, \ , '--7' '(-:-"3.i-', ..,~,... N.< ." ..'::l"", ;.w,. ,!-'l.;?l....,:..: ....;... :.: t.,'Io." \"'... 1....i7.r...: \ ,l...; '.._';' :o.........,'\,.,(;.-c.,'"t-~ i!mrsrrrgtf!t &: PRGP()S~J) IVFERViOU5 ::: 4.0';;; f\.i;:'.i.::iit:J.; ;:.r.:. r .r'j"-.,r: :~::~ t:::"'l '.'.' \:\ :~. \......';. ~~~:":'nL1>(A''''', ..' L.}O % 1\. .s i'L1.! r: i zt i t B) 3} tl.r-:- c 983.:: ./ (987.0) 1'!11 O.el1ot~~ irciI r"n<)n:J~:t:n~ .}enotes e}~i5,ing elsv. De/iotes propo!:ed ele..,.. Ge::o:es Dty-Set '1ub LAND SURVEYOIT3 rQP or b.oc:, i~ (;\', = or ::.p o~. i :;1. '.10ragf 1':~.~o.. = Tc.::; of i.:,(':semelll: ~I(',o,. ~j-=,'. Indicates ai(I';.:tio:'l 0: surface orcin 1.31. ?/H AVE:'IUE N.W. LONSDALE, MINNESO r A ;)5040 PHOHE : 507.7-1-~..205.~ .. 1/ ___--- ....:.....- . t.[.'im', t:ert:V '11'\( ~ 9.~,"1;'" ~ .'\1EP.ft.qgJ EY l':; e" ..:....a ,.... emc! ~-<<.s.G."!. ~ o:.1i~.. Ti) :t.':: E!~T i3" iN' ::iI.~:.~t .,,::1 ca.&:'. ":tf!l f).(t";::oC\ :: "',=:r~,,!'.::t ""1nl :-x:: a~;,,,, :':C:."'lt"i:w 1'i,:tl:\.J.U 1-:r.. ~ ?1\~-:t. ~ ".:.tc. ~C\"\..~ I.rcPtt': ~., ':li: ~t.f:o.J.n,. '~':;T1' ":'! ~foC';r\_':.~~.~~':.\. ~.".~:~"f"''::.''': Jo'"11 ~: ~ :" t. ~:..\" \..':t1..~~ '."'J: ":""~'\'t:rn ~.,t.-!1\ ~ L)',',~ c: ~..~ n.<\':'[ r::r '.f,t(='.5i:T).. r"'!.i c!Jn~ ::O'I!S ne i..6""..A"!')).\ ;:..: H!. :1.~t'i;;S AH.u.'lf:.!J :T s;.t'- l."!€'. ..,.0 ~)r: lCC.~1 ).'Iir ,u.L '1~t:"-t :'t:;",1~."1.E\i7t "I" )lrlO, rne~ '.,;" O:h S.Ir.: :".u."e. ..., l:.~h~r'r :? ...~~~;.": ('I':~W" ':"~ r-r ';'l~.!)fT I ~~ "."'i footi -n.P....'E't v.~s. ~lP."'~ Jo(~ ki~~ ~1.,:1 .'.!:. <:HS, MoO ~.I:; lJ"!~rr .~ "\:':~i1.:.r~, t:,r.\, ':" rr:p. ::t ~~U'" ("....:;7 ~ '1'"'11 :a'~';c.";. I~ -.....--.--/ l':' t OPt .'. 'I, ~-'-. " , ..-~-~"... _... 0: I / ... ,. y - .....~ lolnt !0:7\ \ " . ," I 1 \ i 0:' ;,. f)' - O...,!;L' ,~.:; .J.J!.[ib~," .~I' ,'ilj{;U.~.:L... ! ~'itlld 800 ~- .- 0.-' ::J v .6.. 2 -. '., ,'\i/"1-, I. .~~. \ .. j 'i ',;\ './'..,:;. i\ \ .' ,-' ~ ---;:--'- ( ,I..b"" I " ,"-.A.r.. ....1......':._.- '_J .~ : I ._"...,~ Minnesota Registration No. i9 /.rub NO. .;.2109 l2e'..( '~'.I <:1 ..,'.. S. \..'7 Dall i? Wes(erqrei ';r-- -. , GL~99 oNW 3)1Y1 HO IHd VNOOVODNI 99v91 --c NO..LdWOJ NY IHH 0 a... I a I ~ rr II ~ ~ ~ ~9 ~ !~ loL~ Z !,l <( " g -n .J !! " a.. ~ " ;! W ~ ~ Q " h <( Do 8~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~ <( .~ " .~/'9-.0Z 0 Q-.il I I- "" I - to .[;1 .. - X l >< ~ ,.... ~ ~ W '0 ~ --' '-' loL ~ ~ 0-.0< Do ~ ~ 0 ~ .. " ~ .... 10-.6 a ,,9-,OZ; GLf:gg "NW 3)JVl HO IHd "J.S 3HV M.ANV vf:G I C\J SH301I083H 3WOH '" 0... A IIIV/- ("II ~ I ,. I - l~ ~ GL~99 . NW 3)IV1 MO IMd VNOOVODNl99t91 NO~dWOJ NVIMH ~ u ~ ~ 0 "- "- => ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8~ ~ v> ~ '" Q:~0 ~ 0 , v> ~ '" ~ 0 z o ~ ~ ~ o~ => ~~ '" D~- 'i , ,~ '" ~ ;; ~~4;J !e ~, ~ u w (/) (/1 (/1 o OC U 'i' LJ ~ Z Q ....J - :::J oi P'l bi CV) ~ z 0 ~ I- U W (/) ....J ....J <[ :3 ....J'i' <[ U ~ 0... >- I- II;}. 17'~7 ~U:".1.1: O:;} hU, 1:1.1:':0101 ,..:.:..~ \.-in Ut t'K.1UK LAhr. \CJuu. HOUSE LENGTH J~ wmlH x 2() x. = SQ. FEET ?Z (j - ATTACHED GARAGE 7. ~ x Z-(j =- s(n 0 TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUcrURE.._.............. (2. 90 DETACHED BLOGS (OarqelShed) 'x x TOTAL DETACHED BUlLDINGS........._......... DR!VEWA YIPA VED AREAS (Drivew&)'-paved or not) (Sidew~nl Anas) x x x - - ?o~ - TOTAL PAVED AREAS......................................... ?d 3 PA nOSlPORCHESlDECKS (Opee Dec:b %" 1IIfn. opadlll bccwcca '*rds. wich .perviO\lS ~ below. Ire IICM CDIIIldvcd 10 be lmpwyious) x x -= .. x "" TOTAL DECKS....................................................... OlllER. x X - - TOTAL OTRER....................................................... TOTAL L\fPERVIOUS SURFACE UND~ - . Prepared By (tP? d~ Company.t(l/.l~J Su..('~fI:/jL , fii..~f/J~e<:;/1 Phone# (",12.- 87.>- ?z./?.. , " lLus I +83 J/"'/-</?J Date 0........ t:." fIIn'" 7871 IOI'D I;\~. I 10/30/00 MON 16:29 FAX 6124474245 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE \' D rn (<; rn 0 ~ ~ EXHIBIT E DNR COMMENTS I NOV - 22000 . . 'i3'<"1-~~1 ---.. I tL ve reviewed the attached proposed request [Name & Case File] for Lt." followtng: ~~ t ~4<- ~ ~ ~ \M:\d.o '" L- 1?1- cf,.. G Water r City Code Grading Sewer storm Water Signs Zoning v" Flood Plain County Road Access Parks Natural Features Legal Issues Assessment Electric Roads/Access Poli~ Septic System Gas .- Building Code Erosion Control V" Other <, ~ L. n Ret: )mmendation: _ Approval Denial _ Conditional Approval CO,, ments: ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ A4) u~~,;- -n- ~-6lu , d// ~~k .~I....~tJ tu:, ~ ~J " A -h . h1M~ ,,~~v,~ S""r~~~ d" '-V 1-,. 4..a c,r ndS:S''.1. ~ ,'ek4. //.~ I , ~ U)\~"\J-\:- ~~*-. I1G Mlbr~ ~ ~S'% Slgr:d: ~~ Dele: "\-1>." L't N "-'-' / M 'UN R... Plel: ie retum any comments by November 7. 2000 to Jl)/~J jcrD Ste'. m Horsman City )f Prior Lake 1621: :) Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prim Lake. MN 55372 Phoi e: (612) 447-9854 Fax: (612) 447-4245 1:\OOfI lS\OOvar\OO.079\rfr1.079.doc Page 2 6124474245 => ,TEL= 10/30'00 15:23 I EXHIBIT F APPLI'CANT LETTER To Whom It May Concern: We are currently in the process of repairing and remodeling our home due to rotting. We have an existing permit for our house, which we obtained October of 1999. Our previous survey showed the proposed garage and the survey was stamped approved by the various departments. We were told when we were ready to do the garage to turn the plans in then. Because everything had been approved we dug the trench for the garage footings and formed them up this year. When we called for the footings inspection the inspector told us there was no variance sheet in the file and the survey only showed a 19-foot garage not a 20-foot garage. We had our survey corrected to what we had originally intended and it now shows everything correctly. Our existing impervious surface used to be over 40% but the first surveyor never recorded the existing, only the proposed. In all actuality we are reducing the impervious surface from what it was originally. If