HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/25/2002REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
A. Boyles Variance Resolution
Public Hearings:
Case #02-027 Matt Ellman and Karen Opoien are questing a variance for a
structure setback less than the minimum required setback to the top of bluff for
the construction ora room addition for the property at 14909 Manitou Road.
Case #02-023 Keystone Communities (formerly Crystal Care) is requesting a
Senior Care Overlay District for a development to be known as Keystone
Communities for the construction of a 3-story, 107 unit senior rental building
located south of Highway 13 and wes$ of Franklin Trail.
Case #02-021 Donald B. Scherer is requesting a variance to structure setback to
the ord'mary high water mark to allow an existing deck tO remain on the property
at 3894 Green Heights Trail.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
A. Review 2003-2007 Capital Improvement Program.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTIJNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the March 11, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the February 25, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
A. Case file #01-079 Kenneth & Carol Boyles are requesting a 14.5 foot variance
to permit a 10.5 foot rear yard setback rather than the minimum required 25 feet
for the property at 15358 Breezy Point Road.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Staffreport dated March 11, 2002 on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application fi'om Kenneth & Carol Boyles,
for the construction of a single family dwelling with an attached garage, on the property
located at 15358 Breezy Point Road, and legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Red Oaks
Second Addition, Scott County, Minnesota. On February 24, 2002, the applicants
submitted a letter requesting a continuance of this agenda item until the next scheduled
Planning Commission Meeting on March 11, 2002.
The request is for a 14.5' variance to the rear yard setback to permit the structure to be
setback 10.5' from the rear lot line rather than the minimum required setback of 25 feet.
L:~02 FI LESX02plannin g eomm~02pcmin utc shM N031102.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
Based on the Findings, the staff found this request does not meet the nine hardship
criteria. Staff determined Lot 1, Block 1, Red Oaks Second Addition, was platted to meet
the minimum dimensional standards and setbacks for the R1SD districts, and is a legal
conforming tot of record. In addition, there is a legal building envelope that meets the
minimum setbacks to the rear lot line for a future dwelling of less size. The staff
recommended denial of the requested variance.
Comments from the public:
Applicants Ken and Carol Boyles, 13003 Cardinal Circle, Eden Prairie, distributed
handouts of their proposal. Boyles explained their plan and how they came up with the
variance. He felt there were flaws in the original plat and the lot was nonconforming. He
felt his proposal would be a solution to the problems. Boyles disputed staff's hardship
criteria, pointing out his lot was surrounded by water on three sides making the building
pad much smaller, therefore, the hardships had been met. Boyles counted up all the lots
on Prior Lake and found 20 lots have water on 3 sides but none of them have water on 3
sides and a wetland. His lot is almost an acre but because of the terrain and the setback
requirements it ends up being a modest size-building pad with many restrictions. If he
moves his house plan to the high ground it will eliminate the need for a variance.
Patrick Parris, 15386 Breezy Point Road, the neighboring lot, said he did not like the idea
ora retaining wall between the lots. It did not make sense. The Boyles' plan seemed to
make more sense and fit into the neighborhood, pards also had a concern for the runoff if
a retaining wall was in place.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Visited the lot twice. It is a beautiful lot. Variances that normally come before the
Commission usually have to do with exceeding 30% impervious surface coverage or
trying to move closer to the lake than is normally allowed. This is different.
· This is a common sense issue as to where to build the house.
· The staff did a good job in putting together the report but disagreed with their
conclusion.
· The lot is unique because of the topography and water on 3 sides.
· Common sense tells me this is a side yard not a back yard in which case this would
not be before the Commission.
· There is a hardship and supported the request.
Criego:
· Looked at the lot. The question is the definition of back yard mad front yard. The
planning staff has taken the logical position that the front yard is where you drive in
and the back yard is the back of the home. They had no altemative; basically the
request could not be done without a variance.
· On a normal lot like this on the lake, it would have basically 95 feet of yard setbacks.
Ten feet on the sides, 50 feet on the lakeside and 25 feet on the street side. This
L:\02FILES\02plannin g comm\02pcminutesWiN031102.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11. 2002
applicant has basically 135 feet of side yard setbacks. They have substantially
exceeded the total. The question is, what is rear or side yard? It is basically the
definition we are discussing.
The lot is unique and the Commission as a group wants to protect any of the wetland.
Tiffs is the best solution for everyone.
Agreed with applicant. Support the request.
Atwood:
· Concurred with Commissioners, it is a unique lot and the definition Of side and rear is
at issue.
· In favor of the applicant's request.
Ringstad:
· Visited the lot and it is clearly a unique lot.
· After reading staff's report and hearing the applicants concern there is certainly some
gray area.
· Based upon the information, he concurred with the Commissioners and would grant
the request.
Stamson:
· Questioned staff on what point is the rear lot determined. Is it based on the
applicant's designed or the time the lot is platted? Kansier responded it is based on
ordinance definition that states the rear yard is opposite the front yard, which is
defined as being adjacent to the street.
· Concurred with staff.
· When this was platted a few years ago, there was big discussion of whether or not
there were 3 buildable lots. It was repeatedly argued by the developer that there were
3 usable, buildable lots and this design would accommodate 3 homes. Nothing has
changed in that regard.
· There is a sufficient building envelope and largely the problem is the size of the
home.
· The hardship criteria have not been met.
· Opposed the variance request.
Open Discussion:
Criego felt the lot was unique and in order to have the applicant do what was originally
platted is unreasonable. It would result in deterioration of water and the surrounding area.
The property is so unique he felt it should be allowed. The applicant had a better
solution. The surrounding area should be left natural.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES
AS REQUESTED AND DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A RESOLUTION
WITH FINDINGS.
LSO2FILES\02planning comm~02pcminutesWIN031102.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
Vote taken indicated ayes by Atwood, Criego, Lemke & Ringstad, nay by Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
B. Case files #02-09 and 02-010 Wensmanu Homes is requesting a Preliminary
Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 23.66 acres to be
subdivided into 2 lots for commercial development and 10 lots for 64 townhouse
units to be known as Fountain Hills 2nd Addition located south of County Road 42
and west of Pike Lake Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report dated March 1 I, 2002 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
Wensmann Realty, Inc., has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Fountain Hills 2nd Addition on the property located on the west side of Pike Lake Trail,
approximately 1/8 mile south of CSAH 42 and directly south of Fountain Hills Drive.
The application includes the following requests:
· Approve a Plarmed Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
While the total site area is 23.08 acres, the PUD plan encompasses 10.i6 acres of the site.
The PUD development consists of a total of 64 dwelling units on 7.17 net acres, for a
total density of 8.92 units per acre. The remaining area of the development will consist
of two commercial lots, 7.01 acres and 4.67 acres in size.
The major issue that must be addressed is the easements adjacent to the private streets.
There is some redesign required to address this issue; however, this could occur at the
final plan stage. The staff recommended approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The private streets must be designed so that the sum of the width of the outlot and the
adjacent easements is equal to 50 feet.
2. Extend sanitary sewer and water main to the south property boundary.
3. Provide a drainage easement and storm sewer pipe from the south side of the wetland on the
east side of the property to the south property line for the future use of the property to the
south.
4. Provide a drainage and utility easement on Lot 1, Block 1, Fountain Hills Addition, for the
sanitary sewer pipe located within this lot.
5. Provide the information necessary to show how the drainage will work behind Unit g4 to
achieve a 2% swale.
6. Provide retaining wall profiles and design by a registered engineer.
7. Revise the landscaping plan to include the required number of oversized trees.
L:\02 FI LES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~MN031 t 02.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
March Il, 2002
8. Verify that the setback between the buildings and the wetland is 30' to the 100-year flood
elevation of the wetland.
9. Indicate whether signs will be provided for the townhouse development. If so, provide sign
elevations and greater detail on the location of the proposed monument signs.
10. Provide a lighting plan identifying the foot-candles at the south property line that are a result
of the wall lighting on the south side of the units.
I 1. Provide a phasing plan for the project.
12. Provide an irrigation plan.
13. Provide street names for the private streets.
14. Ensure that the tie-ins to the existing 8" water main valve on Pike Lake Trail will be
acceptable for hook-ups and testing.
15. Proved a concrete entrance to the easterly entrance to the new sidewalk. The westerly
entrance will require a valley-gutter where needed.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Questioned staffifthe easement would only be 49 feet, could the Commission
recommend approval? Kansier said they could approve it. One foot would not make
a difference.
· Questioned if the only real problem with the setbacks is snow storage. Kansier
responded it was the major problem. But it also has some effect on smaller utilities.
It limits the placement of gas and electricity lines.
Comments from the public:
Terry Wensmann from Wensmarm Realty explained the townhouse development
consisting of 64 units. All the townhomes will be owner-occupied. There will be no
rentals. He also explained the different townhome elevations and the least amount of
impact on the wetlands and slopes. They are saving as many of the significant trees as
possible with this plan. Wensmarm briefly described the benefits of the PUD and private
streets and landscaping. They will provide the 50-foot easement that staffwas
concerned with.. There will also be a development monument at the end of Fountain Hills
Court. Nick Polta, the engineer from Pioneer Engineering was also available for
questions.
Criego:
· Questioned reducing the lots and driveways. Wensmarm responded it is an outlot
maintained by the townhome association. It is not a problem. The easements would
go across the driveway like any other single-family development.
Ed Vierling, 14310 Pike Lake Trail, said his concerns were the cost of the townhomes,
rtmoffand traffic. His family owns land south and west of the development, has no
desire of developing and want to continue farming. His other concern is for tree
L:\02FILES~02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN031102.doc 5
t>lanning Commission Meeting
March ! 1, 2002
preservation. He questioned if the private streets would be able to support emergency
vehicles.
Atwood:
· Asked the applicant to address the purchase price. Wensmann said the price range
would be starting at $150,000 to $200,000 the average being around $170,000 to
$180,000. He also addressed Mr. Vierling's concern that the retaining wall would not
be visible.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Questioned Wensmann why he did not elect to use Class I materials. Wensmann
responded because of the affordability - making it as maintenance-free as possible to
keep the association fees down.
· This is the right use of the property but concerned the number of units is stacked in.
· It seems to have a lot of units in a small area. Understand it is substantially less with
8 units per acre. Somehow the structuring of the units and the way it is designed is
not beneficial to the City.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Criego. It is an appropriate use of the property. It is beautiful. The
higher density is appropriate.
· Happy the developer is Wensmann Homes, they speak for themselves. However, the
modifications are excessive. Would like to see one of the ironer looped units dropped.
It could make it more interesting. There would be more open space.
· Love the trails around the pond and that they hook up with the other trails.
· Appreciate the concern for preserving the trees.
· Would like to see another monument.
,, Support staff in removing one of the units.
Lemke:
· The issue of density is always tough. The applicant has taken the topography and
wetlands into account and tried to group the houses to maintain a significant portion
of open space.
· The concern in cutting the density is that it may force the units into the slopes and
other less desirable areas.
· Concern for traffic.
