HomeMy WebLinkAbout6A - Variance Appeal Norling
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JANUARY 7, 2002
.6A
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF VARIANCES TO
THE SUM OF SIDE YARDS LESS THAN IS-FEET, AND AN
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF MORE THAN 30%
History: The Planning Department received a variance application from
David & Rachel Norling for the construction of an attached garage, a second
story addition and a main level room addition to an existing single-family
dwelling on the property located at 15239 Fairbanks Trail. The subject
property was platted in 1924, is a legal non-conforming platted lot of record,
and is located within the R-1 District (Low Density Residential) and
Shoreland District (SD).
The applicants originally requested the following variances:
1. A 4.77-foot variance to permit a 16.53-foot structure setback to a front
property line, rather than 21.3- feet as required by setback averaging
[Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (4)].
2. A 1.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 8.5-feet from the
side property line, rather than minimum setback of 10- feet as required
for the sum of side yards on a nonconforming lot of at least 15-feet
[Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
3. A I-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within
4-feet from a side lot line, rather than the minimum required 5-feet
[Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments (1)].
4. A 2.6-foot variance to permit a building wall 66-feet in length to be
setback 5-feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.66-
feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 (6)].
5. A 256-square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage
area of2,436 square feet (33.5%), rather than the maximum allowable
coverage area of2,180 square feet (30%) [Ordinance Section 1104.306].
1:\01 files\O 1 appeal\O 1-1 OO\cc report. doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The applicants are proposing to build a second story addition over the
existing dwelling and a first story addition in place of the existing deck area.
The proposed garage addition with living space above is attached to the front
of the existing dwelling and is 24-feet deep by 36-feet wide.
The front and rear additions add 24-feet (garage) and l4-feet (room addition)
to the length of the existing building wall of 28' for a total wall length of
66'. The Zoning Ordinance requires that two inches per foot be added to the
side yard setback for walls over 50' long (66' - 50' = 16' x 2" = 32" or
2.66'). This requires the new additions to meet a minimum setback of7.66-
feet or obtain approval for a 2.66-foot variance to permit a 5-foot side yard
setback as proposed for the garage. Although the existing house currently is
setback 5-feet, the addition is considered an expansion, which is not
permitted under City Code.
As proposed, the combined side yards on the subject lot total 13.5-feet (5' +
8.5' = 13.5'). This requires a 1.5-foot variance, as the minimum sum of side
yards allowed is IS-feet on nonconforming lots. This variance request could
be eliminated by reducing the garage and deck width by 1.5-foot and provide
for the minimum required 10-foot setback. The applicant has now proposed
eliminating the deck from the proposed project. This leaves the garage
setback at 8.85-feet and would reduce the variance request to 1.35-feet.
AI' variance is also requested to allow the eave/gutter to encroach within 4-
feet of the side lot line. This original request was reduced l' by reducing the
eave/overhang projection to I-foot. The existing house eaves currently
encroach into the same side yard; however, this addition is considered an
expansion of a nonconforming structure and not permitted by code. This
request could be eliminated again by reducing the garage width by at least 1-
foot.
On October 22, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at
which they reviewed the staff report, heard comments from the applicant,
and discussed the variances requested. The Commission determined that a
revised survey, which identified the existence of a 15' sanitary sewer
easement granted to the City of Prior Lake, and the correct information
regarding the dimensions of the existing structures, the setback to the
OHWM, and the dimensions of the proposed additions, was needed to make
a decision. The Commission continued the public hearing to the November
26,2001.
The applicants submitted a revised survey with the required information (see
Attachment 1 - Revised Certificate of Survey Dated 10/29/01). The
applicant also submitted building plans (see Attachment 2), and an existing
impervious surface worksheet, which shows 1,504 square feet of coverage
area or 21 % (see Attachment 3 - Existing Impervious Surface Area). The
proposed impervious surface area of 2,436 square feet is 33.5%, and greater
than the maximum allowable area of 30% or 2,180 square feet. Reducing
the proposed garage by 160 square feet (2' x 36' + 4' x 22' = 160) and
resizing the driveway another 96 square feet, this variance request for 256
square feet can be eliminated (see Attachment 4 - Proposed Impervious
Surface Area).
1:\01 files\Ol appea1\Ol-1 OO\cc report. doc
Page 2
The applicant originally submitted a narrative describing their reasons for
the requested variances, and pictures of the existing dwelling and adjacent
properties. Included with the narrative is a list titled "Appendix A-
Variances On Fairbanks Trail". This list of variances was not verified or
described by staff because each individual variance request stands on its own
merit when applied to the standards ofthe hardship criteria (see Attachment
5 - Applicant Narrative).
The applicants submitted a second letter describing some changes to the
original proposal. In this letter, the applicants are proposing to remove the
existing deck-walkway that appears about 1.5-foot from the south lot line.
Also, two bay windows are depicted on the plans, but are not shown on the
survey. The proposed room addition over the existing house structure is
permitted as a legal nonconforming structure and is not at issue. However,
the extension or expansion of the exterior walls of the nonconforming
structure is not permitted without approval of a variance (see Attachment 5 -
Applicant Letter Dated 11/13/01).
The Engineering Department submitted comments regarding the requested
variances, stating in essence, approval of the requested variances is contrary
to the goals of the Comprehensive Lake Management Plan, which is to
"minimize the transport of nutrients, sediment and runofffrom city streets
and lands which impact the Prior Lake watershed, and promotes lake creep,
the encroachment of buildings and impervious areas towards the
lakeshore ".
On November 26,2001, the Planning Commission reviewed the additional
information. Upon review of the applicant's requests with respect to the
variance hardship criteria and the applicants' suggestion to reduce the
impervious surface request from 256 to 214 square feet, the Planning
Commission directed staff to draft a resolution approving the following
vanances:
1. A 4.77-foot variance to permit a l6.53-foot structure setback to a front
property line, rather than 21.3- feet as required by setback averaging.
2. A 1.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 8.5-feet from the
side property line, rather than minimum setback of 10-feet as required
for the sum of side yards on a nonconforming lot of at least IS-feet.
3. A I-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within
4-feet from a side lot line, rather than the minimum required 5-feet.
4. A 2.6-foot variance to permit a building wall 66-feet in length to be
setback 5-feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.66-
feet for building walls over 50-feet.
5. A 2l4-square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage
area of 2,394 square feet (32.9%), rather than the maximum allowable
coverage area of2,180 square feet (30%).
1:\01 fi1es\01 appeal\Ol - I OO\cc report. doc
Page 3
The Planning Commission considered the draft resolution on December 10,
2001. At this time, the Commission again discussed this request with
respect to the hardship criteria. The Commission determined that variance
requests #2 and #5 did not meet the hardship criteria and revised Resolution
#01-020PC, approving variance request #1,3, and 4. At the same time, the
Commission denied variance requests #2 and 5 (see Attachment 7 - Public
Hearing Minutes). This action still allows the applicants to construct the
additions to the existing house. It does require that the size of the garage be
reduced to a 2-car garage with an entry door, rather than the 3-car garage
originally proposed.
Current Circumstances: On December 14,2001, the applicant submitted to
the Planning Department an Appeal of the Commissions decision denying
two of the requested five Variances.
The Issues: Minnesota State Statute and the City of Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance requires the following listed hardship criteria be applied as a
standard for approval of variance requests, and all nine hardship criteria
must be met regarding each variance request.
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.
The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record; however, the
applicant can control the design and size of the proposed additions and
eliminate the need for the side yard setback variance and the impervious
surface variance as requested.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar
to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not
apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in
which the land is located.