necessary we can also cut out the portion of the road that was incorrectly paved (it is part of our property) to reduce it further. We are trying to meet the intent of the building codes and ordinances. We understand the purpose of the stipulations. The structure to the North of our property is approximately 21 feet from the property line; the encroachment on this property line still meets the intent. , We own a very sub-standard lot and we are trying to improve and repair the structure without hardship to anyone else in the process. Thank you for considering this application. Sincerely, Brian and Heather Compton 16466 Inguadona Bch Cir SW n' AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 4C CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO STRUCTURE SETBACKS; A VARIANCE TO THE SUM OF SIDE YARDS; A VARIANCE TO STRUCTURE ENCROACHMENT, Case File #00-078PC 14962 PIXIE POINT CIRCLE STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR _X_ YES NO NOVEMBER 27, 2000 On June 28, 1999 the Planning Commission granted Robert Jader a variance to construct a single family dwelling at 14962 Pixie Point Circle. On June 20,2000, Mr. Jader's Builder, Charles Cudd Co., LLC, was issued Building Permit #00- 0478 for the proposed structure as surveyed by Brandt Engineering & Surveying. Upon commencing construction the footing contractor apparently mistook the wrong side yard setback mark and placed the front southwest corner of the building less than the required 5 foot setback to the side property line. On October 13, 2000, the property owner made application for the necessary variances. DISCUSSION: The staff was in the process of drafting the variance report to be presented to the Planning Commission for the public hearing scheduled on November 27,2000. Staff contacted the owner and land surveyor for additional information and was informed that the garage portion of the structure had been revised by the contractor in the field and did not match the original building plans or the survey submitted for the building permit. It was determined this dimensional revision was not accurately reflected on the as built survey, and what affect this change created on the requested variances. L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-078\V ARTBL078PC.DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff has concluded that the revised building dimensions are necessary to accurately reflect the requested variances, and recommends to the Planning Commission that this matter be continued to the next scheduled public hearing on December 11,2000. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Defer action to accurately determine the building dimensions and depict on the as built survey. 2. Continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second to continue the public hearing on the requested variances to December 11, 2000. L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-078\V ARTBL078PC.DOC Page 2 \ \~ PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: 6A CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS CREEKSIDE ESTATES JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO-Nt A -- NOVEMBER 27,2000 PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: Freedom Developing and Consulting, LLC, has applied for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Plan for the property located at the north end of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street. The total site area includes 12.7 acres, zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The development consists of 102 units of senior housing and one outlot. BACKGROUND: On September 18, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution #00-88 approving a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan for this site, as well as a preliminary plat. The resolution listed the following conditions of approval: 1 Outlot A must be dedicated as parkland on the plat. 2 The lighting plans for the parking lots must include a design of the light fixture and a luminaire calculation to ensure the ordinance requirements are met. 3 The landscaping plan must be prepared and signed by a registered landscape architect and must be revised to meet all ordinance requirements, including numbers, size and species of the plantings. This plan must also identify whether or not an irrigation system will be provided, and an irrigation plan must be provided. 4 The developer must provide covenants for the congregate housing building. These covenants must be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and must be recorded with the final plat. 5 The following issues identified by the Engineering staff must be addressed prior to final plan approval: 1:\OOfiles\OOpuds\creekside final\pud pc report.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 'J' ~ a. In accordance with the City's subdivision ordinance 1006.208: "Roadways and street intersections shall have right-of-way radii of not less than twenty-five feet (25')." b. The plat shows easement in easements and easements in proposed right-of-way. Easements are not needed in the right-of-way. There are several areas on the plans where the line types change and it is impossible to differentiate what the lines mean (easement, wetland edge, etc.). c. Submit detailed plans and specifications that show type and height of retaining wall. All walls over 4 feet in height are to be designed by a registered engineer. d. The bridge along the trail will be by Continental (30' span). 