Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 May Planning Commission Agenda Packet1A /OF PR / �\ 7 U U f' :+7 HERITAGE COMMUMTY T-Y10RIV 1891 1991 2091 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MAY 7, 1992 7:30 P.M. CALL 10 OMER 7:30 P.M. REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 7:30 P.M. HEARING VARIANCE GOLDEN HOME BUILDERS CONTINUED 7:45 P.M. HEARING VARIANCE HAROLD DELLNO 8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION INDUSTRIAL PLANNING OMISSION AND PARR STANDARDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE * Indicates a Public Hearing All times stated on the Planning Commission Agenda, with the exception of Public Hearings, are approximate and may start later than the scheduled time. 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior fake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / Fax (612) 4474245 PRI PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 16, 1992 The April 16, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Loftus at 7:30 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Loftus, Wuellner, Wells, Director of Planning Horst Graser, Assistant City Planner Deb Garross, Associate Planner Sam Lucast, and Secretary Rita Schewe. Commissioner Roseth arrived at 7:40 P.M. Commissioner Arnold was absent. ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, and Loftus. Commissioner Wells abstained as she was not at the previous meeting. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM II - STEVE BURDICK /SUE JOHNS - VARIANCE Doreen Kiplinger of Realty World -Kubes of Shakopee, represented the applicants Steve Burdick and Sue Johns of 7333 Gallagher Drive, Edina, MN. The application is for a four (4) foot north side yard variance and a 5000 square foot lot area variance to construct a single family tri -level dwelling at 16560 Spring Avenue. The applicants plan to save as many trees as possible. Sam Lucast, Associate Planner, presented the information as per memo on April 16, 1992. Previous variances were granted in 1990 to this subject site for a 12 foot east rear yard and a 5000 square foot lot area. The applicant at that time did not build nor did he extend the application after one year, therefore, the variances expired. DNR did not object to the variances but expressed concerns on erosion control. The subject site is heavily wooded with steep slopes and is adjacent to a storm water management pond. The site is a lot of record that was created under the jurisdiction of a previous government body. Staff recommends approval of the application with conditions. Mark Rivers, 16581 Spring Avenue, stated that he uses the sewer easement for a driveway and had been told at the time he purchased his property that the subject site was not buildable. Jim Berg, 3893 Green Heights Trail, voiced his concern that a precedent would be set by allowing this variance, questioned if the pond was part of Prior Lake, could the outlot be built on, front setback for the subject site, and who would repair storm sewer if it is damaged. 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior take, Minnesota 55372 ! Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245 AN EQUAL OPPOHr NM EMPtDFER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 16, 1992 PAGE 2 Comments from the Commissioners were on; a retaining wall, fill, house location, trees lost, lot of record and is buildable, neighbors need to work out driveway situation, grading and erosion control, and new standards would have to be met on the outlot. MOTION BY WELLS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE THE FOUR (4) FOOT NORTH SIDE YARD AND 5000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR 16560 SPRING AVENUE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT A GRADING AND VEGETATION RESTORATION PLAN ACCEPTABLE TO STAFF. EROSION CONTROL MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO GRADING AND CONSTANTLY MAINTAINED UNTIL VEGETATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S SATISFACTION. RATIONALE BEING THAT THE LOT IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD, HARDSHIP WAS NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT BUT BY THE ORDINANCE AND WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Vote taken signified ayes by Wells, Wuellner, Loftus, and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM III - DENNIS MCGILL - VARIANCE Dennis McGill, 4281 Quaker Trail, stated that he is requesting a three (3) foot east side yard variance to construct a deck on the lake side of his home. If the deck was constructed at the ten foot setback, the railing would be in the middle of a window. The proposed construction would be an extension of the east wall of the house. Other designs were considered but would not be feasible. Sam Lucast, Associate Planner, presented the information as per memo of April 16, 1992. The home was built in the 1920's and is now under extensive remodeling. The subject site is in an area where most existing structures do not meet current setback standards. The deck is designed to save the two trees within the building envelope. DNR does not object to the variance request. Staff's recommendation is to approve the three foot variance as it is a reasonable request and would not encroach closer to the side property line than the existing wall. The Planning Commission has tended to allow for continuing, but not increasing, legal non - conforming setbacks in older established neighborhoods which contain substandard lots. Consensus from the Commissioners were that all were in agreement with the variance request. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY WELLS, TO APPROVE A THREE (3) FOOT EAST SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR 4281 QUAKER TRAIL AS IT IS A REASONABLE REQUEST. THE PROPOSED DECK WILL CONTINUE, BUT NOT INCREASE THE LEGAL NON - CONFORMING SETBACK FOR THE SITE, AND IT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 16, 1992 PAGE 3 Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Wells, Loftus and Wuellner. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM IV - GOLDEN NOME BU ILDERS INC. - VARIANCE Norm Erickson of Edina Realty -Prior Lake, represented the applicant Golden Home Builders of Plymonth, MN, and the prospective buyers Art & Shari Zurn. Several variances are being requested in order to construct a single family home, septic system, and well, at 15512 Drake Avenue NW. Deb Garross, Assistant City Planner, presented the information as per memo of April 16, 1992. The subject site is a metes and bounds lot of record. Drake Avenue is a gravel road and there are no drainage easements, storm sewer, curb, gutter or street improvements. The variances requested are a 76.5 foot front yard variance from County Road 82 (154th Street) ; a 32,610 square foot lot area variance, and a 67 foot lot width variance. It is the policy of the City to restrict rural density development within the community because of the difficulty involved to retrofit such an area to urban density development. Staff believes the standards for future development should be considered for this application. The recommendation from Staff is to approve the 32,610 square foot lot area and 67 foot lot width variance but deny the 76.5 front setback variance. Thir should be 85 feet which is the required setback from a county road in an area with public utilities. The Engineering Department recommends that the home be moved further to the west to accommodate a 35 foot front yard setback. The City Attorney advises that the applicant sign a waiver of assessment appeal form and this form be filed with the County Recorder's office. Tom Dalsin, 3620 154th Street, wanted to know what the plans were for the sewer line that was installed for the Sioux Community that is near his property. Comments from the Commissioners were; verification on front yard denial, tree replacement, question on precedent being set, septic and well placement, redesign house plan and downsize garage, and easement requirements. A recess was called at 9:25 P.M. Meeting was reconvened at 9:35 P.M. After a discussion with the applicants, the variance was continued to May 7, 1992, at 7:30 P.M. ITEM V - LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE - DISCUSSION BY STAFF Horst Graser gave a brief outline of the Landscape Ordinance draft and introduced Greg Kopischke of Westwood Professional Services Planning and Engineering, who are the authors of the draft. Mr. Kopischke explained the various sections of the ordinance that is proposed to regulate landscape requirements for commercial, industrial, and multifamily residential projects. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 16, 1992 PAGE m Sections covered were: purpose; general landscape requirements; calculations of requirements, credits and sizes; plant sizes; credits for existing materials; variation of plant sizes; parking lot landscape; screening; grounds and lawns; performance guarantee; and submission requirements. Discussion followed and comments were made by the Commissioners to be incorporated into the ordinance. Dave Unmacht, City Manager, stated that he is it. support of the landscape ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan is requiring this regulation to be implemented. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY WELLS, TO ADJGURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Wells, Wuellner, and Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 11:35 P.M Hall. Tapes of meeting on file at City Horst W. Graser Director of Planning Rita M. Schewe Recording Secretary /F PRiO\ � � \ a s T "VA10Pl" PLANNING REPORT SUBJECT: VARIANCE APPLICANT: GOLDEN HOME BUILDERS INC., SITE ADDRESS: 15512 DRAKE AVENUE PRESENTER: DEB GARROSS, ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO DATE: MAY 7, 1992 HISTORY /BACKGROUND The purpose of t is item is to continue discussion of a variance application submitted by Dean Morlock of Golden Home Builders Inc., P.O. Box 47213 Plymouth, MN, 55447. The applicant is requesting several variances to be granted for 15512 Drake Avenue N.W., Prior Lake. The proposal is to construct a new single family home, septic system and well as proposed on the attached survey. Specifically, the request is to consider a 76.5 foot front yard variance from County Road 82, (154th Street); a 32,610 square foot lot area variance, and 67 foot lot width variance, and 5' south side yard variance in order to construct the home as proposed on the attached survey. The optimum alternative is that no development should occur within the Drake Avenue neighborhood until such a time as public utilities are available and the area can be platted and developed according to the subdivision process of the City. In that way, an area review would be conducted and it would be possible to plan street connections, provide easements and storm sewer improvements, grade and develop in a manner that ties to the adjacent, urban density developments. Unfortunately, the parcel is a lot of record and as such is eligible for a building permit. With that in mind, staff is of the opinion that development of the site should conform, as much as possible, to current standards in order to facilitate future subdivision opportunities. DISCUSSION: T e P anning Commission seemed amenable to moving the proposed structure 5' south in order to decrease the amount of variance needed from C.R. 82. However, upon further review with the Building Official, shifting the structure 5' would result in the deck encroaching upon the 20' required septic system separation from the proposed deck. Likewise, relocating the home 5' feet further to the west, would result in deck encroachment into the septic system setback. Please note, the deck is not proposed at this time but is anticipated at some future date. Staff advised the applicant that the deck should be considered as part of this variance application. 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNTY EMPLOYER In short, it appears that the home and deck design, septic system requirements and lot building envelope are incompatible. The aoolicant has advised staff that the 30' foot wide garage is essential to their proposal. Staff has reviewed the option to locate the home 5' from the south property line and found that the septic system setback cannot be met unless the deck is relocated to the north. The hardship in this case is caused by the land needed to to accommodate the septic system. The building envelope is reduced from 37 x 107 to 37 x 54. The Planning commission should consider granting the 5' south side yard variance which would result in a grater structural setback from C.R. 82. In addition the east front yard setback should be increased to 35 feet, to accommodate a future public road improvement. The building envelope outlined above would not allow the 10 x 16 foot deck in the location proposed, until such a time as the septic system is removed. Once removed, there will be abundant rear yard area for a deck, without variance. One option that was recommended by the Building Official is to relocate the proposed septic tank. This option may provide additional opportunities for a deck to be built within the required envelope. Staff advises that there are a multitude of building design options available for the site. Perhaps the applicant should consider alternate designs that conform to a reasonable building envelope that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: T Te PTnning Commission should attach the following conditions to variance approval, if that is the direction chosen: 1. The Engineering Department recommends that the home be moved 5' feet to the west to accommodate a 35 foot east front yard setback. The rational is that in the event that Drake Avenue is improved, ten feet of additional right -of -way would be acquired from the subject site and property across the street, to accommodate the required 50 foot right -of -way width specified by the Subdivision Ordinance. Drake Avenue would be improved to a 30 or 36 foot wide street to accommodate on street parking on one 2. The Engineering Department also recommends that the applicant grant five foot drainage and utility easements along each property line to accommodate future utility extensions and grades that provide lot drainage along the lot lines. 3. The recommendation from the City Attorney is that the applicant be required to sign, and file with the County Recorder's Office, a waiver of assessment appeal form acceptable to the City Attorney. Such a form would provide notice to all future buyers of the site that introduction of public utilities is likely and the possibility exists that full amortization of costs associated with the private septic system and well may not be realized prior to installation of public utilities. The agreement should provide provisions that outline the city procedures for hook up to municipal services in the event they are installed as part of a development project or required to correct pollution problems associated with failing septic systems. The agreement should be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney and subsequent recording of the document with Scott County. 