HomeMy WebLinkAbout5G3 - McCoy Deck
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
DECEMBER 15, 2003
5G3
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
. (1) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OVERRULING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING A REAR YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION and
(2) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION
(Case file #03.131 PC.McCOY)
Historv: The City Council held a public hearing on December 1, 2003, to
consider an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to deny a 12.1
foot Variance from the required 15 foot rear yard setback and a 3.3 foot
Variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback as requested by Tim and
Jane McCoy, 2830 Fox Run NW.
The City Council supported a 10 foot rear yard setback Variance because the
property is within The Wilds Planned Unit Development (PUD), and PUDs
allow flexible setbacks. Moreover, a 5 foot rear yard setback is allowed for
the "Villa Homes" in The Wilds, which also directly abut the golf course. The
City Council determined there was no hardship to justify a side yard setback
. Variance and upheld the Planning Commission's decision to deny that
request.
The Council attached the following conditions to the rear yard setback
Variance, These conditions must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the deck addition,
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of
adoption. 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 building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state
agency regulations.
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-131 McCoy\cc consent r~OOyofpriorlake.com
1
. Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
3. The applicant shall enter into a Private Use of Public Property Agreement
with the City to allow for the encroachment into the 10 foot drainage and
utility easement. This agreement shall include indemnification provisions.
No building permit will be issued until Council has approved this
agreement.
Conclusion: The attached resolutions are consistent with the City Council's
direction for approval of a 10 foot rear yard setback Variance to allow for the
construction of a deck addition, and the denial of the 3.3 foot side yard
setback Variance.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council has two alternatives:
1. Adopt attached the attached resolution to approve the 10 foot rear yard
setback Variance as requested by the applicant, and adopt the resolution
upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the 3.3 foot
side yard setback Variance,
2. Table or continue consideration of these items for specific reasons,
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
The staff recommends alternative # 1. The following motions are required:
A motion and second as part of the Consent Agenda to approve Resolution
03-XX overruling the decision of the Planning Commission and approving the
10 foot rear yard setback Variance subject to the conditions.
A motion and second as part of the Consent Agenda to approve Resolution
03-XX upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the 3.3
foot side yard setback riance.
REVIEWED BY:
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-131 McCoy\cc consent report.doc
2
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S,E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 03-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION AND APPROVING A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT REAR YARD
SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) AND SO (SHORELINE OVERLAY) AND
LOCATED AT 2830 FOX RUN NW
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, Tim and Jane McCoy applied for Variances for the construction of a deck addition as
shown on Exhibit A on property zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) and SD
(Shoreland) Districts and located at 2830 Fox Run NW, Prior Lake MN, and legally
described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 2, The Wilds, Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the application for rear and side yard setback
Variances as contained in Case File 03-122, and held a hearing thereon October 27,
2003; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the Variance requests did not meet the hardship
criteria and denied the requests; and
WHEREAS, James Bates, on behalf of Tim and Jane McCoy, appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 28,
2003; and
WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 03-122 and Case File 03-131, and held a hearing
thereon on December 1, 2003.
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 finds that the requested rear yard setback Variance meets the criteria for granting
Variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellants have set forth
adequate reasons for granting a rear yard setback Variance.
3) The City Council determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
Variances should reversed in part, and that a 10 foot rear yard setback Variance should be
approved.
www.cityofpriorlake.com
I:'.QJ files\QJ a~~eals\QJ 1J1 FRssey\a~~FElval reselwijeR geG P:ag~ 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
4) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. James Bates, counsel for Tim and Jane McCoy, appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 28, 2003.
b. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File 03-122 and Case File 03-131, and held a hearing thereon on December 1,
2003.
c. The City Council determined that the McCoy residence is within a PUD.
d. The City Council discussed and found that standards in a PUD are often reduced or modified
because PUDs are only approved if the development has unique characteristics distinct from
those set forth in the criteria. The City Council further found that requiring the McCoys to apply
for a PUD amendment to permit second-story decks on homes that abut a golf course, would
create an unnecessary burden and hardship on appellants. The City Council further found that it
would prefer to handle decks abutting a golf course on a case-by-case basis rather than by an
amendment within the Wilds PUD.
e. The City Council heard testimony that when the McCoys purchased the residence it was in need
of significant repair and was a blight to the neighbors. Neighbors of the McCoys testified that the
McCoys have made significant improvements to the property.