· If the right-of-way issue can be resolved, it seems like an appropriate use.
Ringstad:
· Staff addressed the question on the additional impervious ground cover and the
effects on the neighboring properties. Staffseemed satisfied there was existing
infrastructure that would be created to accommodate the development.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02peminuteshMN031102.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11. 2002
· In reading the report it makes sense for the density being requested subject to the 15
conditions staffis recommending. Will support the proposal.
Stamson:
· Have to agree with Lemke on the density issue. Keep in mind the property is zoned
R3 for high density. It is possible for 30 units per acre; the developer is well below
that.
· The issue of the buildings be packed in - it is a direct response to the topography of
the site. That is why we have a PUD. We are looking at trying to save hills and trees.
If this was a flat piece of land, the buildings could easily be spread out. The buildings
proposed gives more use of the land. In this case, preserve the trees and hillsides.
· The buildings were brought into a tighter configuration to do that. Support the
density the way it is.
· The development meets a price point needed in this City.
· The problem with the 50-foot total width for private streets appears to be a non-issue.
· The other conditions brought up from staff are largely details, record keeping and
adjustments are not a big issue
· This development will be a nice addition. It is a very appropriate use of the property.
Open Discussion:
· The Commissioners discussed the setbacks, modifications and density. The zoning
was discussed along with affordable housing. The whole idea behind a PUD is to
allow this type of modifications. If developers are not allowed to use them, do not
have PUDs in the Ordinance. Criego felt there are other ways to accommodate.
· Misunderstanding that the slopes were bluffs.
· Other discussions were the Class I materials. Atwood felt this plan could be achieved
with less density.
· Ter~ Wensmann responded explaining the private drives and setbacks similar to
Weusmarm 1st Addition.
· Another issue brought up by Lemke is the affordability. The next generation cannot
afford $700,000 homes in The Wilds. It is an appropriate development for the City.
· Criego questioned city requirements for cul-de-sacs on private roads. Kansier
explained on short streets as proposed, the City does not require a cul-de-sac.
Emergency vehicles can just backup.
· The Commissioners questioned Class I materials. Kansier explained the material.
· Criego questioned the lack of sidewalks. Normally the Commission requires
sidewalks. The development has trails.
· Stamson would like to see the Class I materials used.
· Ringstad agreed with Lemke on the affordability for the City. The Commission
should be sensitive to this issue. Leave as proposed.
· Lemke asked Wensmann if he know the price change for Class I materials.
Wensmann responded he did not know at this time. It would depend on how much
was used on the building - the fronts, rear, and sides. Guessing around the entire
building at 60% it could add $3,000 to $4,000 to the cost, depending on the material.
L:XO2FILES~2planning eomm~02pcminutcsWIN031102.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
March II, 2002
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE THE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMiNARY PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS FOUNTAIN
HILLS 2ND ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS iN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson. Nays by Atwood and
Criego. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE THE
PRELIMiNARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS FOUNTAIN HILLS 2ND ADDITION
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson; Nays by Atwood and
Criego. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go to the City Council on Apr/1 1, 2002.
A recess was called at 8:02 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:07 p.m.
C. Case files 02-015 and 02-016 Tom Holme Construction, Inc., is requesting an
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map and a proposed Zone change request
to subdivide into 7 lots for single-family homes at the property located on the
northeast side of Mushtown Road, directly west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook
Drive.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the StaffReport dated March 11, 2002 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
On February 4, 2002, the City Council adopted a resolution annexing 4.34 acres of land
located on the northeast side of Mushtown Road, between Pondview Trail and Toronto
Avenue in Section 11, Spring Lake Township. Since this property was not included on
the City plans, the Council also initiated an amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Map to include this property. The proposed amendment designates this
property for Low to Medium Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan
Map and zones the property as R-1 (Low Density Residential) on the City Zoning Map.
The Planning staff found the proposed R-L/MD designation consistent with the goals of
the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed R-1 district is also consistent with this
designation. The staff therefore recommended approval of this request.
Criego questioned how much land was annexed. Kansier said the applicant annexed the
entire area.
Comments from the public:
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN031102.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
March il, 2002
Wade Kytola, 4403 Pondview Trail, bought 360 feet of property abutting the proposal.
He was concerned with additional homes and the existing runoffproblems, his property
will be damaged. The City had many restrictions with his lot. Kytola was not happy he
was not informed of the annexation. Kansier explained the orderly annexation process.
Atwood pointed out the zoning is consistent with the neighborhood. It will be single-
family home development. Criego explained one of the requirements of the development
is there would be no runoff onto other properties.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
* Reiterated Cfiego's comments regarding runoff when the plat comes in. The
Commission is sensitive to that.
· Supported request.
Lemke:
· Agreed with fellow Commissioners and the staffreport. The land is now part of the
City of Prior Lake and the question before the Commission is zoning. R1 is the right
use of the land.
Criego:
· Concurred. The Comprehensive Plan has to be modified. R1 is the best use.
· Agreed with staffs opinion.
Atwood:
· Agreed and supported the zone change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Commissioners and staff. R1 and low to medium density is appropriate.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
TO DESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 4.34 ACRES LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE TO THE R-1 DISTRICT ON THE SAME
4.34 ACRES.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on April 1, 2002.
L:\02FILES~02planning eomm~02peminutesWIN031102.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
March 1L 2002
D. Case file #02-020 John and Linda Meyer are requesting a variance to lot area
less than the required minimum of 15,000 square feet for the construction of a
seasonal cabin on Lots 61, 62 and 64 of Twin Isles.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Staff Report dated Mamh l 1, 2002
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application fi.om John & Linda Meyer for
the construction ora seasonal cabin on three platted lots on "Twin Isles". The applicant's
stated they attempted to purchase lot 63 and combine it with the other 3 lots in order to
meet the minimum lot area, but were unsuccessful and request the variance to allow the
construction as proposed. The request is for a 2,396 square foot variance for a total area
of 12,604 square feet rather than the required minimum area of 15,000 square feet or two
contiguous lakeshore lots.
The City received a complaint in the year 2000, regarding the construction of an
accessory building on two of the subject lots on "Twin Isles", specifically Lots 62 and 64.
Upon inspection, staff determined the construction had commenced without the necessary
building permits. The Meyers were notified of the violation and halted construction.
The applicants now propose to construct a seasonal cabin on Lots, 61, 62 and 64.
Currently Lots 62 and 64 are legally combined, but Lot 61 was purchased at a later date
in the year 2001. Lot 61 shall to be legally combined under one title with Lots 62 and 64
subject to variance approval and prior to the issuance of a building permit. The total area
for lots 61, 62 and 64 is 12,604 square feet, which is less than the minimum required
15,000 square feet or two contiguous lakeshore lots, as required for island development.
The City Building and Engineering Departments have reviewed this variance request, and
in essence both departments have no objection provided well location and septic design
are approved by Scott County. The Department of Natural Resources stated they have no
issues with the variance proposed, and questioned whether 2 suitable septic sites been
identified on the property. Scott County approved one septic site for this application.
The Planning staffrecommended the Planning Commission adopt the resolution with the
conditions approving the requested variance based on today's ordinance requirements on
undeveloped existing platted lots of record creating a hardship. In addition, approval of
this request should be subject to the condition the lot is developed as shown on the survey
to ensure additional variances are not required.
The following are conditions, which shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. The property owner shall file with the Scott County Recorder a property title that
combines Lots 61, 62, and 64.
2. The subject site shall be developed as shown on the attached survey to ensure additional
variances are not required.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminmes~vlN031102.doc 1 0
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11. 2002
3. The permit is subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable County and State
agency regulations.
The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. The resolution must be recorded and proof of recording
submitted to the Planning Department. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant to
Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null and void if the necessary
permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within one year after adoption of this
resolution.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Suggested the well design and approval by Scott County should be a condition.
Horsman pointed out Condition #3 covers that issue.
· Horsman also said the applicant is now requesting that the existing well on Lots 43,
44 and 45 provide a waterline to supply water to the second site. There is a question
if that would be approved or not. It needs to be researched.
Criego:
· This applicant came before the Commission a number of months ago to put a garage
on this particular property. There was a lot of discussion at that time of continuous
lots with separation of a roadway. The Commission considered this to be contiguous
ownership. How does that play with separate building ora home on same ownership?
Horsman explained the riparian lot restriction. In this case, it is a separate site.
Comments from the public:
Applicants John and Linda Meyer, Prior Lake residence address is 3313 Twin Isle Circle,
stated he enjoyed Prior Lake. He is requesting a 2,396 square foot variance instead of the
required 15,000 square foot area. His goal is to have adequate shelter for his family and
secure personal property and improve the aesthetics of the Island. Meyer explained the
layout and description of Twin Island. The original plat of 1925 was designed for lake
cabins. Meyer read the Twin Isle zoning ordinance requirements. He also questioned the
City's 25-foot setback requirement.
Criego:
· Questioned Meyer's primary residence. Meyer said it was 8300 Ewing Road in
Bloomington.
· Questioned Meyer if the proposed home is a second home they would keep or intend
to sell. Meyer said they need the space and plan on living there seasonally.
Stamson:
· Questioned the interior lots having lake access. Meyer pointed out the common lot
having access to the lake.
L:\02FILES\02planning ¢ommX02pcminutesWIN031102.do¢ 11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
· Questioned dockage. Meyer explained it could be put in the common area.
· Questioned the road. Meyer said there is a 20 foot defined road.
Criego:
· Questioned staff on why is there a 25-foot side yard setback from Lot 63. Horsman
explained it was a rear yard lot line. It doesn't have anything to do with the roadway.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· No problem supporting staff's findings and the conditions stated in the report.
Ringstad:
· Agreed, there are no problems granting the request with the 4 conditions.
Criego:
· No problem with staff' s recommendation other than the statement brought up by
Steve Horsman that the desire to have conunon water come from the current
dwelling. It seems that what is done has to be separate because the property could be
sold in the future. Don't know if that should be in a Resolution or somehow make
that clear to Scott County that it is of keen interest to the City. Maybe staff could
help.
· Kansier said she is not sure what authority; County or State would actually have to
approve that type of connection. The engineering department will need to see the
permit for the water supply. There are a number of issues once one starts sharing
wells. There are different regulations. The City will have to look into it. If they
were allowed to share the well, the City would require documentation that in the
event the two properties are sold separately one or the other would not be losing their
water supply. It would be part of the building permit.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Lemke:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation and make sure the water condition is taken care
of.
Stamson:
· Concurred with fellow Commissioners and staff supporting this issue.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02-
002PC APPROVING A 2,396 SQUARE FOOTAGE TO ALLOW A LOT AREA OF
12,604 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MIMIMUM ARE OF
15,000 SQUARE FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the variance appeal process.