4. At a minimum, staff recommends that the tree planting requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance be implemented, which would require 4, two and one half inch caliper front yard and boulevard trees be planted along the north and east property lines. These standards should be applied to the subject site to develop a home that will be compliant, as much as possible, with setback standards, once utilities are introduced. The home design proposed would need to be modified to conform to the recommended building envelope. However, staff believes that if the lot is to develop at this time, it is essential that the structure be located in a manner that reduces the amount of encroachment into setbacks that will likely be required when the neighborhood is developed with urban services. The Planning Commission should site specific hardship criteria used to support or deny the proposed application. S //2 SEC. 34 T• 115 R. 22 SUBJECT SITE u NORTH 5 "u SCALE IN = 400 do• J \ f 15 A J r O u 3 1 S:ADD • LJKE G P °WII ISLAND .r� ;• z ` PPIOP r ¢' w t J 9 -5 -2 9 -5 -5 PUBLIC SEWER or A sewer in which all owners of abutting properties have MUNICIPAL SEWER: equal rights and is controlled by public authority. INDUSTRIAL WASTES: The liquid wastes from industrial processes as distinct from sanitary sewage. GARBAGE: Solid wastes from the preparation, cooking and dispensing of food, and from handling, storage and sale of produce. BUILDING SEWER: The extension from the building plumbing to the public sewer or other place of disposal. (Ord. 72 -9, 6- 10 -72) 9 -5 -3: SEWAGE DISPOSAL: (A) It shall be unlawful for any person to place. deposit or permit to be deposited in any unsanitary manner upon public or private property within the City or in any area under the jurisdiction of the City, any human or animal excrement, garbage or other objectionable waste. (B) It shalt be unlawful to discharge into any natural outlet within the City or in any area under the jurisdiction of the Cby, any sanitary sewage- industrial wastes or other polluted waters. (C) Except as hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful to construct or maintain any privy, privy vault, septic tank. cesspool, or other facility intended or used for the disposal of sewage. (D) The owners of all houses, buildings or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation or other purpose. situated within the City and abutting on any street, alley or right of way in which there is now located or may in the future be located a public sanitary sewer of the City is hereby required at their expense to install a suitable toilet facility therein, and to connect such facilities directly with the proper public sewer in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, within ninety (901 days after the date of official notice so to do. 9 -5 -4: CONNECTION TO CRY'S SYSTEM: At such time as a Municipal sewer system becomes available and within a one -year period, property served by a private septic system shall make a direct connection to the public sewer system, in compliance with this Chapter. 9 -5 -6: CONNECTION PERMITS: (A) Any person not a licensed plumber, desiring 10 construct a septic tank system and /or make a connection between a Municipal sewer system and a previously installed sewer facility in a building within the City shell apply to the City Manager for a permit for said construction. The application shall be submitted on to=$ furnished by the City Plumbing Impactor and shall be accompanied by a parmit and an inspection fee to be determined at the discretion of the City Council. (Ord. 87 -3. 3 -2.87) PM 9 -5 -12 A) Any person who shall commence work of any kind for which a permit is required under this Chapter, without first (wring received the necessary parmit therefor, shall, when subsequently securing such permit, be required to pay double the fees provided by this Chapter for such permit and shall be subject to all the penal provisions of this Chapter. (B) Permits shall only be issued when the applications show that the work is to be done by persons who have been duly licensed by the City to engage in the business of sewer installation within the City, who have paid the required fee and filed the bonds and insurance certificates required under licensing provisions of this Code. No permit shall be issued until the plumbing in the building to be served is inspected by the Plumbing Inspector and altered, if necessary, to conform to the Minnesota Plumbing Code! to the extent necessary to permit a proper and safe connection to the Municipal sanitary tourer system. Upon completion of the work, a copy of the permit shall be signed and dated by the licensed individual or firm making the tower installation and delivered to the Plumbing Inspector at the time he makes his final inspection of the work. The Plumbing Inspector shall sign the permit to show that the work and material conform to the City ordinances. The permit shall also he filled out showing the kind and size of pipe, the kind of joint used, the length of the building sewer connection, the depth at the street, the depth at the house, the distance from either side of the house whom the connection is made to the house plumbing, and any other information lifted on the permit form or required by the Plumbing Inspector. 9 -5-12: PRIVATE SEWER DISPOSAL: IA) Where a public sanitary sewer is not available, the building sewer shall be connected to a private sewage disposal system complying with the provisions of this Section. (5) At such time as public sewer becomes available to the property served by a private sewage disposal system, and within a one year period, a direct connection shall be made to the public sawage in compliance with this Chapter, and any septic tanks, cesspools and similar private sewage disposal facilities shall be abandoned, pumped and filled with suitable material. (CI The Minnesota Plumbing Code is hereby adopted by reference. IDI Scott County Ordinance No. 4 entitled "Individual Sewage Disposal System Ordinance" is hereby adopted by reference. 1. Sae Tide 4, Chapter 2 of !his Cade 1107 0, PRIp\ X "VA10PN" NOTICE O OR F HEARING F VARIANCE You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held by the Planning Commission in the Prior Lake Council Chambers at 4629 Dakota Street S.E. on: THURSDAY. MAY 7, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. PURPOSE OF HEARING: To consider a variance application for Dean Morlock of Golden Home Builders Inc., P.O. Box 47213 Plymouth, MN 55447. SUBJECT SITE LOCATION: 15512 Drake Avenue. Vacant lot located southwest of the intersection of Drake Avenue and 154th Street, Prior Lake. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a new single family home as indicated on the attached survey reduction. The required front yard setback from 154th street is 150 feet, measured from centerline of the travelled roadway. The proposed setback is 73.5 feet. The applicant requests that the Prior Lake Planning Commission grant a 76.5 foot front yard variance in order to build the home as proposed. The applicant also requests consideration of a 5' south side yard variance. The required side yard setback is 10 feet. The required minimum lot area in this district is 1 acre or 43,560 square feet. The net lot area of the subject site is 10,950 square feet. The applicant requests the Planning Commission to approve a 32,610 square foot lot area variance. In addition, the required lot width is 150' feet, measured at the front yard setback line. The lot is approximately 83 feet wide at the front setback line, excluding County Road 82, right -of -way. The applicant requests approval of a 67 foot, lot width variance. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this meeting. Oral and written comments will be accepted by the Planning Commission. For more information, contact the Prior lake Plannlny Department at 447 -4230. Prior Lake Planning Commission DATE MAILED: April 27, 1992 4629 Dakota St S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 AY EQUAL OPPORNN'tP \' EMPI M SURVEY PREPARED FOR: GOLDEN HOME St.DRS C/O GARY IRENE P O BOX 47213 PLYMCITH, MN. 55447 CO ROAD NO. 82 I Saar I £ 8 I c 71 [M. Valley Surveying Co., PA. SUITE 120 -C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 -2570 Norm M, ar Gorr for 2 -.- 100.00 - -- wl � nl s1 ,I n x I 1 � .we .x.+ ' xa x I tea x. o sail" A \ I weraxe 1 I an.. -r 1 r-Yw ea• "WM A -100.00 'i 11 !lease, Ionia"sine bNang 31 d t! .I g..". a— a, A - WIIII.!!! e.e! PROPOSED VARIANCES * 76.5' Front Yard Variance From C/L C.R. 82 * 5' South Side Yard Variance * 32,610 Square Foot Lot Area Variance * 67' Lot Width Variance yr mew , 1 1 1 — I �I �SI z I I € 8 M/ i 1 I O - Is NOTESt Bsnohasrk elevation 927.74 top of 1"x2" setback hub on south line 0 926.8 Donates existing grade elevation 929 - Donates proposed finished grade elevations T — Donates proposed direction of finished surface drainage Set the garage slab at elevation 930.10 Total eras = 23 square test Set the top block at elevation 930.43 Road R/N area =12,990 square feet Not area = 10,950 square teat C PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AS PROYIDEDI A tract of lend in Goverment Lot 2 Section 34, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described se tolls s! Beginning at a point on the north line of said Garsrneant Lot 2, distant 150.00 feet west of the northeast cornorl there oontinuing west along said north line a distame of 180.00 feeti thence south Parallel with the seat line of said Goverment Lot 2, a distance of 133.00 test; thence east Parallel with said north line s distance of 180.00 feat; theme north parallel with said seat line a distance of 133.00 feet to the point of beginning. PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 CO ROAD NO. 82 er• w I PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 -2570 Nora 1n• at per '1 Ie1 2 °• nr C/L C. P. A 2 varaence rrnm * 5' South Side Yard Variance • 32.610 Square Foot Lot Area Variance • 67' Lot Width Variance •Ml wt aev or r ns u e o ,I y �eM.r . n •w• ' t .. nor �amv ^� wr hhye. I E � Teo n @ I 4 nw seer A rows i ! 3 8 R • waoso I �; wove rr I I •C � I •r•, �I _ a I I 1 •r.s - -20. - I roN'tw. _ _-180.00 - - -1 it irtM- �' I •rw• {� lnMaeen '- I II NI rv.,a. same, MM 11e M•Ma �1 _ e•ac I ju lure eI 6evY ler .+ ;I � � I I ra•nn � •a s• I NOTES! Benchmark elevation 927.74 top of 1 =x2= setback hub on south Line 926.8 Denotes existing grade elevation 929. Denotes proposed finished grade elevations �— Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage Sat the garage slab at elevation 930.10 Total area = 23.940 square feet Set tha t2 p block at elevation 930.43 Road R/N area =12.990 square feet Net area , 990 square feet PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AS PROVIDED[ A tract of lend in Goverment Lot 2, Section 34, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described am followal Beginning at a point on the north line of amid Government Lot 2, distant 150.00 fast met of the northeast corned thence continuing rant along maid north line a distame of 180.00 feet) theme south parallel with the east line of said Government Lot 2, a distsme of 133.00 feet) thenae rest O parallel with amid north line a distance of 180.00 feet; throne north Parallel with maid east line a distance of 133.00 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to an aaament for road purposes over the north 33.0 feet and the east 30.00 feet thereof. C 0 30 BO 1 y as e•r11ry M•1N• e•neyrm was sa e b y as era1/•r ss. LOW S aw o go a mps Mel Ion a eW/ seenM la Syer bler Me SCALE /t FEET Mw Of Me 9lrN sl�nvnwy. Llvie•Ne 10193 pals 9-Zy" LIeM1e No. 10189 • DnNN• Iron M•mwI11a1 NIMd • Derele• P K. NM1 •e1 FILE No 7992 EMg Ms MSE 38 0 /F P IffIIII ROO\ PLANNING REPORT SUBJECT: APPLICANT: SITE ADDRESS: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: VARIANCE HAROLD DELLWO 4287 GRAIHWOOD CIRCLE DEB GARROSS, ASSISTANT YES X NO MAY 7, 1992 CITY PLANNER INTRODUCTION•: T e P anning Department received a variance application from Harold Delta of 4287 Grainwood Circle. The applicant proposes to build a new single family home as per attached survey. The specific variances requested are: 3' lakeshore, 5' west side yard, 4.1' east side yard, 2' front yard and 2% coverage ratio variances. See attached survey for reference to this item. PREVIOUS PROPOSALS: P! armingDepar gent records indicate that an 8' front yard variance was granted for the subject site in September of 1979. In September of 1990, the Planning Commission approved the following variances for adjacent Lot 15, Grainwood Park: 3.1' east side yard, 5' west side yard and 19' lakeshore variance, in order to construct a new single family home. At that time, staff advised that a the application would result in increased side yard setback variances from the types of variances previously established by the Planning Commission. See Planning Report dated September 6, 1990. (Please also note, Mr. Delwo deeded the subject site to a second party in 1990, prior to requesting a variance for adjacent Lot 15. Although the intent of the Shoreland component of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 9.3B1.e, is to combine substandard lots whenever possible, the effectiveness of this section was lost when "separate ownership" was interpreted by the City Council to mean at the building permit stage rather than at the time the ordinance was adopted). HISTORY4 _11GROUND T e G ra1n W00�PdrK subdivision was platted in 1944 under the jurisdiction of Eagle Creek Township. It was annexed into the City in 1973. The subject site contains approximately 8,850 square feet of area, above the 904 contour, and is 50' wide. The topography of the lot slopes gently from Grainwood Circle down to the lake. There is an existing garage on the site that is proposed to be removed prior to construction of the single family home. ADJACENT USES: T e construc ion character of the Grainwood area is varied. Recent construction included two homes one half block to the west 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / Fax(612)447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORNNTY EMPLOYER that approach some of the highest valuations around the lake. On the other hand, the neighborhood also contains summer residence cabins and older modest homes dating to the 1950's and earlier. NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES /IMPACT /CONCERNS TT — amity of Prior Lake adopted an architectural design ordinance in October of 1990 that 1s attached to this agenda report. The applicant should be advised that the proposed structure will need to incorporate design alternatives to differentiate the proposed home from adjacent homes in the immediate neighborhood. DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY: The site is zoned R -1 Urban Residential and is located within the S -D Shoreland District. The required setbacks are 75' measured from the 904 contour, 10' measured from the east and west side property lines and 25' measured from the south front property line. The maximum coverage allowed for impervious surface is 303. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Z is a opinion o s aff that an applicant should design a home that fits, as best as possible, within the confines of the building envelope designated by the Zoning ordinance. Clearly, it would have been best, from a planning perspective, to combine substandard lots 14 and 15 for one building site. The combination of substandard lots is the objective of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the City Council determined that separate ownership provisions which would require lot combinations, should be interpreted at the time of building permit. Therefore, it is possible to transfer ownership of contiguous substandard lots and circumvent the objectives of the Shoreland Management provisions of the Zoning Code. The site must be considered on its own merit. The side yard variances should not, in any case, exceed the 3.1' and 5' side yard variances granted to Mr. Delwo for adjacent Lot 15, in 1990. Staff believes that the applicant is responsible to work within the objectives of the Zoniny Ordinance to provide a plan that requires the least amount of deviation from the code. Therefore, it is the opinion of staff that the length of the proposed home should be reduced by five feet in order that the required lakeshore and front yard setbacks are met. In addition, the width of the home should be reduced by at least one foot so as not to exceed the variances granted for adjacent Lot 15. Reduction of the house size will bring the plan into compliance with the 303 maximum coverage ratio requirement. RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation from staff is to approve a maximum 3.1' east side and 5' west side yard variance but deny the 3' lakeshore, 2' front yard and 23 lot coverage variance. The hardship in this case is due to the substandard lot size of a lot of record created under a previous government jurisdiction. The development standards for the site have changed as a result of Prior lake Ordinances which were placed into effect after the lot was subdivided. The Planning Commission has tended to grant side yard variances of some degree, for substandard .lots to provide a building envelope that considers contemporary home styles and lakeshore valuations. The variances outlined by staff would be consistent with previous actions of the Planning Commission within the Grainwood Park subdivision and would not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. 2 2 CITY OP P rOR a� P mo aS...� ;2_ /� A PPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Phone.- - S�Z - Phone: ety Owner gad Home Phone: 74 - - esa Work Phones of Ownership: F Contract Purchase Agreemen Stant /Contractor• Phone• Existing Use of Property: Present Proposed Use / of Property. ..egal Des Of Varian Variance Has the applicant prev ght plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional use permit on the subject site or any pert of it? _Yes No What was requested: When' - Dismsition, Describe the type of isprovements SUBMISSION REOnRF ENTS (A)Completed application form. (B)Filing fee. (C)Property Survey. (D)Certified frrm abstract firm, names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. (E)Camplete legal description 6 Property Identification Number (PID). (F)Deed restrictions or private covenants, if applicable. (G)A parcel map at 1 20' -SU' showing: The site development plan, buildingss parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this form is correct. In addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which specifies requirements for variance procedures. I agree to provide information and follow the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. , / o /ir Submitted this 12fty of AptL - 194}. TO BE FILLED OUT BY PLANNING 03WSSWU _ APPROVED _ DENIED DATE OF HEARING CITY COUNCIL APP1X _ APPROVED _ DENIED DATE OF HEARINu CONDITIONS• Zoning: -- d - 4 ., 4.,'1R -(. 5 VQMrWI Signature of the Planning Director Date PR / ®,p HERITAGE •x a 1891 41 P \N1V E5 PLANNING REPORT COMMUNTY 1991 APPLICANT: HAROLD E. DELLWO ITEM: VARIANCE CONTINUATION PRESENTER: HORST GRASER PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 INTRODUCTION: Th e applicant Harold Dellwo, has resubmitted a different development proposal under the application originally filed and dated July 24, 1990. The current proposal is substantially different than the one considered by the Planning Commission on August 16 1990. The requested variances are a 3.1 foot east side variance, a 5 foot west side yard variance and a 19 foot lakeshore variance. BACKGROUND: T e app cant appeared before the Planning Commission on August 16, 1990, with a t single family home construction proposal on a 50 foot lakeshore lo requiring a 39 foot lakeshore variance. The Planning Commission felt that under the circumstances the developer had several alternative design options that would reduce the lakeshore setback and be more consistent with the intent of the shoreland district. Mr. Mahoney representing Mr. Dellwo, stated that they would like to have the hearing continued and they will redesign the home. DISCUSSION: A a—c ed this report please find a revised site plan dated September 6, 1990, showing the new exterior dimensions of the home and setbacks. Mr. Dellwo has addressed the concerns of Staff and the Planning Commission by proposing an L- shaped split entry home versus the previous elongated split entry. The principle differences between the current and former proposal are, an improved exterior design and a reduction in lakeshore setback but an increase in side yard setbacks. Perhaps this is not the balance envisioned by the Commission, but Staff believes that it is an ac compromise. If the Planning Commission approves the prop will establish a new standard for side yard setbacks. In 90 font no lakeshore lot received side yard variances Of feet. On several occasions since then side and variance rt and 1 feet, and 5 and 2 feet have een grants Sta a hater S I ;D resit s w @n eVe 00 n9 8 bu roor. O ome are limited if one considers only a 3U Poot wide envelope, the previous proposal is a good example. it 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 I Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / Fax (6121447-4245 deviation is required considering todays° homestyles and marketplace. Therefore, it is unreasonable to say that todays' side yard setback standards apply to a subdivision platted in 1944. In Staff opinion the Zoning ordinance and neighborhood is better served by increasing the side yard setbacks and decreasing the lakeshore variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: pprova a application as received since it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and the general health and welfare of the community. 4-7 -1 CHAPTER 7 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND MATERIALS SECTION: 4-7 -1: Eievatlrns, Architectural Design, Exterior Facing 4-7 -2: Useat 'dateriale 4-7-3: Alternate Materiels 4-7-4: Pole Building 4-7-6: Zoning Codes 4-7-6: Appeals 4-7 -1 4-7 -1: ELEVATIONS, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, EXTERIOR FACING: (A) Building Permit: The application for a building permit, In addition to other Information required, shall Include exterior elevations of the proposed structure which will adequately and accurately indicate the height, size, design and the appearance of all elevations of the proposed building and description of the construction and materials proposed to be used therein. Such Information shall Indicate that the exterior architectural design, when erected will not be so at variance with, nor so similar to. the exterior architectural design of any structure or structures already constructed, or In the course of construction, within two (2) lots on each side, directly across from or diagonally across from the same unit. The exterior architectural design of a structure shall not be so at variance with the character of the applicable zoning district established by the Zoning Code of the City as to cause a substantial depreciation In the property values of said neighborhood within said district or elsewhere, or adversely affect the pudic health, safety or general welfare. Individuals, builders, or groups of builders shall not construct a house design which has front elevations substantially like any 491 s -7 -1 4-7_1 A) home, or proposed home where a building permit has been Issued, located within two (2) lots on each side, directly across from or diagonally across from the same unit. No building permit shall be issued to houses Inconsistent with this requirement. The Building Official shell take into account the following criteria when reviewing plans to determine substantially like housing. A building permit will be Issued so long as the applicant can prove to the Building Official that no more then two (2) of the following five (S) conditions are present In the application with respect to any existing home, or proposed home where a building permit has been Issued, within two (2) lots on each side, directly across from or diagonally across from the some unit: 1. The roof style of the proposed structure Is similar to the structure It resembles. 2. The roof pitch of the proposed structure is less than three (3) vertical units In twelve (12) from the structure It resembles. 3. More than one-half (' /,) of the exterior surface materials of the proposed structure are the same as the structure It resembles. {. The relative location of an attached garage, porch, portico, breezeway, gable or other major design feature attached to the proposed structure Is similar to the structure It resembles. S. The relative location of entry doors, windows, shutters or chimneys In the proposed construction is similar to the structure it resembles. (B) Required Submittals: When required by the Building Official, the permit applicant shall be required to submit exterior elevations of the proposed structure, and photographs of the front exterior of neighboring homes, In addition to all required materials for building permit application. A list of exterior finish materials and colors may also be required. (C) Appeals Process: The Building Official will review proposed exterior elevations as part of the permit review process. In the event that an elevation Is determined to be substantially like a neighboring home, the permit will be denied. The applicant will have an opportunity to revise front elevations to be Compliant with this Code. 491 4-7 -1 4-7-3 C) The applicant may appeal the decision of the Building Official within thirty (30) days as follows: 1. The applicant shall file with the City Manager a notice of appeal stating the specific grounds upon which the appeal Is made. The City Manager shall attempt to resolve the appeal at this point. 2. In the event that the Issue Is not resolved. the City Manager shall transmit the appeal to the Planning Commission for study and review at Its next regular m sting. 3. The Planning Commission shall make Its decision within thirty (30) days. 4. A further appeal of the Planning Commission decision may be mods to the City Council. Applicant Mall file with the City Manager a notice of appeal within thirty (30) days. The City Council shall thereafter make Its decision within thirty (30) days. (Ord. 90.11. 10.13.90) 4-7 -2: USEABLE MATERIALS: No building permit Shall be Issued for any structure for which a bunding permit Is required which contains extartor facing materials which rapidly deteriorate, Of which for any ream are, or quickly become unsightly. The following are exsmples of Such Materials: concrete masonry units. common day brick, sand time brick, concrete brick, unfinished structural clay Ole, sheet metal. either corrugated or plain, and exposed unfinished concrete. Such materials, however, may be used In a special arrangement or combination with other materials of a permanent nature with good architectural design and appeal. The provisions of this Section 4-7 -2 shad not apply to building permits Issued for structures In Zoning Districts A•1 or C•1. 4-7-3: ALTRRNATE MATERIALS: In the event an owner. Intend- Ing to apply for a building permit. desires to use any of the materials Included under Section 4-7-,2 above es WNW finish materials, such owner may present to the Building Inspector a request for prelimin• ary approval for the use of such materials prior 10 the preparation of final drawings and application required by other sections of this Chapter. Such request for preliminary approval shall Include such sketches and other Information es may be necessary to Indicate acourabty the cos ld be made of such materials and the appearance of the exterior of such structure when completed. 491 0, PROO� v � r "VA13PN" NOTICE OF HEARING FOR VARIANCE You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held by the Planning Commission in the Prior Lake Council Chambers at 4629 Dakota Street S.E. on: THURSDAY. MAY 7 1992 at 7:45 P.M. PURPOSE OF HEARING: To consider a variance application for Harold Delwo. SUBJECT SITE LOCATION: Vacant lot located east of 4287 Grainwood Circle, Prior Lake. Lot 14, Grainwood Park REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to build a new single family home as per attached survey reduction. The required lakeshore setback is 75' measured from the 904 contour of Prior Lake. The applicant proposes to locate the home 72' from the 904 contour and therefore requests approval of a 3' lakeshore variance. The required side yard setback is 10 measured from the east and west property lines. The applicant requests a 4.1' east side and 5' west side variance to locate the home as proposed. In addition, the required front yard setback, measured from the south property line is 25 The applicant proposed to locate the home 23' from the south property line and has requested a 2' front yard variance. The maximum lot coverage, or impervious surface allowed impervious surface cover p ro p osa l ageof 32 %. The applicant requests approval of a 2% coverage ratio variance, in order to develop the site as proposed. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, ycu should attend this meeting. Oral and written comments will be accepted by the Planning Commission. For more information, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447 -4230. Prior Lake Planning Commission DATE MAILED: April 27, 1992 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior lake. Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474 ?,30 / Fax (612) 4474245 AS EQUAL OPPML.NM EWPLM ER SURVEY PREPARED FOR al l G rV 6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL JOHN MAHONEY COVD FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOANN'LIM 17278 MURPHY LAKE BLVD. PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 -2570 IOte61 9ench.crK elevation: 910.00 spike in 60" cottonwood tree as shown on the survey drawing. 919.5 Denotes existing grade elevations on site. 913.4 Denotes proposed finished grade elevations 4 pKti \ 1 Y . Denotes proposed direction of finished draitnAOl �.. q0 2 0 Set the garage slab at elevation 923.60 I° 'A \moo Set the top of block at elevation 923.93 e) ee is ,p •0.. The basement floor elevation is 915.93 @� yy� lx, �•"• V° , od The total lot area to elevation 904• a 8,850 " ft j( `fx N I \ PROPO VARIANCES ° ° , mm�To * 4.1' East Side Yard Variance * Side Yard Variance \ e� / 5' West e a • p * 3' Lakeshore Variance A e\Q u (` * 2' South Front Yard Variance '1 \ �t " 3? •i m ( • Ip/W.pi .. n v a � s [fa 3 • r oT f \` `` `O y .Mt Isq a� •.. \ n •I° ° ,• \\ 9 \ 23! M� \ •� \\ A g. a •,.f' .�.• K'i' y0 pl � • DESCRIPTION: ' Lot 14, CRAINWOOD PARK, Scott CountY, MLmaeote• Alew fhGV1DB the looetloo of 1 Mm by ffflRy AKA RNf survey flOf OfMenA OY Klf A 111140 IIM votes! Fcnchmark elevation: 910.00 spike in 60" cottonwood tree as shown on the survey drawing. 