The lot is a legal nonconforming lot of record and has an existing
nonconforming structure without a garage. Plats of this era (1924)
subdivided lots with smaller dimensions (50' wide) and are peculiar to
the lot and adjoining properties ofthe Maple Park Shore Acres. In
addition, because of the structures location and proximity to the front lot
line, this precludes the ability to build a garage without some form of
front setback variance. However, as requested, variance requests #2,
and 5, do not meet the hardship criteria because a redesign can eliminate
these variances.
1:\01 files\O 1 appea1\0 1- 1 OO\cc report.doc
Page 4
3. The granting ofthe proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
owner.
The requested variances to the required sum of side yard setbacks and
impervious surface area may be reduced or eliminated with a revised
building plan.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably
increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of
fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of variance requests #2 and 5 appears to impair these stated
values but do not appear to endanger the public safety or increase the
danger of fire.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding
area, or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of
the area.
The granting of requested variances #2 and 5 will unreasonably impact
the character and development of the neighborhood.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the
intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Since this is a platted lot of record, and no garage exists, granting a
variance to allow a garage is not contrary to the intent of the Ordinances
or the Comprehensive plan. However, variance #2 and #5 can be
eliminated with a redesigned garage/building addition plan and therefore
they are contrary to the intent of these Ordinances and the
Comprehensive Plan.
7. The granting ofthe Variance will not merely serve as a convenience
to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
Variances #2 and #5 do constitute an undue hardship since a legal
alternative exists for the proposed additions.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions
ofthe owners ofthe property.
The applicant can reduce the size of the proposed garage and room
additions to meet the Ordinance requirements and eliminate the need for
a sum of side yard setback variance and an impervious surface variance.
1: \01 files\O 1 appea1\0 1-1 OO\cc report. doc
Page 5
FISCAL IMP ACT:
AL TERNA TIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone are not grounds for the granting of
vanances.
rnnrlmlinn. The Planning Commission originally approved 3 of the
requested 5 variances. This allows the applicant to build an attached garage
and second story addition with the dimensions of approximately 24-feet
deep by 30-feet wide (36' - 6' = 30'). The Planning Commission has
previously determined a 2-car garage is a reasonable use of property.
However, the Planning Commission felt the proposed garage and room
additions might be redesigned and reduced in size to eliminate the need for
variances to the sum of the side yard setback and to the impervious surface.
By reducing the proposed garage to 30' wide by 24' deep and the size of the
driveway, the need for a variance to impervious surface is eliminated. Based
on this, the Planning Commission denied these variances.
The staff agrees that the variance hardship criteria have not been met with
respect to these two variances as requested by the applicant and recommends
the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny
these requests. The staff has been advised that the applicant is considering
the use of a special driveway material, which exhibits some amount of
porosity. We are aware that the Department of Natural Resources is
skeptical regarding the effectiveness of such products. At this writing, we
have not received any information from the petitioner on this subject.
Bwfgpt TmplJ('t. There is no fiscal impact as a result of this application.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution #02-XX upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny the variances as requested.
2. Overturn the decision ofthe Planning Commission and direct the staff to
prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the approval of the variances
requested.
3. Defer consideration of this item for specific reasons.
Staff recommends alternative # 1. This requires the following motion:
A motion and second to approve Resolution 02-XX upholding the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny a 1.5-foot Variance to allow a 13.5-foot
sum of side yards, and a 2.9% Variance to allow an impervious surface
coveFJ::l;J1-
Frank Boyles, City Manager
1:\01 files\O 1 appeal\O 1-1 OO\cc report. doc
Page 6
RESOLUTION 02-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 1.5-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 13.5-FOOT SUM OF
SIDE YARDS AND A 2.9% VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA
OF 32.9% ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15239 FAIRBANKS TRAIL
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS,
on January 7, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by David & Rachel
Norling of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 1.5-foot variance to permit a
13.5-foot sum of side yards rather than the minimum required IS-feet, and a 2.9% variance to
permit an impervious surface coverage area of 32.9% rather than the maximum allowable 30%,
for the property legally described as follows:
Lot 4, "Maple Park Shore Acres", Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the criteria for granting
variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth
adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the
requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. David & Rachel Norling applied for a variance from Sections 1101.502, and 1104.306 of the City Code in
order to permit construction of an attached garage, 2nd story addition, and room addition to an existing
principal structure as shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and
SD (Shoreland) Districts at 15239 Fairbanks Trail NE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows:
Lot 4, "Maple Park Shore Acres", Scott County, Minnesota.
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #01-080, and
held hearings thereon October 22, 2001, November 13, 2001, November 26, 2001, and December 10,
2001.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the
request.
l:\Olfiles\Olappeal\OI-IOO\ccres.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
d. David & Rachel Norling appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section
1109.400 ofthe City Code on December 14,2001.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File #01-080 and Case File #01-100, and held a hearing thereon on January 7, 2002.
f. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances 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 variances
on the Comprehensive Plan.
g. The City Council has determined the requests do not meet the hardship criteria. There are not unique
circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was caused by the actions of the
applicant through the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are no unique characteristics
to the property that would constitute a hardship.
h. The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect. to literal enforcement of
the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the variances.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #01-080 and Planning Case File #01-100 are hereby entered into and made
a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning
Commission denying two variances to permit a sum of side yards of 13.5-feet rather than the required
minimum IS-feet, and a 32.9% impervious surface coverage area rather than the maximum allowable 30% for
applicants David & Rachel Norling.
Passed and adopted this 7th day of January, 2002.
YES
NO
Haugen Haugen
Petersen Petersen
Ericson Ericson
Gundlach Gundlach
Zieska Zieska
{Seal}
City Manager
1:\01 files\O 1 appeal\O 1-1 OO\ccres.doc
Page 2
:-l
N
1~
_--49.89---
~
VI
o
o
f1'\
n
"
'So
~~ ~
6 -!,O ~
C. ~I"
'A (' ~
( -;'. "'~
...-
,:"0 28
~~ 2~
PROpostO. .
.. AOOITIOH'A"r.; ..
'STING ottK o"tR
HC. S\.AS HOW IN
pACt) . 2~
(f) \916.9)
(l) 0
(X) ...'
n'
0 ,";
<.JooI ''A
N ...
~
~ \
0
::.
fl1 "," \
\ i-
I .
\
OECK
~ l\.~~RO'J.\t^t>.iE. SE. E.R
.' ____' ____- IJ'I
___ -4 0 S'NR.
<t. Of S~ ~
'" _-- ../-::-~O-~~6-t-4~'OO'N'Nl'll'l R
f'RO\J\ 'IJ'I
-----
\----
\.\~E. ~ ____
t.l\.SE.t^E.~i ~E.R
-'"
.$".
.-..----s-'-"-:=- - -
urvey
S 12 D 26'"27 ..
---50 7
.83 "'.
------------
\1
s\,\o?E. \J~E.
-------
-
o
rT1
,C'>
"
G\
~
~
~
, B.B'!>-
0\
N
. .\).0
-0-'" -
o
:x:-
o
C.
III
1"\
\ \
\
~\
"'~
'tl-
. 0
~~
";..._.13.
.$"
.$"
\ - ~ ~
\C1';
B~~
3
(f)
0)
0)
o
<.JooI
o
o
'"
~
o
\
CJl
VI.
1+
=
(T\
. oOC Ut^E.~i
::.--
:Il1:
-J>
~%
'55
....
(1'"
.-~~ ,-::::;::-.:;::::::::-
------------
\
I
,/~ ~~~
.-" .. ....:-' :::.----
--l
o
1+
~
~
o
::J:
~
Z
-I
.....
i~.