f. The City Council heard testimony that a large deck was attached to the home when the McCoys
purchased it, that the deck and its supporting elements were rotting and created an actual hazard
as Mr. McCoy testified that he fell through the deck. The City Council finds that these
characteristics are unique to the property and are not a result of appellants' actions.
g. The City Council determined that bulk standards are flexible within a Planned Unit Development,
and the 5 foot rear yard setback allowed with the 10 foot Variance is consistent with the 5 foot
minimum rear yard setback permitted for the "Villa Homes" in The Wilds.
h. The City Council determined that the rear yard setback Variance would not unreasonably impact
the character of the neighborhood because the proposed deck addition meets the 10 foot
minimum required side yard setback.
i. The City Council 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 variances on the Comprehensive Plan.
j. The City Council rejects appellants' argument that a variance must be granted because the
variance is necessary in order for appellants to make reasonable use of their property. This
variance is based on the unique conditions relating to this specific property, and not because of
what appellants define as a reasonable use of their property. Reasonableness is a finding for the
City Council to make based on evidence in the record relating to the specific property for which a
variance is being sought and based on the City Code variance criteria.
5) The contents of Planning Case File 03-122 and Planning Case File 03-131 are hereby entered into
and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-131 mccoy\approval resolution.doc
Page 2
6) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby overrules the decision of the
Planning Commission and approves a 10 foot Variance from the 15 foot rear yard setback for the
construction of a deck addition as shown on Exhibit A, with the following conditions:
A. The resolution must be recorded by the applicant at Scott County within 60 days of
adoption. 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.
B. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
C. The applicant shall enter into a Private Use of Public Property Agreement with the City to
allow for the encroachment into the 10 foot drainage and utility easement. This
agreement shall include indemnification provisions. No building permit will be issued until
Council has approved this agreement.
Passed and adopted this 15th day of December 2003.
YES
NO
Haugen Haugen
Blomberg Blomberg
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal} City Manager
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-131 mccoy\approval resolution,doc Page 3
CERllF1CATE OF SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
11M ~CCOY
2630 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372
tyrJ" - '7 ,;ro,':l.
1..1J : ,-.. v
. U\....~_...__.. -- - -- j
I
2k.,..~O I .
. Scale In Fe.t
. DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DENOTES IRON MONU!AENT SET AND MARKED
BY MINNESOTA UCENSE NO.10183
VJJJ.E( SURVEYING CO.. P.A.
16670 FRANKUN lRAIL SE
SUITE 230
PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372
(952) 447-2570
8
---- 13.2. 94
O~"IN"G E
- --
....
,.~,.
Ote/( OSto
I
I w
, 0
0
I 0
, 0
0
I If) r'
0 .I
I z '--
I
I ..-......---...
- 15.9_
I
j
-,0;'0- HOUSE
,
I
- 16.0_
j ---------
I
I
01
\0
N
<t
....
"
"
"
"-
"
\
/.\
/ \
\
4. .
4' <1'.
. . Coner.,.
<4' Drlve'way .
"4
,c..
0+
." 4
~"iJ.
'<1..
~c,
"b
"
....
.....
1
I
- --
~
- - 30.00 --
N850 00' OO"E
",_ .I
LEGAL OESCRIPll0N AS PROVlOEOt
Lot 1, Block 2. ll-IE 'MLDS, Scott County, Minnesota. Also
showing 011 visible improvements and/or encroachments onto
or off. from said property if any. os of this 2nd day of July,
200.3.
r:= _n...::--::~~>:~- .---
;; ~, ~ ~ '-.-.-. '.-~ '.
; ~ j - ~_......_._-_P,"-'_'-
I'i'
fl V,J
'1 ~ t,
Rev. 10/6/03 To ,how proposed deck info.
I hereby certify that this C.rtlllcate at Surwy was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Weenseel Land Surwyor under the laws of the State of
!AlnnHota.