919.5 Denotes existing grade elevations on site. ( Denotes prepared finished grade elevations t o' .F— Denotes proposed direction of finished dia R 0 f 1 Y Set the garage slab at elevation 923.60 p1 1192 Set the top of block at elevation 923.93 "'O A' / q q°f' Viy6 The basement floor elevation is 915.93 The total lot ere. to elay.tlan 904• Yrt�.e� 8, a so cep -ft qp ^ °•5 E� PROPOSED VARI ANCES: * 4.1' East Side Yard Variance * 5' West Side Yard Variance * 7' Lakeshore Variance * 2' South Front Yard Variance p 31E f � 4p• ° EL' i 9q . w e �I�t 33 N 3 � IX pEP• - r i P s ` O V e"° 9 ,L� ° R1 r xNr EEp � qR n F �qH• o \ 11.11. at A. ` et11ItE ,� Tar ilp* v tt nr s'e •p ,' ', \ Q. iti ,y ,, 23$ 'sear O oID A9� pp.O 'ij C U` tp JE . d•. �R � DESCRIPTION: Lot 14, ORAINNOOD PARK, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the lunation of I IIrN9 010"y that tee survey O 30 do Rev. 4 /13 /92 To W dm* a rat Pretend by M or altar ray hrr. dmteiper dreet yu Vision and that I are a duly Licensed LOW SWVSW SCALE IN FEET arrdr ft laws of the Stase of O Darotaa Iron 'Vol" wt sr NU a DNgIM Moir rar memont fdund. /% _ _ . %l NO Ells; FILE NO ?347 sy 188 rd 15 Itt it 7 May 1992 Prior Lake Planning Commission Re: Variance request by Harold Delwo for lot 14, Grainwood Park We are the owners of lot 13 located contiguous to and east of the subject lot 14. We have no objections to the specific variances requested given a decision to allow building on this substandard lot. We do object to allowing a home to be built at all, however. Mr. Delwo is the owner, in fact, of both lots 14 and 15. He is currently resident at lot 15. He temporarily shed ownership of lot 14 in August of 1990 only days before his request to build on lot 15 by selling lot 14 to his father for less than $500. This was an obvious sham transaction. It was, or should have been, known to the Planning Commission. The Commission chose to ignore this common ownership in 1990. Granting of this variance request will require it to be ignored once again. In granting this request, you are treating this owner of two 50 foot abutting lots and by precedent all other owners of two 50 abutting foot lots more favorably than all other owners of 100 foot lots in Prior Lake. That is directly contrary to the obvious intent of the ordnance however badly written it may be. We are neighbors and friends to Mr. ellwo, however this Commission ignores both the spirit and the let -_.° of paragraph 5.8.3 —B on use of substandard lots. Your refusal enforce this ordnance in an objective manner forces neighbors tv_ contront each other thereby denigrating your very purpose. *Joh. e y ZA� Marjorie R. Boyle 0 PR'�� P � 7 PLANNING REPORT SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL PARK STANDARDS KAY SCHMUDLACH, HORST GRASER YES X NO FLAY 4, 1992 The Economic Development Committee has been invited .to attend the Planning Commission Meeting to begin discussion of the proposed industrial park standards for the C.R. 21 Business /Office Park. Please refer to the information distributed at the April 16, 1992 Planning Commission meeting for reference to this item. Staff will provide additional materials during the discussion on May 4, 1992. Questions should be directed to Kay Schmudlach at 447 -4230. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612)447.4230 / Fax (612)4474245 AN EWAL OPPORTUN TY P "LOYER PRIOR LAKE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION P.o.Box 299 Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Industrial Park Standards Dear Staff, EDC, Planning Commission, Chamber of Commerce, enclosed please review our concerns with the first draft of the "IND1" document. PAGE 1 OF INDI Para. 2) PERMITTED USES: IND1 reads as: Business that provide a service to the consumer on the consumers property and not on the lot occupied by the principal use, ETC. PLEA : This appears to disallow retail sales on the sites similar to (NORDIC -TRAK) Chaska. IND1 reads as: Retail commercial facilities providing goods and services for the day to day PID district workers and visitors. PLEA: This statement appears to be ambiguous with earlier statements. IND1 reads as: Customary accessory uses such as off street parking, signs, and radio and television antennae permitted in the I 2 district. PLEA: This statement should be amended to allow the use of microwave and satellite dishes with two way transmissions. ACCESSORY USES: ITEM (a) of the IND1 PLEA: This statement should be deleted, there should be no regulations towards floor space usage. ITEM (c) of the IND1 PLEA: Delete screening - chainlink fencing with plastic inserts has just as much of a negative appearance as the object being screened. ITEM (d) of the IND1 PLEA: Fuel tanks, refuse and waste removal areas should be screened. Outside storage areas should not require screening. PAGE 2 OF THE IND1 ITEM (e) of the IND1 PLBA: Transmit and receive usage of satellite and microwave should be allowed. CONDITIONAL USES: PLBA: Retail should be allowed. There should be no restriction on the interior use of floor space other than code restrictions currently in force. PAGE 3 OF THE IND1 EXTERIOR MATERIALS: PLBA: 100 % decorative block should be allowed. Metal, plastic, and any new technologies should be allowed. LOADING DOCKS: PLBA: There should be no restrictions on the use of loading docks. (Most business owners are just as concerned about the beautification of the structure.) Fabcon panels or metal panels have been used to screen loading docks very effectively. PLBA: Roof top screening does not work and should not be required, although painting of air conditioners the same color or matching color is just an effective. Any stainless steel pipes should be left as is. Mechanical equipment should also be painted as well and not required to be screened. SCREENING - LANDSCAPING PLBA: Refuse and waste removal areas should be screened or enclosed. In loading areas we have seen effective screening with the use of fabcon or metal color coordinated panels. LANDSCAPING PLBA: Landscaping is already required per building codes. PAGE 4 OF IND1 OUTSIDE YARD STORAGE: PLBA: Outside yard storage should not be regulated based on the size of the structure. Surface of storage areas should be amended to allow gravel, grass or whatever the businesses needs require. PLBA: Loading or unloading by reason of tipping should be allowed. Without screening. SPECIAL SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS: PLBA: There should be a buffer between the residential district and the Industrial \Business district. The 75 foot set back should be deleted. PLBA: The 15 foot setback required for a impervious surface should be deleted. PLBA: The maximum lot coverage is already regulated by set backs and thus should be deleted. PLBA: A business should not have to treat stormwate:: run off unless working with hazardous materials in that area. PLBA: Again storage areas should not be required to be hard surface by blacktop or concrete. PAGE 5 OF THE IND1 RESTRICTIONS, CONTROLS AND DESIGN STANDARDS: ITEM 4) of the IND1 PLBA: Should be reasonable not to create unpleasant screening. PAGE 7 OF THE IND1 LIQUID WASTE: PLBA: All waste should be handled as per State and County E.P.A. regulations, and not dumped in the sanitary sewer. J UU ,t - " HERITAGE COMMUNITY 1891 1991 REGULAR PLANNING C24MMISSION MEETING AGENDA MAY 21, 1992 7:30 P.M. CALL 7O ORDER 7:30 P.M. REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 7:30 P.M. HEARING VARIANCE 7:45 P.M. HEARING VARIANCE 8:00 P.M. HARING VARIANCE 8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION ACTION PLAN FOR 7.8E ADOPTION OF INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS. APPOINTMENT OF TWO REPRESENTATIVES * Indicates a Public Hearing Y�ls .ti- CALVIN HOTZLER SHELBY ARMIT DAVE SMITH STAFF All times stated on the Planning Commission Agenda, with the exception of Public Hearings, are approximate and may start later than the scheduled time. 4629 Dakota St. S.E. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / Fax (612) 437 -4245 l l T PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 7, 19Q2 The Max 7, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Loftus at 7:30 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Loftus, Wuellner, Wells, Roseth, Director of Planning Horst Graser, Assistant City Planner Deb Garross, Associate Planner Sam Lucast, and Secretary Rita Schewe. Commissioner Arnold arrived at 7:55 P.M. ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY WELLS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Loftus, Wells, and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM II - GOLDEN HOME BUILDERS - VARIANCE - CONTINUED Dean Morlock of Edina Realty -Prior Lake, representing Golden Home Builders and the prospective buyers Art & Shari Zurn. Mr. Morlock indicated his buyers were not willing to compromise their initial application but would listen to Staff's presentation. Deb Garross, Assistant City Planner, presented the information as per memo of May 7, 1992. The variances requested are: 76.5 foot front yard variance from County Road 82 (154th Street), a 32,610 square foot lot area variance, 67 foot lot width variance, and a 5 foot south side yard variance. Four conditions have been proposed by City Staff if the variance is approved. Staff is of the opinion that development of the site should conform, as much as possible, to current standards in order to facilitate future subdivision opportunities. Mr. Morlock stated that his clients are opposed to any deviations from the plan and are requesting that the variance be tabled. LeRoy Bohnsack, 15611 Drake Avenue, had comments on sewer line and road setback. After a discussion by the Commissioners a motion was made to table the variance. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO TABLE THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR 15512 DRAKE. AVENUE AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANTS. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Roseth, Loftus, and Wells. Commissioner Arnold abstained. MOTION CARRIED. 4629 Dakota St. 5.E.. Prior lake. Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPWYE PL; !ING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 7, 1992 PAGE 2 IT_ III - HAROLD DELLWO - VARIANCE Jot:.. Mahoney, Contractor, represented the applicant, Harold De1._wo of 4287 Grainwood Circle. Mr. Dellwo is proposing to construct a single family home and is requesting variances to do SO. The variances requested are similar to the application on adjacent Lot. 15, Grainwood Park that were granted in 1990 by the Planning Commissioners. Deb Garross, Assistant City Planner, presented the information as per memo on May 7, 1992. The variances requested are: a 3 foot lakeshore, 5 foot west side yard, 4.1 foot east side yard, 2 foot front yard, and a 2% coverage ratio variance. Since the writing of this report, the applicant has reviewed the application with Staff and decreased the size of the building thereby reducing the variances needed. The subject site is a substandard lot of record that was platted under the jurisdiction of a previous government. Mr. Dellwo deeded the subject site to a second party in 1990 prior to requesting a variance for Lot 15. The intent of the Shoreland component of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 9.3B1.e, is to combine substandard lots whenever possible, the effectiveness of this section was lost when separate ownership was interpreted by the City Council to mean at the building permit stage rather than at the time the ordinance was adopted. Staff's recommendation is to approve a 5 foot west side yard, 2.1 east side yard and a 2 foot front yard variance. As the building was reduced the lakeshore and lot coverage variances are not required. The applicant is to design a house with the architectural ordinance in mind. Precedent has been set by variances granted in the past for this neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the health and welfare of the community. A letter from John and Marge Boyle, 4277 Grainwood Circle NE, was read into the record. Mr.& Mrs. Boyle are not objecting to the variance application but to the interpretation by the City Council in regards to ownership at time of building permit. Comments from the Commissioners were on; forwarding the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Boyle to City Council, condition of road and future construction, precedent has been set, and all were in favor of the readjusted application. The Commissioner's noted that the proposed garage appears to be oversized to 22 X 32 feet according to the survey. However, the building plans indicated the actual garage to be 22 X 26. The Commission felt that the 2 foot front yard variance was reasonable. The garage is a standard size, not oversized. A previous 8 foot front yard variance had been granted in 1979 for the subject site. The current proposal indicates that the garage encroachment into the front yard setback will be reduced from 8 to 2 feet. Several adjacent homes are at variance with the front yard setback. Therefore there is justification to grant a minimal 2 foot variance for the subject site. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 7, 1992 PAGE 3 MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO APPROVE A 5 FOOT WEST SIDE YARD VARIANCE, 3.1 EAST SIDE YARD, AND A 2 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR 4287 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE. RATIONAL BEING THAT IT IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT, PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET WITH PREVIOUS VARIANCE APPROVALS IN THE AREA, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Roseth, Wells, Loftus, and Wuellner. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:30 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 P.M. ITEM IV - KAY SCHMUDLACH - PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #2 Kay Schmudlach, Assistant City Manager, presented information on the Development District Plan to be adopted by the City. This would allow the City to establish the district and to implement specific tax increment projects in the future for the proposed industrial /business /office park. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION OF THE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2, SEE EXHIBIT A. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Roseth, Wells, Wuellner, and Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM V - STAFF - INDUSTRIAL PARK STANDARDS Ed Tschida, Consultant from Advance - Resources for Development, Inc. Mankato, MN, and Barb Brodshow, Planner for the City of Burnsville, were present as resource people. A joint meeting followed with the Economic Development Committee, Chamber of Commerce, and Business Association members. Horst Graser outlined the agenda for the meeting. The main objective of the joint meeting is to discuss and develop a consensus for a program to adopt standards for the Industrial Park. A video of various industrial and office sites was shown by the Business Association. This portion of the Planning Commission meeting was not taped. Chairman Loftus reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 10:45 P.M. Discussion followed by the Commissioners. Commissioner Wells left at this time. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold, Loftus, and Wuellner. MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Tape of meeting on file at City Hall. Horst Graser Rita M. Schewe Director of Planning Recording Secretary L- 1V PR�O� T "VA14PC" SUBJECT: APPLICANT: SITE ADDRESS: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: PLANNING REPORT SIX FOOT NW SIDE YARD CALVIN HOTZLER 14942 LORI ROAD SAM LUCAST ASSOCIATE YES X NO MAY 21, 1992 VARIANCE PLANNER SITE ANALYSIS HISTORY BAROUND T e a -- _ L ppllcant is requesting a six (6) foot northwest side yard variance and is proposing to build an approximately 440 square foot deck, four feet from the northwestern property line. The existing cabin is also located four feet from the property line. If the deck were attached at the setback line the aesthetics would be reduced and the hand rail would attach in a window. The subject site is a fifty (50) foot wide over three hundred sixty foot deep lot on Prior Lake in the Eastwood subdivision. It contains approximately 19,500 square feet of area and is zoned R1SD. The subdivision was platted in 1947, the cabin built in 1950, and the entire area annexed from Savage into Prior Lake in 1974. The existing structure, built under the authority of another government, is now located at a legal non - conforming setback four feet from the northwest side lot line. The lake side setback is in excess of one hundred (100) feet from the Ordinary-High-Water (O -H -W) mark. PREVIOUS PROPOSALS: There are no previous variance proposals on record at Prior Lake City Hall. However, the property has been issued a building permit and work completed to install new siding, doors and windows, and reroof the cabin. There may be proposals on file in other government jurisdictions. PHYSIOGRAPHY: TT a ligFest elevation on the subject lot is adjacent to Lori Road. The lot slopes sharply toward the lake for approximately half of the lot before reaching the cabin and flattening out to a gentle slope. Two very significant, mature trees are within twenty (20) feet of the house, but according to submitted plans will not be removed. 