<
-
(J)
m
C
o
m
~
-
"
-\
~\
~;
m
o
"
(J)
c:
~
m
\
\
\
~
o
--
I\)
CD
--
o
...
ATTACHMENT 2 · BUILDING PLANS
.
..""",
.J
-z.
~
-1
:~
~-:.~
: '-.
......
:';;:;;~';. ,~~ :..','
~;
. ?....o,; .;:~: . '...: -
:':~. ::'~~_~:~~;~-::'~~~~'~~7;~~:':'~'~:':':"~' ..J. . .....
~~;~,'-:~t
.::.;::..
.a_'t'~ ,,':" ,
........
'.. ~.
()
.....
z..
1
o
..
--
. ';1~:_'
~, ',~~'
.. .' -'..~'."';: ~..).-:;,::~'.~t.:>.,\~:...,
,....-:~..,
.~::~:.:J:~::..~ .~ h,. .--:t-'. -.
__ :~.>:;:~,;'~\::';~~~'.:~-~~~~'::'~:S1'i.~:::':~:::~~~~:2"~"::;:;:.:}~""~~~-
," .... . ;~:.
_-.-''''-:r:..',.:
:/
2-
-
-.-,"
~;."
o
.C\
)
. .. -.. -', .:. ~' .'
:' :"<~:'=::~::~:fJ;I~.~;~,:,,,;::^::~;~.::~:
:.~>::.~.!; ....~-:-,~,.
"., '.-'-. .,' ~;.,
~;;;~~~~~~-_.__.._.
. '~"~--'.__. .-- .---.-..-.
'..
-..,.... -.
.,'.......
.~ .~~~.~==-_~__2-__._
--z.
i
(}
" .
c.....'....
"
'J
_.7
iil'i.1 !
II .
I .1
ii Iii
~' .
.. ,
I I :
:. ! ,: 1
!: i !! 11
:: ...:: ,;~: :::~::; :~~,-~:: ':~'\~~7.:;'-::~~~':~~--_.
:.......-., ');;
; ~~r\ ~:::~ .:~>:~:.:~~~.~:~;~:+;~~';'':.:'? ~ :L:~ ~ :~:_~ ';::';r"';i~'.' ~,~:. .:;~~;~ ;::')~.:2i~:d;:~~~:~:~~].:,~::~:~~'.;: .;'~\-;.t.~C~sJ;~'~ :-::~:~~: :'~:. "'~ JL~' ::~~~}i~~>~. ';'~:-,-:;:;':~\.,;;,;.{~;}~::. :'~..,:~: .
. ,-..., : ';';>.?>~,',-;~'.:~~~~.:' >-.
.
1
(-
r'~
,:7
: .:;:+. :;2:- ~:~:.:~~:.:-~~}C~: =':~:~:~:;<.:~.;:,~..~~~:_;.~j~~~::'~~~~~~~~~~,:,~~~:,::-~ .::. .:'
~ j ~
, ;
, I
I'
!
'I
: I
,_ - - - - ~ I
: I
i I
---II
"
\r~ '~~~~:~\(<-~
~~;:;
/'
I'''I{
, I I '
1 r+1~,~ -=- -J
...,.~ '
i,', ~
,II! ;\\' _\,\\~
, I I : v \'" -\
, i
,,).
't ,_
-:1---
:1
!l
. . . . ." .
;.";', ~-'~,~'.-:'.~~:: ;'~:';.. ... .~
- -.;. ~~.;:;-. ..-..~.,. .
... . &' .-
. ....~:~- :~...:,; '. ~
. '
\.J;';
u._
rnl
I ill
II
II
"
:: L~~VQ\
II '""'"l~ ",,//\
II I/,JJ\ I
II \
~,..
,~ .
~':
~; )IA~
t~( i)~
l'" ~ a
-:
1r"''-~
larL\t.
. j ~tv~{,~
II
II
~\l
b'~J 1*11
~e,~
, ,
, ,
'.:
'"
,,^{.d LQ ( 1 ~
I ' , ~
,"....
r"
I' I I' !, ' : : I [' I ! ',' I " i, ,I :1 I ~'
I I : I'!:J .
i : I !: I I I i I i I I : I i I I '
L /\JI .... .., d'rt- .' ,1,,1 rl
f\1,'" ./~ 6 ....H/I,,'- ",:" ...:- _..or ..,1.1'1'....>'\ "'a'.I-t...
1.'1:"1\1 ......, i
D"~j-:-~,. "",' .r::/w,,^ L , " 'I ~ j./frv. A r-~-\
,,-. ......-.. '_('owCl\..'!, ~,/v;J> r ~
I-/.:. -S +0 is e. Bv..,-i-f- ,""Jf,a <(=Jrdcl.-e. POI 5"-10 /(S
t" iV\. d !(z IItp f I c.. 'Yd t\J.~J [;) I' tt--<..I <-1'.)<( l<. r:J vJ d
HO~W4) 5e.perq.ks- Gor4ge5 +~ IJc;~/t~
A 5"f\k ~ro-N-t ,f:tv'try frGM tte.R.odd ,
.- ,;~'..'"
..: -.'. ~~L.:.;
c
~ !
i'!
:t':
-
-.. .- - - - - --
I !
J I i
:1 I i
; 1; 1 :
! I 1
- --~-~r
:::::::I d I-
I. 1
'. 0
__ _ _', _ _0 _ ~ .
I '
I
j I
1
o !
it~JJ.I' I - -
v" .
... . '
QI,
..
.
. .' .': ~..;, .
-:::(,,:,~:),;,,~>,~:;~/</>::::,~":>:';/:'.::2Y.,::, .'.,
,.;....;;.::.;.~.:.,...
. :..':~~ ~<:,,::':~'L.;<~::; ;'~:'~~;..~,~: ,~i:;::;:.i:.:": .'. ,..'
.~~;~"'~~='.:g ,0.'--:.
.. ~,.. o;~
,-
\
~
('
A
""
,
_.,. I
! I
,'. .\v(
'-~~
o. - r--
~
-~
- -
j
j(\~:S i\~ "" ,
" I
- CJ':~ ~
- '1 I U
~ I ~#t--
Cj = ,:.::;) ((2)
=-
I
~
I
I
i
:~-
I
I ~
J
':.l.;';'
\) ,
'lJ :
Q .~
J~\.t- (
~i:.l'"
'2. \,,), P'''';'\..
'VL..l~. '-I
I
1 il RfHl
~' II' ~JlLj '~- - - -
-- L." ' ITTTI -fT'
_ \,p1i',J(Y
>.
"
II
:1
.1
I)
: , a
_o! :~
. : ' \ .I
\,,,,))
-'l .....
'/ _ fI. .I
,)1).1'''\ -
\
~
I.
_ :
---
';f>pe.de~ 1/73edrc,,-/VI ~
1"J~-;:'Cr,.(J Fo~ ~~\"y ~tf(
/) r I . I I )
cr...... l.),'\ L I Q r e.. f'v
-
.... -''" .'
--~-.....:r-'" . . .::'-.. :- .,:. "'::.;::-:~ :\.,.';~ ~ :','~~' :'.".~~):':~;;.l.'.,:.;,>~:.:~'::..;~;:;::J.::;~-:}.:~-;:~'~::;;~.::!~~,::;':.:"~..~':,:i';::::~~.;'~ ::<:..9~~::"'~'7~.1~t:.~:;':.'.:~;'~f.?'.;~;?J."~: .\-:';:".J":..:..-::.~_:_-:- ,,':;,~.;> :-:.~:..-:. ~ ~'_' ;~~~."..." ~'.~ - '. .
1--------------
I - - - .",.,.XWtWht@mHli.ttMWtM;ttMWiilh;;m~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- I
,
~ I
~ I
-U--.