4,~LJ{f) .-L~__
IIlnneeota Ucens. No. 10183
Dated thls-.i!i!:i.of J" ! 'J ' 2003
FILE NO. 9707 BOOK 238 PAGE 76
~
EXHIBIT A
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 03-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION AND APPROVING A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT REAR YARD
SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) AND SO (SHORELINE OVERLAY) AND
LOCATED AT 2830 FOX RUN NW
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, Tim and Jane McCoy applied for Variances for the construction of a deck addition as
shown on Exhibit A on property zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) and SD
(Shoreland) Districts and located at 2830 Fox Run NW, Prior Lake MN, and legally
described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 2, The Wilds, Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the application for rear and side yard setback
Variances as contained in Case File 03-122, and held a hearing thereon October 27,
2003; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the Variance requests did not meet the hardship
criteria and denied the requests; and
WHEREAS, James Bates, on behalf of Tim and Jane McCoy, appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 28,
2003; and
WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 03-122 and Case File 03-131, and held a hearing
thereon on December 1, 2003.
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 finds that the requested rear yard setback Variance meets the criteria for granting
Variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellants have set forth
adequate reasons for granting a rear yard setback Variance.
3) The City Council determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
Variances should reversed in part, and that a 10 foot rear yard setback Variance should be
approved.
www.cityofpriorlake.com
1:\e3 files\e3 al'll'leals'.e3 131 A'leeey.\aI'lI'lFeval reselloltieA.Elee P'498 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
4) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. James Bates, counsel for Tim and Jane McCoy, appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 28, 2003.
b. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File 03-122 and Case File 03-131, and held a hearing thereon on December 1,
2003.
c. The City Council determined that the McCoy residence is within a PUD.
d. The City Council discussed and found that standards in a PUD are often reduced or modified
because PUDs are only approved if the development has unique characteristics distinct from
those set forth in the criteria. The City Council further found that requiring the McCoys to apply
for a PUD amendment to permit second-story decks on homes that abut a golf course, would
create an unnecessary burden and hardship on appellants. The City Council further found that it
would prefer to handle decks abutting a golf course on a case-by-case basis rather than by an
amendment within the Wilds PUD.
e. The City Council heard testimony that when the McCoys purchased the residence it was in need
of significant repair and was a blight to the neighbors. Neighbors of the McCoys testified that the
McCoys have made significant improvements to the property.
f. The City Council heard testimony that a large deck was attached to the home when the McCoys
purchased it, that the deck and its supporting elements were rotting and created an actual hazard
as Mr. McCoy testified that he fell through the deck. The City Council finds that these
characteristics are unique to the property and are not a result of appellants' actions.
g. The City Council determined that bulk standards are flexible within a Planned Unit Development,
and the 5 foot rear yard setback allowed with the 10 foot Variance is consistent with the 5 foot
minimum rear yard setback permitted for the "Villa Homes" in The Wilds.
h. The City Council determined that the rear yard setback Variance would not unreasonably impact
the character of the neighborhood because the proposed deck addition meets the 10 foot
minimum required side yard setback.
i. The City Council 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 variances on the Comprehensive Plan.
j. The City Council rejects appellants' argument that a variance must be granted because the
variance is necessary in order for appellants to make reasonable use of their property. This
variance is based on the unique conditions relating to this speCific property, and not because of
what appellants define as a reasonable use of their property. Reasonableness is a finding for the
City Council to make based on evidence in the record relating to the specific property for which a
variance is being sought and based on the City Code variance criteria.
5) The contents of Planning Case File 03-122 and Planning Case File 03-131 are hereby entered into
and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-131 mccoy\approval resolution.doc
Page 2
6) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby overrules the decision of the
Planning Commission and approves a 10 foot Variance from the 15 foot rear yard setback for the
construction of a deck addition as shown on Exhibit A, with the following conditions:
A. The resolution must be recorded by the applicant at Scott County within 60 days of
adoption. 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.
B. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
C. The applicant shall enter into a Private Use of Public Property Agreement with the City to
allow for the encroachment into the 10 foot drainage and utility easement. This
agreement shall include indemnification provisions. No building permit will be issued until
Council has approved this agreement.
Passed and adopted this 15th day of December 2003.
YES
NO
Haugen Haugen
Blomberg Blomberg
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal} City Manager
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-131 mccoy\approval resolution.doc Page 3
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
TIM ~cCOY
2630 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372
/0 r
I
I
I
I
I
l
.....
,c..
0+
",. J
---- 132. 94
e.
OIlJlINJlGE
- --
......
......
"-
"
"-
,
,
/\
-' \
\
4..' .' 4' ",:.
. C onereI.
<1' Driveway'
"4 .
." .d
~"
~
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS PROV1DED~:
VAlLEY SURVEYING CO.. P.A.