L:\02FILES\02planning ¢omm\02pcminutes~vlN031102.doc ] 2
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
E. Case file #02-022 Prior Lake Baptist Church is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit to allow multiple buildings on a single lot for the property located at 5690
Credit River Road.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 11, 2002,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
Prior Lake Baptist Church has filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CLIP) to
allow two principal structures on a single lot for the property located 5690 Credit River
Road. This site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). No variances axe required for
this project. The Church is planning an addition to the existing church and school. In
order to meet the impervious surface requirements for this development, the Church has
purchased the adjacent property to the northwest. There is an existing single-family
home and detached garage on this lot. The Church is proposing to rent the single family
home until sometime in the future, when the home will be removed. There is no specific
date for the removal of this structure.
Staffrecommended approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Staff must approve the site plan for the church addition before the resolution
approving the CUP is recorded.
2. The applicant must file an application to combine the lots for City approval.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
Suggested some kind of time line, it could be 10 years, as long as it doesn't become a
permanent use. Support the proposal.
Lemke:
,, The staffhas done a good job of laying out why a Conditional Use Permit is
appropriate.
· Did not consider an expiration date. If the church has gone to the trouble of having an
architect, they are going to develop it and would probably require that the house be
moved.
Criego:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation as it relates to the time frame of the Conditional
Use Permit. It seams there should be a condition that indicates the Conditional Use
Permit is only good for the current structure. If that structure gets tom down, they
cannot put another like structure and do the same thing.
L:~2FILES~02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN031102.doc 13
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
· Kansier said once something is destroyed, it automatically kicks in the requirement.
The City would not allow duplication without going through the process.
Ringstad and Atwood:
· Supported the Conditional Use Permit with staff's conditions.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO STAFF'S
CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on April 1, 2002.
F. Case file #02-03 D.R. Horton is requesting a combined preliminary plat and
final plat to be known as Deerfield 6th Addition. The proposed plat will add 10 feet
of property to the existing Lots 5-8, Block 1, Deerfield 2nd Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 11,2002,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
D. R. Horton, Inc., is requesting a combined preliminary plat and final plat for the
property is located on the south side offish Point Road, west of Deerfield Drive, at
17252, 17254, 17256 and 17258 Deerfield Drive. The proposed plat will add 10' of
property to the existing townhouse lots, described as Lots 5-8, Block 1, Deerfield 2nd,
which will allow the construction ora deck on the townhouse units.
This application is being processed as a combined preliminary plat and final plat under
the provisions of Section 1002.400 of the Subdivision Ordinance. This section allows the
City staff to combine the preliminary and final plat process when a proposed subdivision
meets all of the requirements.
The proposed plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning
Ordinance. The only issue with this plat has been identified by the City Attorney as part
of the review of the title work. The Planning staff recommends approval of this plat
subject to the following condition:
The 6 issues identified by the City Attorney in the letter dated February 26, 2002, must be
addressed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney before the City will sign the final plat
documents.
Comments from the public:
Mike Suel, D.R. Horton Homes, just wanted to clarify the request was for a 5-foot
extension. Horton would like to fulfill their obligations to their buyers by allowing them
to construct decks. Suel explained the miscalculation.
L:\02 FlLES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vlN031102.doc 14
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 2002
Criego:
· Questioned who owned the property Horton was acquiring. Suel responded it was an
outlot owned by the homeowner association. At the present time, the association is
under the control ofD.R. Horton. He also mentioned their attomey is looking at the
proposal.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Questioned staff on meeting the setbacks to the wetlands. Kansier responded they
were met.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Lemke:
· Agreed. Questioned staffifthc property coming out ofthe common space reduced
any requirement. Kansier said it did not.
· No problem with the request.
Ringstad, Atwood and Stamson:
· No problem supporting the request.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF DEERFIELD 6H ADDITION WITH
THE CONDITION OUTLINED IN STAFF'S REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on April 1, 2002.
6. Old Business: None
7. New Business: None
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Come Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:~02FILES~02planning comm~02pcminu te shMN031102.doc 1 5
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM A
PROPERTY LINE FOR KENN & CAROL BOYLES,
Case File #01-079
15358 BREEZY POINT ROAD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
MARCH 25, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 11, 2002, to consider
a variance application from the property owners for the construction of a single
family dwelling with attached garage on the property located at 15358 Breezy
Point Road (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey). After review of the applicant's
request with respect to variance hardship criteria, the Planning Commission
directed staff to draft Resolution 02-01 PC approving the following Variance with
conditions:
1 ) A 14.5-foot vadance to permit a structure setback of 10.5 feet to the rear
property line rather than the minimum required 25-foot setback.
The following conditions shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed single family dwelling:
1. The subject site shall be developed as shown on the attached survey to
ensure additional variances are not required.
2. The permit is subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable County
and State agency regulations.
The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the
Planning Department within 60 days. An Assent Form must be signed
and, pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be
null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed
structure within one year after adoption of this resolution.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prlor Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOY]"cR
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached Resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction
for approval of the requested variances to rear yard setback for construction of a
single family dwelling. The staff recommends adoption of Resolution 02-01 PC.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt attached Resolution # 02-01PC approving the variance with three
conditions that the Planning Commission deemed appropriate under the
circumstances.
2, Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-02PC approving the 14.5-foot
variance to permit a 10.5-foot rear yard setback with three conditions.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-079\PCreport3.doc Page 2
RESOLUTION 02-01PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REQUIRED 25' REAR YARD
SETBACK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. Kenneth & Carol Boyles, have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a single family home to be constructed on property zoned R1SD (Low Density
Residential Shoreland District), located at 15358 Breezy Poim Road, and legally
described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Red Oaks Second Addition, Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case #01-079 and held hearings thereon on February 25, 2002 and March 11, 2002.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Granting the variance as proposed would not be in conflict with the intention of the
Zoning Ordinance, which establishes the minimum rear yard setbacks for health,
safety and aesthetic purposes.
Reasonable use of the property does not exist for the property owner without the rear
setback variance as there is not a conforming building envelope on the subject lot,
which would allow the consmaction of a single family dwelling without the need for
variances.
6. There is justifiable hardship in this case as reasonable use of the property does not
exist without the granting of the rear yard setback variance.
7. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property fight of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
1:\01 files\01 variances\01-079~aprres 02-01pc2.doe 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
8. The contents of Planning Case File #01-079 are hereby entered into and made a part
of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following requested variance as depicted on Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey:
1. A 14.5' variance to permit the structure to be setback 10.5' from the rear lot line
rather than the minimum required setback of 25 feet.
The following conditions shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for
the proposed single family dwelling:
1. The subject site shall be developed as shown on the attached survey to ensure
additional variances are not required.
2. The permit is subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable County and State
agency regulations.
The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant to
Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null and void if the
necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within one year after
adoption of this resolution.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 25, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 fil es\01 variances\01-079~aprres 02-01 pc2. doc 2
/ / / \
/ / \
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO A STRUCTURE
SETBACK FROM TOP OF BLUFF, FOR MATT
ELLMAN & KAREN OPOIEN, Case File #02-027
14909 MANITOU ROAD NE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
MARCH 25, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Matt Ellman &.
Karen Opoien (applicant/owner) for the construction of a reom addition to an
existing single family dwelling on the property located at 14909 Manitou Road.
The principal structure is a legal non-conforming dwelling because the existing
deck was originally built in the bluff setback area prior to the establishment of
bluff setbacks. The current applicant/owners purchased the subject property in
November 2001, and have not made exterior modifications or improvements to
the property. The applicants had submitted a building permit application for the
addition, and staff determined a bluff setback variance is required (Attachment 1
Survey).
The applicants request the following variance:
1) A 5.24-foot variance to permit a reom addition structure to be
setback 19.76-feet from the top of bluff rather than the required
minimum 25-foot setback (Ordinance Section 1104.304: Bluff
Setbacks).
DISCUSSION:
Lot 10, Block 1, Kopps Bay Second Addition, was platted in 1960. The subject
property is located within the Low Density Residential, and Shoreland Districts
(R-l, SD). The lot is ripadan bluff. The top of bluff follows the 960-foot elevation
contour that runs through the existing deck attached to the principal structure.
The platted dimensions of the lot are 100' front by 266.88' N side by 100'
lakeside/rear by 280.25 for a total lot area of 27,513 square feet to the shoreline.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPF~ORTUN[TY EMPLOYER
The lot area above the 904 foot ordinary high water elevation is 27,151 square
feet (Attachment 2 - Copy of Plat).
According to City records, the existing house was constructed in 1964, the boat
house in 1973, the deck in 1984, and the garage addition in 1992, all prior to
adoption of the bluff setback ordinance in 1995. The original deck permit does
not include a survey or site plan, only the dimensions of 16' x 12', 10' x 6', and 9'
x 5' for a multi-level deck.
As determined on the survey, the top of bluff is the 960' elevation contour and it
runs diagonally through a portion of the existing deck and proposed room
addition. The deepest point of the bluff setback encroachment is depicted as
3.91' to the existing deck and proposed exterior wall of the room addition.
However, the proposed addition has an eave/overhang of 1.33' (16") beyond the
exterior wall. The zoning ordinance requires all structure setbacks to the top of
bluff and OHWM be measured to the nearest point of the structure. As the
exterior wall of the room addition is located 3.91 feet beyond the minimum 25'
bluff setback, the variance required is 5.24-feet (3.91'+ 1.33').
The proposed room addition has approximate dimensions of 22' deep x 26' wide,
with 8' x 26' extending beyond the existing principal structure. The plans include
an upper level with a master bedroom and master bath, and a lower level family
room. In addition, the building plans depict a new deck that matches the
extension of the addition, but does meet the minimum setbacks (Attachment 3 -
Addition Plans).
The new room addition is larger and the roof gable projects beyond the existing
deck, and is defined as an expansion of the non-conforming structure. In
addition, the conversion of the deck area to a porch addition is defined as an
intensification of the non-conforming structure. Any additions or alterations to the
nonconforming structure require compliance with the current ordinance
regulations or approval of the requested variance by the Board of Adjustment.
The expansion of 8' x 26' (208 sq. ft.) room addition is considered to be an
intensification and expansion of the nonconforming structure (Ord. Sec.
1107.2303 (2) Nonconforming Structures: a. Permitted Construction).
The proposed plans include a total impervious surface area of 7,947 square feet
for a 29.2% hard surface coverage area, and is less than the maximum 30%
allowed by Ordinance Section 1104.306. In addition, the applicants are
proposing to remove the concrete dog run along the N lot line and landscape this
area (Attachment 4 - Impervious Surface Calculations).
The applicant's submitted a narrative describing their reasons for this variance
request (Attachment 5 - Applicant Narrative).
L:\02FI LES\02variances\02-027WarRpt02~027.doc
Page 2
The City Engineering Department reviewed this variance request and stated in
essence, approval of the requested variances is contrary to the goal of the
Comprehensive Lake Management Plan, which is to "minimize the transport of
nutrients, sediment and runoff from city streets and/ands which impact the Prior
Lake watershed, and promotes lake creep, the encroachment of buildings and
impervious areas towards the lakeshore".
The Department of Natural Resources has submitted comments on this request.