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 1--------.---
1__-
, l\(.(,d
I lfA
<)t.0((}~ . ~~
r t f'\.~
{. W,4.... (&,
!:utVl
!}.Irk t r
(
~/ , I
...
1
I-j
I 1------
------
I
I
I
I \ii
I ._
I
:<<-:.:
I [t~1
I it.""
.~.t:
,iI
o O,..J"-
~ A V\ r'l>
" \ \,- \
\r~\1
i .
JI
2_
GLlth
_ tc.
.t I Av{J~
r.7"/,fN...
! #~~~1cff ;'~1
:;t
, :;:
-CO
"! ^'
,~ ....~
.-J
';,. ,. , -',
:..;.;.;...:..a:;..;.,;...;..;.:....
p
'- '
C. ~,
I ',1
, I -.
2101
CITY OF PRlOR LAKE
E'i-.\~:i~\~ Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with BUlldmg Permit Apphc:lt1on)
F or .All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distri"ct (SD).
The Nfaximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address \ S Z. 3 ~
b.\R.bc,,,,\<-s ~~'\ \
LOLA..rea -=' .2c..c.B abc"'i"_ \;;L 904.-Sq. Feet x 30% = ..............-.:1J roo
**********J*******************~*****************************************
HOUSE
LENGTH \VIDTII
U:; x L8.:>
SQ. FEET
=~e4
x
=
ATTACHED GARA.GE
x
=
TOT AL P RlN CIP LE STR U CTURE......................
I ~<-1
DETACHED BLDGS
(GaragM
~v
e x \'Z-
x
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.......................
q~
.
::')DRIVE~A YfPAVE~
<(Priveway-oOlvedJ)r noe)
. (Sidewalk/Parking Areas)
:5 \~ b \.J'Y\J-eY'" dec..\L-.
\lc x \~
x
=
12;,~
... =
"'Z.e> x I -z..
=
~3~
TOT _U PAVED A.REAS ................................~........
. lD L.. \{
P ATIOSfPORCHEStDECKS "
x
=
(Open Decks Yo" min. opening between
boards. with a pervious surf:1c: below,
are not considered to be impe:"Y'ious)
x
=
x
=
TOT.U DECKS ....................._.........................._..... .
OTHER
x
X
=
=
TOT.U OTHER......................................................
TOTALI~ERVIOUSSURFACE
,"
~OVER .
. Prepared By D ~,..~.J<'1 "" '
Company~ ~l!."~ CO,) p.~.
\'604
V>llP
Date -, - -z. s-o l
Phone # u.~t - "2.5/0
.~z~f.:;
~.~~..~":;-
~
~
o
:J:
s:
m
Z.
-f
CN
I
m
><
-
en
.-f
-
Z
G)
~
-a
m
:0.
<
-
o
c:
en
en
c:
:xJ
:n
~
1m
I~
m
)>
~_.."":; I to
-,
. r~Q~___
.
CITY OF PRIOR LA.KE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distrlct (SD).
The 1'laximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address. \"'5 2. "3~. t=,p;\ ~'oo..~~s - \ ~~'\ \
Lot Area ~ I z..\.o ~ o~o'-3e u. q D l{ Sq. Feet x 30%. = .............. --z. \ ~c
************************************************************************
. n . . \. TOTAL DETACHED BUILDIN.GS.......................
\"{\) to o<-::.eD B \~~I.~\V\oJ'::> ' -
DRI\t'EWA YIP AVED AREAS B x \ 1.0. S = --132-
(Driveway. paved or not) \ \a x \ \0 . S = '2..4'-\ .
(SidewalkIParking Areas) X =
. HOUSE
~'(\)~ose ,Q .
~ \Cl.Lt;i) GARAGE
DETACHED BLDGS
. (Garage/Shed)
P A TIOSIPORCHESIDECKS
(Open Decks y.- min. opening betwe:n
boards, with :l pervious surface bc:low,
are not considered to be: impervious)
OTHER.rt^O ~ 0 ~ec.Q
~~~e ~W\~
LENGTH WIDTH
~X~
SQ. FEET.
.\ e,'4
=
X
=
--z.. ~ X ~ \.0
=
<C> <..0 \..\
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE......................
\l.o'-\e>
x
X
T OT.~ P A;VfD. .~AS.........................................
3~~.
X
=
X
=
X
=
T OT.~ DECKS........................................................
,y. X "7-<0
X
=
=
~~-z-
T OT.~ OT1IER.....~................................................. ~q -Z-
TOTALIN~ERVIOUSSURFACE
- ~--,.....
UNDE.t<(9~~)
. Prepared By Ol>.~ rs;?"c~
. .~ \
~om~~~~~~. tJ u<l \>e'i \~}\ (b.)
J). f\
t I~ Phone # \.l. '\'"1- "Z..SI'D
:b!.
-.
~
0
::t
:s:
m
z
-I
~
I
-C
:D
o.
-C
0
en
m
C
-
s:
\:I.
m
:tI
<
-
0
c:
en
en
c:
:%J
~
c-)
m
1 Z
)>
I ':0
m
>
Prior Lake Planning Commission
City Hall
4629 Dak-ota Street S.B.
Prior Lake, Mn. 55372
August 24. 2001
To Whom It May Concern,
Weare writing this letter to introduce ourselves and to explain each variance needed and why it
should be approved per your hardship guidelines. Weare a growing family that owns a business
in Savage. We currently have three adults and one child living in our home and are planning to
expand our family. David has lived in Prior Lake for the past 25 years with his family and has
owned our lake home since 1993. As the family has grown, the house size has not. This is why
we are asking for these variances so that our house will be able to accommodate our growing
needs.
f......)...
...
The first variance we are asking for is for the impervious surface. Weare 256 square feet over
or approximately 3.5%. The lot is a non-conforming, small lake shore lot which used to be part
of Eagle Creek Township. It is a 50-foot by ISO-foot substandard lot. There have been many
other lots throughout the area that have been granted variances for these reasons. The addition is
needed to add a safe entry to the front of the home. To help reduce our impervious surface num-
bers, we have removed part of the driveway from the original plans. Impervious surface
numbers can also be reduced 42 square feet by making the addition over the deck 3' narrower on
the south side of the home.
The second variance is for the driveway set back. The aver$ is 21.3 feet and the minimum is
2E} feet. We need 16.5 feet and are asking for a 5.2 foot driveway set back variance. This vari-
ance is needed in order to obtain a 24' depth to the garage. The elevation difference from-the
oouse and the garage, along with the curr.ent ,design, forces the entrance and the stairways to ex-
trude into the garage which limits this space.;
The third variance we are asking for is the maximum driveway width of 24 feet at the... property
line. This changes our original plans from a 36-foot wide driveway and have split it into tw.o
separate driveways. One would be 16 feet wide and the other would be 8 feet wide. We will
landscape to the front entry, in order to reduce the impervious surface numbers and leave a total
of24 feet of width at the property line for both driveways. Because the entryway must be put in
the middle of the home, the driveways must be split. It is understood that two separate-driveway
permits will be required.
The fourth variance is for a 1.15 foot property line setback on the northeast corner of the lot. In
this area, the ~ity wants ten feet and we are asking for 8.85 feet which is less than the existing
fence line. We will be removing the kennel fencing to clean up the area We are only 36' wide
at the front, even when adding the needed three car garage and front entry.
