HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/2002REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
A. Ellman/Opien Variance P. esolution.
5. Public Hearings:
A. Case #02-021 (Continued) Donald B. Scherer is requesting a variance to structure
setback to the ordinary high water mark to allow an existing deck to remain on the
property at 3894 Green Heights Trail.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.~., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Commissioner Cdego called the Mamh 25, 2002 Regular Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Cfiego, Lemke, and Ringstad, Community Development Director
Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve
Horsman and Recording Secretary Kelly Meyer.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Absent
3, Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 11, 2002 Regular Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented.
Commissioner Cdego reviewed the agenda, read the Public Headng Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Consent:
A, Boyles Variance Resolution.
The Zoning Administrator bdefly reviewed the agenda item in connection with the March 25, 2002 Staff
repod on file in the office of the Planning Department.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS
SUBMITTED.
VOTE: Ayes by Atwood; Criego, Lemke and Ringstad, MOTION CARRIED,
5. Public Hearings:
A.. Case File ~2-027 Matt EIIman and Karen Opoien are requesting a 5.24 foot variance to permit a
room addition structure to be setback 19.76 feet from the top of the bluff rather than the required
minimum 25-foot setback for the property at 14909 Manitou Road.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Staff report dated March 25, 2002 on file in the office of the
City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Matt EIIman & Karen Opoien
(applicantJowner) for the construction of a room 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 applicantJowners purchased the subject property in November 2001, and
L:~02 FZLES~02plannin g comm~02pcrainut~s~IN032502.doc ]
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 25, 2002
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.
The applicants request a 5.24-foot variance to permit a room addition structure to be setback 19.76-
feet from the top of bluff rather than the required minimum 25-foot setback.
Based upon the Findings, the staff found this request does not meet the nine hardship criteria. 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.
Lemke: Asked if using the existing deck envelope would have to include overhangs.
Horsman: Confirmed.
Comments from the public:
Matt EIIman (applicant, 14909 Manitou Road): Noted that when the house was purchased their intent was to
increase the size of the house and that they were not aware of any restriction, Also noted that they were
amenable to taking additional measures to address environmental issues.
Karen Opoien (applicant, 14909 Manitou Road): Thanked the staff for all of the help and noted that the variance
would not adversely affect the surrounding property owners. Believed there was a hardship for their family of five
in that there is only one bathroom. Further advised that they would be amenable to accommodating any concerns
of the City and Watershed with respect to erosion control. Noted that the architect and the engineer were both
present to answer questions.
John Van Able (architect, 1108 Abbott Lane, Minnetonka): Asked if the staff would support a variance within the
deck footprint just as it is, removing the overhang.
Horsman: Confirmed that as long as the structure including any overhangs remains within the footprint of the
current deck, the staff would recommend approval of a lesser variance.
Chuck Miller (14897 Manitou Road): Commented that as the affected neighbor he had no objections to the
addition and looked forward to having the dog kennel removed. Asked if the concrete patio is considered in the
setback calculation.
Norsman: Advised that the patio is only considered when calculating impervious surface, and is not considered
for setback calculations.
Commissioner Criego closed the public hearing.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood: Asked for staff to clarify the concept of intensification and lake creep with respect to this property.
Horsman: Explained that the existing deck meets the definition of a structure, as does a room addition and would
constitute an intensification of the use. However, because the intensification is minimal from the deck to the room
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vlN032502.doc
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 25, 2002
addition, staff would recommend approval if the proposed addition remained entirely within the footprint of the
current deck structure.
McDermott: Advised that lake creep does not appear to apply in this case.
RinRstad: Asked about the odginal survey and the concerns raised under that submission.
Horsman: Noted that the odginal survey was incorrect in its interpretation of a bluff setback line. The setback line
is not necessarily from the top of bluff, but from where the slope becomes less than 18%. The second survey
showed the revised setback.
Lemke: Asked the size of the area that encroaches the footprint of the current deck.
Horsman: Approximately 30 square feet, not including any overhangs.
Crie.qo: Asked if the new patio structure impacts the bluff ordinance. Further commented that it seems staff's
recommendation would be for approval if the plans do not impact the property outside the footprint of the current
deck.
Horsman: Advised that at the time the patio and deck was built, there was no bluff setback. In addition, patios
are not defined as structures and so the setback would not apply.
Opoien: Asked if the addition could be extended beyond the footprint of the deck, just not on the north side, and
no farther than 8 feet from the existing house structure.
Homman: Confirmed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION
APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION NOT BE
EXTENDED BEYOND THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT WHICH WOULD IMPACT THE BLUFF SETBACK ON THE
NORTH END AND THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE STAFF REPORT:
Horsman: Clarified that the proposed resolution would include language that the applicant must comply with all
other ordinances and regulations of all other regulatory authorities, as well as the requirement to sign and record
the consent forms.
The motion and second accepted the fdendly amendment.
VOTE: Ayes by Atwood, Criego, Lemke and Ringstad, the MOTION CARRIED.
