HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 11, 2000
"
.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 11,2000
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 #00-072 Holiday Station Stores are requesting a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a gas station/convenience store and carwash for the property
located north of Fountain Hills Drive at the southwest quadrant of the intersection
of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail.
B. 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:
A. Case File #00-077 Angie Cawley Variance Resolution.
6. New Business:
A. Centex Homes presentation of concept plan for development of 40 acres located at
CSAH 83 and CSAH 42.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMMlOOPCAGEN\a.ll.I21100.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27,2000
1. Call to Order:
Commissioner Stamson called the November 27,2000, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Stamson and Lemke,
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording
Secretary Connie Carlson.
u
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V onhof
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the November 13, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the public
hearing.
Case File #00-078 (4C) Robert Jader Variance was heard first. See page 6.
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.
Zoning Code Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated
November 27,2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Angie Marie Cawley for
the proposed construction of a 24 x 24 foot 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)].
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN112700.doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
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 I-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)].
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 of2,847
square feet (37.7%) rather than the allowable impervious surface coverage area of
2,264.4 square feet (30%) [City Ordinancel104.306 Impervious Surface
Coverage; (1)].
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Hydrologist Patrick Lynch stated in his
letter dated October 31, 2000; attempts should be made to keep impervious surface to a
minimum, ideally no more than 35% without treatment.
The Planning Staff determined variance requests 1 and 5, met the stated hardship criteria
needed to approve a variance request. However, variance requests 2, 3, and 4 did not
meet the hardship criteria as described in conditions 1 thru 9, and are contrary to the'
intent ofthe City Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff therefore recommended
approval of variance requests 1 and 5, and recommends denial of variance requests 2,3,
and 4.
Comments from the public:
Chris Roberts, 4260 Grainwood Circle, explained the road encroachment and the
proposed driveway to the proposed garage. They will actually park one car in the garage
and use the rest for storage. Rather than leave the garage at 22.7 feet from the road they
will move a foot and still meet the 5-foot rear setback. Roberts said they could make the
garage less by reducing the width to accommodate the side yard encroachment. Roberts
felt it was not necessary to remove the existing oak tree. He also added there were other
structures that did not meet the setbacks. New retaining walls will be constructed in the
back yard, which will help reduce the runoff to the neighbors' property.
Kansier clarified applicant would move the garage to the east 6 feet with the eaves at 5
feet and remove part ofthe driveway. Roberts said that was correct. The edge ofthe
soffits will remain at 5 feet. The applicants are reducing the garage from 24 to 22 feet to
meet the setbacks.
Ray Beauvais, 4230 Grainwood Circle, stated he appreciated the applicant trying to
upgrade his property.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN112700.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27,2000
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Hor.sman explained the reduced setback.
. Roberts said he would construct 12-inch soffits and stay 6 feet from the property
lines eliminating variance #3.
. Drove by and applauded the applicant for working out the design and saving the
oak tree.
. Questioned Lot 5's structure setback. Horsman said there was quite a bit of
distance, not anywhere near a IS-foot setback. The applicant concurred.
. The applicant is flexible on adjusting the garage size.
. Concurred with staff, variances 1 and 5 met all the hardship requirements.
Number 3 is eliminated.
Stamson:
. Concurred with staff and Atwood meeting the hardship criteria for variances 1
and 5.
. Without these variances a garage would not be possible.
. Agreed with staff that variances 3 and 4 were not necessary to get a garage on the
property .
. Did not agree with staff on the rear setback. In order to get a garage on the
property it has to be 5 feet from the line, not 10. Support granting a variance to
the rear as well. Keep it 5 feet. It will not have an impact on the neighbors. This
is a comer lot, which do you call rear or side?
. Supported variances 1,2 and 5.
Lemke:
. Appreciated applicant's desire to save the oak tree.
. Viewed the property.
. Supported variances 1,2 and 5, keeping the structure 5 feet from the property
lines.
Kansier suggested the applicant submit a revised survey to staff. The Commissioners can
direct staff to draft a new resolution and bring it back at the next meeting for review.
Commissioner Stamson confirmed the garage and eaves are to be setback 5 feet from all
sides of the property.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO HAVE STAFF REVISE THE
RESOLUTION BASED ON THE REVISED SURVEY AND BRING IT TO THE
DECEMBER 11,2000 MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNl12700.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
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.
Zoning Code Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated
November 27,2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian & Heather
Compton for the proposed construction of a 20 x 28 foot 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)].
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 Ordinancell04.306: Impervious Surface
Coverage; (1)].
The Planning Staff determined a revised variance request number 2, (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 recommended approval of variance request numbers 2 (revised) and 4 as
requested, but recommends denial of variance requests 1 and 3.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resource Hydrologist Pat Lynch stated in this letter
dated October 31, 2000 that every attempt should be made to keep the impervious surface
down.
Stamson questioned ifthe 483 feet impervious surface is after the applicant removes part
ofthe driveway. Horsman clarified it was correct.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN112700.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27,2000
Stamson inquired if there were any other variances required with the addition of the
property. Horsman said the room addition was straight up above the house and did not
change the impervious surface.
Comments 'from the public:
Brian Compton, 16466 Inguadona Beach, said they did not just go ahead and pour the
footings. They assumed the building department approved the plan. He also clarified the
footings were poured for the front and back, not sides. Compton said he did not want to
create any future problems for the neighbor. He felt reducing the garage width to 18.6
feet was okay, but does need the depth. Moving up the structure is not an option. A
window is one-foot away from the proposed garage. The rear yard setback is necessary.
Compton said he did not understand the 25-foot setback compared to the previous
applicant's la-foot rear yard setback. Compton felt they are trying to comply with the
City's ordinance and are willing to cut down the driveway as much as they can.
Horsman explained the difference with detached accessory structures and setbacks.
Jay Irvine, 16478 Inguadona Beach presented his survey showing the applicant had a 16
x 16 foot shed with an extended driveway. There was no problem before the storm a few
years ago, which damaged the shed. He felt the garage should be larger.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. This is unique with the existing footings.
. Questioned Horsman on the revised plan. Horsman explained applicant's options
of redesigning or moving the structure. This is the time to redo the footings
before a structure is started.
. Questioned the applicant's window size on the house plan. Compton responded it
is 13 inches from the front garage wall to the window.
Stamson:
. Concurred with staffs analysis. The criteria have been met with the impervious
surface. There will have to be some kind of variance to construct the garage.
. Agreed with staff on variance #2, which essentially allows a 5-foot setback. Hold
tight to encroaching 5 feet to the lot line. It is appropriate and does not affect the
structure.
. Variances 1 and 3 do not meet the hardship criteria. A 28-foot garage is very
deep. It is just a convenience.
. Recognizing the applicant poured the footings, the Ordinance specifically states
not to consider construction or economic costs.
. Supported variances 4 and a modified #2.
