HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/22/20022.
3.
4.
e
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case File g02-013 Tom Holme Construction, Inc. is requesting eonsideratinn of a
preliminary plat named Red Cedar Heights consisting of 4.34 acres to be subdivided into
7 lots for single family residential development. The property is located on the northeast
side of Mushtown Road, west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook Drive.
Case File #02-032 Wensmann Realty, Inc. is requesting approval of a Registered Land
Survey for the lots originally described as Lots 22-24, Block 4, Regal Crest.
Case File #02-030 Mark Toohey is requesting a variance to the front yard setback and
bluff setback on the property located at 5584 Candy Cove Trail.
Case File #02-029 Steven & Palricia Mosey are requesting variances to permit a garage
and room addition to be setback less than 25 feet to front lot line; less than 5 feet to side
lot line; a sum of side yards less than 15 feet; cave encroachment less than 5 feet to front
and side lot line; a 63.8 foot building wall setback to side lot line less than required; and
a driveway setback less than 5 feet to side lot line for the property located at 14620
Oakland Beach Avenue SE.
Old Business:
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.
7. New Business:
A. Case File #02-041 Petition to vacate drainage and utility easement located over the
common area added to the lots in Deerfield 6th Addition.
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 OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the April 8, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson,
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Absent
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Correction on page 5: Erase "Stamson" from the vote. The Minutes from the March 25,
2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as corrected.
4. Consent:
A. Ellman/Opien Variance Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 8, 2002,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
Criego asked to see the corrected survey. Horsman explained the proposed addition.
Commissioners recommended adding the condition the addition does not extend beyond
the existing structure.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-004PC
APPROVING A 3.91 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF
21.09 FEET FROM A BLUFF RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET WITH
THE ADDED CONDITION THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION DOES NOT
EXTEND BEYOND THE EXISITNG STRUCTURE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Heating Statement and opened the hearing.
L:~02FILESX02planning commX02pcminutes~040802.doc I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 8, 2002
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.
On April $, 2002, staffreceived a phone call from the applicants requesting a continuance
of this variance scheduled April 8, 2002, to the next scheduled meeting date of April 22,
2002, so their attorney could be present.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE. TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON
3894 GREEN HEIGHTS TRAIL TO APRIL 22, 2002.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m.
Recording Secretary
Connie Carlson
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~mn040802.doc 2
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
5A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR
A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS RED
CEDAR HEIGHTS
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
APRIL 22, 2002
Tom Holme Construction, Inc. has applied for a preliminary plat for the property located
n the north side of Mnshtown Road, directly west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook
Drive. The preliminary plat consists of 4.34 acres to be subdivided into 7 lots for single
family residential development.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site area consists of 4.34 acres.
Topography: This site has a rolling terrain with elevations ranging fi.om 1004' MSL at
the southeast comer of the site to 964' MSL at the north comer of the site.
Vegetation: This site included a single family home and outbuildings, which were
recently removed. There are a number of significant trees on the site. Development on
this site is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Wetlands: There is a wetland, approximately 35,971 square feet in area, located along
the eastern side of this site. The northern tip of the site is also located within a larger
wetland to the north. The developer is proposing to disturb 5,116 square feet of the
wetland in order to accommodate a street and storm water ponding. Mitigation of this
area will take place on site. The Subdivision Ordinance requires a buffer strip, a
minimum of 20' wide and with an average width of 30' be maintained around the
perimeter of the delineated wetland. This buffer strip must remain undisturbed, or if
approval for grading is given, the buffer strip must be planted with native wetland
vegetation. In addition to a buffer strip, the Subdivision Ordinance also requires that all
structures be setback at least 30' fi.om the 100-year flood elevation of any wetland or
pond. This setback must be identified on the grading plan.
16200
1:\02filcs\02subdivisions~02prelim plat~h'ed cedar heights\pc report.doc
Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952)447-4230 / Fax (952)447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Page I
Access: Access to the site will be from Overlook Drive on the east and Mushtown Road
on the southwest.
Zoning and Land Use Plan Designation of Adjacent Property:
The property to the north, east and west of this site is zoned R-1 and is developed with
single family homes. The property to the south is presently outside of the Prior Lake City
limits and is designated as an Urban Growth Expansion Area. This area is zoned UER
and RR-2.
PROPOSED PLAN
2020 Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for R-L/MD uses
on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-I, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation.
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 4.34 acres to be subdivided into 7 lots for single
family residential development. The proposed lot areas range from 12,356 square feet to
over 27,000 square feet.