16870 FRANKUN TRAIL SE
SUITE 230
PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372
(952) 447-2570
1>'10
oe:c:ose:o
. HOUSE
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
-'S.9 _
r:::- _.--:-:-;-:- ___-:-- ----
'i.
l Ii' .~. : '"..
! l \ I - ~-_.~._---~ .'-'-'
t ~ i
f l ',,/
';, ('
. i
f"rrr. '7 ,;rf:~
\.,1J t '-'.-c I",. V
I i \ .
:U L.~--._..-- --.-'
20 . . 0 10 20 I
~~
. Scale In reet
w
o
o
o
o
o
~ r)
Z '--
HOUSE
~.A.
'"
'4
4
I
J
I
I
I
-16.0_
---------
GJlIl4GE
"'f1..
"
,d.o 01
--i-- ~
, <t
1
I
JS
. DENOlES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET AND MARK EO
BY MINNESOTA UCENSE NO.10183
------
I
I
<:
- - 30.00 --
N850 00' OO"E
Lot 1, Block 2. lliE WILDS, Scott County, Minnesoto, Also
showing 011 visible improvements and/or encroachments onto
or off, from said property if any, os of this 2nd day of July,
2003.
Rev. 10/6/03 To Jhow Prtlposed deck info.
I hereby certify that this Certlflcate of Surwy was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Ween.ed Land Surve)'Ol' under the 10... of the State of
Mlnn....ta.
y;~L}rf) Al~__
IIlnn..ota Ucen.. No. 101 SJ
Dated th/.--1!i!:i.of J {( / ') . 2003
FILE NO. 9707 BOOK 238 PAGE 76
..
~
EXHIBIT A
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
December 1 , 2003
Pace: Asked what distinguishes a deck from a balcony.
Kansier: Explained that a deck requires supports to the ground where a balcony is cantilevered from the house. Also noted
that as long as the design of the deck fits within the granted setback, it can be any style.
VOTE: Ayes Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen and LeMair, Nay by Zieska, the motion carried.
The Council took a brief recess.
Consider Approval of an Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of a Variance for the Construction of a Deck
Addition 2830 Fox Run NW (Case File #03-131).
Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report.
Blomber!:l: Asked for a definition of a "villa" style home.
Kirchoff: According to the PUD, villa homes are single family attached or detached homes on smaller lots. On this home,
there are no lower level patio doors.
Blomber!:l:Asked if the golf course will always be a golf course.
Kirchoff: The golf course use can be changed through an application for amendment to the PUD by the owner and
approval by the City Council.
Petersen: Asked the size of the proposed deck.
Kirchoff: Advised that the proposed deck is smaller than the old one, approximately 14'x20'.
Pace: Clarified that the intended use of the City's Private Use of Public Property Agreement was not to prospectively allow
construction within an easement, or a waiver of the City's right for infringement into an easement.
LeMair: Asked if there was ever a permit issued for the deck.
Kirchoff: No permit was issued. The staff cannot tell when the original deck was constructed and has assumed that the
deck was included after issuance of the certificate of occupancy since it was not included on the survey for the house.
Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open.
Jim Bates (attorney for the applicant): Advised that the proposed deck does not protrude further than the initial deck. Also
advised that the lot size is .46 acres. Submitted a letter dated November 28, 2003 from him to the City Council on his
interpretation of the state standard for variances. Further noted that State statute allows City's the variance tool to provide
relief for property owners from the strict application of the ordinance. Noted that the McCoys bought the property with the
initial non-conforming, illegal deck and that the excessive impervious surface existed at the time of the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy. Clarified that the door faces to the rear of the house even though it is on the far east side of the
home. There is no significant impact upon adjacent neighbors and indicated that the golf course representatives do not
8
--"..._-,_.~"._.<~-_..,.._--~----_,___,_......~~....-,-,. "'_"_""~_'~'"""_~'_'" ""'_"~_""_~~~~h~~~..."___'~,_~__~_",___""",,...,_.~...~._.._._~_____________
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
December 1, 2003
oppose the variance request. Believed these circumstances provide a practical difficulty in achieving a reasonable use of
the home.
Petersen: Advised that the old deck looks much less than 14 feet.
Bates: Advised that he has seen the old footings.
BlomberQ: Asked for clarification of Mr. Bates reference t? a 5 foot setback.