Lemke
. No comments at this time.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNl12700.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27,2000
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION
00-017PC 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%)
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION
00-018PC DENYING A 1.3 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A PRINCIPAL
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 EAVE TO ENCROACH WITHIN 3.4 FEET FROM
THE ADJOINING SIDE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 5
FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
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.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier explained the applicant's survey was incomplete
which did not accurately reflect the building dimensions for the requested variances, and
recommended the Planning Commission continue the matter to the next scheduled public
hearing on December 11, 2000.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO CONTINUE THE
HEARING TO THE DECEMBER 11, 2000 MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 7:34 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:37 p.m.
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
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNI12700.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
assisted living housing for the property located at the north end of the intersection
of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 27,
2000, on file in the office ofthe Planning Department.
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.
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 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 ofthe plans must be complete and in final
form before this plan will proceed to the City Council.
The staff suggested 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 recommended 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 ofthe project, the dimensions of the 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).
A land surveyor, an architect and/or a registered landscape architect must sign all
plans.
2. The landscaping plan must be revised to ensure the minimum separation between the
plantings and any fire hydrant or P.LV., and to ensure there are no plantings within
the public right-of-way.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNl12700.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
3. All plans must be consistent with one another, in terms ofthe 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.
Atwood questioned if staff was expecting a response from the City Attorney soon.
Kansier said it would be this week.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Dave Bell, Freedom Development & Consulting, agreed with the staff s
findings and conditions and asked the Commissioners to approve the request.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· This is consistent with the Preliminary Plat. Most of the changes are details. It is
consistent with the criteria of the PUD.
· It is consistent with City Council findings.
· Recommend to City Council for approval with conditions.
Atwood and Lemke:
· Agreed to support.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT AND PUD SUBJECT TO THE LISTED
CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter is temporarily scheduled to go before the City Council on December 18,
2000.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Kansier pointed out January's holidays.
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNI12700.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
Welcomed Mr. Vaughn Lemke to the Planning Commission.
8. Adjournment:
The meetiIig adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNl12700.doc
9
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A GAS
STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE IN THE C-4
ZONING DISTRICT (CASE FILE #00-072)
LYNDALE TERMINAL CO. (HOLIDAY STATION
STORES) ,
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF CSAH 42, IN THE NORTHWEST
QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF PIKE
LAKE TRAIL AND FOUNTAIN HILLS DRIVE.
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/ A
- -
DECEMBER 11, 2000
The City of Prior Lake recently received an application for a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) to allow the construction of a gas station, convenience store and automatic car
wash on the property located at the southwest comer of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail.
This site is zoned C-4 (General Business). The applicant has not requested any variances
for this project.
REVIEW PROCESS:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit should be reviewed in accordance with the criteria
found in Section 1102.1203 and Section 1108 of the City Code. Section 1102.1203
includes the specific conditions for the proposed use. Section 1108 includes the general
CUP criteria.
SITE ANALYSIS:
The site in question was platted in 1999 as Lot 2, Block 1, Fountain Hills Addition. This
lot is 2.13 acres in area, and is bounded by CSAH 42 on the north, Pike Lake Trail on the
east and Fountain Hills Drive on the south. To the west is a vacant commercial lot.
Access to the site is from Fountain Hills Drive. There is also a second access via a shared
driveway across the lot to the west.
l:\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-072\OO-072pc.doc I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The proposed development includes a 5,404.4 square foot convenience store, a 1,439.1
square foot automatic car wash, and 5 pump islands located under a 4,080 square foot
canopy. The buildings on the site are situated towards the southwest side of the property.
The canopy and pump islands are located on the east side of the building, and the car
wash is alorig the west side of the building. The following is a more detailed description
ofthe site plan.
Site Gradin2 and En2ineerin2: This site was graded as a part of the development of
Fountain Hills. The contours shown on the grading plan do not reflect existing
conditions on the site. In addition, the plans do not reflect the existing locations of the
utilities. The plans must be revised to reflect the existing conditions. The specific
comments from the Engineering staff are attached to this report.
Buildin2 Code Review: The Building Official has also reviewed the plans, and has
identified several changes. A copy of the memorandum is attached to this report. The
first five items on this memorandum must be addressed to complete the analysis of the
site design. The remaining items may be addressed as a part of the building permit
application.
Setbacks: The ordinance requires a minimum 50' setback along any right-of-way and a
20' side yard setback. In addition, the pump islands must be located an additional 12'
from the setback line. The proposed development meets the minimum setbacks.
Parkin2 Spaces: The use requires a minimum of 4 parking spaces, plus 1 space for each
180 square feet of commercial floor area, for a total of 38 spaces. Only 25% of the
required spaces may be located at the pump islands. In addition, at least 4 stacking
spaces are required for the car wash. The site plan includes a total of 36 parking spaces,
and at least 4 stacking spaces for the car wash. The applicant must provide 2 additional
parking spaces in order to meet the Ordinance requirements. These 2 spaces may not be
located at the pump islands.
Driveways: The maximum driveway width for a commercial use is 36' measured at the
street right-of-way line. The site plan identifies a 40' wide driveway. This width must be
reduced.
Landscapin2: There are 3 different types of landscaping required for this plan: 1)
perimeter landscaping; 2) parking lot bufferyards; and 3) tree replacement.
1) Perimeter Landscaping: The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 1 tree per 40'
of perimeter of the site, or 31 trees. The landscaping must consist of at least 25%
coniferous trees, and 25% deciduous trees. The minimum planting size is 6' for the
coniferous trees, and 2 ~ caliper inches for the deciduous trees; however, at least 10%
of each planting type must be oversized (8' and 3 ~ caliper inches, respectively).
Finally, ornamental trees are allowed, but at a ratio of2 ornamental trees for 1 canopy
1:\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-072\OO-072pc.doc
2
tree. The proposed plan includes a mix of size and species, but does not include the
proper number of trees. -
2) Parking Lot Bufferyards: A Bufferyard Type "B" is required where a parking lot is
adjacent to right-of-way. This means a bufferyard is required along the north, south
and east property lines. The plantings included within the bufferyard cannot be
counted as perimeter trees. The proposed plan does not include any bufferyard
landscaping.
3) Tree Replacement: When the final plat of Fountain Hills was approved, tree
replacement was required to meet the tree preservation ordinance requirements. The
landscaping plan identified 2 Autumn Flame Maple trees, 2 ~ caliper inches in size,
on this lot. These trees must be identified on the landscaping plan.
4) Irrigation: The notes on the landscaping plan state an irrigation system will be
installed. In that case, an irrigation plan must be provided.
Sienaee: The site plan identifies a freestanding sign at the northeast comer of this site.
The plan must be refined to better identify this location, since it is shown differently on
the survey and on the site plan. The proposed monument sign is 25' tall, measured from
the grade to the top of the sign, and includes 156.4 square feet of sign area. The C-4
district allows a freestanding sign no more than 20' tall and 100 square feet in area. The
proposed sign must be reduced to meet this requirement.
The plan also proposes wall signs on the north, south and east faces of the building and
on the north, south and east sides of the canopy. The building signs and the sign on the
east side of the canopy are within the maximum sign area. The signs located on the north
and south faces of the canopy exceed the maximum 20% of the face of the structure.
These signs must be reduced in area.