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 AN EQUAL 0PP09TUNM EMPID1'ER ADJACENT USES: Tea e o Prior Lake is directly north of the subject site. Single family residential development borders the property to the south, east, and west. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The plat is forty years old and basically platted as fifty (50) foot wide strips of land adjacent to the lake. Surrounding driveways and development are close to the property line. Many existing properties in the area do not meet current zoning setbacks. A retaining wall on Lot 18 is physically located on Lot 17. NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES /IMPACT /CONCERNS Neighborhood development patterns clearly indicate the presence of development in close proximity to side property lines. The Planning Commission frequently grants five foot side yard variances for new construction on fifty foot wide lots. Precedence has already been set for the continuation, not expansion, of legal non - conforming setbacks. The deck would be in keeping with the character of the existing development This is a reasonable request for the continuation of a legal non - conforming setback. The hardship is created by the adoption of the Prior Lake Zoning ordinance and is not through the actions of the property owner. PROBLEMS /OPPORTUNITIES T e Opportun ty exists to construct a deck for the enjoyment of the lake at a reasonable setback from the northwest property line. The variance benefits outweigh the possible problems. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend approval of the six foot northwest side yard variance. It is a reasonable request, and aesthetically pleasing to continue the building lines of an existing legal non - conforming setback. Precedent has already been established for this type of variance, and it is not detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the community. The neighborhood was annexed into the community in 1974. The Prior Lake Zoninq Ordinance contains setbacks different from those of the previous government which granted the building permit. Therefore the hardship is the result of annexation and Prior Lake's higher standard of development. The hardship is also due to the inability of the applicant to add a deck which would result in architectural integrity of the improvement. Existing Use nn of Property: J SEn u J l n h Sf1 Present zoning: A 15 0 Proposed Use of Property: ��%M dE_ / — Legal Description l of Variance Site: Variance Requested}S��C S do Yl�'i Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional use permit on the subject site or any part of it? — Yes 9 Shat was requested: When. Disposition: Describe the type of improvements proposed: AfeA, ,� e'ClYO.J SUBMISSION FMUIRFMENr : (A)Completed application form. (Wiling fee. (C)Property S:rvey. (D)Certified from abstract firm, nines and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. (E)Complete legal description 6 Property Identification Number (PID). (F)Deed restrictions or private covenants, if applicable. (G)A parcel nap at 1 "- 20' -50' showing: The site cavelopment plan, buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS 93ALL BE REVIVAM BY THE PLANNING ODMMISSION. To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this form is correct. In addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which specifies requirements for variance procedures. I agree ty provide info 't' and follow the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. �J /i /j io c. Applicants Sigma e Submitted this L_day of J 1% 19 Fee Owners Signature THIS SPACE IS 70 BE FILLFD OUT BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNING ODWISSION — APPROVED _ DENIM DATE OF HEARING CITY COUNCIL APPEAL — APPROVED _ DENIED DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of the Planning Director Date VA2„1 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE U APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE l nt: <12 ✓'Se% i S 4. Home L Dne: 'S �: C, /S ' AAddres Property Owper: �'�. P LA /c a s SS?t work F Hane F -,ne: 4 2j , = 4% ne: / �r� °- " w,P Pt Address: P" 0 . I _ _ f " / -work Dne: Type of Ownership: Fee contract ux Purchase P9 ream nt Consultant /Contractor: Existing Use nn of Property: J SEn u J l n h Sf1 Present zoning: A 15 0 Proposed Use of Property: ��%M dE_ / — Legal Description l of Variance Site: Variance Requested}S��C S do Yl�'i Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional use permit on the subject site or any part of it? — Yes 9 Shat was requested: When. Disposition: Describe the type of improvements proposed: AfeA, ,� e'ClYO.J SUBMISSION FMUIRFMENr : (A)Completed application form. (Wiling fee. (C)Property S:rvey. (D)Certified from abstract firm, nines and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. (E)Complete legal description 6 Property Identification Number (PID). (F)Deed restrictions or private covenants, if applicable. (G)A parcel nap at 1 "- 20' -50' showing: The site cavelopment plan, buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS 93ALL BE REVIVAM BY THE PLANNING ODMMISSION. To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this form is correct. In addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which specifies requirements for variance procedures. I agree ty provide info 't' and follow the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. �J /i /j io c. Applicants Sigma e Submitted this L_day of J 1% 19 Fee Owners Signature THIS SPACE IS 70 BE FILLFD OUT BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNING ODWISSION — APPROVED _ DENIM DATE OF HEARING CITY COUNCIL APPEAL — APPROVED _ DENIED DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of the Planning Director Date 01i PNff\ I I I \ a ®'% "VA14PN" NOTICE OF HEARING FOR VARIANCE You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held by the Planning Commission in the Prior Lake Council Chambers at 4629 Dakota Street S.E. on: THURSDAY MAY 21, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. PURPOSE OF HEARING: To consider a six (6) foot northwest side yard variance application from Cal Hotzler of P.O. Box 218 Prior Lake. SUBJECT SITE LOCATION: Lot 17, Eastwood, or 14942 Lori Road in Prior Lake. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant desires to construct a deck within four feet of the side lot line. The existing structure is also four feet from the property line and Mr. Hotzler desires to maintain the existing development pattern for aesthetics. The side yard setback is ten feet with existing development four feet from the property line. The request is to vary from the setback requirement six feet, which is how the variance amount is determined. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this meeting. Oral and written comments will be accepted by the Planning Commission. For more information, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447 -4230. Prior lake Planning Commission DATE MAILED: May 15, 1992 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 I Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 AN EQUAL OPPORTLNM EITIDYER "Y PREPARED BY )N TESAREK BONNIE STOUT O RD. NG 42 VILLE,NIN 55337 �(G LP R \DR P E, x6 16 i O 4 I Valley Engineering Co., Inc. SUITE 120 -C FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL S.E. PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372 7, TELEPHONE (612)447 -2570 (612)447 -3241 , 5 °� J N ?Ft� E _fj� \\ ( -$24� Ol to n d'r a� pOJ rya,. Sc• Tr-Ill Z a PR, r,71 rj ^ \ "VA16PC" PLANNING REPORT SUBJECT: VARIANCE APPLICANT: SHELLY ARMIT, O'MALLEY'S ON MAIN SITE ADDRESS: 16211 MAIN AVENUE PRESENTER: DEB GARROSS, ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO DATE: MAY 21, 1992 HISTORY /BACKGROUND The Planning Department received a variance application from Shelly Armit of O'Malley's on Main to consider a variance from Sign ordinance 83 -5. see attached agenda materials for reference to this item. Specifically, the variance application was filed under Section 5 -7 -11: Appeals, which provides for a hearing before the Planning commission relative to code interpretation and variances. The request is to place a sign on the southeast lower roof of the O'Malley's On Main building. Section 5 -7 -2 B. 6. states: Roof signs, roof advertising symbols, roof logos, roof statues or roof sculptures shall not be permitted in any district. No sign shall extend above the roof line. The applicant proposes to locate a 4 x 8 foot sign on the roof, in front of the existing air conditioner units. PREVIOUS PROPOSALS There are no previous proposals on file for O'Malley's on Main. However, the former occupant of the building, the 01 B & D" bar, had several building permits for interior alterations. The building is located in the original downtown and has a long history of business establishments who have occupied the building. The current owners, are in the process of renovating the entire facility to a restaurant and bar. The building interior has been gutted and will be completely redone. DISCUSSION: A variance from the Sign ordinance requires a different review process than a variance from the Zoning Code. The Sign Ordinance is part of the Zoning Code as are the Flood Plain and Shoreland ordinances. Therefore, hardship tests must be satisfied in order to grant variances. Unfortunately, there are no specific guidelines that differentiate the hardship tests for signs from those for buildings. It is difficult for staff to utilize the same "hardship" rational for structures and signs. A structure is a physical use of the property whereas a sign merely advertises products and service. The only recent application requested in the downtown area was by Amoco, who requested a freestanding sign taller than the permitted 20 feet. The 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 1 Ph. 1612) 4474230 1 Fax (612) 447 -4245 Planning Commission and City Council denied the height variance on the basis that there was no demonstrated hardship and the desire not to create a negative precedent for future sign applications. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: The subject site is located in one of the oldest parts of the community, which was developed prior to enactment of the current Zoning Code. The Sign Ordinance is clear relative to roof signs, they are not permitted. See attached excerpts from Sign Ordinance 83 -5. Staff discussed alternatives with the applicant including the possibility to erect a freestanding sign near the southeast entrance to the building. The Sign Ordinance permits up to three wall signs for the building and one freestanding sign. However, due to the roof lines and location of utilities, there are no locations on the building, other than the side facing Main Avenue, where a sign could be located and viewed by the public. The applicant investigated erecting a freestanding sign however, the underground and overhead utility lines preclude this option. The applicant investigated the possibility of moving utility lines but unfortunately found that several of the buildings share common utilities. Therefore, it is not feasible to relocate lines and interrupt the "utility chain" that interconnects several buildings. The applicant also reviewed the possibility of locating the sign on the east face of the building however, due to the irregular roof line and parking lot located directly east of the building, a wall sign placed on the building could not be seen, due to the obstruction of vehicles and utility poles. The proposal is to locate the sign on the lower roof, at a similar height as the adjacent "Galleon II" signs, in a manner to screen the air conditioner coils. Screening of mechanical equipment is an objective of the Zoning Ordinance, however variances from the Sign Ordinance should not be used to satisfy a screening objective. Rather, if the mechanical equipment is unsightly, screening utilizing techniques outlined by the Zoning Code should be implemented. The Sign Ordinance is clear in two respects: Roof signs are not permitted in any district and, the building legitimately is eligible for three wall and one freestanding sign. Due to the location of utility lines, their interconnections to adjacent structures and the pre - existing building design, there are no viable options for signs with the exception of the west side, facing Main Avenue. The building design and utility locations are pre- existing conditions that are not the result of actions taken by the applicant. In addition, the O'Malley's building is located on a through lot that is visible to Main and Hastings Avenue. The Planning commission must decide if the Sign Ordinance is unreasonably restrictive in this case, whereby implementation of the Code would preclude sign locations on the east side of the building. Considering that the variance is proposed in an older part of the community with varying sign styles, a variance may provide a reasonable degree of equity for the subject site. The building design incorporates several roof pitches. The sign is proposed over a lower roof, at a height similar to others facing Main Avenue and those on the attached "Galleon II" building. In that respect, the location is consistent with other adjacent structures. The objective of the Sign Ordinance in the opinion of staff, is to prevent siyns on roof tops that extend above the roof line and that would tend to give one individual competitive advertising advantage over another. in this case, the lower roof will be utilized, no part of the sign is proposed to be located on or above, the primary roof line of the building. The applicant has clearly considered and investigated other alternatives that are precluded by circumstances beyond their control. The utility line locations and their interconnectedness, preclude use of legitimate sign options available for the subject site. There are no other buildings in the downtown area that have a similar roof situation as the O'Malley's on Main building. Similarly, there are no other buildings that are restricted from erecting wall signs on the east face of the building. In those respects, the subject site is unique. Another hardship test pertains to health, safety and welfare. The applicant has indicated that the proposed sign location is superior to other locations due to the proximity of the sign to overhead electric utility lines. Bulb replacement is a necessary component of sign maintenance. The applicant has concerns that the sign not be located near utility lines for the safety of individuals that will maintain the sign in the future. RECOMMENDATION• As previously stated, it is difficult to apply the standard hardship tests for structures to that of locating signs on a building. However, staff does feel that there is a legitimate right for O'Malley's on Main to have signs in addition to the one wall sign located adjacent to Main Avenue. Other buildings have the ability to locate signs on several sides. The