The minimum lot area requirements for this site are 12,000 square feet, and the minimum
lot width is 86' at the front building line. Only lot area above the 100 year flood
elevation of a pond or wetland is included. Comer lots require a minimum lot area of
14,400 square feet, and a minimum lot width of 103.2' at the front building line. The
Zoning Ordinance defines a comer lot as "a lot situated at the junction of, and abutting on
2 or more intersecting streets, or a lot at apoint of deflection in alignment of a continuous
street, the interior angle of which does not exceed 135 degrees ". Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1,
Block 2 are comer lots by definition. All of the lots are consistent with these
requirements.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a 25' setback from the fight-of-way line on both streets
on a comer lot. These setbacks must be shown on the grading plan.
Streets: This plan proposes one new public street. Overlook Drive is extended 490'
from the east boundary of the plat to Mushtown Road. The street is designed with a 50'
wide right-of-way and a 28' wide surface. The Subdivision Ordinance allows the street
width to be reduced to 28' in areas the City determines to be environmentally sensitive
due to topography, forestation or wetlands. In this case, to minimize the disturbance to
the wetland, the City has determined a 28' wide street is appropriate.
l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim platsXred cedar heights\pc report.doc
Page 2
Sidewalks/Trails: There are no sidewalks or trails proposed within this development.
Sidewalks are not required along local streets.
Parks: There is no parkland located within this plat. Parkland dedication requirements
will be satisfied by a cash dedication of $1,685 per unit.
Sanitary. Sewer/Water Main: Sanitary sewer and water main will be extended from the
existing lines located in Overlook Drive to the boundaries of the plat.
Storm Sewer: This site generally drains south and east to the wetland at the east side of
the site, and north to the wetland located just north of this plat. The plat is designed so
runoff drains to a series of catch basins and storm sewers which then direct water to storm
water ponds located on Lot 4, Block 1, just north of the mad, and to a storm water pond
on the north end of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1.
Tree Replacement: The developer has submitted a Tree Inventory that identifies several
significant trees on the site. However, the inventory does not identify the total number of
caliper inches on the site. Based on the information submitted, we cannot determine
whether or not tree replacement will be required. In general, the Zoning Ordinance
allows a total Of 25% of the caliper inches of significant trees to be removed for the
development of roads, utilities and drainageways, and the removal of an additional 25%
of the significant caliper inches for building pads and driveways. The number of
significant inches removed over and above these percentages must be replaced at a rate of
~" for each inch removed.
Landscape Plan: The Subdivision Ordinance requires two front yard subdivision trees
per lot. Comer lots require at least 4 trees. A landscape plan has not been submitted.
Finance/Assessment Fee Review: This development is subject to a collector street fee, a
storm water management fee, a trunk sewer and water charge, and parkland dedication.
These fees are outlined in the attached memorandum from the Finance Director.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has identified three issues that must be addressed. The first is the storm water
nmoff management ponds. The Engineering Deparmaent has reviewed the storm water
runoff plan and has determined the second pond, located on the north end of Lots 3 and 4
may be acceptable, but is not the most desirable plan. The staff and the developer are
reviewing 6ther options to manage some of this runoff. This solution will not be
available before City Council review of the preliminary plat, so the developer has agreed
to a condition that would not allow a grading permit on the site until final plat approval.
Other potential options would not substantially affect the other design parameters of this
plat.
l:~02files~O2subdivision$~O2prclim plats~red cedar heights\pc ~flon.doc Page 3
The second issue is the required buffer strip around the wetlands. The plan does not
identify the proper buffer strip, and must be revised to include this area. The plan must
also be revised to identify the required 30' setback.
Finally, the tree inventory and preservation plan must be revised to identify the trees in
terms of caliper inches. This information is required in order to determine whether or not
tree replacement is necessary.
There are other engineering issues pertaining to the development of this site. These
issues are outlined in the attached memorandum from the City Engineer, dated March 28,
2002. These issues must be addressed as part of the final plat application.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
Preliminary Plat.
If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following conditions:
1. There will be no grading permit issued until the final plat has been approved by the
City Council.
2. Identify the required buffer strip around the delineated wetland and the required
30' setback from the lO0-year flood elevation of the wetlands and ponds on the
grading plan.
3. Revise the tree inventory to identify the caliper inches of the significant trees.
Provide the calculations indicating the number of caliper inches to be removed for
development of roads, utilities and drainageways, and the number of caliper inches
to be removed for building pads and driveways.
4. Raise the garage floor elevations where possible at least 1' above the curb
elevations to provide positive drainage away from the house.
5. All improvements, including utilities, roads, storm water ponds and so on, must be
constructed in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual All plans must
also be prepared in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the above conditions of
approval and forward this recommendation to the City Council.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Defer action on this preliminary plat to a date specific to allow the developer to
submit the required information.
[:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats~red cedar heights\pc report.doc Page 4
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #I.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the preYnuinary plat subject to the listed
conditions is required.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Prelim'mary Plat of Red Cedar Heights
3. Memo from City Finance Director
4. Memorandum from City Engineer
l:\02fi l~\02subdivisions\02pr~lim plats~r~d cedar heights\pc r~port.doc Page 5
Location Map
Location of
Red Cedar Heights
I '
0
40 Feet
Fl¸
DATE: March 28, 2002
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinat,or
/,
FROM: Sue McDermott, City Engineer~'~%'Jl
RE: Red Cedar Heights (Project #02-32)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject preliminary plat and has the
following comments:
GRADING
1. Provide an erosion control plan.
SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN
2. Sanitary manholes are to be located on the centerline of the roadway. All City utilities
are to be located within the street section (between the curb and gutter on either side of
the street). Additional manholes will be necessary. Label manholes in plan view.
3. Provide a note for typical water and sewer service on the plan sheets.
4. Show all utility crossings in the profile view.
5. Maintain 10' separation of sanitary sewer and watermain.
6. Manhole 1 is too shallow. Can street grade be raised?
'7.Add to note at connection to existing sanitary sewer "...with Engineer approval- Field
verified.
STREET AND STORM SEWER
g. Revise CB #2, #3, #4, #5 to CBMH.
9. Show profiles of all catch basin leads on the plans.
]0. Add structures as needed to maintain the storm sewer beneath the curb and gutter.
] 1. Label structures, pipe length, class, size and grade in profile view.
]2. Provide sump structure at CBMH ¢f-4 per Public Works Design Manual.
]3. Provide typical street section. Include pavement design or use minimum typical detail in
Public Works Design Manual.
]4. Add City Project # 02-32 to all plan sheets.
G:\PROJECTSX2002\32redcedar\REVIEW2.DOC
In addition, I have attached a memo from WSB with comments on the WCA review
and hydrology.
Please call me at 447-9831 if you have any questions.
& X~soeiates, Inc.
Memorandum
Date:
Sue McDermott, P.E., City Engineer
CiO~ of Prior Lake
Andi Moffatt; Biologist
WSB & Associates, [nc
March 27, 2002
Review of Red Cedar Development Plans
WSB Project No. 1430-07
As requested, we have completed our water resource review of the Red Cedar Development
Plans dated January 14, 2002. Based on our review, we offer the following comments:
Wetland Conservation Act Review Comments
1. A WCA permit application has been submitted with the development plan. The application
indicates that the project will fill 5,1 I6 sf(0.12 acres) ora Type 3 wetland. Mitigation is
required at a 2:1 ratio and this is noted in the application. The application states that 8,476 sf
of NWC is proposed on-site by expanding the existing wetland and 6,357 sf of PVC will be
created through wetland buffers. This is in conformance with the WCA. However, the plans
also show excavation of the wetland in the northern portion for this mitigation. Th/s will also
require mitigation at a 2:1 ratio since this is a Type 3 wetland. This needs to be addressed in
the permit application.
It is unclear fi/om the' plans if the 12" RCP between the Pond 1 and Pond 2 will fill the
wetland. Ifth/s pipe will fill the wetlands, it should be clearly noted on the plans and
addressed in the permit application.
The wetland mitigation sites and impact areas need to be clearly labeled on the plans. While
they are shown in the Wetland Replacement Plan application, they must also be included
with the plan set submitted to the City.
4. A 16.5' buffer is shown around the wetland. This buffer needs to be increased to 30 f~ (with
a 20 i5 average) according to the City's standards.
March 27, 2002
Page 2 of 3
5. The wetland delineation needs to be verified by the City. This delineation can be reviewed
as soon as weather conditions allow.
6. The application states that the applicant will monitor the wetlands in conformance with the
WCA. Therefore, the City should anticipate receiving an annual monitoring report.
7. The application contains the WCA deed forms for the replacement site. Once the application
is complete, these forms will need to be executed by the City.
8.' The Wetland Replacement Plan application states that the project is within 1000 ft of a lake.
This project may be subject to the City's shoreland zoning ordinance.
Hydrologic/Hydraulic, Water Qualit3'~ and Grading Comments
1. All existing and proposed grades need to be shown on the plan. Existing contours should be
shown as dashed and proposed as solid. The contour elevatio .ns should be legible.
2. More detailed erosion control plans should be identified for the project and shown on the
plans. This should include slope stabilization and turf establishment.'