The DNR did not visually inspect the site but does not believe the proposed
addition jeopardiZes the integrity of the bluff. The City ordinance permits a 25'
bluff setback which is 5' less than the 30' setback required in minimum state
wide standards. The DNR has approved the City's slight relaxation of the
minimum setback standard. If approved, good erosion control measures will
need to be implemented and maintained throughout construction.
Finally, an independent engineers report, provided by the applicant, will be
required prior to issuance of a building permit. The report must address the
impact any excavation, fill or placement of structures will have on the site. The
report also include recommendations so the site development will not interfere
with adequate drainage for the site or adjacent properties. In addition, the owner
provide certification from a professional engineer that the final grading of the site
was completed in compliance with an approved grading plan, and that all
conditions of the engineers report have been adhered to (Ord. Section 1104.305:
Engineers Report Required).
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
By reason of exceptional topography and the existing structure's location near
a bluff impact zone an argument for hardship is possible regarding
replacement of an existing room or deck condition. However, the conversion
of a deck into an expanded room addition is an obvious expansion and
intensification of the nonconforming structure. Therefore, staff feels the
variance requested for a bluff setback encroachment for the room addition
does not meet this hardship standard.
L:\02FILES\02vafiances\02-027~VarRpt02-027.doc Page 3
Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
The bluff is a unique condition of the property and neighborhood, but is not
exclusive to this neighborhood or the subject lot.
The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The granting of the bluff setback variance can be eliminated by maintaining
the existing conditions of the principal structure and attached deck rather
than adding a room addition.
The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The granting of the bluff setback variances for the room addition should not
impair adequate light and air to adjacent properties nor endanger the public
safety.
The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the variance does not appear to unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood.
The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the bluff and OHWM setback variances for a new porch
addition is contrary to the intent of the City Ordinance and Comprehensive
Plan because the intent is to eliminate the construction of structures in bluff
setback zones, and by promoting "lake creep".
The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
L:\02FiLES\02vada nces\02-027~Var Rpt02-027.doc
Page 4
The requested setback variances are not necessary as proposed, because
the existing deck structure has less of an impact on the bluff than a room
addition.
=
The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of
the owners of the property.
The requested bluff setback encroachment variance is a result of the property
owner actions; and could be eliminated by use of the existing structure.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone are not grounds for the granting of this
variance request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff feels that all nine hardship criteria have not been met with respect to the
requested variance to the bluff setback for construction of a room addition. The
staff therefore recommends denial of the requested variance as proposed by the
applicant.
The staff could recommend approval of a lesser variance, which would allow an
addition that does not go beyond the existing deck encroachment.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
denying the variance requests.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative #3.
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-029PC denying the bluff and
OHWM setback variances as proposed by the applicant.
L:\02FILES\02vadances',02-027~VarRpt02-027.doc Page 5
RESOLUTION 02-04PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 5.24 FOOT VAR.lANCE TO PERMIT A
STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 19.76 FEET FROM A BLUFF RATHER THAN
THE REQUIRED 25 FEET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Matthew R. Ellman & Karen Opoien have applied for a variance from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a room addition to an existing
principal structure on property located in the Low Density Residential (R1) and
Shoreland Districts (SD) at the following location, to wit;
14909 Manitou Road NE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot
10, Block 1, Kopp's Bay Second Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #02-027PC and held hearings thereon on March 25, 2002.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Because of conditions on the subject property, a legal alternative site exists with a
reduced size room addition, and the proposed structures location with regards to the
surrounding property, the proposed variance will result in the impairment of an
adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase
congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public
safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other
respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed room addition increases the existing structure encroachment into the
bluff setback. The applicant has control over the location and size of the room
addition, as such, the hardship has been created by the applicant.
l:\02files\02variances\02-027\dnyrs02-027.doc
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Pr. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNDh~ EMPLOYER
While there is an existing structure on the lot, there is no justifiable hardship caused,
and that reasonable use of the property .exists without the granting of the variance.
There is a legal alternative location and reduced plan design for construction of the
room addition without the variances.
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative addition
with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case #02-027PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variance for an accessory structure as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of
Survey):
1. A 5.24-foot Variance to permit a room addition attached to a principal structure to be
setback 19.76-feet from a bluff rather than the required minimum 25 feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 25, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R: Rye, Planning Director
l:\02files\02variances\02-027~tnyrs02-027.doc 2
, [CHMENT I
\\
\ \
\N
I
I
I x
I
'-I I
I
I
HOUSE
" C)O
IIII I
I I I ~
/ I I ,
/ I
iI
NO. 68B ~1i~7.
LotA~t ~ .'$q. Fz~t z 30% ~' .............. ~:1'~
ATTACHMENT 5 - APPLICANT NARRATIVE
Application for Variance to the Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
Submitted by Matt EIIman and Karen Opoien
For the Property Located at 14909 Manitou Rd. NE, Prior Lake, MN
We are requesting a variance to the zoning ordinance of Prior Lake to make an
addition to our home which will be 8' x 26' when finished, as shown by the plans
submitted to the city. This addition is to provide more bedroom space, as well as
to upgrade the master bath, providing us with a bathtub, which the current
bathroom lacks. This addition, for the most part consists of enclosing an existing
deck. We will also be removing an existing dog run and chain link fence, and
landscaping the area where it now stands.
We feel that this addition is necessary, both to accommodate the needs of our
family of five, as well as to bring the property to standards for homes of this size
and price range. The current master bedroom and bath are not of the same
proportion or quality of other homes in our area.
Before we made an offer to purchase this property, we researched the feasibility
of this project:
- Retained services of an architect to provide structural and design input
- Obtained estimates from contractors
- Spoke with the previous owners, who did not indicate knowledge of
problems related to completion of the planned improvements. They had
added this deck to the home several years ago, and encountered no
objections from the city of Prior Lake at that time.
We concluded that enclosing the existing structure wes possible, so we
proceeded to purchase the home.
We were not aware that there would be any issue with the bluff setback until after
our building contractor submitted a request for a building permit, and he was
informed that we needed to obtain a complete survey of the property, which
would determine the bluff line. The surVeyor's first report indicated that we were
within the 25' requirement, but Steve Horstmann contacted him directly and
asked for some alterations to his report. This second report shows that the deck
we wish to enclose is a non-conforming existing structure.
My architect and I then met with Steve to discuss our options that would result in
us complying with the code. Steve provided us with the following options, which
we researched:
- We could cut our original addition plan to half the size, which would still
cost us the same
- We could change the shape of the addition, eliminating the comer that
encroaches on the setback, which would cost us considerably more, and
would result in peculiarly shaped rooms and an undesirable extedor
appearance
- We could make the addition to the other end of the house, which is not
practical, as the master bedroom would not be adjacent to the master
bathroom.
We have discussed our plans with our neighbors on Manitou Road, and have
found no objections. Included is a petition signed by all the neighbors that we
could reach pdor to submission of this request. The only neighbors who can
visually see this part of the house are located to the north (the Millers), and they
fully support us in this endeavor. I have included photographs which show the
view from their house and yard. These photos reveal that a large tree obscures
their view of the existing deck, and therefore, also the planned enclosure. Also,
please note that the fenced dog run that they can see will be removed and
replaced with landscaping.
We respectfully request that you consider our application for vadance in this
situation, so we may proceed with our improvements to the property.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5B
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A
SENIOR CARE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF THE PARK
NICOLLET CLINIC
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
MARCH 25, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Keystone Communities and Park Nicollet HealthSysterns have filed an application to
develop the property located south of TH 13, west of Franklin Trail, and directly south of
the Park Nicollet clinic. The request is for approval of a Senior Care Overlay District for
the development of a 107-unit senior care facility.
Keystone Communities is the developer of the senior care project. Park Nicollet
HealthSystems, the current property owner, will develop the remaining commercial lots.
The proposed senior care overlay district includes Lot 2, Block 2, as shown on the
preliminary plat for Park Nicollet Addition.
HISTORY:
In May, 2001, the Planning Commission considered a senior care overlay district for this
site, which consisted of a 60-unit assisted living facility. The City Council approved the
Crystal Care Senior Care Overlay District on June 4, 2001. The approved plan called for
a 60-unit assisted living facility in a 3-story building, consisting of 52,517 square feet of
floor area. On July 2, 2001, the City Council approved an amendment to the district. The
amendment reversed the building footprint so that the 3-story wing of the building was
located on the south side of the site.
On June 4, 2001, the City Council also approved the preliminary plat for Park Nicollet
Addition. Although an application has been filed, the final plat and development contract
for this property have not been approved at this time. The staff expects to bring the final
plat to the City Council in May, 2002.
1:\02files~O2cupLkcystone~pc report.doc Page 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPFORT~NITY EMPLOYER
Crystal Care has since become Keystone Communities. The applicant has revised the
original plans to enlarge the building and increase the number of units. The types of units
in the building have also changed. Because the proposal is a substantial change from the
original plan, a new application is required.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Zoning: This property is zoned C-4 (General Business).
Adjacent Land Use~ Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation: To the north of
this property is a gas station and a car sales lot, zoned C-4, and designated for
Community Retail Shopping uses. Also to the north is the former site of T.J. Towing,
now vacant land, zoned C-4 and planned for commercial uses. To the west of this
property is the Hollywood Bar and Restaurant, zoned C-4 and planned for Community
Retail Shopping uses. To the east is high density residential housing, zoned R-4 and
planned for High Density Residential uses.
Access: Currently, this property is accessed from Franklin Trail. However, upon final
approval of the plat, the property will be accessed from the ring road.
SENIOR CARE OVERLAY DISTRICT
The applicants are requesting approval of a Senior Care Overlay district under the
provisions of Section 1106A of the Zoning Ordinance. These uses are permitted in the C-
4 district. The attached narrative describes this proposal in some detail.
Density: The plan proposes 107 units on a total of 3.58 acres. The maximum density
permitted for this use is 30 units per acre. The overall density proposed in this plan is
29.89 units per acre. Included within the building are 60, independent senior apartments,
27 assisted living units and 20 memory care units.
Building S .tyle: The proposed plan calls for 3-story building, consisting of 141,630
square feet of floor area. The north wing of the building, which is devoted to assisted
living and memory care units, is a 2-story structure. The design proposes exterior
materials consisting of brick and vinyl lap siding.
Setbacks: Required setbacks in the C-4 district are as follows:
Front 50'
Side 20'
Rear 30'
The proposal meets the minimum setback requirements of the C-4 district.
Height: The proposed building height does not exceed 35 feet.
1:\02files\02cup\keystone\pc report.doc
Page 2
Architectural Materials: The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 60% of the
exterior of a building consist of Class I materials, suer as glass, brick or stucco. The
exterior materials proposed in this case consist of brick and vinyl siding. The Class I
materials on the building (brick and glass) constitute less than 60% of the face of the
building.
Parking: Parking for elderly housing is required at a rate of 0.5 spaces per unit. This
development requires a minimum of 54 parking spaces. The proposal provides 40 surface
spaces and 65 spaces within the underground garage.