Liehtine: Lighting on this site includes freestanding light poles on the perimeter of the
site, decorative lighting on the building, and illuminated lettering on the signs. The area
beneath the canopy is also lit. The Ordinance requires that exterior lighting be designed
and arranged to limit direct illumination and glare to any contiguous parcels. Reflected
glare may not exceed 1.0 footcandles at the property line. In this case, the glare exceeds
1.0 footcandles on the west property line. This must be revised.
Architectural Requirements: The Zoning Ordinance requires that at least 60% of the
building face visible from off-site be constructed of Class I materials, and no more than
10% of the building face be constructed of Class III materials. The exterior of the
proposed building is finished with brick, glass, EIFS fascia, and precast concrete. At
least 60% of the exterior is Class I (brick and glass).
The Zoning Ordinance also requires at least 1 % of the lot area be devoted to pedestrian
plazas or walkways. This proposal meets that requirement. This proposal also meets all
of the other architectural design requirements ofthe ordinance.
I :\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-072\OO-072pc.doc
3
Other Requirements: There are other requirements specific to this use that must be met.
These include the following.
1) Outside-Storage and Display: No outside sale or display shall be permitted except
gasoline and other goods consumed in the normal operation of a car and limited to the
following products: oil, gasoline and oil additives, windshield cleaner, windshield
wipers, tires and batteries. No products shall be sold or displayed in any required yard
nor shall the total display area occupy more than 150 square feet in area or be more than
5 feet in height. No other vehicular parts and non-automobile oriented goods shall be
displayed or sold outside.
2) Public Address System: No public address system shall be audible from any property
located in an "R" Use District.
3) Car Wash: Drainage and surfacing plans for a car wash shall be approved by the City
Engineer. The plans shall describe the wash water disposal and sludge removal
facilities to be employed to accomplish dust, salt and other chemical and mud
abatement on the premises and prevent the accumulation of surface water, wash water
or sludge on the site or in the vicinity of the premises.
The first two requirements should be included as an ongoing condition of the operation of
the facility. The last condition should be included as a condition of approval. This
information must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.200 of the City Code sets forth the criteria for approval ofa CUP.
(1) The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Two of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are to encourage a diversified economic
base and to promote sound land use. The proposed use provides additional
commercial development in the City. The location of the use is also consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan in that it has good access from collector streets.
(2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare
of the community as a whole.
In general, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community. The access to the site is from a collector street,
and will not direct traffic through any adjacent residential areas.
(3) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and
the Use District in which the Conditional Use is located.
There are several changes required to the site plan in order to ensure the development
is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
I :\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-072\OO-072pc .doc
4
(4) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
services, or improvements which are either existing or proposed.
The streets and utilities to serve this development are in place. This use will not
adversely affect those services.
(5) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties in close proximity to the conditional use.
With the required changes, the use will be screened from the adjacent roads, and will
not have an adverse impact on the nearby properties.
(6) The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape
plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect,
or civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, approved by the City
Council and incorporated as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the
City Council.
There are several changes required to the site plan in order to ensure the development
is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
(7) The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a professional civil
engineer registered in the State of Minnesota which illustrate locations of city
water, city sewer, fire hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and cable lines,
natural gas mains, and other service facilities. The plans shall be included as
part of the conditions set forth in the CUP approved by the City Council.
As noted earlier in the report, the grading and drainage plans do not reflect the
existing conditions. These must be changed and resubmitted for review.
(8) The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the City Council
may find necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety and
neighborhood character. Such additional conditions may be imposed in those
situations where the other dimensional standards, performance standards,
conditions or requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to achieve the
objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these circumstances, the City
Council may impose restrictions and conditions on the CUP which are more
stringent than those set forth in the Ordinance and which are consistent with
the general conditions above. The additional conditions shall be set forth in the
CUP approved by the City Council.
Once revised plans have been submitted, the Planning Commission and Council may
determine additional conditions are required.
CONCLUSION
At this time, there are several outstanding issues to be addressed in order to ensure this
proposal meets the ordinance requirements. The plans must be revised to address the
following issues:
J :\OOfiJes\OOcup \OO-072\OO-072pc .doc
5
1. The site grading and drainage issues as outlined in the memorandums from the
Engineering Department.
2. The Building Code issues listed as items 1-5 in the attached memorandum from the
Building Official.
3. The parking plan must provide the minimum parking spaces.
4. The driveway widths must be reduced to 36 feet. In addition, an access easement for
the shared driveway must be submitted.
5. The landscaping plan must be revised to meet the Ordinance requirements. Also, an
irrigation plan must be provided as part ofthe landscaping plan.
6. The signage plan must be revised so the signs do not exceed the maximum size. The
site plan must also be more specific about the location of the freestanding sign. Signs
must be located at least 10' from any lot line, and may not be located within the
traffic visibility triangle.
7. The lighting plan must be revised to ensure the illumination does not exceed 1.0
footcandles at the property lines.
8. Drainage and surfacing plans for the car wash must be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
Due to the number of outstanding issues, the staff recommends the public hearing be
continued to allow the applicant to submit revised plans and to allow for adequate time
for staff review.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Continue the public hearing to January 16,2001.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second continuing the public hearing to January 16,2001.
I :\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-072\OO-072pc.doc
6
Location Map
Co,
N
A
200 0 200400 Feet
~-
\ .
)
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Fountain Hills Holiday Station) for the
following:
)( Water City Code X Grading
>< Sewer Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric Roads! Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
X Erosion Control Other
Recommendation:
Approval X Denial Conditional Approval
CO"",l.6Tt: THE FOc..L-6WIN&, /fNt:t l2.e.. ~(Je./IIflr p:'GAI:J>.
Comments:
c5f'4-
. CDNTf)O~ SthWH .fOe.. 6~/STIN~ c.e>1'Jf>IT1oN~
Co NoT ~~l..GGT A-~TIJ19-L- F/6t-D 8l.5'l/J4.-""'oN!>.
~N11J1J~~ SHov N A~ Fbu-t pf!.Dpee.l'"Y rtUo Ii!... 70
~~t9t)'N~ IN 1'19.
,!low IJ-VL ~~S,7/Nt; CDNb/nDIIS IIV G~tlT::YN~
l"AUG--uTU~,rr 150x ANt> Ps'f>~ #/ ~7'1oN
ot:Lv'ebT De,LJ6w.4~.
$/he....> R~ ~IL (Z.6~ovl4tz ~;: 'e14\M P$,I 5.J4w
c.."TT1 N_ _C }4f..OlYc, _c:>__''''' H,u-$.
1'10 CeJ9.~/N4 #}.IIAU- g6 t:>o~ c5 OM ~41(,,~ 02-
Sf; /W ~EN nf9.) L. ..... C t:' 12- a .
~ (A...I ~J~r P'151'Jc,t5 1..Dt:-19- /)(::)1-J. c,.J pfJl'9 1\.J ~
,#0 Y~l: /5 Al6tSb~ tP}4/ """~~f2.. ~7t-'B. ~ t"L,...
VA-L-tI '~/IV 71HF $.~T /?;fl, 5rt:>&.
~C-" /4i~J-T_ &6 IH~rt1u.er> otl THe ~ /-or.