6 The following issues identified by the Building Inspections Department must be addressed prior to final approval. a. If provided, indicate means of lawn irrigation. May use separate service and metering for billing purposes. b. Provide a description of rental agreement and type of facility and services offered in the apartments. c. Relocate the three of the five fire hydrants. Place 3 westerly hydrants in green areas across from building entrances. Ll; W130', S30'; L2; NE 20', L3 E50'. Front of hydrant shall be placed 5'-0" from curb and side of hydrants shall be placed 1 0' -0" from curb adjacent to parking stall. d. Provide fire lanes for fire apparatus response. Signage to read:" No Parking Fire Lane by order of Fire Department". Indicate on a Site plan. Locate by Fire Hydrants and in front of building entrances in parking lot. UFC 1001.7.1. e. Provide 96" clearance height in underground parking for Fire Departments fast response apparatus. Provide explanation as to reason all three buildings have different lower level floor to first floor elevations. f. Provide a Post Indicator Valve (PIV) on sprinkler supply line into buildings. Locate a minimum distance away the height ofthe building. g. Provide two parking spaces at each building for commuter van. MSBC 1300.4100. h. All Units not HDCP accessible must be HDCP adaptable and on a HDCP accessible route. MSBC 1341 Table 16.2 1. Provide accessible route from exterior HDCP parking to the building on west 24 units. Locate by front entrance to building. MSBC 1340.1103 Provide detail sheet ofHDCP ramp. J. 54 Unit: confirm if all units are HDCP Accessible. Two 24 Units: Two percent of Units must be HDCP Accessible. MSBC 1341 Table 16.2 7 An all-way stop sign shall be placed at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue, Priorwood Street and Tranquility Court. 1:\OOfiles\OOpuds\creekside final\pud pc report. doc Page 2 -4' On October 2, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-100. This resolution modified the original conditions of approval at the request of the developer and allowed the developer to plat the future park as Outlot A. In return, the developer agreed to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements by a cash dedication. The developer also agreed to voluntarily donate Outlot A to the City. PROPOSED FINAL PLAN Density: The plan proposes 102 units on a total of 12.7 acres. Density is based on the buildable acres of the site, or in this case on 9.2 net acres. The overall density proposed in this plan is 11 units per acre. Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 3 lots for the multifamily buildings and one outlot. This outlot is 8.19 acres in area and will be deeded to the City for use as a park. Buildin2 Styles: The proposed development consists of one 54-unit congregate senior housing building and two 24-unit senior condominium buildings. The 54-unit building consists of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, a common library and a common party room. This building also includes 54 underground parking stalls. The building is 3 stories in height, and uses jumbo brick and steel siding as the exterior finish. The two 24-unit buildings consist of 2 and 3 bedroom units with exterior decks or patios, as well as 24 underground parking spaces in each building. These buildings are also 3 stories in height and use steel siding as an exterior finish. Con2re2ate Housin2 Requirements: In order to qualify as elderly housing, at least 60% of the units in the 54-unit building must be occupied by single persons at least 60 years of age, or by couples with one or both being at least 60 years of age. The property owner must record a covenant to run with the land in a form approved by the City, which restricts the use of the property to occupancy by the elderly. The development must also provide a lounge or other indoor community rooms in a size equal to 15 square feet per unit. The proposed 54-unit building includes a library and party room equaling 866 square feet in area, which exceeds the minimum requirement. The developer has not provided any covenants for review. The developer has submitted a copy of the "Creekside Estates Condominium Declaration." Staff has forwarded this to the City Attorney to determine if this document meets the requirements for congregate housing. Setbacks: The setbacks for a multifamily building are based on the height of the building, as well as the length of the building. The 24-unit building is 31' tall and 193' long. The required and proposed setbacks for this building are as follows: 1:\OOfiles\OOpuds\creekside final\pud pc report.doc Page 3 -;. YARD SETBACK PROPOSED Lot 1 Lot 2 Front 31 ' 20' 70' Side Street - 31 ' 31' NA Side 15.5' NA 15' & 20' Side Adjacent to R-3 38.8' 20' NA District Rear 25' NA 36' (31' where adjacent to R-3) Wetland 30' from 100 year flood elevation 30' 30' Parking Lot 15' from back of curb 15' 15' The 54-unit building on Lot 3 is 35' high and is 175' long on the east side and 215' long on the south side. The required and proposed setbacks for this building are as follows: YARD SETBACK PROPOSED Front 36' 25' Side Street 36' 25' Side 16.6' 55' Rear Adjacent to R-2 36' 25' District Wetland 30' from 100 year flood elevation 19'-20' Parking 15' from back of curb 15' The developer requested, and received, modifications to the required setbacks from the City Council. The final site plan is consistent with those modifications. Lot Covera2e: The maximum ground floor area is 0.35. The ground floor area proposed on Lot 1 is 0.25, on Lot 2 it is 0.22 and on Lot 3 it is 0.33. Useable Open Space: Multifamily dwellings must have a minimum useable open space of 400 square feet per unit, and no more than 50% of the required space can be located in the front yard. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 25% ofthe usable open space for congregate or elderly housing be developed as outdoor recreation or garden area. The plan does not meet the minimum open space requirements; however, the City Council also approved a modification to this requirement. Parkin2: Multifamily dwellings require 2 parking spaces per unit. Elderly (congregate) housing requires 0.5 parking spaces per unit. The proposal provides at least 48 spaces for each of the 24-unit buildings (2 per dwelling unit), which is consistent with the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. There are 96 spaces (1.7 per unit) provided for the 54- unit building. This is also consistent with the minimum ordinance requirements. Landscaping: The landscaping plan has been revised to meet the ordinance requirements for number, size and type of landscaping. An irrigation plan for this development has also been provided. Some of the proposed landscaping appears to be 1:\OOfiles\OOpuds\creekside final\pud pc report.doc Page 4 located within the public right-of-way. The plan must be revised to ensure there are no plantings in the right-of-way. In addition, the Building Official has noted there must be a minimum 10' separation between the landscaping and any fire hydrant and P.LV. Signs: The proposal includes two monument signs of 48 square feet. This is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, which allows two monument signs of 50 square feet at each major entrance to the development. The Zoning Ordinance also allows an individual nameplate signs of 6 square feet for each building. The sign plan does not indicate any nameplate signs. It should also be noted the site plan, the landscape plan and the lighting plan are inconsistent as they relate to the number of signs. These plans must be revised so they are consistent in terms ofthe number and locations of signs on the site. Lighting: Streetlights will be provided on the public streets. The developer has also provided a lighting plan for the parking lots. Streets: This plan proposes one new public street. Tranquility Court is a 335' long cul- de-sac located at the intersection ofPriorwood Street and Five Hawks Avenue. The street has a 60' wide right-of-way and a 32' wide surface. This street provides access to all of the proposed lots. Included in this site is 66' wide road and utility easement extending from Five Hawks Avenue on the south to Five Hawks Avenue on the north. This proposal does not include the extension ofthis street, but it does maintain the right-of-way. Sidewalks/Trails: This plan includes a trail connection from Five Hawks Avenue on the south to Five Hawks Avenue on the north. This trail is separate from the nature trails around the pond. A portion of this trail has been graded, although it is not completely within the existing road easement. The developer has provided a plan for the extension of the trail and the pedestrian bridge to the north. Parks: This proposal does not include any specific parkland. As noted above, however, the developer will satisfy the parkland dedication requirements by a cash dedication. The developer is also voluntarily donating Outlot A to the City to utilize as parkland. This arrangement provides some tax benefits to the developer. Phasing: This project is proposed to be completed in two phases beginning in 2000 and ending in 2001. ANALYSIS: The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved preliminary plan. The developer has generally complied with the conditions of approval. There are some revisions required to the site plan and the landscaping plan. All of the plans must be complete and in final form before this plan will proceed to the City Council. 1:\OOfiles\OOpuds\creekside final\pud pc report.doc Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission must review the Final PUD and make a recommendation to the City Council. The staff suggests the following findings: 1. The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved preliminary plan. 2. The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the criteria for a PUD listed in Section 1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. This plan is also consistent with the City Council findings listed in City Council Resolution #00-88 and #00-100. The staff also recommends approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer must provide a set of plans specifically labeled "Final PUD Plans" and including the following information: a. A complete site plan including all phases of the project, the dimensions ofthe site, setbacks, and sign locations. b. A landscape plan and an irrigation plan. c. Building elevations. d. Sign elevations (these may be included on the site plan). e. Lighting plans (these may be included on the site plan). All plans must be signed by a land surveyor, an architect and/or a registered landscape architect. 2. The landscaping plan must be revised to ensure the minimum separation between the plantings and any fire hydrant or P.I.V., and to ensure there are no plantings within the public right-of-way. 3. All plans must be consistent with one another, in terms of the locations of buildings, signs, lighting and other features. 4. The developer must submit any necessary revisions to the covenants required by the City Attorney in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. 5. Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the final approval information. Once set will be filed at the Planning Department and maintained as the official PUD record. The second set will be returned to the developer for their files. 6. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council. 7. A signed PUD agreement must be approved by the City Council. 1:\OOfiles\OOpuds\creekside final\pud pc report.doc Page 6 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the PUD Final Plan subject to the above conditions and to any other conditions deemed necessary. 2. Recommend denial of the request, based on specific findings of fact. 3. Continue this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the issues that have been discussed. 4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the listed conditions. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolutions #00-88 and #00-100. 