Landscaping: Section 1107.1900 lists the landscaping requirements for this
development. Perimeter landscaping for this development is required at a rate of 1 tree
per unit or 1 tree per 40' feet of perimeter, whichever is greater. In this ease, a minimum
of 107 trees must be provided. The landscaping plan submitted by the developer does not
meet the minimum requirements. A total of 58 trees are shown on the landscaping plan.
Twenty-eight of the trees are ornamental trees (1 aA"). The Zoning Ord'mance allows the
substitution of ornamental trees for full-size trees at a ratio of 2 ornamental trees for 1
canopy tree. Based on this formula, the number of trees proposed on the site is 44 trees.
The plan also does not indicate whether an irrigation system will be provided. A
registered landscape architect must also sign the plan.
Tree Replacement: The applicant has submitted an inventory identifying 362 caliper
inches of significant trees on the site. Based on the grading plan, the proposal removes
64% for grading purposes. The Zoning Ordinance allows removal of 25% of the
significant caliper inches. Any removal above the 25% must be replaced at a rate of ½"
caliper inch per 1 inch removed. In this ease, 70.75 caliper inches, or 29 trees (2.5 caliper
inches each) must be replaced. The landscaping plan does not identify any replacement
trees.
Signs: This site plan includes one f~eestanding monument sign, located at the south
entrance to the site. This sign is consistent with the sign requirements of the Zoning
Ord'mance.
Lighting: The plan identifies parking lot lighting on the northwest side of the building.
The lighting plan submitted indicates the lighting will not exceed 0.5 footcandles at the
property line. The plan does not indicate whether any lighting fixtures will be located on
the southeast side of the building. If lighting fixtures are proposed, a luminaire plan must
be submitted to ensure that the lighting will not exceed 0.5 footcandles at the property
line. This is especially critical, since the southeast side of the building is adjacent to
residential uses.
Proximity. to Support Facilities: The Zoning Ordinance requires that an applicant for a
Senior Care Overlay District demonstrate that the proposed site is readily accessible to
health care facilities, retail shopping, religious institutions, public transportation or other
supporting facilities. In this case, the proposed site is accessible to both the Park Nicollet
clinic and Fairview clinic.
I:X02files~02cup~keystone\pc report.doc Page 3
Modifications/Incentives: The Zoning Ordinance also allows the City Council to
consider certain incentives for Senior Care Overlay Districts, including, among other
things, increases in building height, decreased setbacks, increases in floor area ratios,
modification of landscaping requirements, relaxation of controls in architectural materials
and fee waivers. The City Council has the sole discretion to determine which incentives
shall be granted. In this case, the applicant has requested the Council provide some
financial assistance to facilitate this project. The City Council has agreed to consider an
application for economic development incentives. The staff has identified two
modifications to ordinance requirements. These are the relaxation of the controls on
architectural materials and the modification of landscaping requirements.
Restrictive Covenants: The Zoning Ordinance also requires the applicant to record
restrictive covenants on the property stating the type and care to be provided and limiting
occupancy to the facility to no more than 20% of residents under the age of 55. The
applicant has not submitted a draft of these covenants at this time.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed Senior Care Overlay District complies with most of the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance. The proposed modifications are within the scope of approval of the
City Council. The Planning Commission should comment on whether these
modifications are appropriate.
Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends approval of the proposed Senior Care
Overlay District subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer must submit restrictive covenants for this use for review and approval
by the City Attorney.
2. A registered landscape architect must sign the landscape plan.
3. The developer must submit an irrigation plan for the site.
4. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council.
5. Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final
plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the final
approval information. One set will be maintained as the official Senior Care Overlay
District record. The second set will be returned to the developer for their files.
This
6. The developer must enter into a development agreement with the City.
agreement will outline the specific requirements for this overlay district.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
Senior Care Overlay District.
1:\02filcs\02c up'keystone\pc report.doc
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Senior Care Overlay District as proposed or subject to
conditions noted by the Commission.
2. Recommend denial of the request on the basis the proposal is not consistent with the
provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the
issues that have been discussed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
· A motion and second recommending approval of the Senior Care Overlay District for
an senior facility to be known as Keystone Communities.
EXItlBITS:
1. Reduced Copy of Senior Care Overlay Dislriet Plans
2. Developer's Narrative
3. Engineering Comments
4. Building Department Comments
5. Watershed District Comments
hkO2files\O2cup~kcystonc\p¢ rcpo~doc Page
I,~ ~[l![, ,:, u:l,l,i: II, ,:,. ~,]~ :ti' ~i: ![,, ~]li~ i[ ['~ !I ill,~,' :"
~' I ' "I ,l I1 .... il '1' :'
l,l 111 ' Ill
,: Ih l: Ill ~l,l:,, :, ?, i!ll ,l i: l[lll tala ill ~lil :: a:]::: m
z
Description of Proposed Project
Keystone Community of Prior Lake
The project will improve approximately 3.5 acres located on the planned
Ring Road south of Franklin Trail in Prior Lake (Lot 2, Block 2, Park Nicollet
Addition). The site is opposite the Park Nicollet Medical Clinic.
The building will contain three stories and approximately 111,930 gross
square feet, plus an underground garage of approximately 29,700 square feet.
There will be a total of 65 underground garage spaces, including a car wash bay
and a workshop room.
The project is 107 residential rental units restricted to seniors 55 years old
or better.
The independent-living section is comprised of 33 two-bedroom units and
27 one-bedroom units. The size of the units ranges from 721 square feet to
1,115 square feet.
The assisted living section is comprised of 26 one-bedroom units (ranging
from 721 - 726 square feet) and one 2-bedroom unit of 894 square feet.
The 20-unit memory care wing will have a separate, secured entrance and
screened porch.
The building structure and roof will be wood frame over a concrete block
garage with a pre-cast concrete floor at the first living level. The building will
consist of a three-story section (south wing) and a two-story section (north wing).
The building will be heated with a central hot water baseboard radiant heat
system and cooled by individual wall air conditioners. The common areas will be
air conditioned with a central forced air system. The building's exterior will have
a substantial amount of brick on the front with the building base consisting of rock
face block and the non-brick areas consisting of vinyl siding.
All apartment units will be equipped with microwaves, dishwashers and
air-conditioning units. The memory care units will be cooled on a central system
and will not have kitchens. The bedrooms and bathrooms of assisted living and
memory care units will have an emergency response system, which will be
monitored 24 hours a day.
Keystone Community of Prior Lake (Project Description - page 2)
The building will have a variety of common areas including a community
room with a fireplace, a multipurpose room, a heritage room, a beauty/barber
shop, a craft room, a pub/sports room, a billiards room, a convenience store, a
whirlpool room, and lounges on each floor. The memory care area will consist of
a physical therapy/activity space, dining room/ice cream parlor, a front porch, and
living room/parlor.
The larger apartment units are intended for independent senior living.
There will, however, be a multipurpose room designed to permit congregate
dining services. Services that will be provided free of charge include an activities
program, a fitness program, transportation to outings and shopping, and a
pastoral care program.
Services included in the assisted living units include three meals per day,
weekly housekeeping and linen service, transportation, daily life enrichment
programs, 24-hour emergency response, and a varying degree of wellness care
and personal care services.
The memory care units will allow for an individual to maintain their dignity
while being surrounded by programming specifically suited for their individual
memory loss. Staff will support each person with a commitment to quality care
with compassion. The facility will carry the Housing with Services License and
will be regularly reviewed and audited by the Minnesota Department of Health.
2. Checklist Item #11: Satisfying the Senior Overlay Criteria
The Project is a complementary use for the neighborhood and meets the criteria
for the Senior Overlay District. The Project is adjacent to the Park Nicollet
Medical Clinic. The Project's front elevation squares up to the front elevation of
the Park Nicollet Clinic. Residents of the Senior Community will be able to use
the medical, dental and therapy services offered at Park Nicollet. The two uses
are ideally compatible and together form a senior living campus that should
quickly become a community asset.
An independent market study demonstrates a need for assisted living in the
immediate community as, well as the larger, outlying market. The Project
provides options to seniors and their families and serves as a continuum with
other senior housing that exists or that is currently proposed for Prior Lake. This
Project offers seniors a flexible range of housing and service options. Residents
are given the opportunity to participate in a community dedicated to dignified
living, attractive and functional environments, healthy meals, attentive care and
a variety of scheduled and independent activities.
The Project is readily accessible to health care facilities, not only Park Nicollet
but also the Fairview Clinic, which is located less than a mile away on Highway
13. The Project is less than one-half mile to downtown retail and services. The
library, city hall 'and religious institutions are convenient to the site. The Project
van is available for both scheduled activities and individual resident requests.
Overall, the Project serves as a good transitional use between the multi- and
single-family residences to the south and east and the more commercial uses
oriented to Highway 13. The Senior Community generates far less vehicular
traffic than general occhpancy apartments. Moreover, the building provides
underground parking, resulting in more green space. The Project has a relatively
Iow impact relative to city services such as schools and roads. This Community
will play a significant role in the Ring Road development, the improvement of the
neighborhood and the continued growth of the City to meet the evolving needs of
residents.
& Associ~te~, Inc.
Sue McDermott, P.E., City Engineer
City of Prior Lake
Andi Moffatt, Biologist
FVSB & A[ssociates, Inc.
Date: March 15, 2002
Keystone Plan Review
WSB Project No. 1430-06
Mere orandum
As requested, we have completed our review of the Keystone Development Plan dated
February 28, 2002/md Storm Calculations prepared by Sunde Engineering dated March 4,
2002. Based on our review, we offer the following comments:
General Comments:
1. Grading on the south side is close to the property line and may require a temporary
easement. :
2. Reference should be made to MnDOT 2000 Edition Standard Specifications
Sanitary Sewer Comments:
1. Cleanout between the building and parking lot should be a Manhole with 8" service
to building.
2. The plans should be revised to show the City's requirement of 0.10 ft drop in
manholes.
Watermain Comments:
1. The plans should note "plug end" instead of"retain end" of service stub.
2. Callout 8" bends (i.e. 11.25 22.5, 45).
3. The plans should note to offset watermain where 8" water service crosses 24" storm
sewer at south end of project.
4. The plans should note to end the watermain 10 feet beyond property line on the west
end. The hydrant must be moved off of curb to the north at property line.
5. The existing hydrant should be extended on north end to right of way.
March 15, 2002
Page 2 of $
Street Design Comments:
1. Pavement section should be revised to include:
2" 2350 Type MV4 Wearing Course MVWE45035B
3" 2350 Type MV3 Non-Wearing Course MVNW35035B
2. Street section should show two 14-foot thru lanes with a 14-foot center left turn lane.
3. Street striping should be indicated to match King Road project to the west.
4. A signing plan should be submitted for review.
5. Horizontal curve data should be noted on plans.
6. Taper curb to match Park Nieollet driveway and drainage should be maintained
across the driveway.