~L~ -- Date: 11- 'Z./ - 0 0
/
7P_~
Signed:
Please return any comments by Tuesday, November 21,2000, to
Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9812
Fax: (612) 447-4245
1:\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-072\referral.doc
Page 2
\
~
DATE: November 17, 2000
TO: Sue McDermott, City Engineer
FROM: Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator
RE: Holiday Station (Project #47-00)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for the subject project
and we have the following comments:
1. Utility Plan - SP 3: Show a storm sewer pipe connection to the existing catch basin
on Fountain Hills.
2. Utility Plan - SP 3: Add a note to the above sheet stating that the connection to the
existing storm manhole needs to be made with a concrete saw and repaired with
non-shrink grout.
3. Utility Plan - SP 3: Show a detail of the car wash floor drain pit.
4. Utility Plan - SP 3: The City's requirement for 6" and 8" DIP is Class 52.
5. Utility Plan - SP 4: Show where the silt fence will be located on the grading plan.
6. Utility Plan - SP 4: Where slopes are greater than 3: 1, a retaining wall will be
required. A retaining wall will be needed around the storm sewer outlet on the north
side of the property, unless a 3:1 slope can be obtained.
7. Utility Plan - SP 4: Extend the 12" storm sewer pipe so that the apron invert is
within 2 feet vertical elevation of the existing culvert under C. R. 42.
8. Utility Plan - SP 4: Place a note on the page stating, "Slopes greater or equal to
3: 1 shall have an erosion control blanket installed immediately after finished grading.
9. Utility Plan - SP 4: The proposed contours on the east side of the property need to
be tied into the existing contours properly.
G:\PROJECTS\2000\47holiday\REVIEWI.DOC
Memorandum
DATE: November 20,2000
TO:
Jane Kansier, Planner
?n~
FROM:
Robert D. Hutchins, Building Official
RE: Holiday Station 140xx Pike Lake Trail
Following are the results of the preliminary plan review for the Holiday Station. Our
review was based on the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) which adopted with
amendments the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) with handicap regulations of the
Minnesota Accessibility Code Chapter 1341. Also requirements of the 1998 Minnesota
State Fire Code (MSFC) which adopted with amendments the 1997 Uniform Fire Code
(UFC). Items 1 thru 5 need to be completed for the site review.
1. Complete a Building Code analysis. UBC Chapter 5. Include the following:
a. Occupancy Classification.
b. Type of Construction.
c. Location on Property.
d. Allowable Floor Area.
e. Height and Number of stories.
f. Exiting.
2. Provide a Post Indicator Valve (PIV) on sprinkler supply line into building. Locate a
minimum distance away the height of the building.
3. 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 Hydrant and by
Fire Department connection. UFC 1001.7.1.
4. Locate the Fire Department connection. Preferred location is on south side of car
wash wall. Provide a Fire Hydrant within 150 feet of the Fire Department connection.
5. Sheet SP 1: Canopy Dimension of 163' -0" appears incorrect.
"
6. Submit signed architectural, structural, Certificate of Survey, HV AC, plumbing, fire
alarm, and sprinkler plans. May be submitted at a later date.
7. Submit a soils report.
8. Submit Energy Envelope Calculations. MN Energy Code 7670.0100
9. A S.A.C. determination must be completed by the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission. Contact Jody Edwards at 651.602.1113.
10. Provide calculation of required Attic ventilation. UBC 1505
11. Provide Engineered Roof Truss Drawings at Framing Inspection.
12. Provide a room finish, door, door hardware, and window schedule.
13. Submit the Structural Engineers requirements for Special Inspections UBC 1701.5.
14. Provide an attic access. UBC 1505.1
15. Provide detail of Attic draftstopping. UBC 708.3.1.2.2.
16. Provide HDCP Interior and Exterior signage details. MSBC 1341.0476.
17. Provide accessible drinking fountain cutsheet detail. MSBC 1305.1795
18. Provide a van accessible parking space. MSBC 1341.0403, Item E, Subitem 2.
19. Provide a HDCP ramp detail.
20. Provide emergency lighting and exit signs. UBC 1003.2.8
21. Provide a recycling space. MSBC 1300.4700.
22. Indicate Roofing materials. UBC Table 15-A
23. Ventilation for the building must meet UBC chapter 12. Provide 15 CFM of
ventilation per occupant.
24. Sprinkler system shall be monitored by a remote station. MSFC 1003.3.1
25. Underground storage tanks require a separate permit. UFC Article 79.
This is a preliminary review only. Other code items will be addressed when the final
plans are submitted. The Cites Developmental Review Committee (DRC), which consists
of representatives of Planning, Engineering, Parks, Finance, and Building Departments,
must review the building plans. The DRC must approve the plans before a building
permits can be issued.
.
2
g t
z
....
)>
Z
I
~I
lit :
i
i
!
,/1'1 i
,..~--~' /"
==='- ---~-
PIKE LAKE ROAD
a
-
-----------------------------------------'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~~)
u
~ I\i : ,: i ,i : I: ill; i...: .; Ii", i i ; ....i ..", I!: " II: : : 'n!., i : Ii ....'-1 i I
I ,I II i I ~. I' IIU " I 'l! IU_, II ~~ . II nll~ ,I I nil' I
i III 1111111 :,! lllpl'b !I ~'llip:lllli jll'l. II jlldl i
J II! illn ; I 'PI ~,.n iiid! l; i I,; .1 1 !II ;I! I ;11111 P ! IIII !'
II' ~ I I' ~ I I I 1 II I , III'S I ,Ii, I ,
,,11 I i Ii C I IjI illlP I' I ! '0 III j hi'; j I i
!i.1 I J ~ II! its i J; I J I ! i ~I 115 iii I : I i
h ! I ! I I I I I I J I II III; -
i~ i ~ I ~ !i II. II I II II ; ~ J I I
; I, J I i' I i I 5 I" I I
~~ II' 1"' . I
i III" irt\;.l SIte PIen
ra II I f !hl\'
~ ~ I lull
i11IiH1!i!i STATION STORE
II 11'11 COlIfTY ROAD 142
.,0 PFIOR LAKE, t.HESOTA
'\
f5)rn@rnO\Yl[g ~
~I M1I-93m ~
I u" ; ;
i
i ull
i ill
I
i Iii!
iUi
I aaa~
i ~~~~
i IUI
i
\
() i
9 i
;;0 \
9
~
!i ;Ii IIl1ili ili ! I! Iii i
III;P'!1I' U I ! 1'1
sllll nil II IIi 11,1
I,' m ~;,! ii I;; I~ Ie
:11 'Iqlll s
J ,': ~ ~. II '
,. .t,1 I Hl il Ii
H · = II ,-
;III j ql II !