3. The developer needs to provide existing 2' contour lines a minimum of 200' beyond the
property boundary or more as need to accurately depict the existing drainage patterns.
4. The wetland boundaries should be clearly shown on the grading plan.
5. Details of all emergency overflow structures and pond outlets need to be shown on the plans.
6. A 10:1 maintenance bench must be included for the NURP pond.
7. The treatment calculation did not take into account the runofffi.om Sub-catchment 5. While
it appears that enough treatment will be available in the proposed pond, these calculations
need to be provided for review.
8. The culvert entering Pond 1 fi.om the east is outside the easement. Either an additional
easement needs to be acquired or the culvert should be moved.
9. The culvert under Overlook Drive only has 1.55 ft of cover on top of it. This may require the
road deck to be raised.
10. Wetlands are currently modeled with a Curve Number of 58. These areas must be modeled
with a Curve number of 78 or 85 depending on the amount of open water.
11. The emergency overflow of Pond 1 should be directed north into Pond 2 instead of on to
Mushtown Road.
F:IWPtVIN~I430-O71032702RC~m. doc
March 27, 2002
Page 3 of 3
12. The lowest floor elevations do not meet the City's requirement that there be 2' o£ freeboard
between the 100-year storm HWL and the lowest exposed structure elevation, The floor
elevations should also be 2' above the emergency overflow. The plans need to be revised to
reflect this requ'ured freeboard. Further, proposed contours are not shown immediately
adjacent to the some of the house pads. A more detailed grad'rog plan needs to be included to
evaluate the flood risk to the homes located around Pond 1.
Tkis concludes our review of the Red Cedar Development plan. If you have any questions or
need additional information, please feel free to call me at (763)287-7196.
c. Dave HuRon, P.E., WSB
F:IWPWIT~I 450-OT~O32702RC~m.dac
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director
RED CEDAR HEIGHTS- Preliminary
(assessment/fee review)
March 13, 2002
A 4.34 acre parcel comprising PIN #11 911 043 0 is proposed to be annexed and developed as Red
Cedar Heights. This area has received no prior assessments for City municipal utilities.
Since utilities are available to the property site, the cost for the extension of services internally 'aa'Il
be the respons~ility of the developer. In addition to these improvement costs, the subdivision will
be subject to the following City charges:
Park Dedication
Collector Street Fee
Stormwater Management Fee
Trunk Sewer & Water Fee
$1685.00/unit
$1500.0Wacre
$2943.00/acre
$3500.0Wacre
The application of applicable City development charges would generate the following costs to the
developer based upon a net lot area calculation of 2.96 acres of single fan-fily units as provided
within the site data su,.~c~ sheet of the final plat des~Liption:
Cash Park Dedication:
7 units ~ $1685.00/unit = $11.795.00
Collector Street Fee:
2.96 acres ~ $1500.00/ac = $4,440.00
Storm Water Management Fee:
2.96 acres ~ $2943/ac = $8,711.00
Trunk Sewer & Water Charge:
2.96 acres ~ $3500.00/ac = $10,360.00
These charges represent an approximate cost of $5,044.00 per lot for the 7 proposed single family
units within Red Cedar Heights. Assuming the initial net lot area of the final plat does not change,
the above referenced park dedication, storm water, collector street and trunk charges would be
det~,,~ned and collected within the context of a developer's agreement for the construction of
utility improvements at the time of final plat approval.
There are no other outstanding special assessments currently certified against the property. Also,
the tax status of the property is current with no outstanding delinquencies.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
03/i4/2002 i6:33 9522263758 INTEGRA TELECOM PL PAGE 0i/0i
I have reviewed the attached proposed request ~Red Cedar Haiqhts R.evis.ed
Pr_eliminary Plat) for the following:
Water City Code Grading
Sewer Storm Water .. Signs
Zoning Flood Plain Count~/Road Access
Parks Natural Features L,e, gal Issues
Assessment Electric Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion Control X Other '~.LE..,
Recommendation: X Approval Denial Conditional Approval
Comments:
/t ntegra
Don Rarlage
0.S.P. Engineering & Dealgn ~ La~, ~N 5~72
~lmct Dial: (~2) 22~7~ Fax: ~$~ ~6-37~
Please return any comments by Thursday, March 28, 2002, to
Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 EagLe Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (952) 4~7-9812
Fax: (952) 447-4245
1:\02files~02s~bdlvlslons\02prelim plats\red cedar helghts\referral2,doc
./
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Red Cedar Heights Preliminary Plat)
for the following:
Water City Code Grading
Sewer Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Legal issues
Assessment Electric Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System Gas ~ Building Code
Erosion Control Other
Recommendation: __ Approval ._~ Denial __ Conditional Approval
Comments:
Signed: ~~ Date: ~.-
Please return any comments by Thursday, February 7, 2002, to
Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (952) 447-9812
Fax: (952) 447-4245
1:\02files\02subdivisions~02prelim piats~-ed cedar heights~referraLdoc Page 2
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
PLANNING REPORT
5B
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A
REGISTERED LAND SURVEY FOR LOTS 22-24,
BLOCK 4, REGAL CREST
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
APRIL 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an application for a Registered Land
Survey (RLS) of the lots originally platted as Lots 22-24, Block 4, Regal Crest. The RLS
formalizes an administrative Itt line adjustment on these lots.