B, A request by Keystone Communities and Park Nicollet HealthSystems for a Senior Care Overlay
District for the property located south of the Park Nicollet Clinic.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff report dated Mamh 25, 2002 on file in the office of the City
Planning Department.
L:~02FILES\02planning comm\02peminuteshMN032502.doc
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 25, 2002
Keystone Communities and Park Nicollet HealthSystems 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. 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 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.
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.
6. The developer must enter into a development agreement with the City. This agreement will
outline the specific requirements for this overlay district.
Crie,qo: Asked why the staff did not recommend 60% Class I materials for the project.
Kansier: Advised that the modification is within the scope of the City Council, and the Class I proposed
is somewhere between 50-55%.
Comments from the Public:
Kristi Olson (CEO, Keystone Communities): Commented that they are very excited about the project
and that the market study is very strong. The comments from the Town Meeting were primarily
positive and there is a growing list for available units. Believed the project will be a wonderful addition
to the community.
Asked what changed from the original plan and size.
Olsoq: Advised that their market research indicated that congregate care, assisted living and memory
care all be included in the project. The original plan was only for assisted living and memory care.
Lemke: Asked for clarification as to the landscaping requirements.
L:~02 FI LES\02planning comrn\02pcrninutes\MN032502.(loc
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 25, 2002
Kansier: Advised that the current plan allows for a calculation of 44 trees, rather than the 107 required
by the ordinance, although physically there would be more trees, just smaller, on the site.
Gary Tushie (amhitect): Noted that the senior overlay district allows for a lesser landscape requirement
to allow for better utilization of the space for this use. Also advised that the tree requirement does not
allow a calculation for shrubs, which this site would have a lot of. Added that the original plan also
included a garage. Parking is now underground.
Kansier: Noted that the original building was a two-story with a one-story devoted to memory care.
The new proposal is for an additional floor in both instances.
Andrea Schook (16766 Brunswick Ave. SE): Asked for sensitivity by the Commissioners concerning
mitigation of the impact the development will have on her property, Would like to see one less story in
that specific location and more of a green screen for privacy.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood: Supported the project and the conditions set by staff. Asked about the size of the strolling
garden, and if the south side is where the adjustment to the landscaping occurs.
Tushie: Commented that the strolling garden is approximately 150 foot long on the east side and that
the adjustment to the landscaping plan involves the whole site. Noted that some additional screening
with evergreen trees could be provided on the northeast corner which would limit the impact on the
adjacent property owner.
Crie.qo: Recommended that a number of sizable trees be added to the top of the retaining wall to
address the concerns of the adjacent property owner.
Tushie: Confirmed that the plantings could be on top of the retaining wall.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SENIOR
CARE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR A SENIOR FACILITY TO BE KNOWN AS KEYSTONE
COMMUNITIES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF AND AS DISCUSSED
WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING PLAN.
VOTE: Ayes by Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and Ringstad, the motion carried.
This item will be considered by the City Council at its Apdl 15, 2002 regular meeting,
C. Case File #02-021 Donald B. Scherer Is requesting a 23.foot variance to allow a structure setback of 52-feet
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the minimum required setback of 75
feet for property located at 3894 Green Heights Trail,
Zoning Administrator Steve Homman advised that the applicant had requested this item be removed from the agenda and
continued to a later date.
MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ITS APRIL 8, 2002 REGULAR
MEETING.
VOTE: Ayes by Atwood, Criego, Lemke and Ringstad, the motion carried.
L:\02FlLES\02planning comm~02pcminutes~4N032502.doc
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 25, 2002
6. Old Business: NONE.
7. New Business:
A, Review 2003.2007 Capital Improvement Program
Minnesota Statutes provides that all proposed capital improvements be reviewed by the Planning
Commission for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. 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. 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 the CIP is limited
to those projects with the highest priority. Noted that items such as a new municipal well and
acquisition of a park site in the Northwood Road area had both been moved up in the CIP.
Improvements to the TH13 / CSAH 23 intersection not previously planned were included in 2003. A
new City Hall ! Police facility was added as well with a target of 2004.
Comments from Commissioners:
Lemke: Asked how additions or deletions are now processed,
McDermott: At this point the staff would make the recommendations to the Council for final approval.
Lemke: Asked the status of the well currently being drilled. Also commented that he strongly supported the outlet
channel improvements and repairs.
McDermott: Advised that a test well in the Jordan aquifer is currently under construction and targeted for
completion this year. The well proposed in the CIP would also be a Jordan well,
Crie.qo: Believes the CIP adequately addresses the long term needs of the City and that the plan is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD TO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED 2003-2007 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
VOTE: Ayes by Atwood, Criego, Lemke and Ringstad, the motion carried.
8. Announcements and Correspondence: NONE.
9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:40pm.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN032502.doc
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
VARIANCE TO THE BLUFF SETBACK LINE FOR
MATT ELLMAN & KAREN OPOIEN, Case File #02-027
14909 MANITOU ROAD NE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
APRIL 8, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Mamh 25, 2002, to consider
a variance application from the property owners for the construction of a room
addition to an existing single family dwelling with attached garage on the
property located at 14909 Manitou Road. After review of the applicant's request
with respect to vadance hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff
to draft Resolution 02-004PC approving the following Variance with conditions:
1 ) A 3.91-foot Vadance to permit a 21.09-foot structure setback from the bluff
setback 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 room addition:
1. The subject site shall be developed as shown on the attached survey to
ensure additional variances are not required.