~
riUlI1L
~\r
I
I
I j
0
9
;0 lit
9 ~i
-l>-
N
m
j
oflp i1 dip ohp
>->->->->-> ,. >-> > ,.:>
~1-~~~-------------_:~~~---------~---f--' J
I i!c1lt+-
~.., ~ I r
~~ I
II ~ I
I
I
I
IJ,.p :,pp,. "P~
:;WtIH f Ii l!iJr II! i'l :!~iil !':ltl!Ui I~ ! ~~
flfflt"llll. !l,(! 1:1 dJ J(I~I'lmlll!I~- ~ J.:
f,l~irllt : l'tf111li lit wd} dfJ)~1 t I I :-
!tH1ttlJ i" "I fit ~t "IJ'IJ'II;hlldJ I ,'==
(If.'llll '1=, "I' Ilill r 111'hI-1 f :-
Ihmj~ ~ llljli, if: ll~;l, "'(11111. , l =:
!i=ililfi t f ;"I'm !i'l' Ii ~~! IJ'!!1~3jl ~; r
IlllI'lfl J' il'll "JII;, l(hlj'JI t I-
J't~IUIl : llil.i il II 'Iifl df!Pf) :
i~I,I!!i!li ~ ':UJI11~i !! iiM ~'I ~f~bdJ ~ ~
. l '" I l f' ~
~i 1111 r~ ~1 ili;eYUtIty ~ 1T1~1 STATION STORE
I r il," ~ , COlIfrY ROAD :f42
2 · i ; i ~! II ~" PFIOR LAKE, tMESOT A
~
[iiii1
2 @
I [iiii1
-l c::J
~ ~,
U'J\J
-'=~ ''=;J
~- -:::;/
rlll.llil~
III. '1
II" ,-.'
II il!l!
.
III~I~I
:II"" ,. .. ..,.
P111111J~1 Sn;ll fllll H
11 r Jlh ll'JI} 1III II
Ilf lt1h'tl il!Jf'llI1lt 0"
i I II In · Ilr. 1;11 l' :
! ~ ~IIJfJI IhUi !gii ;1 ~
I 'I I, tlln il:l: f) 'I'll II
" "I Ill" f I If I
I ) II ~In 1.1',11 il_!1 I
I ,I lb', I ~ III~I
)i Ilfl ill:, .. I
I 11 fl-l " t Il '
I , f~I Id;! II;f :
l pI 'Ill It "
fi"U1 ni9zl
~~
> ~ I
>~)o--l--"-;->->
:!~~~---~---------_::
I~~)
I
l l
!" !
~ ~;l
III I
..
.. 1 lIlli'
Iii "'1,,1
lilll
b I,i; !
II~
II il jii t! Ii un i! 11 il tllll! I
111 n J. I~.I .1 rill ,I I i r
1 'J I II II II
11. I II .1 tI' I) tddh
~r : I ". III JI JIll
. . II I JI .111 .' Jl" I II
I. 11 I 111 .II! ! "I I
I. i: I 1.1111 1'1 It
"I' I I 1111 : Ii I I i
I I I hit ~I ~ I
1: i ; III I 11~ !
!l ' I Ill} t } It I
11 ! l 1 ' I
i11Iill,!i!i ST A noN STORE
II 11!11 COlInY ROAD M2
.. PFIOR LAKE, t.HE8OT A
mil
I
I
I
i
I
I
----------,
I
I
I
ell
C'
~I
~I
Vl
Ii
I!
) j
.:.~=::./.
"
~-:,l '
I I
I .
1\
I I
I .
\ \
, \
I .
\ i .
: I
) I I
//i
,'./ I
/ .
.' I
I
/,rj I.
,..~--" /"
, --- .
=--- ---1--
II~'"
~~..~
'1
!
a
f
~
!iiiil
~ @
I !iiiil
-I =
~ c€
~-:::..:-, ~J
----I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
~ ~l!iI
~ =i I il
iI. !l~ ~
;" . f
r " .
I ~ i
I
()
9
;u
o
-l'-
N
1-
~
Iii IliIi ;~ II !i ii 1111 ill; Ii i il'~! Ii ;Ii !i Ii I
!!llliil !! ;1 illl Ilil" mi I ~ i Iii 'PiPII :1
III II all IJ tiI II ~I'h' III~ I ti I ~ . I~. I E'
!IP,!II ~i ill ~: ~! m~ ~III H P! j '11'1"'
,~~ Ui, I. I 5 fil ~i II~ I iI dr iI ~ · ~
1II'dl ~II~ j IIIII~' i ~ I q · Xx Ii ill
'111111 ! J~ IIi ;~iiii;i II : a i ii ; If
~ I!'I ~ iI I I la~ <!I I a 1,1 ~ I
ai 11,1 I I I I aijll" j I J.~ ~ t
II : I I I ~ I"~ II! 5 . l
i',I!:I,!I!i STATION STORE
II II!II COlMY ROAD t42
" PFIOR LAKE, tJNESOTA
~1!Zffir
1"'1
~Ii
i!
I@
t:f1m:-11l> -'-JJIIOO
e e eeee ..~
~n I~~ 9 i!lli!:1 ~ H i
i~; IU I IC~ ~ .I~ i~ !! m
II Ilil! III!!!
I~i "II ~ I I ! J II
t~i I_i ~ B B! ,,<I
l!~11 i ..III
~IC- ~li1" i <l J II I ~i
IIi iii i II ~ li1 d
illllj " I B I I~
~ i I .1
1li1 I I
il' "I I
5 ~ "
r-----
I
i
i
i
!
I
I
I
I
i
'"
M
~
'"
~
'"
;;j
"lJ
~
c~~: :- -2J
~; ~11i, t~" I!!
~~I II I~
~III! 'I p~ ~
(II
~'"
i~
!
'"
o
~ ~
r q
I
~
F !
I;~ 1111 II: Ii !II~ i i ;
~~~ ~II BII hli; I ! ~
h I i ~ _;1 !
M
..
~~
10
Rig
'"
z
'"
'"
'"
Vi
~
o
~lr2'1" STATIONSTORE.
~ fI PRIOR LAKE, MM.
~
o
~
"lJ
s;:
Z
w
If
€
1::
~ ;:
~
----------------.,
I
I
,.
J
(i@) r.'~
$.g---
n
~~
~
~~
~~
[M]
~ @
r~-'
=
.-'
..-'
IMJ
~
)\
/~
-
1111I111I1111111111111111I11111111
[)
~
I---
~
1111 ~ ~ll~~~E #324 [ 1911!1;~tli~
~ ~ un~l.
$ -;;r-'
~ . ..
~I ~i U
-
~ ~ ~
~~ H H
i i
~ II
I
I
J
! ! ~ ! I
, ,.~
. ~1~
I I I
~ illlJj' ~ II
I II ; i I
. ~ I
ii!lli9111! UII'I
Iii II IIIII1III
~ ~ 'I ~Il
~
lMl
:z @
~
I lMJ
..... =
~ cg
[iiii)
~ d
~
I
I
J
1
I I I
'illl'~P
I II 1; i I
~ ~ I
" ~\; '1111 P r Ir ExlerIor
I' I I < BevaUons
>,-1 :.l
N Ill.
~ .~~riL
Villl~V ~~~E #324 I@ li;'iii~
iiU ~I .
;
I
~
II
I
UiiiJ .. ..
I ~ @ 1;1 Il Ii 'J II iii' I II IH ~ I~ B Ii
~ U ~ (i n i ~ ji !