Bates: Explained that at the Planning Commission meeting, a 1994 City Council resolution showed a rear yard setback for
properties adjacent to golf course fairways was changed. The setback for the villas was 5 feet, and for 1/3 and Y:z acre sites
at 15 feet. The plats for the villas do not show drainage and utility easements at the backs of those lots. The single family
homes sites provide a 10 foot utility and drainage easements. It appears that a standard was established as a matter of
policy that rear yard setbacks adjacent to the golf course could be as little as 5 feet. Also believed that the encroachment of
the deck into the easement could be addressed through a Private Use of Public Property Agreement.
BlomberQ: Asked if a smaller deck is an option in order to accommodate the easement.
Bates: Advised that if the easeme'nt is accommodated, the actual width of the deck at one point is 5 feet.
Tim McCov (2830 Fox Run): Advised that the deck existed when he bought the house and replacement was required due
to its condition. The County advised him that as long as there is no building, repair was permitted. Did not believe that
reducing the deck size to 5 feet at one point would accommodate reasonable use. Created a nice house from a
neighborhood eyesore. Believed not having a deck is a hardship.
LeMair: Asked about the condition of the footings for the initial deck.
McCov: Advised that the footings that were removed were only 18 inches deep and the deck was sloping toward the house.
Being "in the trade" he proceeded to remove the bad footings. Not all of the footings have been removed.
MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried.
BlomberQ: Asked for clarification as to the setbacks. Commented that for properties abutting open space she could justify a
variance, but there is an issue with the easement along the rear property. Because of the easement, she will support the
Planning Commission decision.
Petersen: Believed this issue is similar to the last variance application in that the property abuts the open space of the golf
course. The easement may never.be used. Supported the variance.
Zieska: Asked if vacating the easement is a possibility.
Kirchoff: The easement is being used for drainage purposes.
Zieska: Because the property is located in a PUD, there is some flexibility. He can live with the 5 foot rear yard setback, but
would like to see the side yard encroachment eliminated. Also believed the Private Use of Public Property Agreement can
be used with respect to the rear easement.
9
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
December 1, 2003
LeMair: Agreed with Councilmember Zieska and that a reasonable solution can be found so that the property owner can
accommodate his deck.
HauQen: Agreed with Councilmember Zieska.
BlomberQ: Asked if a deck size of 12 foot x 16.5 feet accommodates the door.
Zieska: It would with some creative design. Asked Mr. McCoy if maintaining the side yard setback could be accommodated.
McCov: Advised that the survey h'as been altered somewhat and there is very little room to accommodate the door.
BlomberQ: Asked why the Council is considering allowing the rear yard variance and not a side yard.
Zieska: The rationale is that the side yard infringes upon a neighbor and the rear yard only infringes upon the golf course
open space.
Pace: Advised that any infringement into an easement requires a Private Use of Public Property Agreement and requires
indemnification.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO DIRECT STAFF PREPARE A RESOLUTION OVERTURNING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND GRANTING A VARIANCE INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW A
FIVE FOOT SETBACK WITH NO VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REQUIRING A PRIVATE USE OF
PUBLIC PROPERTY AGREEMENT INDEMNIFYING THE CITY.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, Nay by Blomberg, the motion carried,
PRESENTATIONS:
Presentation by Norex Corporation Regarding Their New Facility
Ron Haberkorn: Discussed how happy Norex is with its new facility and thanked the City for its support. Noted that as a
result of support in Prior Lake, they decided to maintain their old building and re-lease the space to new Prior Lake
businesses, Advised that their commercial construction and taxes will contribute to the on-going betterment of Prior Lake.
Viewed a brief video tape of the new facility. Advised there are 62 offices in the building all with outside views. Publicly
thanked Bob Barsness of Prior Lake State Bank, Mayor Haugen and the City Council, City staff for all their help and
patience, and the citizens and people of Prior Lake. As a token of appreciation, presented Mayor Haugen with a $20,000
contribution toward a downtown fountain/aerator and landscaping for the business park entry monuments,
HauQen: Thanked Mr. Haberkorn, his family, and the Norex team for their contributions to the City. It is important to invest
in our current businesses in order to attract new ones.
OLD BUSINESS
Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving the Final Planned Unit Development Plan and PUD Development
Contract and Approval of a Resolution Approving the Final Plat and Development Contract for Crystal Bay.
Kansier: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report.
BlomberQ: Asked if all the decks are where they are supposed to be.
10