7. Construct radius to match into County Road 39.
Stormwater and Water Resource Comments:
· 1. The manhole sizes on the profile and castings information should be provided. The
castings information should be provided as outlined in the City's Design Manual.
2. The plans should r~ote '~tie last 3 joints" at 21" RC Apron to pond.
3. Match eight tenths poirits between pipe sizes for storm profile from MH 17 to MH 15
andMH 13 to NIH 14.:
4. The emergency overflow mute, NWL and HWL for 10 year and 100 year storm
event should be noted on the plans.
5. The plans should note "Construct manhole over existing 12"RCP" for MH 12 and
6. The building opening in the southeast comer of the building shows at opening at
elevation 971.0. This opening must be 1 foot above the emergency overflow.
The infiltration volume is underestimated. The runoff coefficient cannot be used in
this equation because the volume is based on V2 inch of runoff, nit the runoff from ½
inch of rain.
8. The impervious surface of the roof was not included in the infiltration basin runoff
calculations.
9. The outlet of the infiltration basin is too low to provide adequate storage for tlqe
infiltration volume. It should be adjusted to store the ½ inch of runoff.
March 15, 2002
Page 3 of 3
10. The developer should provide 100-year pond routing calculations based on the new
infiltration basin configuration.
11. We have not been able to check if the downstream temporary system can
accommodate this development. Please forward this information to WSB if the City
would like us to check this system.
This concludes our review of the Keystone Plans. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please feel free to call me at (763)287-7196.
c. Dave Hutton, WSB
Memorandum
DATE: March 20, 2002
TO: Jane Kansier, Planner
FROM: Robert D. Hutchins, Building Official
RE: Site plan review for Keystone
Following are the results of the preliminary Site plan review for the Keystone building.
Our review was based on the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) which adopted
with amendments the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) with handicap regulations of
the Minnesota Accessibility Code Chapter 1341. Also requirements of the 1998
Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) which adopted with amendments the 1997 Uniform
Fire Code (UFC).
1. Complete a Building Code analysis. UBC Chapter 5. Include the following:
a. Location on Property.
b. Allowable Floor Area. Each building separated by area separation walls. Note: a
NFPA 13 system is required for fire department concems.
c. Height and Number of stories.
d. Exiting.
2. Structural engineer to design retaining walls over 4'-0' in height.
3. If provided, indicate means of lawn irrigation: May use separate service and metering
for billing purposes.
4. Provide egress for Fire Department vehicles in Parking lot. The proposed Parking lot
wilt not provide for 45' turning radius required for Fire Department vehicles.
5. Siamese connection and enunciator panels to be located by front entrance.
6. Provide fire lanes for fire apparatus response. Signage to read:" No Parking Fire Lane
by order of Fire Department". Indicate on Site plan. Locate by Fire Hydrant and front
access curbs. UFC 1001.7.1.
The following are building plan comments:
7. An S.A.C. determination must be completed by the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission. Contact Jody Edwards at 651.602.1113.34.
L:\02FILES\02 cupkkeystone\bldg comments.DOC
25. Provide fire extinguishers minimum 2AIOBC rated, within 75 feet travel distance of
all areas. UFC 1002.
26. Provide 96" clearance height in underground parking for Fire Departments fast
response apparatus.
27. Party Rooms: post occupant load sign. UBC 1007.2.6.
28. Ventilation for the building must meet UBC chapter 12. Provide 15 CFM of
ventilation per occupant in the corridor and 3/4 CFM per square foot of floor area in
the Parking Garage.
29. Automatic garage door to comply with State of Minnesota Statutes, MSBC
1300.5900.
30. The floor and any supporting members of the floor, at the 3rd floor center rated stair
shaft: must be constructed with the same fire-resistive rating as the shaft walls. UBC
711.2.
31. Stairways that enter the Basement: provide a barrier at the ground floor to prevent
persons from accidentally continuing into the basement. UBC 1005.3.3.4.
32. Basement Mechanical room: provide two exits if the largest piece of flue-fired
equipment exceeds 400,000 Btu per hour input capacity. UBC 1007.7.1.
33. Explain the type of food preparation that occurs in the Kitchen. Kitchen must be
inspected by the Department of Health before occupancy.
This is a preliminary review only on conceptual plans. Other code items will be addressed
when the preliminary plans are submitted. The building plans must be reviewed by the
Cities Developmental Review Committee (DRC) which consists of representatives of
Planning, Engineering, Parks, Finance, and Building Departments. The DRC must
approve the site plans before a building permit can be issued.
9. 2002 4:16PM PL SL WATER SHED No.5251
have reviewed the attached proposed request (Keyatene Cemmunltlea Senior Care
Ovarlav Dlsfl'lct} for the following:
Water City Coda Grading
Sewer Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain Count~ Road Access
Parks Natural Features Lel~al Issues
Assessment Electric Roads/Access
Polic7
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion Control Other
Recommendation: Approval Denial CondltJonal Approval
Signed: ~ Date:
Please return any comments by Monday, March IS, 2002, to
Jane 'Kansier, DRC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (812) 447-9S12
Fax: (612) 447.4245
h~02flle=~02cup~keystoneVeferral,doc ~
Mar,19. 2002 &:]TPM PL SL WATER S~£0 No.5251 P. 3
¢omment~ on Permit Appllcmtien received et PLSLWD 2/25/02
prior Lake Senior Fteumlng 02,07
Comments and questions are as follows, in no particular or, er.
1. Infiltration must include all impervious, Including roof drains.
Consider raising the outlet of the Infil basin to the extent that you can, [o get the needed
Inl~l capacity, (959.24 - cj59 ~ 0.24 feet?)
;3, Consider a ;Zr~ rock construction entranCe unless ali construction related access will be
r~trlcte($ orfly to the orte shown.
4. Show a calculation for the total Infll capacity, Inlcudlng the projected contribution from
the small lot Just west (see below). We estimate the Infll need to be much greater than
shown, particularly since the smaller Ir~fil ponds on the earlier drawing are no longer
Included. (Eat impervious on site to be about ~..3; add in about 0.6 f~om e~ra lot ~>
approx 3..g acres total).
S. We understand the smell portion of the site Just east of the intel pond Is being considered
as a contrlbub3r to the infll pond, [[ so, when constructed at another time, tl~al~ site will
or may reclulre a permit IYom the District but only for erosion control, since the infiltration
and regional stormwater capacity will alreac~y be in place. ;In any event, this permit
process does not cover such fUture etevelopment.
6. Include a completed application form - this is the 'cover sheet" for the application;
attached.
7. Include the $60 application fee.
8. Provide a reservoir routing routine with a hydrograph summation of watersheds I - 6.
(Can't just sum up}.
9. Provide the NWL and the 100-year HWL of the Infiltration pond,
3.0. Suggest sump Just upstream from the Irflet to the Infil pond to Include a vortex separator
(Can be simple! such as is in attached memo fi.om HWH, dated 3/8/02, 4 pages total),
3.]. Shaw safety bench on tnfll pond. Given the smell size, a 5-foot wide bench should be
feasible in the existing area allocated to the pond and would be acceptable to the District
(Appendix A O1' Dl~rict P, ules shows 3.0 feet).
12. Show fioatables control at outlet of Infll pond.
13, This Is in addition to the District's Pax to you dated 3/1/02,
In view el~ the above, the application Is incomplete and inadequate,
See attached rough draffc of the 'review" we will prepare ~or consideration at a meeting of the
WD Board. This includes some of the information used In last year's review. Any comments,
please advise.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5C
CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO STRUCTURE SETBACK TO
THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3894 GREEN HEIGHTS TRAIL
FOR DONALD B. SCHERER, (Case File #02-021 PC)
LOT 1, GREEN HEIGHTS 1sT ADDITION (PARTIAL LEGAL)
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
MARCH 25, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Donald B.
Scherer (applicant/owner) to allow an existing deck to remain on the property
located at 3894 Green Heights Trail. The deck was constructed in the year 2000
without the required building permit. The deck is attached to an existing single-
family dwelling that was constructed in 1946 (Attachment 1 - Certificate of
Survey).
The applicant requests the following variance:
1) A 23-foot variance to allow a structure setback of 52-feet from the ordinary
hi.qh water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the minimum
required setback of 75 feet [Ordinance Section 1104.302 (4) Setback
Requirements].
HISTORY
On or around the week of April 10, 2000, Mr. Scherer asked the City Building
Department about the process for obtaining a building permit for a new deck on
an existing structure. The Building Department explained the procedure
regarding replacement decks and the waiver of survey with a site plan versus the
expansion of the existing deck which requires a new certificate of survey. The
applicant felt a survey was too costly, and he left City Hall without completing a
building permit application.
L:\02FILES~02vafiances\02-021~VarRpt02-021,DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The Planning staff followed up with a phone call to the property owner and
scheduled an appointment to inspect the subject property. On April 17, 2000,
staff visited the applicant's property to verify the existing deck dimensions
(approx. 16' x 8'). Staff explained the options to the applicant, replace the
existing deck, as is, with a site plan, waiver of survey, and permit approval, or (1)
if he intended to build a larger deck or closer to the OHWM, obtain a new
certificate of survey for the permit application. The owner stated he did not
intend to apply for a building permit at this time.
On May 8, 2000, The City received a complaint regarding the construction of a
deck on the subject property. Upon inspection it was noted a new deck was
under construction and measured 16' x 16'. The applicant was notified of the
building and zoning code violations after which he applied for a building permit
on June 8, 2000. Upon review of the application staff determined a certificate of
survey was required for this project and notified the applicant. The applicant
submitted a site plan with the permit but this was deemed as insufficient
submittal material, as the zoning ordinance requires new survey depicting
proposed additions and setbacks to property boundaries and the OHWM, and
the permit was denied.
The applicant was given two written notices regarding denial of the permit as
submitted, and the additional information staff requested. When the applicant
did not respond, he was given a final notice and the case was then forwarded to
the prosecuting attorney for court action. The applicantJowner eventually
submitted a variance application for the deck as a result of a negotiated
settlement with the Joint Scott Prosecutor for the ordinance violation.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 1, Green Heights First Addition (partial legal), was platted in 1957. The
subject lot is riparian and located within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and
the SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts. The lot dimensions are 121.15'-front, by
202'-side by 108.04'-rear by 174.83', for a total lot area of 21,284 square feet
above the OHWM 904' elevation. The lot is considered a legal conforming lot of
record. The applicant does not own either of the properties adjoining the subject
lot.
The applicant is requesting a 23' variance to permit a structure setback of 52'
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Setback averaging does not help
the applicant in this case as the averge setback for the structures on adjoining
properties is 64' [(83' + 45') / 2 -- 64']. The applicant submitted deck plans that
depict 16'x 16' deck dimensions, and attached to the principal structure
[Attachment 2 - Deck Plans].
L:\02FiLES\02variances\02-021WarRpt02-021 .DOC
Page 2
The applicant also submitted an impervious worksheet that describes an
impervious surface coverage area for the subject property is 4,135 square feet of
a total lot area of 21,284 square feet or 19.4% coverage (Attachment 3 -
Impervious Surface Calculations).