. I [Ml
~ -.I = ~; I
. ~ c% ~i il ~i il
~ I I
IJUiJ "
Ii
,I u
I I
~--
-._~
-.--
..
n
~
.
~
~ r----r
1" 'B-
~ . II'I
- 1:11 I (L J
i I I II ~
I I ~ ~
(' (6J
! g I. I
~ I I
~ I
~J
..
I
~
,
~
n
~;
H
II
I
~I\H "" ~ I;v =. & vlllv STATlONSTORE 1324 [ i @~ ] lil:l:llri~Jr
~ . I ! IIi. Projld Slgnage fill Prior Lake. MN ~ ~ .
_. . 'II ill! ~
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4B
CONSIDER A 1.17 FOOT VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD
SETBACK; Case File #00-078PC
14962 PIXIE POINT CIRCLE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
DECEMBER 11, 2000
On June 28, 1999 the Planning Commission granted Robert Jader a 33 foot
variance to permit a 24 foot setback from the top of bluff to construct a single.
family dwelling at 14962Pixie 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 1.17 feet closer to the side property line for a 3.83 foot side yard setback
rather than the required 5 foot setback (Exhibit A As-Built Survey). On
October 13, 2000, the property owner made application for the following
variance:
1. A 1.17 foot variance to permit 3.83 foot structure setback from one
side lot line rather than the required minimum 5 foot setback
[Ordinance Subsection 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
On November 27,2000, the Planning Commission deferred action on this
Variance request, at staff's recommendation, to gather additional information
regarding the building's dimensions. After permit approval the original building
plans were revised in the field, but the revision was not accurately reflected on
the as-built survey submitted by the applicant for this Variance request.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-078\V AR3-078PC.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION:
Lot 12, First Addition to Eastwood, was platted in 1954. The property is riparian
and locateg within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the SO (Shoreland
Overlay) Districts. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent properties.
The contractor eventually discovered the building setback error after construction
had commenced and the foundation walls were installed. When the issue was
brought to the attention of City staff, the contractor was told to address the
situation prior to continuing construction on the project, or the contractor would
be building the structure at his own risk should a solution not be found, and the
building required to be removed in the future. The contractor felt a solution
would be found and continued construction.
The variance request is for 1.17 feet to permit a 3.83 foot structure setback to
the side property line. The original building permit survey depicted a 5 foot
setback from the SW property line (Exhibit B Building Permit Survey).
However, the footing contractor made an error by selecting the wrong reference
point (offset mark) to stake and form the perimeter spread footing. The City
building inspector approved the location and the contractor poured the
structure's footing.
In addition, after the building permit was issued the garage plan was revised to
add 6 feet to the garage depth. This accounts for the difference in the front yard
setback of 27.2 feet depicted on the as built survey, compared with the proposed
33.1 foot front setback depicted on the survey submitted with the building permit
(Exhibit C Building Plans).
Attached is a copy of the June 28, 1999, Planning Commission minutes and the
adopted Variance Resolution. The original setback variance was processed
under the previous Zoning Ordinance because a completed application was
received prior to May 1, 1999. In addition, the building permit was processed
under the previous Zoning Ordinance as referenced by one of the conditions for
the Variance Resolution (Exhibit D Resolution 99-Q9PC).
The DNR has reviewed the variance request and had no comments.
Michael and Katherine Harte, the property owners of the adjoining Lot 13, have
submitted a letter expressing no opposition to the requested variance (Exhibit E
Letter Dated 11/21/00).
Ronald Buckeye, submitted a letter to express his opposition to the requested
variance (Exhibit F Letter Received 11/27/00).
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-078\V AR3-078PC.DOC
Page 2
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or
other ~xtraordinary 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.
This criteria relates to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. The lot shape and topographical
conditions are difficult in this case, and the builder's error in placement of the
structure has created a situation where strict application of the terms of this
Ordinance would result in undue hardship.
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.
There are unique circumstances in relation to the lot width of approximately
40 feet at the building setback line, and the location of the bluff topography.
In addition, the builder has erroneously placed the structure in a
noncompliant location.
3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The hardship, with respect to the setback Variance is caused by the builder's
e rro r.
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.
Approval of the requested Variance will not adversely affect these stated
values.
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.
L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-078\V AR3-078PC. DOC
Page 3
Approval of the requested variance will not adversely affect these 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 the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan because it was not the owner's intent
or actions that created the need for the variances.
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 builder's misplacement of the structure created the hardship for the
owner.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of
the owners of the property.
The building was located at an angle to the lot line and to correct the problem
would require total removal of at least one side of the structure to comply with
the minimum 5 foot setback. The non-complying structure was not the result
of the owner's actions.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Economic hardship alone is not the reason for granting the variance request,
but may be considered in conjunction with the other criteria. The Commission
should consider whether moving the structure would create an economic
hardship.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded the variance request meets the nine hardship criteria
required for variance approval, because of the narrow lot dimensions at the
building setback line. In addition, the builder inadvertently erred in the
placement of the structure on the lot.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-078\V AR3-078PC.DOC
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution 00-019PC approving the requested side yard setback
varianc_e, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems
appropriate under the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the variance request because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Code criteria. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
denying the variance requests.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second adopting Resolution 00-019PC. A 1.17 foot variance to
permit a 3.83 foot structure setback to one side lot line rather than the required
minimum 5 foot setback.
L:\OOFI LES\OOV AR\OO-078\V AR3-078PC.DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION 00-OI9PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 1.17 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 3.83
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM ONE SIDE LOT LINE INSTEAD OF
THE REQUIRED SETBACK OF 5 FEET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Robert Jader has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit
the construction of a single family residence with attached garage on property located
in the R-l (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District
at the following location, to wit;
14962 Pixie Point Circle, legally described as Lot 12, First Addition to Eastwood,
Scott County, MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #00-078 and held hearings thereon on November 27,2000 and on December 11,
2000.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The legal building envelope for the lot is severely pie shaped, and the existing
structures noncompliant location is not a result of the applicant/owners actions.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-078\resOO-O 19 .doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the topograpghy, irregular shaped lot, and the
existing building location, as reasonable use of the property does not exist without the
granting of the variance. Reasonable use for this property would include a house of
similar bulk and height as the adjacent structures, and with similar setbacks to the top
of bluff.
7. The existing house location is compliant with the Zoning Ordinance for building
separation requirements from adjacent structures.
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 00-078PC 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 an existing single family dwelling and attached garage as surveyed
in the attached Exhibit A;
1. A 1.17 foot variance to permit a 3.83 foot structure setback from one side lot line
rather than the required 5 foot setback.
The following conditions must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the existing structure:
1. Gutters must be installed on the house and garage to direct water towards the street
rather than the bluff and lakeside of the lot.
2. An engineer's report must be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, including compliance on correct drainage of stormwater run-off.
3. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. Pursuant to Section 1108.414 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:\OOfiJes\OOvar\OO-078\resOO-O I 9.doc
2
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on December 11, 2000.