existence of shared utility lines preclude the use of a freestanding sign on the subject site. In addition, the actual height of the proposed sign will be consistent with the height and area of similar signs throughout the downtown area. Those elements coupled with the fact that the building design of the subject site is unique and the sign proposed will not be located on the main roof of the building, but in a location of similar visibility as other businesses enjoy, would seem to be reasonable considerations for variance. It is the decision of the Planning Commission, to consider whether the spirit and intent of the Sign ordinance is accomplished through this application. The motion of the Planning Commission must include specific hardship criteria that will set the subject site apart from other possible applications. It is the opinion of staff that the variance request is reasonable, considering the pre - existing utility constraints, building design, alternative options investigated and that the sign is not proposed to be located above the main roof line of the building. The intent of the Sign Ordinance is to allow for the reasonable advertisement of products and services available on the premises on which the sign is located. One sign, on the east side of the building would be a reasonable application of the Sign Ordinance and would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Staff would recommend that if the variance is approved, a condition should be placed whereby no freestanding sign would be eligible for the site unless the roof sign is removed. In the event that a future project allows for the removal or relocation of utility lines, the hardship that currently precludes a freestanding sign would be removed. In that event, the roof sign should be removed and relocated to a freestanding sign rather than allow for the roof sign to remain in addition to a freestanding sign. WOO WeRoks ' Y Of \� / - / PYDO �o Phone: I -7 r&-- "7 5 5 Phone: c ( U Phone: Phone: of Use Zoning: A • 9 of Property: Legal Description of Variance Site: I" k hl, �y'7 u.a,l uF til 01 o. I - 4, 4 Viriance Requested F L Has the applicant reviously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional use permit on the subject site or any part of it? _Yes X No t4hat was requested: When: Disposition: Describe the type of irriprovements proposed: P t o,g- - „F N rF S, ., = . — S MISSION RDOUI REMENTS y� a (A)Completed application form. (B)Filing fee. (C)Property Survey. (D)Certified from abstract firm, names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. (E)Complete legal description a Property Identification Number (PID). (F)Deed restrictions or private covenants, if applicable. (G)A parcel map at 1 "- 20' -50' showing: The site development plan, buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this form is correct. In addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinanc; which specifies requirements for variance procedures. I agree to providf of lion and fol],ow the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. U 1 Submitted this day of lg .L� THIS SPACE IS 70 BE FILLED OUT BY THE MANNING DIRECIOR PLANNING CO MISSION APPROVED DENIED CITY COUNCIL APPEAL, _ APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of the Planning Director Date �. / —- A0 Mte. —� i I Scale i's 30' wl y J I 0 (PROPOSED SIGN LOCATION) MI 0. Q. 4 _ e aA �, , Q -�� v� - -- 14g•oo -tom -!�� Y g 1. � d•P�','�r srlc s PARKING LM Y 1 � T C• F, ;1[E S oN LINE. "WooO �.� 1 � GALLEON 11 BUILD ING , i Z r o o N MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT N � , 1 ol 1 `� - -- -- - 14S•vo MRA3 - -• - -' COUNTY ROAD 21 Scale i's 30' MAY 6, 1992 O'MALLEY'S ON MAIN 16211 MAIN AVE. S. E. PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 4629 DAKOTA ST. S. E. PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 DEAR MEMBER'S OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE DUE TO THE FOLLOWING UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE'S. 1. UNDER GROUND UTILITY LINES ENTER THE BUILDING IN THE ONLY LOCATION SUITABLE FOR THE PYLON PLACEMENT. 2. OVER HEAD ELECTRIC LINES AND CABLES WOULD BE DIRECTLY ABOVE ANY FREE STANDING SIGN AND COULD CAUSE AN EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS CONDITION TO THE PUBLIC. 3. AS THE ACCOMPANYING SKETCHES AND PHOTOGRAPH'S ILLUSTRATE, WE ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN. THE ONLY VIABLE LOCATION WE DISCOVERED WOULD HAVE THE ADDED ADVANTAGE OF MASKING THE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REMODELING THE BACK EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING AND BELIEVE THE PROPOSED SIGN SITE WOULD COSMETICALLY ENHANCE THE VIEW FROM HIGHWAY 13. IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO ERECT A PYLON SIGN DESPITE THE LOCATION OF THE UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, OUR BUILDING LOCATION IS SUCH THAT THE ADJOINING BUILDING'S PROTRUDE BEYOND OUR REAR EXTERIOR. ON ONE SIDE THE BUILDING EXTENDS 14 FEET BEYOND OURS. ON THE OTHER SIDE A WAREHOUSE LOCATED WITHIN 2 FEET OF OUR BUILDING EXTENDS APPROX- IMATELY 50 FEET. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SIGN WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE. WE HAVE ATTACHED A SERIES OF PHOTO'S WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL ILLUSTRATE ALL OF THE ABOVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. O'MALLEY'S ON MAIN THIS PHOTO HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM HWY. 13 GOING SOUTH AT THE INTERSECTION OF HWY 13 AND CO. RD. 21. THIS PHOTO HAS BEEN TAKEN ON CO. RD. 31, WEST BOUND AT THE SAME INTERSECTION. THIS PHOTO HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM CO. RD. 21 WEST BOUND, JUST AFTER THE SA14E INTERSECTION. THIS PHOTO HAS BEEN TAKEN NORTH BOUND ON HWY. 13, AT THE SAME INTERSECTION. 5-7 -1 CHAPTER 7 SIGNS SECTION 5-7— 1: Definitions 5-7— 2: Permitted and Prohibited Signs 5-7— 3: Sign Required in any Districts 5-7— 4: Sign in any Districts 5-7— 5: Exemption 6 -7— 5: Nonconforming Signs 5-7— 7: Permit Requirements 5-7— 6: Cancellation 5-7— 6: Removal of Signs 5 -7 -10: Enforcement and Enforcement Penalties 5 -7 -11: Appeals 5 -7 -12: Severance Clause 5 -7 -13: Revoke Permit 5 -7 -14: Maintenance 5-7 -1: DEFINITIONS: 5-7 -1 AVERAGE GRADE: Refers to the elevation or level of the street closest to the sign to which reference is made, measured at the street's tented Inc. AWNING: A nonrigid hood or cover projecting from a building, which may be folded, collapsed or refracted against the building. MARQUEE and /or A roof-like structure projecting from and attached to a CANOPY: Wilding. ROOF LINE: The lowest plane at which the external upper covering begins. 5-7 —/ ru-7 —t SIGN: Any written announcements, declaration, demonstration, display. illustration, insignia or illumination used to advertise or promote the interest of any person or persons when the same is displayed or pieced out of doors in the view of the general public or a pylon exterior wall or building surface or inside of a building within three feet 13'1 of a transparent window. A sign shall be considered as a structure or a part of a structure for the purpose of applying yard and height regulations except as herein stipulated. Signs shall be constructed of metal, plastic, masonite or plywood and be painted in colon that will aesthetically fit the surroundings. Signs shell be of sound construction m as not to be toppled by the weather. SIGN, ADVERTISING A billboard, posterpanN board, painted bulletin board a BILLBOARD: or other communicative device which is used to advertise products, goods and /or services, any part of which am not mid, produced, assembled. manufactured or furnished or otherwise related to activities conducted on the premises on which such sign is located. SIGN, ADDRESS: A sign consisting of identification numbers only, either written or numerical form. SIGN, BALLOON: A sign which is printed, painted or attached to a bellow. SIGN, BENCH: A sign attached to or painted on a bench for seating while waiting at a bus stop. SIGN, BUSINESS: A sign misting in its subject matter to the premises on which it is located or to products, accommodations, services or activities thereon. SIGN, DIRECTIONAL: A sign erected on private property for the purpose of directing vehicular and pedestrian traffic to public facilities or functions. SIGN, FLASHING: An illuminated sign on which the artificial light is not maintained constant in intensity and color at all times in which such sign is in use or any sign which by mechanical means, appears to simulate a flashing sign. 5-7 -t F7 -1 SIGN, Any sign which has Characters, letters, design or ILLUMINATED: outlines illuminated by artificial light direct to or from the interior cd d;v sign. SIGN, INTEGRAL: A sign carrying the name of a building, its date of erection, monumental citations, commemorative tablets and the like when carved into stone, concrete or similar material or made of bronze, aluminum or other permanent type of construction and made an integral part of the structure. SIGN, INTERIOR Any sign placed on the interior of a window or an WINDOW: outside wall or within thirty six inches 136 ") of a window M as to be viewed from the exterior of a building SIGN, A sign which bears the name and/or address of the NAMEPLATE: occupants of a building SIGN. Any advertising structure or sign which was lawfully NONCONFORMING: greeted and maintained prior to such time as it Cane within the purview of this Code, and any amendments thereto, and which fails to ennform to all applicable regulations and restrictions of this Code. SIGN, A sign which r been painted directly onto a building PAINTED WALL: wall, using the wail material as a bar of the sign. SIGN, PORTABLE: A sign not attached to the ground and designed so as to be moveable from one location to another. SIGN, PUBLIC A sign designating the current time and/or temperature INFORMATION: and/or stock market data on the exterior of a building or pylon so as to be viewed by the paving public from a public right of way. SIGN, REAL A temporary sign enacted by a re ltor or private ESTATE: individual for purposes of advertising for sale or lease a particular building and/or parcel of property. SIGN, ROOF A algn aractad upon or above a roof or parapet of a bWlding or above the eaves in the ear of a hip, ble or mansard roof where me plane of the rot-4 Irs than sixty degrees from one horizontal. YPI 5-7 -2 6-7-4 (B) The following signs are prohibited a proscribed: 1. Illuminated Signs: Illuminated signs shall not be permitted within the "A ", "C" and "R" Districts, with the exception of paragraph (A) 17 of this Section. 2. Routing or Moving Signs: Routing or moving signs shall not be permitted in any district 3. Flashing Signs: Flashing signs shall not be permitted in any district 4. Traffic Interference: No sign shall be erected that by reason of position, shape or color would interfere in any way with the proper functioning or purpose of a traffic sign or signal. 5. Beacom: There shall be no use of revolving beacons, beamed lights or similar devices that should so distract automobile traffic as to constitute a safety hued. 6. Roof Sion: Roof dons, roof advertising symbols, roof logos, roof statues or roof sculptures shall not be permitted in any district No situ shall extend 'above t roof line, 7. Business and Advertising Signs: Such sign shall not be painted, attached or in any manner affixed to treat, rocks or similar natural surfaces, nor shall such signs be affixed to a fence or utility pole. B. Advertising (Billboard) Signs: Advertising (billboard) signs shall not be permitted in any district C. Public Rights of Wry: No sign shall be upon or overhang any public right of way, with the exception of 8•2 Distsicts, where an overhang of fifteen inches 05 ") is possible. 10. Bench Sign: Bench signs shall not be permitted in any district 5-7 -3: SIGNS REQUIRED IN ANY DISTRICTS: Before a permit shall be granted, a minimum of one address sign shall be required on each building in all districts. Such sign shall be of sufficient size to be legible from the street, yet shall not exceed two 12) square feet in area 5-7 -4: SIGNS IN ANY DISTRICTS, IA) Signs in "A" "C" and "R" Districts: 1. "A" "C" "141" and "R•7' Districts: One nameplate sign for each dwelling unit Such sign shall not exiled two (2) squw halt in aroa per so 5-7 -4 5-7 -4 B 21 a. Multiple occupancy buildings shall submit a sign plan conforming with this Section which will coordinate signaller for the entire project. b. Said sign plan shall address the following items: height, location, size. number, type, basic decorative theme, design, decor, color and material of the signs to be placed on the budding. c. The sign plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner or designee prior to the issuance of a sign permit for the building. An approved permit will be issued to the owner of the Wilding. d. The owner of the Wilding is responsible to obtain the sign permit, prescribe the approved sign criteria to all tenants and insure that signs erected are in compliance with the approved sign plan. (Ord. 8811, 4 -1888) 3. Freestanding Signs: Where a Wilding does not cover the full area of the property, signs may be freestanding one such sign per Wilding. The maximum height of such sign shall be twenty feet 1201 in 8.1 and 8.2 Districts and thirty feet 1301 in 8 -3 Districts. In no case shall such sign be located closer than forty feet 140) to one another. Maximum size of such sign shall be seventy five (75) square feet. No sign shall extend beyond a property line. Wilding restriction line or right -of -way line. Such sign must be located ten feet 1101 from the street right-of -way fink, with the exception of 8.2 Districts where such sign may have zero setback. 4. Area Identification for Shopping Center: An area identification sign, stating the name of the center and the major tenants shall be allowed. The maximum size shall be one hundred (100) swore feet per side with a maximum height of thirty feet 1301. 5. Marquee Signs: Signs may be placed on the roof of a covered walk or marquee in a Wilding complex on the vertical face of a marquee and may project from the lower edge of the marquee not more than twenty four inches (24 "), but the bottom of a sign placed on a marquee shall be no loss than eight feet (B') above the sidewalk or grade at any point No part of the sign shelf extend above the top of the roof line for a covered walk or above the top of the vertical face of the marquee. Signs shall not be permitted anywhere on a marquee which projects over a public right of way. with the exception of 8.2 District& 8. Portable Signs: Such signs may be used for a period not to exceed tan (10) days and no more than three (3) times per yew at one location or for one use. The maximum size of such sign shall be forty (40) square feet and a maximum height of tan fen 110) and fifteen feet (151 from the street right of way. 7. Building overhangs in 6-2 Districts may have one nameplate per business. Such sign shall be no larger than five (5) square fat All signs shall be homogeneous for building containing more than one business. sse 6-7 -4 5-7 -5 to Signs in "I Districts: 1. A total sign are of two (2) square feet for each lines! foot of the building frontage shall be allowed. Such sign "If be identification signs only. A maximum of one hundred (100) square feet in Ores is alltxnd. 