The City Engineering Department has submitted comments for this report. In
essence, the vadance request would encourage the following: 1) Promote "lake
creep", the encroachment of buildings and impervious areas toward the
lakeshore.
The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this request. In
essence, the DNR's concerns include the hardship for a 16' deep deck versus a
12', and a wider deck such as 20' to accommodate more area and less of a
setback encroachment. If the Planning Commission approves a variance, the
DNR suggested a condition be the removal of the existing shed located near the
lake. In addition, the DNR is not supportive of issuing an after-the-fact variance
for the deck setback.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason Of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of
this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional
or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot
in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which
said lot is located.
The subject lot does not meet the variance hardship standards for narrowness,
shallowness, or shape, and is not exceptional with regards to topography or water
conditions. Therefore, staff has determined the request does not meet this hardship
criteria.
Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
The existing Conditions of the lot area and dimensions are not peculiar to the
property, and generally do apply to most other lots within the Shoraland District.
When all required setbacks are applied, there was a buildable area for a
replacement deck on this lot.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-02 l~VarRpt02-021.DOC Page 3
The approved legal site precluded the need for the variance request. The hardship
has been created by the owner when the decision was made to build a deck of these
dimensions and at this location.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the requested variance will not impair light and air to adjacent
properties or increase congestion, danger of fire or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character
and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair
established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way
impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by
increasing structure encroachments upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the
adjacent properties.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variance is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance or the
Comprehensive Plan by allowing increased encroachments of the shoreland setback
regulations, contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance for structure setbacks from
the OHWM, and setback averaging.
The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
The granting of the variance request appears to serve as a convenience to the
applicant. The applicant/owner constructed the deck with full knowledge of the
building permit and zoning ordinance requirements prior to constructing the
structure.
The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance
to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property.
The hardship results from the actions of the property owner when he constructed the
deck in the year 2000. A legal alternative building site existed that allowed for
replacement of the existing deck without the need for a variance.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-021WarRpt02-021 .DOC Page 4
Financial considerations alone shall not be grounds for granting this variance
request. The property owner stated that the expense of a survey was a mason for
not applying for a building permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff has concluded that all of the required variance hardship criteria have
not been met, and the variance hardship was created by the owner when the
deck structure was constructed in violation of the zoning ordinance and without
an approved building permit. Staff therefore recommends denial of the variance
request.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve all the variances requested by the applicant. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
approving the Variance requests.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends alternative #3.
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-003PC, denying a 23' foot
variance to permit a 52' structure setback, rather than the required
minimum 75' setback to the OHWM.
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-021\VarRpt02-021.DOC Page 5
RESOLUTION 02-003PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 23 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Donald B. & Betty Jean Scherer (applicant/owners) have applied for a variance from
the Zoning Ordinance in order to obtain a permit for a deck built without a permit
attached to a single family dwelling on property located in the R-1 (Low Density
Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following
location, to wit;
3894 Green Heights Trail NE, legally described as Lot 1, Green Heights First
Addition, Scott County Minnesota. Together with that part of Government Lot
I, Section 3, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as
follows:
Lot 1, Green Heights First Addition, Scott County, Minnesota. Together with
that part of Government Lot 1, Section 3, Township 114, Range 22, Scott
County, Minnesota, described as follows: Starting at a point which is North
57 degrees 14 minutes East distant 165.00 feet from the northeast comer of
"Green Heights", in said Government Lot 1; and continuing thence North 57
degrees 14 minutes East 78.1 feet; thence South 27 degrees 40 minutes East
182.4 feet; thence South 62 degrees 5 minutes West 79.3 feet; thence North 27
degrees 15 minutes West 177.0 feet to the place of beginning and all land
lying north of the north line of the above described tract to the shore of Prior
Lake.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #02-021PC and held heatings thereon on March 25, 2002.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
l:\02files\02variances\02-021\dnyres02-003.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN gQUAL OPPORTUNITY gMF'LOYgR
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
A legal building envelope exists that allows for a replacement deck that meets the
required setback for the structure on the subject lot. The hardship has been created by
the applicant when the deck was built without the necessary permits. Reasonable use
of the property exists without the requested variances.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required lakeshore setback as
reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property fight of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative deck.
structure to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Plarming Case 02-021PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variance request for an attached deck to an existing single family dwelling, as
shown in Attachment 1 Survey;
1. A 23-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 52-feet from the ordinary high
water mark of 904 feet, rather than the required 75-foot structure setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 25, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\02files\02varianees\02-021 ~dnyres02-003.doc 2
o?-
ATTACHMENT 1-
SURVEY
:/~TACHMENT~
N
.ANS
!
CITY OF P~OR L~
Impervious Surface Calculations
~' (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) ~
For ~1 Properties Located'~ ~e Shorel~d Dis~.(~ .
M~mum ~pe~ious Surface Coverage Pe~ned in 30 Percent.
LotMea~t~.~q" '&~oo, ~.qoq'OSq. Feet x 30%--.. .......... ..
HOUSE
ATTACI'~D G~A2KAGE
-LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
q x-s-._
Z_o x v_.-/ .. = qqC~'
TOTAL PmNCI?LE STRUCTUr~ ......................
DETACHED BLDGS
1o x I'2-
X
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ....................... [20
~ iv.__~,~ww ~ yf..p:a v..e c!..gr not)
(Sidewalk/Parking Area~)
~roTA~ PavED Am~^s ......................................... I'~ ttq
PAIZO S/PORCHES/ID ECKS ~ g,~6.
(Open Decl~ ¼" min. opening berw~n
ate not considered to be impervious)
OTHER
X
TOTAL DECKS ........................................................
X ----
X ~
TOTAL OTHEIL ......................................................
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
I -7_z.~ O
ITl
I
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
7A
CONSIDER 2003-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO-N/A
MARCH 25, 2002
INTRODUCTION: Minnesota Statutes provides that all proposed capital improvements
be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Attached is a draft of the proposed 2003-2007 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
DISCUSSION: The summary describes the CIP process, and the funding sources
available to the City and expected to be used in paying for the individual projects.
New to the CIP for 2003 are two projects that have been moved up from previous years.
A new mnnieipal well has been rescheduled from 2004 to 2003, and the acquisition of a
park site in the Northwood Road area has been moved up from 2005. Also new for 2003
are improvements to the intersection of TH 13 and CSAH 23/Five Hawks Avenue:
A significant change to the program activities for 2004 is the construction of a city
hall/public safety facility.
As in previous year's, the CIP continues to plan ongoing improvements to the City's
parks and street paving and reconstruction projects. Projects maintaining the City's
sewer and water infrastructure are also scheduled throughout the five-year scope of the
plan.
The Planning Commission's function is to review the proposed projects, determine
whether they make sense from the perspective of the Comprehensive Plan and make
specific recommendations about specific projects in the CIP or about projects not in the
current CIP which the Commission feels would better achieve Comprehensive Plan goals.
The Commission does not need to feel constrained to restrict its consideration only to
those projects contained in the proposed CIP.
Any recommendation for changes to the CIP should indicate which particular goal or
policy in the Comprehensive Plan is being advanced by the recommended project. The
thing to keep in mind is that all projects are competing for a limited amount of money and
l:\admin\cip~2003-2007 cip.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ~PLO¥~,
the CIP is limited to those projects with the highest priority. Please give this your careful
consideration.
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second to recommend changes to the draft CIP as
the Commission determines.
l:\admin\cipk2003 -2007 cip.doc
Page 2
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
2003 CIP PROJECTS
Project Descrtptlon
Project Amount
Economic Development Authority
1~ Downtown Redevetopment
2. General Community Redevelopment
Park Depmtment
[Develenmentl
2. Volleyball Court - Lakefrortt Park 5.000.00
3. Basketball Court- Boudins 10,000.00
4. Batting Cage -Memodal Park 10,000.00
5. Tree Planting program 10,000.00
6. Park Entrance Signs 10,CO0.00
7. Portable Bleachers 15,000.00
8. Park Appurtenant Equiprr~nt 15.000.00
9. Trail Access Parking Lots - Jeffers Ponds 25,000.00
10 Gazebo - Lakefroot Park 30,000.00
11. Playground Equipment - Meadow Vtew 35,000,00
12, Picnic Shelters (3) - Jeffers 60,000.C0
13. Parking Lot Lighting - Laketront Park 110,000.00
FTrells}
14. Green Oaks, Gly~water East. Jeffers, Memorial 145,000.00
Public Works
16. Aerial Photbgraphy Update 30.000.00
17~ Trunk Watermain (F~unta~n Hills) 30,000.00
16. Lift Station Renovation 120,000.00
19. Water Tower Painting (Tower Street ) 550,000.00
20. Watar Meter Change-out Program 500,000,00
21. Municipal Well 650,000.00
22, 150th Street Overtay (west section) 100,000,00
23. TnJnk Watermain (CSAH 83 soutt~ of CSAH 42) 145,000.00
24. McKenna Read Realignment 250.000.00
25, pedr Lake Outlet Channel Repairs 300,000.00
26. Trunk. S&W Main (CSAH 42 west of CSAH 21 to 83) 700,000.00
27. Fish Point Rd/Faidawn West Reconstruction 1.450,000.00
28. TH 13 Iotersection imp. (CSAH 23~Five Hawks) 2,000,000.00
29. Stbrm Water Pond Dredging
30. Lake Bank Stabilization
31. Storm Drainage Improvements
Financing Source Summary
City Cost
Financing Tax Impact
5,000.00 c.p.
15.000.00 c.p
25,000.00 C.p.
30,000.00 c.p.
35,000.00 c.p.
60,000.00 C.p.
250,000.00 c.p,
30,000.00 t.r.
30,000.00 t.r,
550,000.00 u.f,
500,000.00 u.f.
650,000.00 t.r.
145,000.00 Lr,
200,000.00 m.s.
50,000.00 t.r.
300,000.00 t.r.
700,000.00 t.r~
750,000.00 15.23 2.05%
500,000.00 s.a
200,000.00 t.r.
60,000.00
340.000.00 u.f.
200,000.00 c.s.
20,000.00 20.000.00 s.w.
40,000.00 40,0(]0.00 s.w.