J
The fifth variance is on the south side property line. We are currently at 5.1' with 4' .of decking
and 24" of overhang. We will be removing a section of the deck to reduce congestion in that
area Also.. it reduces the overhang width to 18". The only change in this area is to extend from
the house to the driveway. . ·
~
~
o
:r:
s:
m
Z
-I
U1
~
~
'1:J
."
r-
--
~
Z
-t
Z
)>
:1J
:D
-~
~
-
<
m
The final variance we are asking for is a 10' variance set back from the lake to build a 4 season
/' '\ addition on the deck which already exists. The deck was built in 1993 with future plans to build
this 4 season addition. We are not expanding beyond what already exists, we are only making
our main lakeside living area more useable for year around pleasure.
()
:0
..
As you can see, we are asking for several different variances but,.ifyou will notice, all of them
are needed due to the size and elevation drops, and the way the house was originally built on the
lot All of the variances we applied for are minimal. Each of our neighbors are aware of what
we would like to do and all have said that they support our plans.
Sincerely,
DaYid M. Norling
Rachel A Norling
Homeowners
"
~
",_"~'_h~.~"~.............._____",_,.,."..~..,_~fi'..~.,.,,,~_,,,_'~'_'_'u,_",~,~'h"_,,~,,,~_"_,,____"_~'~'_'d..~_......-.~.".'~_~~""""""'~N'."_.~_~'~"N_.'~_~""~.""_'K~"'~'_"""~_~~__._,,~.,,--_._,-------""'"_.__...._.~-._.~.._."...._~-
November 13,2001
RE:
#01-080
David & Rachel Norling
15239 Fairbanks Trl NE.
Prior Lake, MN. 55372
We have decided in an effort to work with the city to make a few compromises with our
house addition:
# 1 Reduce eave encroachment by 1 foot
#2 Remove deck on the North side of the home
#3 In order to reduce congestion on the South side of the home (where we are closest
to property line) we are removing the stairs.
#4 Reduce deck addition by 3 feet on the South Side.
We are hoping with these changes you will grant us our.remaining variances.
Sincerely,
g"-~~
Rachel & David Norling "7
~
~
(1
:I:
s:
m
z
-t
en
I
)>
-c
-c
r-
-
~
Z
-I
r-
m
-t
-t
m
:D
~
~
m
C
....&.
....&.
...........
....&.
CN
...........
o
....&.
\ II
~r' '''''~;;'~-''':'~<",~''i . T Y
.;~ ~ "'t;f""'~." ...""-"-."-",-.,,-.,,,,,, -'-.-
. .;~' ~~' ~'~.~' - -::p~~ ,~-'~;;:~~;., ,
. . . . .
EX:csv:tJ~ Pff!Z.lL-1 t\JG
[iJJ
\J~
~~
L\-CAf2.S
~ll
~
O 'b~fJ
k::::' G~.Q~C~;5
o
"* I ~10 ('J&I SPOI
2.
~
VI,
-.:1
o
<
rn
. 2-c,~r2 GA12A6[.
/'
Gr? -
~ I ~\~(;, spor
\CW-
~II
'<
~
c
?
~
~
3 CCLR- G~.
~
6
~ 3 p0ftirlj SfXJ+
3.
3 t.A- r2.. S
"2
~
CJ
-,---,~---""",-,~--"~-~'--~-~"~"-~'.~~".~'.'~'"-"-"'~'"-~'~------'--'"'~'-
ATTACHMENT 7 - PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the December 10, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego and Stamson,
Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue
McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2.
Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
Present
Present
Absent
Present
DRAFT
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the November 26,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Consent:
A. Case #01-080 David and Rachel Norling - Variance Resolution OI-020PC
Criego asked to discuss the hardship requirements for a variance of this sort.
Criego:
· This applicant is requesting five variances. Commissioner Criego stated he firmly
believed variance number 2 (the 1.5 foot variance to permit a structure side yard
setback of 8.5 feet) and variance number 5 (a 214 square foot variance to permit an
impervious surface area of2,394 square feet - 32.9%) had not demonstrated the
proper hardship requirement.
· The main topic at issue is a three car garage. Historically this committee indicated a
two car garage is a reasonable use. The applicant indicates there are multiple adults
and requires a three car garage. It is not uncommon to have an adult population with
three cars or more. If the Commissioners allow a three car garage to be built here,
we are basically saying - If a family has three cars or three adults or more in a
household a variance could be given to exceed the parameters of the side yard
setbacks as well as the impervious surface.
· Historically the Commission believed the impervious surface should be a very strong
requirement to maintain. The DNR requires 25% impervious surface. The City and
members ofthe Planning Commission have felt that is not enough, 30% is acceptable.
So the Commission has already exceeded what is recommended by the DNR.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN 121 00 I.doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes .
December 10,2001
· Criego asked the Commissioners to reconsider this Resolution and disallow numbers
2 and 5 of the variance requests.
Atwood:
· Agreed the impervious surface is a big issue. This is not an enormous amount.
· Asked Criego to explain the side yard setbacks. Criego responded that any variance
had to meet the criteria for hardship. The hardship here is that they cannot build a
three-car garage and that in itself is not a hardship. There is a requirement for an
entrance into that garage area so there is no reason why it can't be a two car garage
plus an entrance. To have a three car plus, requires a variance and there is no hardship
other than there are multiple adults - not a hardship. With the extended garage as
well as the extension on the lake side, they exceed the impervious surface by 214 feet.
· Agreed at the last meeting that an extended family was a choice the applicant made.
The ordinance should not be reflective of applicant's choices. Did have a problem
with that issue at the last hearing.
· Agreed the impervious surface was too high.
DRAFT
Stamson:
· Was not at the last meeting, but in reviewing the Minutes, the Commission failed to
provide any Findings to support the hardship criteria.
· In my six years on the Commission, the Commissioners have never found that failing
to have a three-car garage warranted a hardship.
· Shocked this was the recommendation directing staff to prepare a Resolution.
. Fully agreed with Commissioner Criego.
· Horsman and Criego stated the staff report did not recommend approval on those
requests.
· Questioned if directing staff to prepare a Resolution compels the Commission to pass
it. Rye responded it did not. If the Commission wants to reconsider it, a Motion
should be made by someone who voted in favor of it.
Atwood:
· Questioned if this could be continued until Lemke would be present.
· Criego questioned why. Atwood said out of diversity and that he certainly knows the
lot well since he lived there.
Criego:
· It is clear there are no hardships for variances 2 and 5. No one in this group could
prove there was a hardship. Unless someone can indicate the hardship, I have a hard
time approving this. Will consider if convinced.
Atwood:
· Agreed she had a hard time with the side yard setbacks. They do not meet the
hardships.
· After reading over Commissioner V onhof s comments, agreed the requests do not
meet the hardships.
L:\OI files\OI pJancomm\OI pcminutes\MNI 2 I OOI.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10,2001
Rye pointed out the 120 day time line will run out by the next meeting and some action
will have to be made.
Atwood:
. Questioned the process. Rye responded the majority of the quorum would be
sufficient.
Criego:
. So the question is, is the Motion of accepting this Resolution that has been prepared
the next motion that takes place?
Atwood:
. Questioned the process if the Resolution was not approved. Back to the drawing
table? Rye responded failure to pass this Resolution does not automatically constitute
denial of the variances so it would have to be an affirmative motion to deny the
vanances.
Criego:
. Questioned if it was possible to deny the Motion and then go forward with a new
Motion allowing certain variances to this particular application such as requests 1, 3
and 4. Rye said you could approve some of them. The Commission can approve
variances 1, 3 and 5.
. Then the new Resolution has to be written up and come before the Commission for
approval?
. Kansier said they could alter the Resolution before them.
. That is the best solution.