2. Wall Sign: The maximum number of sign on any building shall be one sign per building street frontage. Such sign shall not ewer any window or pan of a window. No sign shall extend above the roof line. No wall signs shall project from the established building line more than fifteen inches 115'7. C) 3. Freestanding Signs: Where a building does not ewer the full ate of the property. signs may be freestanding with one such sign per building. The maximum height of such sign shall be twenty feet 120') and in no ease shall such signs be located closer than forty feel (40 to one another. Maximum size of such sign shall be seventy five (75) aquae feat per face. No sign shell extend beyond the property dine, building restriction line or right-of-way line. Such sign must be located ten feet 11111 from the street right-of-way line. 4. Portable Sign: The same regulations as for "B" District signs apply. S-7 -5: EXEMP71ON: The following types of sign are exempt from MI fee: (A) Public Sign. Sign of a noncommercial nature and in the public interest, erected by or on the order of a public officer in the performance of his Public duty: such as directional signs, regulatory sips, warning signs and information signs. (B) Temporary Signs: There shall be no more than one temporary sign in any required yard, and there elnll be no more than three (3) such signs on any lot, and the total ores of such signs shall not exceed twenty five (25) aquae feet per side with a maximum of two (2) sides. Such signs shall be displayed for no longer than thirty 1301 days, unless approved by this Zoning Officer. (C) Temporary Real Estwe Signs: For the purpose of selling, renting or lowing property. Only one sign may be placed pa street frontage and one sign per lake frontage on the property to be sold or lanai. Such sign shall be set back a sale distance from rod surface, placement of tanporay directional real estate signs shall have the expressed consent of the owner or occupant of the abutting property. The size of such sign shall be a maximum of six (B) square test for residential property and a maximum of thirty two (32) s fat for all other properties. Such signs shall be removed within seven (7) days following the lowing or closing of the sale. Vacancy signs shall be no larger than four (4) square fat, (D) Integral: Names of buildings, data of erection, monumental citations, commemorative tablets and the like when eared Into none, concrete or similar materials or made of bronze, aluminum or other permanent type construction and made on integral pan of the structure. 5-7 -8 5-7 -12 5-7 -8: CANCELLATION A sign permit stall become null and void if the work for which the permit was issued has not been completed within a period of six 16) months after the data of the permit. A permit may be renewed one time and no additional fee stall be collected for the renewal. 6-7 -8: REMOVAL OF SIGNS: The Zoning Officer shall order the removal of any sign erected or maintained in violation of this Chapter. Thirty 1301 days notice in writing cull be given to the owner of the building, structure or premises on which such sign is located, to either bring the sign into compliance with this Chapter or effect its removal. (Ord. 8305. 611 -831 5 -7 -10: F.NFORCEMENTANO ENFORCEMENTPF.NALTIF.S: (A) In enforcing the provisions of this Title. the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Planner, Assistant City Planner, Building Inspector and Citv Engineer stall have the power to issue citations for violation of this Title in lieu of arrest or continued detention. (B) In addition, any violation of this Title may be enjoined by the City Council through proper legal channels. (C) Any person, firm, partnership or corporation who violates this Title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not to exceed saven hundred dollars 15700.00) or by imprisonment for a term not to exceed ninety (80) days, or both, for each often. Each day a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. IOrd. 8613.01 8-881 To provide for a reasonable interpretation of the IA) Aopeals where it is alleued that then is an error in IB) __ R equest for variances from the lit eral provisions of this Chapter in instance where their strict anforcanant would - wsa an undue fi ardsTiip: 5-7-12: SEVERANCE CLAUSE: If any section, clause or provision or portion thereof of this Chapter shall he found to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect any other section, clause, provision or portion thereof of this Chapter. w PRS "VA16PN" NOTICE OF HEARING FOR VARIANCE You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held by the Planning Commission in the Prior Lake Council Chambers at 4629 Dakota Street S.E. on: THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1992 at 7:45 P.M. PURPOSE OF HEARING: To consider a variance application for Shelly Armit, of O'Malley's on Main. SUBJECT SITE LOCATION: 16211 Main Avenue. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant has filed a variance application under Section 5 -7 -11 of the Prior Lake Sign Ordinance. The request is to locate a sign on the lower, southeast side roof of the O'Malley's on Main building located at 16211 Main Avenue. The Sign Ordinance states that no sign shall extend above the roof line. It is the intent of the applicant to locate the sign in front of the existing air conditioner units. The proposed sign is 32 square feet. A drawing of the proposed sign is attached to this notice. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this meeting. Oral and written comments will be accepted by the Planrinq Commission. For more information, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447 -4230. Prior Lake Planning Commission DATE MAILED: May 14, 1992 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245 AN EQLAL 0PP0]MNf ) ENPI ti Eft O R f\ y T. T "VA15PC" SUBJECT: VARIANCE APPLICANT: DAVE SMITH SITE ADDRESS: 14253 SHADY BEACH TRAIL PRESENTER: DEB GARROSS, ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO DATE: MAY 21, 1992 HISTORY /BACKGROUND The — Pining Department received a variance application from Dave Smith to consider a 50 lakeshore and 5.85' east side yard variance. The subject site is located at 14253 Shady Beach Trail, and is legally described as Lot 1, Shady Beach. The subject site contained an older single family home prior to May, 1992, which has since, been moved off site. The existing foundation is proposed to be reused in order to construct a new single family home on the subject site. The foundation is located 25' from the 904 and 4.15 feet from the east side property line. PREVIOUS PROPOSALS: There are no previous proposals on file for the subject site. The applicant met with staff to discuss the development proposal prior to deciding to remove the home from the foundation. The applicant has considered alternatives such as remodeling the previous home, and concluded that it is his proposal to reuse the existing foundation for the erection of a new single family home. PHYSIOGRAPHY: T eft is relatively flat and the current foundation is located at 905.43 which is several feet below the required 909 lowest living elevation required by the Floodplain Ordinance. The applicant has been advised that the basement floor will have to be raised to elevation 909. It is the proposal of the applicant to fill part of the basement, then add courses of block to provide a foundation that is compliant with the Floodplain Ordinance. However, the Ordinance also requires that fill be placed at elevation 908, fifteen feet beyond the periphery of the foundation. The existing 4.15 side yard setback precludes this requirement, therefore the house plans will need to meet engineering standards outlined by the Building Code, to meet the intent of the Floodplain Ordinance. ADJACENT USES: T e a 7acen lots are developed with single family homes that were built approximately 30 to 50 years ago and annexed into 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior lake. Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245 A EQUAL OPPOWU \R\" LIT O \'ER Prior Lake in the early 1970's as part of the consolidation of Eagle Creek Township. The homes along the lakeshore have a variety of setbacks in relation to the road and 904 contour. Likewise, many older homes within this neighborhood are also located within the flood plain. The property located to the east of the site is "Beach Lane" which is an access point to lower Prior Lake. The access is used as a sportsmen's access with restrictions that have been agreed to by the City and neighborhood. The access is a platted public access point to Prior lake. DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY: The subject site is zoned R -1 Urban Residential and is located within the S -D, Shoreland District. The site contains approximately 16,000 square feet of area, measured above the 904 contour of Prior Lake. The lot is approximately 100 feet wide and conforms to the lot area and width requirements of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The required setbacks are 75 feet measured from the 904 contour; 10 feet measured from the east and west property lines and 25 feet measured from the north front property line. The survey indicates that the applicant could utilize setback averaging which would allow a 50' lakeshore setback without need of a variance. The actual setback average equates to 43.5 feet, however the Zoning Ordinance specifies that homes may be setback an average of the adjacent structures or fifty feet, whichever is greater. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: The most crltica a ement of this application concerns Sections 5 -5 -1 and 5 -6 -9, Nonconforming Uses, of the Prior Lake Zoning Code. The Code is clear that "Any nonconforming structure damaged by fire, flood, explosion or other casualty to an extent exceeding fifty percent (508) of its fair market value as indicated by the records of the County Assessor, if replaced shall conform to the requirements of this Title." In essence, the grandfathered setbacks that applied to the structure while the original home was intact, were lost when the home was removed from the site. The code requires that the structure be replaced with a structure that meets the area and yard requirements of the Zoning District. The applicant desires to utilize the existing foundation because it would benefit him economically. In addition, the applicant stated that the home had existed at that site for several years with no harm to the neighborhood. The purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to remove nonconforming uses and bring them into compliance with the current standards. The Planning Commission has stated that some variances are reasonable when they extend an existing wall of a grandfathered, legal nonconforming structure. The critical point is that the structure has been removed in this case and the Code requires that a new structure be built compliant with the Code. The lot is large, and is one of approximately thirty platted lakeshore lots within the Shoreland District that meet all of the area and width requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance adopted in 1987. There are many instances where old cabins and homes are demolished and replaced with new structures. The nonconforming setbacks can only be utilized in cases of renovations or additions that do not exceed 50% of the value of the structure. In effect, the applicant lost the grandfathered rigi,t to the nonconforming setback when the home was removed from the lot. The decision to remove the home was that of the applicant, who determined that it was not economically viable to renovate the older home. Utilizing the existing foundation would be an economic convenience for the applicant however, economic convenience is not a rationale to be used to grant variances. In addition, the Planning Commission must consider that the subject site conforms in every manner, to the requirements of the Shoreland District. There is, in the opinion of staff, hardship to grant a lakeshore variance of some degree to the site because the 904 contour encroaches upon both the south and west sides of the site. However, the Planning Commission should also note that setback averaging can be applied to the site to allow a 50' lakeshore setback, with no variances. There is no hardship on this 100' foot wide lot, to grant side yard setback variances. Staff would not object to granting variances to allow the structure to be located 43.5 feet from the westerly 904 contour, because that is the average setback of the adjacent homes. It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate hardship according to the definitions of the Zoninq Code. It is the opinion of staff that there are alternative sites that the new home could be built which would observe the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code. The 25 foot lakeshore setback that is requested by the applicant has only been granted for severely substandard lots such as those in North Grainwood, where there was no building envelope once setback standards were applied to the lot. The subject site contains a building envelope that conforms to the Code, with no variances. However, it would be reasonable to grant up to a 31.5 foot lakeshore variance to allow the new structure to be placed 43.5 or the average setback of adjacent homes, from the 904 contour. RECOMMENDATION The recommendation from staff is to deny the 25' lakeshore and 5.85' side yard setback variances as requested. The lot meets all of the requirements for lot area and width for lakeshore lots within the Shoreland Management District of Prior Lake. There are building options and a sufficient building envelope available for construction of a new home utilizing the average setback of adjacent homes. The utilization of setback averaging is reasonable when considering structure placement within older neighborhoods that were developed prior to being annexed by the City of Prior Lake. The fact that the neighborhood was developed prior to the enactment of Prior Lake Zoning regulations is not a blanket authorization to allow new homes to be built according to standards of a previous government. It is the responsibility of the applicant to meet, as best as possible, the new, current regulations of the City of Prior Lake. A variance that observes setback averaging is a reasonable compromise that allows for the new structure to meet the intent of the City's objectives for development. SURVEY PREPARED FOR: DAVE SMITH 142253 SHADY WACH TRAIL ME PRIOR LAKE, MN, 55372 NOTE: Valley Surveying Co.. PA. SUITE 120 -C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 -2570 f OY \ \\ \�\ ®E ACH felp 1 4,25 9 o e. .. fl R 44 A F DESCRIPTION, Lot I SI11DY BEACII, Scott County. Minnesota: showing all improvements and encroachments on to and off from said property if any. Benchmark elevation 905. walkout level of the existing house. A~i.m 1129/92 To saes proposed hoses 0 Now TELEMIUME 101[1 care ft4c o 14 W 14 2S,9 I E , A�" 900 'Yok 's, , 44 DESCRIPTION' Lot 1, SIIAI)y BF.AcIl. Scott County, Minnesota-, showing all improvements and encroachments on to and off from amid property It any. Benchmark elevation 905- walkout level of the existing house. 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET opposes, M sad passed by Lim a No. 10"99 • cmaefts, imp am~ round • Denotay P X. Noff Off sodomy 4129192 c l i p ow as how'. as and " Ow", bohnedma, Wwwokc dow-co~y I L,a#Smvqm;r~M@ Yw of me Waft, of Mkommeft 7 7 7--� Z71 Licome, No. 10103 ME M 6766 Book MO MOE Z9 EXPLANATION O F VARIANCE REQUEST The er,sting foundation as shown on the attached site plan is not in compliance with three of the requirements in the zoning ordinance. They are: 1. 909' Basement floor elevation requirement . 75 foot setback from the 904'lake level. 3. 