2. Reduced Copy ofPUD Plans 1:\OOfiles\OOpuds\creekside final\pud pc report. doc Page 7 ~:. -1 . \ " PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN RESOLUTION 00-88 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS CREEKSIDE ESTATES ADDITION MOTION BY: MADER SECOND BY: GUNDLACH WHEREAS: Eagle Creek Villas, LLC and Freedom Development have submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan to be known as Creekside Estates; and WHEREAS: The Prior Lake Planning Commission considered the proposed Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan at a public hearing on July 10, 2000 and on August 14, 2000; and WHEREAS: notice of the public hearing on said PUD Preliminary Plan has been duly published in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issue and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the Creekside Estates PUD Preliminary Plan; and WHEREAS: The Prior Lake City Council considered the proposed PUD Preliminary Plan for on September 18, 2000; and WHEREAS: the City Council finds the PUD Preliminary Plan consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS: the City Council finds the PUD Preliminary Plan is compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the Section 1106 Planned Unit Developments of the Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA: 1. It hereby adopts the following findings: a) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, materials, construction and land development. The proposed development utilizes underground parking areas to allow more efficient use of the land. The clustering of the structures also allows preservation of the wetlands and wooded areas on the site. b) Higher standards of site and building design. The clustering of the buildings allows for the preservation of the natural amenities on this site. .. 1:\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\creek2\pud resolution.doc Page I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER , , c) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high quality land use development at a lesser cost. This development includes one cul-de-sac providing access to all of the units. The property owner will maintain the parking areas and internal road systems. d) Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space components in the development which may be made more useable and be more suitably located than would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures. The preservation and dedication of the western portion of the site ,as parkland and the use as of this site a nature area provide an amenity that can be utilized by the public. The trail connection from Five Hawks Avenue on the south to Five Hawks Avenue on the north will provide a link to the public park system. e) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows modifications to the strict application of regulations within the various Use Districts that are in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The use of the PUD allows the higher density to be clustered on the portion of the site previously graded. The density and type of housing units is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals to provide a variety of housing styles. f) Encourages a more creative and efficient use of land. As noted above, the PUD allows the higher density areas to be clustered, and preserves open space. g) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including flora and' fauna, scenic views, screening and buffering, and access. Clustering the units does allow the preservation of some of the wooded areas on the site. The plan must address the landscaping and bufferyard requirements of the ordinance. h) Allows the development to operate in concert with a Redevelopment Plan in certain areas of the City and to insure the redevelopment goals and objectives within the Redevelopment District will be achieved. This criterion is not applicable. i) Provides for flexibility in design and construction of the developmentin cases where large tracts of land are under single ownership or control and where the users) has the potential to significantly affect adjacent or nearby properties. The use of the PUD allows the clustering of the buildings and the preservation of the natural amenities on the site. j) Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over and above required dedications; by allowing a portion of the density to be transferred to other parts of the site. While the plan proposes the conveyance of Outlot A to the School District for use as a nature area, the staff recommends this area be dedicated as park. No additional density has been requested. k) The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified environment within the boundaries of the project by insuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and efficient use and design of utilities. The designs of the buildings are similar in nature. The use of Class I materials will . increase the value of this design. Revision of the landscaping plan to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance will also enhance this area. l) The design of a PUD shall optimize compatibility between the project and surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of I :\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\creek2\pud resol urion.doc Page 2 .-- ...~- -,.,._h__..........___..,.___ ,~.~..._-'_ . -.... ,. - '.-~_.. .'. ~"..~''''''''.", . .., ....._.~-~-.. ..... ~'- .'.' ._._-'--'-__.._._.;.1'.........:...~....... the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. The use of the PUD will preserve the area directly adjacent to the single family homes, and will allow the creation of a trail between the existing streets. m) If a project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves construction over a . period of time in two or more phases, the applicant shall demonstrate that each phase is . capable of addressing and meeting each of the criteria independent of the other phases. This project is proposed to be completed in one phase. n) Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one building on a lot. This is not applicable. Each of the buildings is on a separate lot. 0) A PUD in a Residential Use District shall conform to the requirements of that Use District unless modified by the following or other provisions of this Ordinance. 1) The tract of land for which a project is proposed shall have not less than 200 feet of frontage on a public right-of-way; 2) No building shall be nearer than its building height to any property line when the property abutting the subject properly is in an "R-1" or "R-2" Use District;. 