Totals ... 7,695,000.00
Project Amount
$ Project Tax Levy 750,000.00
o.b. Operating Budget 100,000.00
u.f. Sewer & Water Utility Fund 1,510,000.0p
s.w. Storm Water Utility Fund 140,000.00
c.p. Capital Park Fund 730,000.00
t.r. Trunk Reserve Fund 2,105,000.00
c.s. Collector Street Fund 200,000.00
m.$. Municipal State Aid 700,000.00
s.a. Special Assessments 560,00000
7,695,000,00
$12,69 1.62%
8
Project Description
Economic Development Authority
1. Downtown Redeveioprnent
2. General Community Redevelopment
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
311~02
2004 CIP PROJECTS
Pr~actAmount Financing
"TBD" ~BD"
"TBD" "TBD"
City Cost
Tax Impact
Dotlar Percentaoe
3. City Hall/Public Safety Facility
Park Department
[Develooment)
4. Wind Screen- Memorial Park
5. BasketballCourt- Ryan Park
6. Tree Planting Program
7. Park Entrance Signs
8. Portable Bleac~hers
9. Park Appurtenant Equipment
10. Trail Access Parking Lots - Haas Lake Park
11. Gazebo - Woods at Wilds & Deertield
12. Picnic Shelters (3) ~ NodhwoodlCardinal Rdg/Haas
Playground Equipment - Jeffers & Haas Lake
14. Sand Point Bathhouse Remodel
(Trails)
'15. Haas Lake Park
Public Works
(Buildinos & Plant)
18. Well House #~ Building
17. Lift Station Renovation
18. Water Tower Painting (Crest Ave. interior)
[Imor~vements)
19. Trunk Watermain (Fish Point Rd Ext to CSAH 21 )
20. Trunk Watermain (CSAH 42 from CSAH 193 to W. Limit)
21. Central Sanitary Sewer Lift Station (NW section)
22. Carriage Hills Parkway Connection to Sand Pt.
23. Fountain Hills Ddve extension to McKenna
24. CSAH 12 coop share (ston-n, curb, lights, trails)
25. Gateway Shores Street Reconstruction
(Imorovements}
26. Storm Water Pond Dredging
27. Lake Bank Stabilization
28. Storm Drainage Improvements
6,900,000.00 1,900,000.00
5,000,000.00
5,000.00 5,000.00 c.p.
10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
15,000.00 15,000.00 c.p.
15,000.00 15,000.00 c.p.
25,000.00 25,000.00 c.p.
40,000.00 40,000.00 c.p.
60,000.00 60,000.00 c.p.
70,000.00 70,000.00 c.p.
65,000.00 65,000.00 c.p.
75,000.00 75,000.00 C.p.
80,000.00 80,000.00 u.f.
12o,o0o.oo 12o,oo0.o0 u.f.
290,000.00 290,000,00 u.f.
50,000.00 50,000.00 t.r.
125,000.00 125,000.00 t.r.
175,000.00 175,000.00 t.r.
200,000.00 200,000.00 c.s.
200,000.00 200,000.00 m.a.
700,000.00 400,000.00 t.r.
300,000.00 c.s.
1,200,000.00 600,000.00 13.41
400.000.00 s.a
200,000.00 t,r.
20,000.00 20,000.00 s.w.
20,000.00 20,000.00 s.w.
60.000.00 60.000.00 s.w.
1.69%
Totals ... 10,540,000.00 10,540,000.00
Financing Source Summary
$ Project Tax Levy
g.f. General Fund
u.f. Sewer & Water Utility Fund
$.w. Storm Water Utility Fund
c.p. Capital Park Fund
t.r. Trunk Reserve Fund
c.s. Collector Street Fund
m.s. Municipal State Aid
s.a. Special Assessments
r.b. EDA Revenue Bonds
Totals ...
Project Amount
600,000.00
1,900,000.00
490,000.00
100,000.00
400;000.00
950,000.00
500,000.00
200,000.00
400,000.00
5.000.000.00
10,540,000.00
Tax impact
Dollar Per~n~oe
$11.90 1.57%
9
Project Description
Economic Development Authority
1. Downtown Redevelopment
2. General Community Redevelopment
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
3/13~O2
2005 CiP PROJECTS
Project Amount Financing
'"TBD" "TBD"
"TBD" "TBD"
City Cost
Tax impact
Dollar Percentaoe
Fire Department
110' Aedal Ladder Platform Firetmck
Satellite Fire Station
900,000.00 900,000.00
1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
Park Department
5. Basketball Court- Sand Point Park
6. Tree Planting Program
Park Entrance Signs
8. Park Appurtenant Equipment
9. Gazebo - Markley Lake Park
10. Picnic Shelter - Watzl's Point Beach
11. Playground Equipment - Sand Point Beach
(Trails)
12. Markley Lake Park
10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
15,000.00 15,000.00 c.p.
20,000.00 20,000.00 c.p.
20,000.d0 20,000.00 c.p.
80,000.00 80,000.00 c.p.
30,000.00 30,000.00 c.p.
Public Works
13. Lift Stetion Renovation
(Improvements)
14. Trunk Watermain (CSAH 18)
15. 150th St. Recon (TH 13 to Fairtawn Shores Trl
Mitchell Ponds Street Reconstruction
16. TH 13 Intersection Imp. (Boudins.150th,CSAH 44)
Water Resources
[ImDrevements)
17. Storm Water Pond Dredging
18. Lake Bank Stabilization
18. Storm Drainage Improvements
120,000.00
200,000.00
1,400,000.00
3,150,000.00
120,000.00
200,000.00 t.r.
510,000.00 11.25 1.39%
340,000.00 s.a
250,000.00 m.s.
300,000.00 t.r,
1,750,000.00 i,g.
900,000.00 m.s.
500,000.00 c.s.
20,000,00 20,000.00 s,w.
20,000,00 20,000.00 S,W.
40.000.00 40.000.00 s,w.
Totals ,.. 7,045,000,00 7,045,000.00
Financing Source Summary
$ Project Tax Levy
u.f. Sewer & Water Utility Fund
s,w. Storm Water Utility Fund
c,p. Capital Park Fund
t.r. Trunk Reserve Fund
c,s. Collector Street Fund
m.a. Municipal State Aid
a.a. Specia~ Assessments
J.g. Intergovernmental
goo, G.O. Referendum Bonds
Totals ...
Project Amount
510,000,00
120,000.00
80,000,00
195,000,00
500,000.00
500,000.00
1,150,000.00
340,000.00
1,750,000.00
1.900.000 O0
7,045,000.00
Tax Impact
Dollar Pementaae
$9.98 1.30%
10
Project Description
Economic Development Authority
1. Downtown Redevelopment
2. General Community Redevelopment
Park Department
(DeveloDment)
3. Tree Planting Program
4. Park Entrance Signs
5. Park Appurtenant Equipment
6. Playground Equipment - Watzl's Point
7. Picnic Shelter- Westbury Ponds
(Trails)
8. Fremont Avenue
Public Works
9. Lift Station Renovation
10. Water Tower Painting (Crest Ave. exterior)
(Im~rovementsl
11. Conroy/Shady Beach Street Reconstruction
Water Resources
(Imorovements)
12. Storm Water Pond Dredging
13. Lake Bank Stabilization
14. Storm Drainage Improvements
Financing Source Summary
$ Project Tax Levy
g.f. General Fund
u.f. Sewer & Water Utility Fund
s.w. Storm Water Utility Fund
c.p. Capital Park Fund
t.r. Trunk Reserve Fund
s.a. Special Assessments
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
3113102
2006 ClP PROJECTS
Project Amount
'q'BD"
'q'BD"
10,000.00
10,000.00
15,000.00
20,000.00
2O,000.00
150,000.00
120,000.00
300,000.00
1,500,000.00
Financing
"TBD"
"TBD"
10,000.00
10,000.00
15,000.00
20,000.00
20,000.00
150,000.00
120,000.00
300,O00.O0
City Cost
Tax Impact
Dollar Percentaoe
c.p.
c.p.
c.p.
c.p.
c.p.
705,000.00 12.93 1.58%
470,000.00 s.a
225,000.00 t.r.
100,000.00 g,f.
20,000.00 20,000.00 s.w.
30,000.00 30,000.00 s.w.
40.000.00 40.000.00 s.w.
2,235,000.00
Tax Impact
Dollar Pementage
$13.48 1.73%
Totals ... 2,235,000.00
Project Amount
705,000.00
100,000.00
420,000.00
90,000.00
225,000.00
225,000.00
470.000.00
Totals ... 2,235,000.00
11
Project Description
Economic Development Authority
1. Downtown Redevelopment
2. General Community Redevelopment
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
3113102
2007 ClP PROJECTS
Park Department
(Devel~rnentl
3. Tree Planting Program
4. Park Entrance Signs
Park Appurtenant Equipment
Project Amount
"TBD"
"TBD"
9.
10.
10,000.00
10,000.00
15,000.00
Public Works
Lift Station Renovation
Water Filtration Plant
(Imomvements)
Industrial Circle sewer & water extension
120,000.00
6,000,000.00
260,000.00
CSAH 21 N. Coop Share (storm sewer, curb, lights)
700,000.00
Martinson Island Street Reconstruction
1,475,000.00
Water Resources
(Imorovernents)
11. Storm Water Pond Dredging
12. Lake Bank Stabilization
13. Storm Drainage Improvements
Financing Source Summary
$ Project Tax Levy
g.f. General Fund
u.f. Sewer & Water Utility Fund
s.w. Storm Water Utility Fund
c.p. Capital Park Fund
t.r. Trunk Reserve Fund
c.s. Collector Street Fund
s.a. Special Assessments
w.r. Water Revenue Bonds
Totals ..
Totals ...
Financing
"TBD"
"TBD"
10,000.00
10,000.00
15,000,00
120,000.00
6,000,000.00
City Cost
Tax Impact
Dollar Percentage
c.p.
c.p.
225,000.00 s.a.
35,000.00 t.r.
400,000.00 t.r.
300,000.00 o.s.
690,000.00 14.84 1.93%
460,000.00 s.a
225,000.00 t.r.
100,000.00 g.f.
20,000.00 20,000.00 s.w.
30,000.00 30,000.00 s.w.
40.000.00 40.000.00 s.w.
8,680,000.00
Tax Impact
Dollar Percentaoe
$12.95 1.64%
8,680,000.00
Project Amount
690,000.00
100,000.00
120,OO0.O0
90,000.00
35,000.00
660,000.00
300,000.00
685,000.00
6.000.000.00
8,680,000.00
12
2003-07
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
3/13~02
CIP PROJECT FINANCING SOURCE TOTALS
Financing Source
Amount
$
g.L
u.f.
c.p.
t.r.
$.a.
i.g.
r.b.
g.O.
Project Tax Levy
General Fund
Sewer & Water Utility Fund
Storm Water Utility Fund
Capital Park Fund
Trunk Reserve Fund
Collector Street Fund
Municipal State Aid Fund
Special Assessments
Intergovernmental
Revenue Bonds
G.O. Referendum Bonds
Totals ...
3,255,000.00
2,200,000.00
2,660,000.00
500,000.00
1,585,000.00
4,440,000.00
1,500,000.00
2,050,000.00
2,455,000.00
2,650,000.00
11,000,000.00
1.900.000.00
36,195,000.00
13
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached Resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction
for approval of the requested variances to rear yard setback for construction of a
single family dwelling. The staff recommends adoption of Resolution 02-01PC.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt attached Resolution # 02-01PC approving the variance with three
conditions that the Planning Commission deemed appropriate under the
cimumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02~02PC approving the 14.5-foot
variance to permit a 10.5-foot rear yard setback with three conditions.
L:\01files\Olvartances\01-079\PCreport3.doc Page 2