2. The proposed room addition shall not extend beyond the existing deck
structure.
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. An Assent Form must be signed
and, pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN I~QUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed
structure within one year after adoption of this resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached Resolution is consistent with the Ptanning Commission's direction
for approval of a variance to bluff setback for the construction of a room addition
attached to an existing single family dwelling. The staff recommends adoption of
Resolution 02-004PC.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt attached Resolution # 02-004PC 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 02-004PC approving the 3.91-foot
variance to permit a 21.09-foot structure setback from the bluff setback line with
four conditions.
L:\02FI LES\02variances\02-027\Va rRpt2.doc
Page 2
RESOLUTION 02-004PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3.91 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 21.09 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
1. 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 (RI) 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 heatings thereon on March 25, 2002, and April 8, 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 surronnd'mg area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Because of conditions on the subject property, a legal alternative site does not exist
for the room addition, and the proposed structures location with regards to the
surrounding property, the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an
adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase
congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public
safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other
respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed room addition does not increase the existing structures encroachment
into the bluff setback. The applicants proposed location and size of the room addition
replaces an existing structure and, as such, the hardship has not been created by the
applicant.
l:\02files\02variances\02-027~aprvrs02-027.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E,, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
While there is an existing structure on the lot, there is justifiable hardship caused, and
that reasonable use of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance.
There is not a legal alternative location for construction of the room addition without
the variance.
7. The granting of the variance, as determined by the Planning Commission, is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. The contents of Plarming 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 approves the
following variance for the construction of an attached room addition to an existing
structure as shown in Exhibit I - Certificate of Survey:
1. A 3.91-foot Variance to permit a room addition attached to a principal structure to be
setback 2t .09-feet from a bluff rather than the required minimum 25 feet.
The following conditions shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for
the proposed room addition:
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 April 8, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\02files\02variances\02-027kaprvrs02-027.doc
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
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-
021PC)
LOT 1, GREEN HEIGHTS 1sT ADDITION (PARTIAL
LEGAL)
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
APRIL 8, 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 a required building permit. The deck is attached to an existing single-
family dwelling that was constructed in 1946 (Attachment 1 - Certificate of
Survey).
On March 22, 2002, staff received a phone call requesting a continuance of this
variance to the next scheduled meeting date. On March 25, 2002, the Planning
Commission continued this agenda item to the public hearing on April 8, 2002.
The applicant requests the following variance:
1) A 23-foot vadance 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
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-02 l~VarRpt2.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
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.
The 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 of approximately 16' x
8'. Staff explained the options to the applicant: (1) replace the existing deck, as
is, with a site plan, waiver of survey, and permit approval; or (2) if he intended to
build a larger deck or closer to the OHWM, obtain a new certificate of survey to
verify the OHWM setback 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 applicant/owner eventually
submitted a variance application for the deck as a result of a negotiated
settlement with the attorney 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' side, 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
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-021\VarRpt2.DOC
Page 2
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].
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 variance 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 HARDSHIPSTANDARDS
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 cdteda.
2, Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
The existing conditions of the lot area and dimensions are not peculiar to the
property, and generally do apply to most other lots within the Shoreland
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-02 l\VarRpt2.DOC Page 3
District. When all required setbacks are applied, there was a buildable area
for a replacement deck on this lot without the need for a variance.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
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.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
The 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.
L:\O2FILES\O2vadances\02-021 \VarRpt2.DOC
Page 4
=
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.
Financial considerations alone shall not be grounds for granting this variance
request. The property owner stated that the expense of a survey was a
reason 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 Vadance 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\02variances~02-021~VarRpt2.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 and 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
1, 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 hearings thereon on March 25, 2002, and April 8, 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 \dnyres2.doc 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-~714 / Pla. (952} 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447 4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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, tmreasonably 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 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 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 fi.om the ordinary high
water mark of 904 feet, rather than the required 75-foot structure setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 8, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\02files\02variances\02-021 \dnyres2.doc 2
ATTACHMENT 1-
SURVEY
.ANS
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distrg:z (SD)~ ------_
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Lot Area '2_ L z.~q -" '&V, ooe ~x-.qo%OSq. Feet x 30% = .............. I~¢G
~ - LENGTH WIDTH
HOUSE 6i x '~-~
ATTACI-iED ~ARAGE
SQ. FEET
To x 2:7 ,-'= GqC'~
DETACHED(Garag~LDGS
x
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS .......................
\20
TOT~ PA~D ~AS ......................................... Iq q'~
PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS
(Open Dcck~ V." rain, opening bce, veen
boards, with a pervious surface below~
~e no[ considered to be imperious)
X
TOTAL DECKS ........................................................ 9~'51
OTHER
x
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
~NDE OVER ~
Prepared By '¥. &x~, '~Xsx~(, ~
Date \%-Es--ol
Ill