3) No building within the project shall be nearer to another building than ~ the sum of the building heights of the two buildings, except for parking ramps which may be directly connected to another building; and 4) Private roadways within the project site may not be used in calculating required off-street parking spaces. The proposal meets the above requirements with the exception of the modification requested by the developer to decrease building setbacks and to decrease the open space on the lot containing the 54-unit building created as part of the PUD and preliminary plat from 400 square feet per unit to 330 square feet per unit. These modifications are permitted under the PUD provisions at the discretion of the Council. 2. The Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan is hereby approved subject to the following conditions a) Outlot A must be dedicated as parkland on the plat. b) Tho pl3n must be revised to provide the required u53ble open sp3ce. (deleted) c) The lighting plans for the parking lots must include a design of the light fixture and a luminaire calculation to ensure the ordinance requirements are met. d) The landscaping plan must be prepared and signed by a registered landscape architect and must be revised to meet all ordinance requirements, including numbers, size and species of the plantings. This plan must also identify whether or not an irrigation system will be provided, and an irrigation plan must be provided. e) The developer must provide covenants for the congregate housing building. These covenants must be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and must be recorded with the final plat. t) The following issues identified by the Engineering staff must be addressed prior to final plan approval: · In accordance with the City's subdivision ordinance 1006.208: "Roadways and street intersections shall have right-of-way radii of not less than twenty-five feet (25')." · The plat shows easement in easements and easements in proposed right-of-way. Easements are not needed in the ri~ht-of-way. There are several areas where the line types change and it is impossible to differentiate what the lines mean (easement, wetland edge, etc.). 1:\OOfiles\OOsubdiv\preplat\creek2\pud resolution.doc Page 3 · Submit detailed plans and specifications that show type and height of retaining wall. All walls over 4 feet in height are to be designed by a registered engineer. · The bridge along the trail will be by Continental (30' span). g) The Jollowing issues identified by the Building Inspections Department must be addressed prior to final approval. · If provided, indicate means of lawn irrigation. May use separate service and metering for billing purposes. · Provide a description of rental agreement and type of facility and services offered in the apartments. · Relocate the three of the five fire hydrants. Place 3 westerly hydrants in green areas across from building entrances. L 1; W130', S30'; L2; NE 20', L3 E50'. Front of hydrant shall be placed 5'-0" from curb and side of hydrants shall be placed 10'- 0" from curb adjacent to parking stall. · Provide fire lanes for fire apparatus response. Signage to read:" No Parking Fire Lane by order of Fire Department". Indicate on a Site plan. Locate by Fire Hydrants and. in front of building entrances in parking lot. UFC 1001.7.1. · Provide 96" clearance height in underground parking for Fire Departments fast response apparatus. Provide explanation as to reason all three buildings have different lower level floor to first floor elevations. · Provide a Post Indicator Valve (PIV) on sprinkler supply line into buildings. Locate a minimum distance away the height of the building. · Provide two parking spaces at each building for commuter van. MSBC 1300.4100. · All Units not HDCP accessible must be HDCP adaptable and on a HDCP accessible route. MSBC 1341 Table 16.2 · Provide accessible route from exterior HDCP parking to the building on west 24 units. Locate by front entrance to building. MSBC 1340.1103 Provide detail sheet of HDCP ramp. · 54 Unit: confirm if all units are HDCP Accessible. Two 24 Units: Two percent of Units must be HDCP Accessible. MSBC 1341 Table 16.2 h) An all-way stop sign shall be placed at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue, Priorwood Street and Tranquility Court. 3. Application for approval of a PUD Final Plan must be submitted within 90 days of the date of approval of this resolution, or by December 18, 2000, unless written request for an extension of time is approved by the City Council. 4. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. Passed and adopted this 18th day of September, 2000. YES NO Mader X Mader Ericson X Ericson Gundlach X Gundlach Petersen X Petersen Vacant Vacant Frank Boyles, City Manager I: \OOfiles\OOsubdiv\prep lat\creek2\pud resolution.doc Page 4 RESOLUTION 00-100 ~ ~ - A RESOLUTON AMENDING RESOLUTIONS 00-88 AND 00-89 lNNESO APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS CREEKSIDE ESTATES. WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, Motion By: PETERSEN Second By: GUNDLACH on September 18, 2000, the Prior Lake City Council adopted Resolutions 00-88 and 00- 89 approving a Preliminary PUD Plan and Preliminary Plat, respectively, for a development known as Creekside Estates; and Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358, Subd. 2b authorizes the City to adopt regulations requiring a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public for public use as parks, recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space. The statute also provides that "the municipality may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicanf'; and the City's Subdivision Ordinance Section 1006.800 requires the developer to dedicate land, or in the sole discretion of the City, cash in lieu of land, for the use by the City as parks, trails or open space; and the land to be developed as Creekside Estates is owned by Eagle Creek Villas, LLC ("property owner'); and the developer of Creekside Estates is David Bell d/b/a Freedom Consulting and Development ("developer'); and City Code