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-078\resOO-O 19.doc
Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair
3
t
CERTIFICATE OF SURvEy
for
BOB JADER
J28-1-98
EXHIBIT A A
BUILT SURVEY
\
\
\
\
\
'b:1~ __ \
~
\
\
\
~
.........
, L--\
-~ \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ . J
\oV - - ~
1" - 20'
14962 Pixie Point Circle
DESCRIPTION
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or
report was prepared by me or under my. direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered
land Surveyor under the laws of the State
~.. .
....r~
Dote I ~~ ~6V Reg. No. 8140
lot 12
FIRST ADDITION TO EASTWOOD
Scott County, Minnesota
Assumed bearings shown
o Denotes iron monument
(~) ~opos~
J28-1-98
..
CERTlFlCA lE vOF SURVEY'
for .
BOB JADER
EXHIBIT B BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY
-------,'
.\
\
\ .
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
.....j
, .
~~
.~
.0" ,,/()
~ a,.
~ ,,0
1~
I\...,./
Bldg area = 2428 Sq. Ft.
Lot area'" 14,924 Sq. Ft.
Coverage = 16.271.;
Scale: 1" = 30'
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State
~
0"' ? ~r R.g. No. 8140
11
I I
,---
~ ~ h?y
\-- \ e
G\\G
. (\"
<:( 0\
Pixie Point Circle
DESCRIPTION
Lot 12
FIRST ADDITION TO EASTWOOD
Scott County, Minnesota
Assumed bearings shown
o Denotes Iron monument
C~lsti;;g~ ~opos~
1'" ..,., . I' I
+1
)(,a ':.) 1
~'2
t . .~ l ".1 ---t
..s
.1 '"
'" !!u: -~~ iii' O;SI " JrINc:, ".,!. +
8~
:~
1t~ a-
'N - ,
.1 ~ 1 e+'')(~' )( I~' FooTl C::Ii "
N BASEMENT
1Il -r .. T :1
I #..$
I --
--I
I .~ =1- ~ I
I -1 -.3 @ qo.t~
I - I
>oot
9 I -.L I~ ,.:.,,"
. , I
r- .-.F~. e
r- \I "Ie:' 8~' fa/a" 4' " .~
"0 -0
""
-, Ul .~
~ 'I' q . I
_I
CJ) .~
.:0<;:
Z WtT' e.~ "l 1+(
- I
@ ~ouG{ - r~ -3 __I j"l.Ji'
<C
...I
Q. -.. 5~z.' W )l!l~& H !>OM p.C.J<lT
2
"
Z .
-
- _ J -\0
C .Q 4 ,~. e" 5t..c:C.1( -,
5 c..rG. f%,":.5~ 10
z:
...I !>UHI" I 00; It' 10loi0 &~AM
- 0 (". CJG:' \t." Q.Dc.K
:) 'ZL x&" .~IJo"l~
m -..: . . - -- I ~
"0
0 I !IU ,
, q~./,1 - III "",
0 ,.4r
I- .v
-
m ~VI'-E
-
J: \'\ ~ l.," 1.~,," ~,."
><
W .
d) CDlJc i
-I '00.00 ~)C.s ~~q
\II . \J~7
'" :I - UNEXCAVATED ~l
II) !
:~u:. . f --)
-.3- "ClQ .
. .'
. . IP ..n .\
S~Je ...
r.cSi/< ....
. ~. oU ,
r-tU\:J ..,~;!
..
5 CR". &" &1AC.1<.
I~" x 6" ~1l,Jl.:a
q<f.S1
o
'1~.S"
.
.1
. .;oj;(
;il~j~~;t;;::;o", EXHIBIT 0 RESOLUTION 99-09PC
..:.;:':'~(!'"'" ~
."". ~
~
t':J
'i
RESOLUTION 99-09PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 33.00 FOOT V ARlANCE TO PERMIT A
SETBACK FROM TOP OF BLUFF OF 24.00 FEET INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED SETBACK OF 57.00 FEET.
BE IT RESOL YED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Robert Jader has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit
the construction of a single family residence with attached garage on property located
in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at
the following location, to wit;
14962 Pixie Point Circle, legally descri1:;ed ~ Lot 12, First Addition to Eastwood,
Scott County, MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #99-027 and held hearings thereon on June 14, 1999.
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 Q.i"'1d on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The legal building envelope for the lot is severely pie shaped. This limits the width of
a structure and pushes the structure further towards the lake and top of bluff to obtain
a reasonable building width. The applicant has modified the footprint, reducing the
requested variance.
.
\\fs 1 \sys\dept\planning\99fi1es\99var\99-027\re9909pc.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fa,< (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.' :;}~~~~t;~,:,:.,: ",t"-:(:iY
:;j:~1j0:}*0.f
:~. j ,'-".. ~
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the bluff and pie shaped lot as reasonable use
of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance. Reasonable use
for this property would include a house of similar bulk and height as the adjacent
structure~, and with similar setbacks to the top of bluff.
7. The proposed house will be setback farther from the lake and top of bluff than the
existing cabin as well as the adjacent structures.
8. The proposed structure with the variance granted is within DNR recommendations.
9. 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.
10. The contents of Planning Case 99-027 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 future single family dwelling and detached garage;
1. A 33.00 foot variance to permit setback from top of bluff of 24.00 feet instead of the
required 57.00 foot setback from the top of bluff (as determined by the slope
becoming less than 18%).
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. Gutters must be on the house and garage to direct water towards the street rather than
the bluff and lakeside of the lot.
2. An engineer's report must be submitted with the building permit, including
recommendations on drainage, stormwater run-off and erosion control as stated in
Ordinance 1104.305.
3. This permit will be processed under the previous Zoning Ordinance as the variance
application was received prior to May 1, 1999. This allows for a 5-foot side yard
setback on one side and a 10-foot side yard setback on the other side with 10 foot
building separation. The required front yard setback is 25 feet.
4. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 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.
\ \fs I \sys\dept\planning\99files\99var\99-027\re9909pc.doc
2
Nov 21 00 01:53p
PreFerred cus~omer
1-612-447-7640
p. 1 _
November 2],2000
Phone /I
Post-it" Fax Note 7671
Fa,,"
Prior Lake Planning Commission
City of Prior Lake
RE: Variance request for 14962 Pixie Point Circ1e SE
Commission Members:
We have been informed that the construction of the Jader dwelling, which is
located next to our property, was uniutentionally located within the
minimum five foot side setback.
Please be aware that we are not opposed to the city of Prior Lake granting
the requested variance.
Sincerely r
;)lrJJ~~~~)
Michael and Katherine Harte
14964 Pixie Point Circle SE
Prior Lnke, MN 55372
952-447-76~8
E-XHIBIT E LETTER DATED 11/21/00
, .
: ! ; !
j !
~
~
""""-
I\)
-..J
""""-
o
o
, ,
i !
; ,
. \
'.
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5A
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 00-020
GRANTING A 3 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 22 FEET FROM A
PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING A STREET; A 4 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 6
FEET; 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
YES X NO
DECEMBER 11, 2000
The Planning Department received a variance application from Angie Marie
Cawley for the proposed construction of a detached accessory structure
(garage) on a lot with an existing single family dwelling. A public hearing was
convened on November 27,2000. After review of the applicant's proposal
with respect to the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff
to draft a Resolution approving the following Variances:
1. A 3 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 22
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 4 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 6
feet from a rear property line rather than the required 10 feet [City
Ordinance 1102.800 Residential Performance Standards (8)].