10' side yard setback requirement We are requesting variance approval for two of these conditions ( #2 and #3) on the basis that the variance, if granted, will not alter the the essential character of the locality and would impose a substantial financial hardship if not granted. ITEM 1 - 90 Basement Fl oor Elevation Requirement No variance is being requested. We have changed the structural plans and will add to the existing basement foundation and install a new basement floor that will be located at the 909' elevation. ITEM 275' S 9 04' Lake Level We are requesting a variance to accept the existing setback of the basement foundation as shown on the attached site plan. If this variance is denied it would impose a serious financial hardship since it would require demolition of the existing basement foundation, excavation and construction of a new basement foundation, new sewer 6 water installation, and considerable landscaping. ITEM 3 - 10' Setback from East Lot Line We are requesting a variance to accept the existing setback of the basement foundation as shown on the attached site plan. The existing setback is 4.15 feet. The adjacent property is a public easment deeded to the public approx- imately 40 years ago. The easment is 33 feet wide. This makes our east lot line 37.15 feet from the nearest private property line. Ii this variance is denied we would be required to completely re- design the house and do considerable excavation and foundation work. This would have to be done at considerable additional cost. TRQ'C ro.r 41, oz, w. V O m ?s• Ifft Q M \ 1 •;; \` 1 14247 r «a eeR 7S' SETBACK, V lJ COP - -� _ t o 7 t 3 c ��. �.,. wS a • 'nwf : •7da.a.; � xeww[ � Ar ••• M� t t>• Q � _ _ ofR 1N.M. • W y NOTE: ♦, $C SETBACK_ $ Tnr p..ga..d rwe...w s. swN a. r r ' I a I Mr uldeNOn 0/ M[ ed[Nny IlOewr � � V and ymepa wIM s nw pape[ed yavye w Q aIMC/red e. Mews an 1M [wed' 1 \ `, a '° W m ZZ r Et '\ Ar Ti . 9rb L= CHAPTER 6 MISCELLANEOUS REOUIREMENTS SECTION 5 -5- 1: Nonconforming Uses 5 -5- 2: Accessory Uses 5 -5- 3: Special Exceptions 5 -5- s; Signs 5 -5- 5: Off - Street Parking 5 -5- 6: ON- Street Loading 5 -5- D: Temporary Structures 6 -6- 9: Home Occupations 5 -5- 9: Manufactured Homes 6 -5-10: Screening 6 -5-11: Planned Unit Development S -5-12: Receive-Only Antenna 5 -5-13: Exterior Lighting 5-6°4 6-6-1: NONCONFORMING USES: The following rovisions shall apply t0 all noncon ormino uses: Non: Be* Chapter a of this Title, ahorNand Dielft. for additional requirements of this Chapter. 491 (S) A zoning certificate must be obtained within one year by the owner of any nonconforming use as evidence that the use lawfully existed prior to the adoption of the provision which made the use noncon- forming. 5-6-1 5-5-2 (C) Any nonconforming structure demsoed by fire, flood, explosion or other casualty to an extent exceeding fifty percent (50 %) of Its fair -- mar k et value a records olIfis coun Assesso trep — ad — a con ono to me requirements — this I t(Te. (D) In the event that any nonconforming use. conducted In a structure or otherwise, Mass, for whatever reason, for a period of one year, or Is abandoned for any period, such nonconforming use shall not be resumed. (E) Normal maintenance of a nonconforming structure Is acceptable Including nonstructural repairs and incidental maintenance. 5 -5-2: ACCESSORY USES: The following provisions shall apply to accessory u803: (A) Accessory farm building$ shall not be erected within one hundred feet (100') of a neighboring property. 1. Feed lots, runs, pens and similar Intensively used facilities for animal raising and care shall not be located within three hundred teat (300') of a neighboring property. 2. Roadside stands for sale of agricultural products shall be per- mitted If: a. They are erected at least fifty feet (50') back from the nearest edge of roadway surface. b. They are used exclusively for the sale of agricultural products. c. Parking space Is provided off the road right of way. d. They are removed If not In use. (Oro. 63.6, 6.24.63) 3. In R -1 Residential areas, accessory structures shall not exceed the coverage ratio of the principal structure or the maximum of eight hundred thirty two (832) square feel, whichever Is leas. (Ord. 90.07, 5.21.90) (8) For construction of swimming pools, see Tide 4, Chapter 4 of the Prior Lake City Code. 292 5 -6 -8 5-6 -10 5 -6 -8: INYAIdIM'101si: Any conditFinel use allowed by the City Council and /or any variance allowed by the Board Of Adjustment or the City Council, if appealed, shall become null and void one year from the date either or both were granted union any necessary, required and /or appropriate permits have been issued by the issuing authority as required to meet any necial conditions attached by the approving authority 4o the grant of the conditional use and /or variance or to perserve the spirit and intent of this Title. (Ord. 8510, 1021.851 5-8 -9: NONCONFORMING USES: The Board of Adjustment shall have the power to authorize changes of lawful nonconforming uses in follows: (81 A new nonconforming use may be created in an existing structure to replace a lawful nonconforming use provided that the owner agrees in writing that: 1. The Proposed nonconforming use will entail no structural changes or additions other than those required for Purposes of sebly health and aesthetics. 2. The proposed use will be limited by all provisions of this Section. 5 -6 -10: AMF.NDMF:NTS:The City Council may, by a two - thirds 12/31 vote of all in members, amend this Title as proposed by the City Council, by the Planning Commission or by a petition of a person owning property within Prior lake in accordance with the following provisions: (A) Petitions by property owners for amendment shall be filed with the Zoning Officer, and the petitioner, upon such filing, shall pay a filing fee in accordance with a schedule determined annually by the City Council. The Planning Commission shall review the proposed amendment and report its findings in writing to the City Council and the petitioner. IS) An amendment initiated by the City Council stall be referred to the Planning Commission for study and report. It may not be acted upon by the City Council until it has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission or until sixty (60) days have elapsed from the date of reference without a report by the Planning Commission. IC) Required exhibits include an abstractor's certificate of property owner's name and address within three hundred feet 1300) of the outer boundaries of the property in question, plus a boundary survey or area survey including the property in question plus three hundred feet (300') beyond showing lot boundaries, buildings, foliage topography and soil tests if pertinent. w r • .. Y Applicant :_ Addrese: Property Own Address• Type of Owne Consultant /C Existing Use of Property:. Proposed Use of Property :, Legal Descri of Variance 'LG�GT�1fc� " 4a Zoning: Variance Requested: Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional use permit on the subject site or any part of it? Yes A. What was requested; - When: Disposition • — Describe the type of improvements proposed: RIIII D IVFW 14 nN VmST1tL E'(1nNDArI0N _ (A)Completed application form. (Wiling fee. (C)Property Survey. (D)Certified from abstract firm, new and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. (E)Complete legal description & Property Identification Number (PID). (F)Deed restrictions or private covenants, if applicable. (G)A parcel map at 1 20' -50' showing: The site development plan, buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service. ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SMU BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this form is correct. In addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which specifies requirements for variance procedures. I agree to provide ormation and follow the procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. nn �aay of rn�v 19� Submitted this licants Signature Fee Owners Signature THIS SPACE IS TO BE FILLED CUT BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNING COMMISSION APPRDVW _ DENIED DATE OP HEARING CITY COUNriL APPEAL _ APPRDvm _ DENIED __ DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of the Planning Director Date AP FOR VARIANCE MAY 06, 1992 Submitted By: DAVID L. and TERESA M. SMITH 14253 Shady Beach Tr. NE Prior Lake, Mn 55372 CONTENTS PAGE A. COMPLETED APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ........................ I B. PROPERTY BACKROUND INFORMATION ............................ 2 C. EXPLANATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST ........................... 3 D. PROPERTY SURVEY ............. ............................. 4 E. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ........................................... 5 F. LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS .......................... 6 PROPERTY The existing property is a private residence located at 14253 Shady Beach Trail HE and has existed since approximately 1960. It was purchased in 1963 by Robert L. and Helen M. Smith (Parents of David L. Smith). No significant changes were made to the structure since its original construction. The property was purchased on April 1, 1992 by David L. and Teresa M. Smith. Originally, significant remodeling was planned. However, due to the age and condition of the existing structure, is was decided that it would be more cost eff , .•.ctive to remove the existing structure and build a new structure on the existing foundation. It was also decided that a new structure would be considerably more energy efficient and would be a greater improve- ment to the existing property and neighborhood. A 33' wide public easement known as "Beach Lane" is adjacent to the property on the east side. This easement was deeded to the public approximately 40 years ago. o> 5]b t M� PR IG /y k' d T. \ ' T "VA15PN" NOTICE OF HEARING FOR VARIANCE You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held by the Planning Commission in the Prior Lake Council Chambers at 4629 Dakota Street S.E. on: THU!,SDAY, MAY 21, 1992 at Fa un PURPOSE OF HEARING: To consider a variance application for Dave Smith. SUBJECT SITE LOCATION: 14253 Shady Beach Trail. Lot 1, Shady Beach. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant has removed an older single family home from the property and proposes to build a new single family home utilizing the existing foundation. The required lakeshore setback is 75 feet measured from the 904 contour (ordinary- high - water -mark) of Prior Lake. The structures is proposed to be located 25 feet from the 904 contour therefore, the applicant requests approval of a 50 foot lakeshure variance. The required side yard setback is 10 feet, measured from the east and west side property lines. The applicant proposes to locate the home 4.15 feet from the east side property line and requests approval of a 5.55 foot east side yard variance. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this meeting. Oral and written comments will be accepted by the Planning Commission. For more information, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447 -4230. Prior Lake Planning Commission DATE MAILED: May 14, 1992 4629 Dakota St. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447 -4230 / Fax 1612) 447 4245 AN EQUAL OPPORI'L NIM E4PSi ER ._ r F,EG1ul1 b TEL :612- 772 - 7977 h'lay zu 92 ' :S7 IVu.uul h.'_. ((��SrrIIT �A� /O F 5� /� W LIV LS �Z C� U !K1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO May 20, 1992 Ms. Deb Garross city of Prior Lake 4629 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, Minnesota 55172 Post -It' brand lax Irensmhlal memo 7671 • •I V•yer RE: DAVE SMITH SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT 1, SHADY BEACH, PRIOR LAKE Dear Ms. Garross: 1 have reviewed the materials you sent regarding the subject variance and offer the following comments: 1) There appears to be ample room to build : a setback greater than the existing 25 feet. New core'- action which would reduce the non - conformity should be recy:.�: red. According to the drawing, the house could be shifted to the north. 2) The applicant refers to financial hardship if the existing location cannot be utilized. According to the criteria for determining hardship, economics are not supposed to be a factor. 1) I understand the existing structure was removed from the foundation prior to the applicant's variance application. This seems a bit premature. The foundation should be removed, backfilled, and the new structure relocated closer to Shady Beach Trail. 4) At most, i could accept a setback of 43 feet, roughly the average setback of the adjoining residential structures. This case is a good example of an opportunity to bring An existing nonconformity more in line with existing shoreland zoning standards. Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment. Please call me if you have any questions. Sinp� ely, J ` I -L� P' Patrick J, ynch Area Hydrologist AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER b e-y- ✓'res5 rcm rf'rL ui.- CM 0 'DNX_ D•F,. f1�Y N! 6 han•I " 7")Z.'Tj(o N•X y 2 ! etY RE: DAVE SMITH SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT 1, SHADY BEACH, PRIOR LAKE Dear Ms. Garross: 1 have reviewed the materials you sent regarding the subject variance and offer the following comments: 1) There appears to be ample room to build : a setback greater than the existing 25 feet. New core'- action which would reduce the non - conformity should be recy:.�: red. According to the drawing, the house could be shifted to the north. 2) The applicant refers to financial hardship if the existing location cannot be utilized. According to the criteria for determining hardship, economics are not supposed to be a factor. 1) I understand the existing structure was removed from the foundation prior to the applicant's variance application. This seems a bit premature. The foundation should be removed, backfilled, and the new structure relocated closer to Shady Beach Trail. 4) At most, i could accept a setback of 43 feet, roughly the average setback of the adjoining residential structures. This case is a good example of an opportunity to bring An existing nonconformity more in line with existing shoreland zoning standards. Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment. Please call me if you have any questions. Sinp� ely, J ` I -L� P' Patrick J, ynch Area Hydrologist AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS ACTION FLAN FOR ADOPTION 5. Submit Draft to Organizations (A -D) June 10 -30 for Recommendation 6. Organization Written Responses to Draft June 30 -July 16 - Gather responses or action - Staff assimilates comments 7. Planning Commission Hearing July 16, 1992 S. City Council Discussion /Action August, 1992 *Committee from N3 above may meet after this step depending on outcome of organization actions. "ISACT" Taraet Date 1. Staff Redraft May 20, 1992 - Horst /Kay rework document using comments from EDC /Business Assoc./ May 7 meeting 2. Committee Appointments A. EDC - appoints 2 reps. May 13, 1992 B. P.C. - appoints 2 reps. May 21, 1992 C. Bus. Assoc. - appoints 2 reps. May May , E0, 1992 1992 D. Chamber - appoints 2 reps. 3. Committee Meeting to Review Redraft May 25 -29, 1992 - Reps. from all groups plus staff meet to discuss items, plus attempt )L:o reach consensus 4. Staff Final Draft - Redraft for final document using June 5, 1992 input from committee 5. Submit Draft to Organizations (A -D) June 10 -30 for Recommendation 6. Organization Written Responses to Draft June 30 -July 16 - Gather responses or action - Staff assimilates comments 7. Planning Commission Hearing July 16, 1992 S. City Council Discussion /Action August, 1992 *Committee from N3 above may meet after this step depending on outcome of organization actions. "ISACT"