. Rye said it was up to the Commission. DRAFT
Stamson:
. Can the Commission pass it at that time? Rye said the Commission would be passing
part of the Resolution.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, ACCEPTING RESOLUTION 01-
020PC WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: DELETING VARIANCE REQUESTS
#2 AND #5 IN THE DOCUMENT. #2) A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 8.5 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES,
RATHER THAN MINIMUM SETBACK OF 10 FEET AS REQUIRED FOR THE SUM
OF SIDE YARDS ON A NONCONFORMING LOT OF AT LEAST 15 FEET. #5) A
214 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE AREA OF 2,394 SQUARE FEET, RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE COVERAGE AREA OF 2,180 SQUARE FEET AND ACCEPT THE
REMAINING PART OF THE RESOLUTION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN 121 OOI.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10.2001
Stamson stated the Commission approved the Variance Resolution with numbers 1, 3 and
4. The appeal period is 5 days.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
S. Public Hearings:
A. Cases #01-062 & #01-063 Merlyn Olson Development is requestiDRAEiX
for a preliminary PUD Plan and a preliminary plat consisting of S.003 acres to be
subdivided into 32 townhouse lots on the property located on the south side of
CSAH 21, one-half block north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue
and east of West Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated December 10,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
This site consists ofa total of5.003 acres of unplatted, vacant land. In July, 2001, the
Planning Commission approved an exception to the minimum 10-acre requirement for a
PUD in order to allow the developer to move forward with this application. This action
does not guarantee approval of the PUD plan, in whole or in part.
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on November 13,
2001. At that meeting, the Planning Commission discussed several concerns raised by
the staff. The Planning Commission also heard testimony from several residents of the
area opposed to this project. The Planning Commission continued this item in order to
allow the developer to address the issues raised at this meeting.
Staff raised 12 issues in their report. At the meeting on November 13,2001, the Planning
Commission raised 6 concerns - density, traffic, storm water calculations, sidewalks,
County Road 21 improvements and a more creative design. The overall design of this
proj ect has not changed.
Kansier also presented the Planned Unit Development Criteria and Findings along with
staffs 11 conditions of approval:
1. The developer must provide a design for a right-iniright-out access at the intersection
of Duluth Avenue and Racine Street.
2. The unit identified as Lot 1, Block 7, must be located at least 30' from the 100-year
flood elevation of the NURP pond, or it must be eliminated.
3. The 10' strip of land shown as a road easement for CSAH 21 must be dedicated as
right-of-way.
4. A sidewalk connection to the public sidewalks along CSAH 21 and Duluth Avenue
must be provided.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN 121 001.doc 4
,,,. '. ,.. .~~..~.,_..".....'~M"'_""__".""_"."._'_~__"_"""""",__~....~~_~~_,.,._ .~, ~."___M_'_.'_'.'_'_""_''''''''''_'''_ _ ,,~,._....._.__~.._^.--," _,_._.,_._...._.~....__.~.._~.__._..~,._~____~,__.."M_,-,._--
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26,2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the November 26,2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke and Vonhof,
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording
Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V onhof
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the November 13,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4.
Consent:
None
s.
Public Hearings:
None
6. Old Business:
A. #01-080 David and Rachel Norling are requesting variances for setback to
the Ordinary High Water Mark; front yard; side yards; eave encroachment;
building wall to side yard and impervious surface to construct an addition on the
property located at IS239 Fairbanks Trail.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated November 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
At the October 22,2001, public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff
report, heard comments from the applicant and discussed the variances requested. The
Commission determined a revised survey with additional information was needed to
make a decision, and continued the public hearing to the next scheduled meeting date.
On November 13,2001, the Planning Commission again continued the public hearing
until the November 26th meeting date because the additional information and revised
survey had not been submitted in time for review by the staff. The new information
required on a revised survey included the existing 15' sanitary sewer easement granted to
L:\O 1 fiJes\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN 11260 J.doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
11/26/01
the City of Prior Lake, and correct information regarding the existing structures
dimensions, setback to the OHWM, and the proposed addition's dimensions.
The revised survey depicts the actual proposed setback of 63' to the OHWM, not 50' as
originally submitted. Therefore, the Variance request for a structure setback to the
OHWM is not required. In addition, the applicant has revised the building plans and
reduced the eave projection from 22-inches to 1-foot which reducing the encroachment
Variance request to 1-foot. The applicant is now requesting the following Variances:
1. A 4.77-foot variance to permit a 16.53-foot structure setback to a front property
line, rather than 21.3- feet as required by setback averaging.
2. A 1.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 8.5-feet from the side property
line, rather than minimum setback of 10- feet as required for the sum of side yards .
on a nonconforming lot of at least 15- feet.
3. A I-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 4-feet from
a side lot line, rather than the minimum required 5-feet.
4. A 2.6-foot variance to permit a building wall 66-feet in length to be setback 5-feet
from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.66-feet for building walls
over 50-feet.
5. A 256-square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of
2,436 square feet (33.5%), rather than the maximum allowable coverage area of
2,180 square feet (30%).
The staff believed all of the variance criteria had been met with respect to some type of
front setback variance such as a 2.77' variance for an 18.53' front yard setback, which
provides for a 22' deep garage. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist
on the lot to allow for a garage addition because of the location of the existing structure
on the nonconforming platted lot of record.
In addition, the staff felt the garage and room additions could be redesigned and reduced
in size to eliminate Variance requests 2 - 5. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria had
not been met with respect to #4 of the variances as proposed by the applicant. Staff
recommended denial of those requested variances.
Criego questioned Horsman on the front setback averaging. Horsman explained 150 foot
front averaging, which is different from the side yard setback averaging of the adjacent
properties.
Comments from the Public:
Applicants David and Rachel Norling, 15235 Fairbanks Trail, were present. Rachel
distributed and read her interpretation of the variance hardships. David submitted a
petition from neighbors in support of their request. David also explained how he has
made sacrifices and reductions in his project to meet city requirements. The Norlings felt
they have met the hardships.
L:\OI files\OI pJancomm\Olpcminutes\MNI12601.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
11/26/01
The public hearing was closed at 6:58 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Questioned variance #4 regarding the building wall length. Horsman explained.
· Lemke stated he originally owned this home. The grade of the lot drops well below
the street.
· Explained the entryway and parking problem.
· Agreed with staff that some of the hardships had been met.
· Can't compare other variances but these requests are consistent with the
neighborhood.
· Not sure what the hardship is for the second variance. Believed it is because it is a 50
foot lot.
· Ifthe neighbors did not care about the variances, he didn't either.
· Felt the same about the fourth variance regarding the building wall length; the
hardship is the small lot.
. Supported all five variance requests.
Atwood:
· Appreciated the give and take ofthe applicant.
· Agreed with Lemke on the first variance request.
. Interested in the side yard request.
· It is a nonconforming lot.
· The mother living with the applicant is a choice made by the applicant.
. Not totally opposed.
. Concerned for the side yard request.
V onhof:
· Staff did a good job. The applicant did a good job providing information.
· The lot is narrow and some of the challenges are setup by the streetscape.
· The variance criteria have been met in this case due to the topography of the lot.
· The two adjacent structures will still maintain a 15 foot separation.
· Basically the structure has been modified substantially.
· Explained how each variance request is based on that particular lot. Neighbor's
variances cannot be compared.
Criego:
. Has never seen so many variances on one property.
· Questioned applicant if he was going to remove the side yard deck. The applicant
responded they would and the stairs on the south side would also be removed.
. Questioned staff on removing the deck to decrease the impervious surface. Horsman
said it was not included.
. Questioned why the variances changed from the original request. Horsman said the
survey company revised the information.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN 11260 I.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
11/26/01
. No problem with the first variance. There is a hardship.
. Problem with the impervious surface above 30%. This expansion brings it beyond.