3. A 582.6 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface
coverage area of 2,847 square feet (37.7%) rather than the allowable
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
)
impervious surface area of 2,264.4 square feet (30%) [City
Ordinance 1104.306 Impervious Surface Coverage; (1)].
RECOMMENDA liON:
The attached Resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction.
The Planning Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 00-020PC approving the
3 Variances.
AL TERNA liVES:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution 00-020PC, approving the Variances that the
Planning Commission deemed appropriate under the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
1. A motion and second adopting Resolution 00-020PC approving: 1) a 3
foot variance to permit a detached accessory structure to be setback 22
feet from a property line abutting a street rather than the required 25 feet;
2) a 4 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 6 feet
from a rear property line rather than the required 10 feet; 3) 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%).
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-077\ VRPT2-077 .DOC
Page 2
RESOLUTION 00-020PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 22 FOOT
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM A PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING
A STREET; A 4 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 6 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE;
AND A 582.6 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 2,847 SQUARE FEET (37.7%)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. 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-l (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 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 adj acent 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-077\aprsOO-020pc.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
encroacliment, 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:
1. A 3 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 22 feet from a
property line abutting a street rather than the required 25 feet.
2. A 4 foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 6 feet from a rear
property line rather than the required 25 feet.
3. 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 building plans with eave/overhangs projecting no greater than
one foot from the exterior building wall.
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 from the adoption date. An Assent Form must be
signed and, pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-077\aprsOO-020pc.doc
2
and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within
one year after adoption of this resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on December 11, 2000.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-077\aprsOO-020pc.doc
3
E
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
For: Angie Cawley
~
oC\..t..
C\Y'
~~.
OO\)
...... \ ~ 't\<:) () d't.
G~~oQo-:)
I 1""\ T - 7
L_V I /
G)
;0
);>
-
Z
c::::..._ FOUND IRON PIPE LIES
c:::::. NORTH 1.12 FEET AND
o WEST 0.12 FEET
o
CJ
o
-
,;0
o
r
fT1 FOUND IRON PIPE LIES
SOUTH 1.07 FEET AND
Z EAST 0.48 FEET
.
fT1
EXISTING WOOD FENCE LIES
0.24 FEET TO 0.14 FEET
SOUTHWEST OF PROPERTY LINE
.
/
~ GRAVEL DRIVE
\ TO BE REMOVED
!t \
\
I 1""\ T
LVI
r-
:'
;g
c
to:
c'j
"":
I 1""\ T
L_V I
~
~
'"
c::l
'"
~
(0
Scale: 1"=30'
Page 2 of 2
James R. Hill, Inc.
CERTIFICATE
For: Angie
OF SURVEY
Ca wley
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 6, "SUBDIVISiON OF OUTLOT "A"
GRAINWOOD PARK", Scott County, Minnesota.
We hereby certify that this is a true and correct survey of the above
described property and that it was performed by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Surveyor under the
laws of the State of Minnesota. That this survey does not purport to
show all improvements, easements or encroachments, to the property
except as shown thereon.
Signed this 29th day of September
Notes:
1. No specific title search for existence or non-
existence of recorded or un-recorded easements
has been conducted by the surveyor as a part
of this survey. Only easements per the recorded
plat are shown.
2. Building dimensions shown
horizontal & vertical placement of
only. See architectural plans for
& foundation dimensions. _
3 No specific soils investigation has been
completed on this lot by James R. Hill, Inc.
The suitability of soils to support the specific
house proposed is not the responsibility of
James R. Hill, Inc. or the surveyor.
922.3 Proposed garage floor
Bench Mark: 911.44 - TNH-SE Quad. EaQle Creek
and Grainwood Circle
are for
structure
building
Bearings are on assumed datum
By. t}JM4ditmes R H:I, Inc.,
Harold C. Peterson, Minnesota L.S. No. 12294
o
.
x927.6
Denotes set iron monument
Denotes found iron monument
Denotes existing elevation
POWER POLE
GAS METER
ELECTRIC METER
MANHOLE
DECIDUOUS TREE
STONE RETAINING WALL
BRICK SURFACE
-0-
lQJ
83
o
o
~
--
ASPHALT SURFACE
CJ
CONCRETE SURFACE
EXISTING CONTOURS
WOOD FENCE
Scale: 1-.30'
""0
)> 'UN
C') ;;0 0
NON(')
rTJ oc...~)>
rrI ,,.. Cl
.... N (') ......
-ll>o--la.::!
o tOz~::;;
"'Tl 9~
N
James R. Hill, Inc.
PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS
2500 w. CTY. RD. 42, StJ1E 120, BtRAlE. tAN 55337
PHONE: (952)890-60# fAX: (952)890-6244
PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
DISCUSSION OF CONCEPT PLANS FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF O'LOUGHLlN PROPERTY
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_YES X NO-N/A
DECEMBER 11, 2000
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
Centex Homes is considering development of approximately 40 acres of property
located on the west side of CSAH 83, about 1/4 mile south of CSAH 42. This
property is presently vacant land. The property is designated for Low to Medium
Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and
is presently zoned A (Agricultural). A portion of the property is also located
within the Shoreland District for Mystic Lake.
Centex Homes has submitted a concept plan for the development of this site.
The plan includes a combination of single family homes and townhouses. The
staff has not had time to review these plans, so we are unable to comment on
any specifics.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this item is to discuss the concept development of the site, and
to allow the Planning Commission to voice any particular concerns or ideas
about the proposed development. This discussion is for informational purposes
only. Any future plans must be processed with the appropriate hearings and
public participation.
ACTION REQUIRED:
No action is required at this time.
1:\OOfiles\OOsubjec\OO-088\discussion.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
~
C O. R D. 8 3 (MYSTIC LAKE DRIVE)
C)-j
, 0
o r+
l/J 0
l/J
)!~lll!!!~!alamtiln~ ::::z: 1lI""""" .
0 0
,
(1) (1)
::l 0
l/J
r+
';<; tN
(Xl
~ <.D
N 0
0
c ,
::l (1)
r+ l/J
l/J
..........
0
0
,
(1)
-o-j-j-j-j-j
o 0 0 0 0 0
...,r+r+r+r+r+
^Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.
Q-o::E-ol/Jr+
(1) 0 (1) 0 S'~
O'r+::lo.D<
^oo.-::l
3 ::l (1):J
_. Q 0. 0 ....... 03
::l (1) '0
coo ~ 3 (1)
l/J..(ti..~
:E 0 ,<C
CD ---J." ~ - ~.
r+0 .0"""
ON ~......~
::l ~ol/J
o.otNo
o .
o. 0
::l 0
0. .
-0
o
::l
0.
~
(Xl
o
o
(j)
(j)(Jl
o
\L1
-j
[T1
o
}>
-j
}>
:t"
m
DZ
1....
mm
Ul)(