requires both the fee owner and the developer to sign the application for the Preliminary PUD Plan and the preliminary plat; and the City Council isaware that Minnesota Statute Section 462.358, Subd. 2b requires the City to elect a land dedication, a cash dedication or a combination thereof; and Resolutions 00-88 and 00-89 require a land dedication; and after Resolutions 00-88 and 00-89 were adopted, the City was contacted in writing by the property owner and developer requesting the City reconsider its decision to require a land dedication and instead to accept a cash dedication; and the property owner(s) and developer have offered the City an inducement to accept cash in lieu of land; and the inducement offered by the property owner(s) and developer is that if the City will accept cash to satisfy the park dedication requirement, the property owner will voluntarily convey to the City the land identified as park dedication in Resolutions 00-88 and 00-89 and the property owner and developer voluntarily and without duress or 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER /. pressure in any manner from the City has indicated its concurrence with the foregoing paragraph. Now THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake that: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 2. The City desires to maintain 8.19 acres located at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street and identified as Outlot A, as shown in the approved preliminary plan of Creekside Estates, for park and recreational use. 3. To assure the land is so preserved, the City required, as a condition of preliminary plat approval, that Outlot A be dedicated to the City to meet the City's park dedication requirement. 4. The property owner and developer have, subsequent to the passage of Resolutions 00-88 and 00- 89, requested the City reconsider its decision and accept cash in lieu of land, but that the property owner(s) with the concurrence of the developer, has offered to gift and convey to the City the land identified in paragraph 2; and 5. The City agrees to accept cash to satisfy the City's park dedication requirement instead of land, subject to the representation by the property owner(s) and developer that the land described in paragraph 2 will be voluntarily conveyed to the City as a gift. 6. The City is aware that the property owner(s) and/or developer may claim a tax deduction for income tax purposes as a result of said gift of land. 7. The City has not offered any tax advice with respect to the property owners and/or developer plan to gift the land identified in paragraph 2 to the City. 8. The City agrees for purposes of final plat approval to accept for park dedication requirements $16,510 in cash instead of the land requirement set out in condition 2a in Resolution 00-88, and condition 81 in Resolution 00-89, prescribed in the Resolution approving the preliminary plat. 9. The applicant's offer to gift the land to the City and pay $16,510 as park dedication fee is completely voluntary, and to attest thereto, the property owners' and developer's signatures shall be affixed to this Resolution in the space provided below prior to the City Council consideration of this matter. 10. The gift to the City of the property identified as Outlot A on the approved preliminary plat is a separate and unrelated transaction from the overall subdivision and therefore, the property owner(s) and developer waive any claims that the combination of the cash park dedication fee and the subsequent gift of the Outlot A to the City could be construed as an excessive or unlawful exaction or taking by the City. 11. The property owner(s) and developer recognize this is a legal document and may want to consid~ seeking legal counsel before affixing their signatures hereto. .. 12. This document does not become effective until executed by the property owner(s) and developer. R:\RESOLUTI\ADMINRES\creeksidereso.DOC ..- --... "-. '_...~-"'.'-._-......-. .-......... ~ PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 2ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2000. YES NO Mader X Mader Ericson X Ericson Gundlach Gundlach Petersen Petersen Zieska Zieska City Man ACCEPTED BY: Property Owner: EAGLE CREEK V Dated: /CJ - 'C?-t:/O Developer: FREEDOM CONSULTING AND DEVELOPMENT B~~ Dated:-1O-~-OO David Bell, ~ R:\RESOLUTI\ADMINRES\creeksidereso.DOC . :~ or;! r!~o'i ..Hiii 0- ~:~::: vCu-J:- !! ~;!i~! ~': ~:i:,~ ~~ "16 ~:=~ !..!l~ i;~ ,:& ~!'~;~r~ U:_~: ~_:: -_'.-," ~ i ~; ~ ~~ _ j !:~,r~~ -~~ &;.r=~ ... j~iHo~o 'Ii ~]-::i~~ lZ;'~j ;;~i~:!~ . :Jl~-~~1\.8 ~o , ._~l~~L't ~t~ -I:l'~;'l~ !;~ ~f!-::~~ lD::i ~lE.:i~il( ~p 0: j~;6 ''I ~!; i~l~:I~~ m !hmd ~ (/) Pr:l E-< -..: E-< (/) Pr:l Pr:l Q fi:i ::.<: Pr:l Pr:l 0:: u 'i oX ~~ H ~',~ ~i 1'1' H .r,,~~~5~; t :~;~!1!W~ :1 ;!c_~:;IIt_~:., :Q);:"..~;;;.ge i! ;j~jj!~~~:~ uo w '01; ; 2 g : ; ~: ,,:.=::.,' '~'::. :~~:' i1:~~]:::i: _ - u.'.:_i ~i!!i:!i;~i ~ ... IlID :!i'-;..- I ~~n~:~m~ ~~i ;;;m!:!~~ m ;, :~e;~:31:j! - . co 3H!:~~:i~; l!i :.1 : :i!~;I:!~: l!; ~ !i~!!~~!iii ~~~ ;:~.':.::~. iE:i:~':;M:~: 0::0 :~';;~'=~3:S:: p!: ~:~:~:;.!:o= Ii l~:;'-!lj....I: 5" 2" ~~:2!;:o;ii ~;i t_:=~.~~.= r~:~ii~.;;o: ji: BH!~3~:~i :!I !0;~2':oB8; IH d 1 !:~ =! ....1. mm I; f!!!;"f i~ go: fi.~" ~cg';l: 3:0 !i!~!~ !i ~i!l;l i!~i:~ :.. .,~i 1 J~~;.!~ ~.! ~ x: . ::t.:-, ".. ~ "'-'l:I ;itm i, ~eii~~ ig ii.~' 2_ U~..._.~ :, f~Hi] ~8 -".Ii: ~ ~ J n- o ~ it ll~ ... dr i .. ~ ~;~ e ~.;! if "'2'" ~ ~,~ 5 g ~e~ ~ ~ ~~ u- !~ g :;3 l.ll! ~I 11 .i~ n sl if . 3 I 5 H~ :.~~ II: Hi ~J ' 1";5 3i ( !;g Hi j'\l ~o! ~~ f ! i~ Ii II! i~ i .! ,~. 2_ g.3: 0':3 ... -, . aaell , . 'i qi !~; ~~~ fo~ m o;i ... !!] ..; ~ s;..]..~.~ .l!:!J::.) :fg,I~..! L ,~ ;~~ :,':l.~ .~ '! ~ Is :;; I !till: ~ntl '.-::~:~. .:..:, :~:: j) /1 ! 1>1 ;~: !:: ~:i~ " ;" ~.~ 'f!: ~~ " !.~ ;; .~ .. ~: ~~ H d~ l\'~ .. it ~ ~:8 ~~~ iE o. d:i ; o ;:; !i 0; 8 a ~;~~:J ~ ;::;~~~~ ~~"'~'" ~~~~~ I I I I I ~~~~~ 2 I I I I I .; ;; g !:: ~ ;; lX1 zzzz~ I I I I I ~ @~~~~ 3_r-- .