. If this were a new development would the Commission give all these variances?
. Two car garages have always been accepted.
. Not an adequate reason for a variance.
. Modify the amount of addition.
. Norling explained the 5 foot side yard variance setbacks they received in 1993.
. Okay with variance #3 - Not expanding beyond what exists.
. Opposed to the second variance. It is not necessary. The hardship criteria have not
been met.
. Disagree with approving variances 2 and 5.
Atwood:
. Asked for clarification on impervious surface. Kansier said it would be 32.9%.
Lemke:
. The addition is mostly deck.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED
VARIANCES.
Open Discussion:
Criego:
Make sure the Motion contains the conditions there will be no deck on the north side and
the impervious surface will be reduced per Commissioner discussions.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY VONHOF TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES INCLUDING THE
CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY THE COMMISSION.
Vote indicated ayes by Atwood, Lemke and Vonhof. Criego nay. MOTION CARRIED.
7. New Business:
A. TIF District 3-1 Resolution
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On October 15, 2001, the City Council adopted a resolution approving in concept the use
of tax increment financing (TIP) to assist in the development of a senior housing project
near Five Hawks School. The project will consist of 54 units of senior housing. Plans for
this project were previously approved as part of the Creekside Estates PUD. Subsequent
to that, the Council directed that a TIP District be established and a Tax Increment
Financing Plan be developed.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN 11260 I.doc 4
. ..' ^_ _~._.'M_'__"_'_"'_ . ....~...~.,....__.,_".~_."_.,...._"_._.~._".~___.___..""._H'<_"""'_"_'_'~_'~'__
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22,2001
10/22/01 MINUTES
Rye: Clarified that all of those elements have been included in the hardscape and
softscape design elements.
MOTION BY S TAMS ON, SECOND BY ATWOOD TO APPROVE THE REVISED
LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY STAFF FOR SECTION 1102.1107.
Ayes by all, the MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WITH THE
FOLLOWING LANGUAGE REVISIONS (1) SCREENING SUFFICIENT TO
SCREEN FROM VIEW AT THE LOT LINE, (2) THE LANGUAGE FOR REQUIRING
AN EXTERIOR CHILD CARE SPACE BE ELIMINATED AND THAT THE STATE
GUIDELINES SHALL APPLY, AND (3) PARKING WITH RESPECT TO THE 15
FEET BE CLARIFIED TO STATE THAT ANY LAWN, LANDSCAPING OR OPEN
SP ACE ADJACENT TO AND AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PARKING LOT
FOR A DrST ANCE OF 10 FEET BY INCLUDED IN THE 15% LANDSCAPING
CALCULATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
V onHof: Advised that the Downtown businesses will be notified when the item will go
before the City Council.
The Commission took a brief recess.
V onHof: Advised that the public hearing was being re-opened in order to consider
adoption of the Downtown Zoning Map.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD TO ADOPT THE DOWNTOWN
ZONING MAP AS PROPOSED BY STAFF.
Ayes by all, the MOTION CARRIED.
B. #01-080 David and Rachel Norling are requesting variances for setback to the Ordinary
High Water Mark; front yard; side yards; eave encroachment; building wall to side yard
and impervious surface to construct an addition on the property located at 15239
Fairbanks Trail.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report on file in the office
of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from the property owners for
the construction of an attached garage, a second story addition, and a main level room
addition to an existing single-family dwelling on a nonconforming platted lot of record
located at 15239 Fairbanks Trail (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey). The applicant is
requesting the following Variances:
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MNl 02201.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
A 4.77-foot variance to permit a 16.53-foot structure setback to a front property line, a
12-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 48-feet from the Ordinary High Water
Elevation (OHWM), a 1.4l-foot variance to permit a structure setback of8.59-feet from
the side property line, a 2-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to
within 3-feet from a side lot line, a 2.6-foot variance to permit a building wall 66-feet in
length to be setback 5-feet to a side lot line, a 256-square foot variance to permit an
impervious surface coverage area of2,436 square feet (33.5%).
The City Engineering Department has determined there is a sanitary sewer easement that
should be depicted on the survey in order to verify the proposed building addition does
not encroach. In addition, the Department submitted comments for this report stating in
essence, approval of the requested variances is contrary to the goals of the
Comprehensive Lake Management Plan, which is to "minimize the transport of nutrients,
sediment and runoff from city streets and lands which impact the Prior Lake watershed,
and promotes lake creep, the encroachment of buildings and impervious areas towards
the lakeshore".
The Department of Natural Resources has not responded to this variance request.
The staff believes that all ofthe Variance criteria have been met with respect to some
type of front setback variance such as a 2.77' variance for an 18.53' front yard setback.
A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot to allow for a garage
addition because of the location of the existing structure on the nonconforming platted lot
of record.
In addition, staff feels the garage and room additions may be redesigned and reduced in
size to eliminate Variance requests 2 - 6. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria have
not been met with respect to 5 of the variances as proposed by the applicant and staff
recommends denial of these requested variances.
Staff recommends the following conditions be included with approval of any variances
deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
1. The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the
acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised survey to show all easements and the proposed
grades with drainage and an erosion control plan.
Comments from the public:
Norling: (J 5239 Fairbanks Trail NE): Commented that he has the support of the
neighborhood and that he intends on staying in the house long-term. Further discussed the
project plans in detail, the rationale for requesting each of the variances, the comparison
of his property to neighboring properties, and his family's need for the additional space.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN I 0220 I.doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2001
Commissioner VonHof closed the public hearing.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke: Commented that he believed that the garage is necessary and eliminating 4 feet
from the garage would mean it could no longer be used as a three-car garage.
Atwood: Asked if the Commissioners are going to be comfortable acting on the
application without a current survey. Suggested tabling the item until there is a final
survey.
Stamson: Agreed that in dealing with the lake side of the home it would be necessary to
see a final survey. On the balance of the structure, he did believe that the side yard set
back could be met and still provide for a 32-foot garage and concurred with the staff
recommendation.
Atwood: Agreed with Commissioner Stamson and noted she was uncomfortable In
making any further decision without a final survey.
V onHof: Believed that due to the slope of the lot some variances are probably warranted,
but was not willing to make further determinations until an updated survey was received.
Lemke: Most concerned with the 16.5 foot driveway, but noted that the neighbors garage
is only 12.5 feet from the road.
Stamson: Commented that the each property is unique and the circumstances vary, so
comparisons are inappropriate.
Horsman: Advised that Fairbanks Trail IS very small to begin with because it was
originally platted as a private road.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL
NOVEMBER 13, 2001 SO THAT A FULL-SIZED UPDATED SURVEY CAN BE
REVIEWED.
VOTE: Ayes by all, the motion carried.
C. #01-084 John and Jennifer Barncard are requesting approval of a site plan to allow a
detached accessory structure on a nonconforming lot of record separated by a private
road from a lot with the principal structure for the property at 16558 Inguadona Beach
Circle.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report on file in the office
of the City Planning Department.
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN I 0220 I.doc 8
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us]
Friday, January 04, 200210:09 AM
Shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com
David and Rachel Norling Variance Appeal, 15239 Fairbanks Trail NE
Mr. Norling came to my office yesterday afternoon to discuss his variance appeal with me.
I think the hearing notice for the original hearing before planning commission was during
the state worker's strike (first two weeks of October), so I did not get a chance to
review it then. As I understand it, a number of variances were applied for, some of which
were approved, and two (combined side yard and impervious surface coverage) were not.
Applicant is appealing to the city council a variance to the 30% maximum impervious
surface coverage to 32.9%, and the combined sideyard.