~~~~ o::::~~ "'~'" "'~~ ('I""'..... otI, I I '20..... f'4 :2~"7~ r::~c:; z...,.." , , 1 Ui&ltil ~ I I ~ . '1 o :i .' ~ o lr;i ~; ~~ ~: s1 t~ ~~ . ~; ~! ti S~ t; ~l ~~~~~~?;~~~;:; ~~2~~(:!!;;o~~~ ~~~~",,,,,,,,,,~"'''' ~~:g~~g;;::::~~~ I I I I I I , I I ~ ~~~~~~:;::~!::;"",;J; I I I I I I I 1 I ~~ t;t!;g;:;;~~;~""'4 zzzzzzzzz~~ I I I I I I I I I U v ~ijl5~~t3&1l5m~~ ~~~~5~~~3~~ -""""'-r---r--...."',..,oo ~LtJt&JLtJ::r:;t:tLtJLtJ~:l: ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~:g:;:~~;;~~~~S I I I I I r I I I t'- I g;~~:'J~~~~:'J)O~ zz.."zz~zzz~i 1 I I I I I I I 10000 oOf'4oOoO.a..o.O)oOoOo_ wtJfJ~Ul~i;j~81;j~ . g o III ~ .- r" " ;"1 ~i i~ H ~~ p. lO' e E~ g n L. ;~~~ :lWLtJ ~~.~~ ~o~~ Nil I I""""" of'4-O..... r--ZZtI) tit 1 I I ~~:J~ ~ ~~ .~ 3' I , r: I. I. !~ ei I~ ;. :~ It :! I! I~ ~r 11 :i /1 ;s I~ Ii " Ii " I I ", r! , 1 .f ~" '3 I. " . ':i r;:; 'i. ~ ~ .l ,~~ ~~~ h ! ~~I ~~ s "jl l ~ ~ ~~l ~~~ ~t -----. ~,--=-~ J (~ /}!}!J ~ = /}!}!J @ r!!!~ ~ to N t o [c------. ""\ ~ I P [ ,-'------ I bl,i I, ! [~P'tt I i~' ... J n fi:; - ~ c:::J <D ~ N @ g ~ ~ ~., I I d .' ~~ B I I~I lel~ 15m ~ ; ~~ II ;sj ~ , It I'! 'I I II I' I I ~.' IIII I f! Ii '. I .. I I ." !i I ~ : , '~' 'h ~f,~ ~~r. i - ~I: I r, ~ 1!l!!hIK11lf. 11'1 IIIJIII.I~ I, ~. lJ, I' , - s. " '~"'___, R ~ , "'_ '" '" ..:. '- " +- _""'~ ". . J ""____: '~" ~)(/./ 'i-II ~7:;;~' III h! "II i'll I 1111111 11' \ a \~'!of..fF('7 {'nt~-=::;: ih,III,ll1if'II,d. iill/IIIlI'l'l i: \:i-,,~~t>~it~~r;~,) /ff'r";:' 11 f 111 f I.' ," 1111111 h. '5 . I \ \, ?'f.\~~ 't / 1'11,1.11111111,1,' illlllll!" illl,! ~i ~ i~)\'~\:')'-~ 1!iJt ~tl . , ,., I ..1 .I I .1 I - - if:' h) ~'i~.;- ~ \ 1 .. .. ."" \,...vtv:.;-, 1 , I · I. i, illl i ; III II!', 'II lillllil ' ;111111111, I'l 11'111 lll!i' I' , III i !lllllfllill jlllfl jll,!li,l!!' Illdilli ilr.,:,li.1d'I'I',1 !l,l, i,il,', illl,'!..,!',l ~,'ll"l!l,'l,l 11111 6 Iii ;il! 11m II !Iii ,II ii!IIIIIII,II!IIII!il !I11lli lili !II !Illllliin lllllilll \~o't \ /' v ....~Q~ lIt , t 9 ,,-- y......-5 I ' ' (L,.. .9'.-t-1 '---t! -/-f=~ i /--" 5i;d :J .~ a, fi ~ ~< II i_ = ~ ! ~i ~ I ~ ~ II! ~~ n~ ~ ,~ . t Hi! ~t a B , ~~~~ l! ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ h ~f ~ II tWI' I I ;i~~ fl!~ ~ ~~ III ~I~ fIlii' +1 ~1"lil!U I~ (lSV3 ) 531'1153 3015>l33H:l ~~!I~I ~ II } I Ii J ~ SlIUIOnJI m 01 OHI-tl t lDMO :lSIl . HfW l1& tHlHll r Sf(J'OI8 J.IJ &I I tII I UOOlIllDf WJ OIl I IIOO~ ~.... Is:HOlS~ OO-'lt 'ON l03rO~d NOIIWI~O.:lNI IV1d IN30vrav aNY '30VdS N3dO 'Slll"lll ~Nlav~~ f. V1053NNII'l '3>lVl HOI~d n sVl';i/Jih I NOIlIOOV O!:l( M3'^-IH Ulno:> ~rq)1,ill : S,V>Id3JS VNNv-or -- - - - )~~~ -- - -, - - - --+" - - ~- ~ ~=-~:::~.?:J ~ -_. t::::--, E-:: c::-' c' q, 00 vJ,~ ~v " ~..?O.l- '~ Q-~ 0- = c.c. 7 ~ C'-J rlt'l !--. V::!) W co ~ ~ , , , , , , , , , n Ib I! '" I!; b "- II! Iii III ll~ ti w ~ ill d P fl= V1 ~ ~ I t~ w ~ _,u .II~ ~ 0 z ~ I:ill Iii -t ~ ~ . . n .,. lUJ t~ JJ tl~;~~j I V'lOG;!NNII^I ';1)/\f1 ~O'~d 11N;!~ldOl;;r^;;ra lINn Q;;rNNVld 'V S;!l'V1S;! ;;raJ@/;!~:J 8] ~ ""j ~ '"', ~ ~.) ~~~.~l ~ ~ = I I I I I . I - I i~ w: n ..), I~ 0' g_ Q. I i ... I I J: I , gl .~ IUf~[~~~ -_._-----_._-~ I 'v'lOG;;JNNII^l ';;J')l'v'l ~Ol~d I VNIGnOI-1 ~OIN;;JG liNn VS M;;JN G;;Jl'v'lG;;J ;;Jal~;;J~J ':1f;.'I.'i!:f,..f:! ..~'mm n iW W!I&I SIlllN~H$;Ja '&B~NNY7tl "Gl:16.lJR:Mr 'iJ 0 JNI S,.LJJl.LII/JIlY YHl/ 3 ~ Il! ~ ~ Il! ~ "'--II-=-: Ii .0-,9 ~ ~i:l ~t l~l'~ tlji~ ~~~~ i~g~ ~ .. --r- &~;~ ~ ~~~&! ~ YI;~~ II! 8~~;; 1 .. .\ tl~ \ ,L \ ~.. , ~i \ ~g ~'t ~i is .. o M~ ~:!S ~ t;~ ~ 2 ~~ l:i ~ ~ ~~ ~ gi ~ n ~ _ "", ~ j ~ ~~~ N ~ ~ t:) ~5 ~ ~ i! ~ U:; ~ ~ In iil:~" In ~ t) ~~~ ~:;~~ ~ ~~ ~ - ! ~~5 ~~a2~ N ~ ~tii ~ Ii ill j;!""- ;:!~ is >- :> j;!""- :! ~ S~...I ~!t~1L gm e!...I ~ i ~~g B8-,~ i ~!g =' ~Il.~ ~w~~ :::J :::J(L~ ~~2!!J c;;~~~ ~S1~~ <i:l ~~~~ ~~tT !!~ d ~ ~ '"' I;;, II;:! ~;~ ~~~ ! ~~ ~ ~i~ ; i~ ~... ~~I · ~ i ~.t .... tllt:5 - ," N a" ., ~ 0 i~8 !l !9 ,19 iiol 9 ~ ~~~.I:! J 1 '!I . 14~ Vi i~. I~~ 1 in;;t nf ~h ~ ~~~ ~ ":"'~>1~.!l. ;.i.:I'J.:...,." Q z o ~ <( > ~ w Z tj (j) ~ I~ II ~I ~ z j 0... ~ ~ ....... (f) :.. -:< i-I ]'1- 0- ij~--=-- ---~ij';-- V10C;;;JNNIV'l ';J')(V] ~Ol~d ;;;;.~::;;;. ~!llmb'Jl"f;' W!I@) ij~)\ ' ! I-df!i.J:I",ftU!.'~' I 9NIC;;nOI-l ~OIN;;JC;; liNn lr~ M;JN .",Horss. 'Sll<ff/f?1d """ll1l:M' "l CJ \-- I I . .'UI\i,!iHi:L>a~ C;;;J1V1C;;;J ;Jal<;;,)(;J~:> ':JNI S..L:J:I.L1H:JHY YH1J =' I I"' II I ~ I ~h H ~ 0-4 ~ ~ H 0 i! ~ ~ ~ PE!.! ~ tb ~ I ~~p~p:J ~ H ~ ~ i ~~~~~llh~iiii~g ili ~;J.p = ~ . I sHu' 1111 u w~I~~a~~~~ '~~~~~i~6 ~ .~ . ~ !~~~?!l ~ dlld~lJillH i1MihlllllilhM liU ~I~t ~ag '" e . ~ 1~80~omo~mDIOD ., L:ln::::;\ ~ ~;:!~u j 1 ~ 1 un ~ ili o z U) ~ 0<( r~ U)~~ UJOLU ~ZZ <(LUZ ~U)- U) ~ UJ ~ n LUZLU D~~ - <C U)~~ ~L{)~ ttJ50 .".,; ~.'~~I." ,,~....\,iM.' .....,..,...;..,,'" '. t~. ~~. UJ ~ UZ(L ~ l~ . jj ll~~~JJ I VlOCO;JNNIV'l 'J~Vl i!lOI~d I ~NISnOl-l ~OINJS liNn 179 M;JN SJIY1S;J ;Jal~;J;Ji!lJ ':::.:W;!::..,.l;J ""'g,"II'T'nll '\!I!f@j SVIHfJfS't1 'SVlNNn. "t;J.:1,JlIR::R1r 'il CJ .:JNI S,.L:J3.LIH:J/lY YH/l '.1 I. I' !~ jl z o e:: 5 t.:l t.:l U ~ P:: ~ ~ . t.:l S ,,~ w z z z 0 0 z ~ ~, 0 0 ..... ~ ~ ~ i>itill:~ .~ J1l . "~\'.' ,- "', '~~~~i .. t.:l E-< E-< J1l ~ Z ~ Z ~ :.:: ~ :.:: 0 , 0 u . P:: . u , < ~ ~ &: ~ 03 rz.. s ~ jI:l s -~ ...~ +:; ~ ,Te. O ~====~~ V10<;;tNNI~ ';nr.n ~O~d I ._-;,._~-.:. I ON,allng oaNCD ~Nn .. ,^,N ...a='llt!.'iH.-~ <;;tlVl<;;t dOl~;!~J - -- --- 0-' :~,&."I11 WIRIh-wYM - ...m.fa. .....I1l1n" """1111"'" ~ I-- -:JNl S..L:J:1.L1H:J1IY YHll ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 01 l':! ~ I III III I IU' I H 0-4 Y ~ H 0 ,- I ql.1 1111 u dlld~lIulH e ;>; Im~DmDmD~IUID,O ~ i-a ~ ~~~~ ~ ~.~~I~S~~i~~~ 8~8 ~~i~~~~~~~i~!~a~~ ~~~ ~::: ~:I~":11 ::!~~:l: ~ ~ !~!~ ~I~B lI~xU~ ~I~h~a~ ~ -N~1~" ~J.,^nll'il" (.9 Z o ---.J :)<( cO\- (f)oSS lUOlU \-zz <(Oz \-u- (f)\-2 lU r> UJZlLJ O:)~ - <C lfJ't---.J LC\l~ tlJso ~-UJ~ U2(L I!.!lq z o ~ ~. ~~j~Ifi~; Q ~ . ~ i .' II II ~ ] [~:~] 'v'lO<;;;JNNIVIl ';;r:l'v'1~OI~d 'f.'f;-'1/.~,,,g: [,wm~Jm'.'Il "!!!f@j 9NIOllng OONO:) liNn VG M;;JN NZN.,aa 'NINNY'" 'SJ:)ZU1{:1IiT '" CJ <;;;Jl'v'.L<;;;J ;;JOI<;)l;;J~:) :JNI S..L:J:I.L1H:J1JV YH1J [!l -ll pl:!n :~~ C:J I~ ~~L C~~~~ "'ll