I informed Mr Norling that the statewide minimum standard is 25% impervious, but that the
DNR agreed to allow 30% in Prior Lake, due to existing development at the time of
ordinance adoption. In essence, the city was provided a blanket "variance" of 5% over the
staewide minimum for impervious in shoreland areas.
Mr Norling discussed the possibility of using a product that purports to be a permeable
paving system for the driveway and parking area. A number of such products are on the
market today. The particular one the applicant is considering is called the UNI Eco-Stone
permeable paving system.
While these systems may provide for some infiltration, I am of the opinion that:
1. such products have not been around long enough to be thoroughly analyzed for effective
infiltration,
2. over time, the spaces between the pavers become filled with fine-textured particles
which reduce infiltration,
3. it would be difficult, and I believe arbitrary, to assign some "percentage", or
prorated infiltration over a given surface area for
purposes of determining percent impervious. Administratively this would be shaky.
As your ordinance currently reads, any
parking area, paved o~ not, is considered impervious. I agree that compaction,
slope, and fine materials tsuch as those
derived from crushed fimestone), render such surfaces impervious over time.
Please let me know the outcome of this variance appeal.
Pat Lynch
DNR South Metro Area Hydrologist
phone 651.772.7917
fax 651.772.7977
pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us
.
1
....._"~,._.._...._.________,_..._,.'.~.,"_.._._~...~_.,,__~.~_....._.__.__.....,_.~".~_,__,____.______.........-____~...___.H____'_m.___
~
-" ...
PRIOR LAKE - SPRING LAKE'WATERSHED DISTRICT.
,(952)447-4166 '
Fax 447-4167
Mr. David Norling
15239 Fairbanks Trail N.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
January 4, 2002
,
c.
, Dear Mr: Norling:
, ,
' "
This letter is in response to your request for the District's opinion regarding water man8gement and
impervious surface issues on your lot" The District gener;:llly believes that managing impervious surfaces
, in an important part of managing and preserving the existing hydrology. We also recognize that
inpervioussurfaces will typically increase with urban devE!iopmenl and the District is trying to create a
local program to minimize to the extent practical the creation of neW impervious surface,: or where ,
, practical to infiltratelmitigate for ston:nwater runoff from the new surfaces that are created. However, we
do not offer-an opinion on whether or nOt the City shOuld gfanta variance to their, impervious'surface
ordinance. We do offer the opinion belaNOn the typeS of ma~ practices that could be used to
mitigate for impervious surfaces., Ho.Yever, whether the City will consider mitigation practices is a
decision of the City Staff and COuncit
, "
".' .
, In oormeeting you presented porouS paving stones is a pOtential mitigation practice. We have.some
concerns with the long-tenn viability of this technology. These Concerns indude uncertainty regarding
Whether or not the porosity of the pavers will be maintained CNer time if small particles become entrapped
in the open areas of the pavers. ,We.are also not sure if this is a proven technology for cold weather
climates such as ours. Water underneath the pavers ri1ay cause movement of the pavers when freezing.
We also question the use of, the pavers and the introduction of subsurface water along the uphill side. of
your proposed ~cture unless, an underdrain o~ foundation drain is also included. .
, ,
Some mitigating practices that may offermore potential for yOur situation include rain barrels and
landscaped depressions. Rain barrels are barrels that are placed, at the end of rain gutter systems that
have a restrictive outlet that slowly releases the stored water into grassed areas. They are typically.about
,,50 to 55 gallons in size. We understand that you have the potential for two rain barrels based on the
propoSed, roof drainage. 'This would give.about 100 to.'110'gallons'oftemporary storage. Ttisis sufficient
mitigation storage for about 0.8 inches of runoff from the 214 Square feet of impervious area you claim the
proposal exceeds the City's imperviOus limit. This is not a large amount of storage given the relatively
, high additional amount of impervious surface on the lot and that the grassed areas of the lot will receive
runoff from these area as well as the additional 214 square feet We therefore, suggest consideration of
landscaping improvements that create small shallaN depressions to allaN retention and infiltration. You
indicated that this type of landscaping, is a possibility since you are contemplating retaining wall and
, 'associated landscaping improvements on the down~i11 portion of your lot near the lake. Depending on
soils types you may want to consider an underdrain (tile) to make sure the small depressions created will
slowly drain CNer time. These types of systems have been shown to completely remove suspended
solids and to have as much as 80 percent phosphorus remCNaI.
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL S.E. SUITE 110 · PRIOR LAKE, MN55372
- ,-",', ..., ,..__".._...'.'M....n~..._"......_~..'_.,_..~..,.4M_.,..'.,___.____.~_.,..,._.~._~~.,._____..__~._"_,~.__,,.,~_... ~.....,_...._.'..'m"".._ __"_.__.,..__...._"...___,_~__,.____~.
/
Cc: Craig Gontarek, PLSLWO President_
Dave Moran, PLSLWO Vice President
.
.,~_.~",.._._""
December 5, 2001
David & Rachel Norling
15239 Fairbanks Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the December 10,
2001 Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are e ected to
attend the meeting.
Sincerely,
C~Car~
Connie Canson
Planning Dept. Secretary'
Enclosure
.I'! .h, -,' J./ l-~ J-h:
I. IT '. 0:-
eQlili- J C,.tf Td /J.tld 1:.., :; hv':' ~r Co.v.t::{
~ I .......... I 2 .'1....(/.-/ h:/J.' . h
<: I ().k) S t:J I c1 / "/p 1 ".r../ d j.. '. .,- . ,:
...1 -, . .' "/- . ":) \/ '
. '. i r' ''\ r ) ~ .., -,' -'
'O?" j / T" -r/~""'" ~ f,A ,i . . ..
\..... -r J~ -::... -<,..., , ...... .
;;;- ) dlv'X'o.ve~ ,
I....e v"./o- ~ I f "'-'
l:\deptwork\blankfrm\meelltr.doc
"16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
We the neighbors of David and Rachel Norling of
15239 Fairbanks Trail N.E. Support them in their
request for variances to build their garage and
addition. We understand all variances and
support the granting of each of them. We know
thIs will increase the property values and safety in
our neighborhood and help with the congestion
problem.
NALvlE
ADDRESS
PHONE
qO-flf?-7"~~
Yea: 6'~/4t~t5L
~#_u J
~b/ t?~,kde f;e'L- ~L.
i(.~ u ~U /; ivt.. I( I(
- /'
~.~
~'~. /971 f1r,~1<& TfL..
-. /~ /5;;( 75 r:uJ~ Ir 7'5~ - Lfy (J -
. . 7~-.y:J-
/';~ (y /J;-7J- r~ TA 0).-- )tY~~r)tJ
i.. .../ . l" _ _ ~ y6t',.IV-.K.c "7 r. ~lt)l- 4'17 - Lj/J
/ ' ~ c.. _ /52 s t"\ r ~\ r
I . ~ CL -t ~t-'"^-..J~~' -.....
~C~ 0 P .,' ~ t G~ 1L'u:- C /5d1v7 .f{( rJxin~ To, jl C1!:3]-4f 1- (65 <(
L/ltCt.-L{ (~[~L1 Cl.LV.\....
~.J!>\. ~ 03/( Qud~~~_ .CfSc-W7-//7Y
I ) Z 1.. ""I I~ A I"tlIJI7 tv i(' s' ,1l
cr SOl. - Y'/O j/vJ It/-
1SL- - '/Lf7--Sl%7
!
:- "'--:'.,
. ~ _" _.O._.....~,"....M,_'_._......_._. ",.,__~"_~_,+_,_,,,__,,__.""m.._..,,.,_.~..~..,,...~_._.".._..~.~____"__________."~.__.....~",.._..._____,__.___