ANALYSIS:
Applicant:
Wensmann Realty, Inc.
Project Engineer:
Piopeer Engineering
Location of Property:
This property is located on the south side of Fairway
Heights Road and west of Jeffers Pass.
Existing Site Conditions:. There are 3 townhouses located on this site.
Zoning and Land Use
Designation:
The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential)
and is a part of the Regal Crest Conditional Use
Permit. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan identifies this
property as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density
Residential).
Proposed Development:
The proposed RLS does not change the lot area or
decrease the common area. The purpose of the RLS
is to formalize an administrative lot line adjustment.
Streets/Access/Circulation: There are no new streets located within this plat.
l:\02files\02subdivisions~02flnal plats\regalfls~regalrls pc.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
Grading/Erosion Control: There will be no additional grading on this site.
Sanitary Sewer and
Watermain:
Sanitary sewer service and water service are located
in the existing private street. No additional utilities
are required.
Landscaping:
The landscaping requirements for this development
were approved as a part of the overall CUP plan.
This RLS does not affect the landscaping.
Parkland Dedication:
This property has been previously platted. Park
dedication requirements for this subdivision do not
apply.
Finance/Assessment Fee
Review:
This subdivision is not subject to any additional fees.
The property has previously been assessed for street
ant utility improvements. There are no outstanding
special assessments. Tax status is current.
ANALYSIS:
When the units on these lots were constructed earlier this year, they were placed on the
lots so that they encroached over the original lot lines. The staff approved an
administrative lot line readjustment in January, 2002 to correct this situation. When the
applicant brought the deeds to Scott County for recording, the County determined a
Registered Land Survey was required. The purpose of an RLS is generally to simplify
the description and recording for Torrens Land. The County is responsible for
determining whether an RLS is required, under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes
§508.47.
A registered land survey is processed in the same manner as a combined preliminary and
final plat. This process requires a public heating before the Planning Commission and
approval by the City Council, The difference is that the Planning Commission and the
City Council are simultaneously reviewing both the preliminary and final pat.
The proposed RLS meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning
Ordinance. The Planning staff recommends approval of this RLS.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the RLS as presented, or with specific changes
directed by the Planning Commission.
l:\02files\O2subdivisions\O2final plats\regalrls\regalrls pc.doc
Page 2
2. Table or continue the public hearing to a date and tune certain and provide the
developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future
Planning Commission review.
3. Recommend deniai of the application based upon specific findings of fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative //1
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion recommending approval of the Registered Land Survey is required.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Copy of Proposed RLS
1:\02files\O2subdivisions\O2final plats\regalrls~regalrls pc.doc Page 3
Location Map
20 0 20 40
60 Feet
1'4
1 Inch = .30 Feet
SECTION 34, TWP. 115, RG£. 22
LOCA~ON MAP
REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO.
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5C
CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION ON A LOT NOT MEETING THE
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT THE OHW, VARIANCES TO
ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED WITHIN
THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THE
BLUFF IMPACT ZONE, AND A VARIANCE TO THE
MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT THE RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE, Case File #02-030
5584 CANDY COVE TRAIL
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
APRIL 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application for the construction of
a single family dwelling with an attached garage, as shown on the attached
survey, on the property located at 5584 Candy Cove Trail, and legally described
as Lot 31, Candy Cove Park. The following variances are being requested:
1. A 23.86' variance from the minimum 75' lot width at the Ordinary High
Water Elevation (OHW);
2. A 25' vadance to the front yard setback requirement to allow the structure
to be setback 0' from the front property line rather than the minimum
requirement of 25 feet;
3. A variance to allow a structure to be located within the Bluff Impact Zone;
4. A 4' variance to allow a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather
than the maximum 24 feet.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 31, Candy Cove Park was platted in 1921. The property is located within the
R-lSD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) district, and is a riparian lot. The
applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels. According to the survey
submitted by the applicant, Lot 31, Candy Cove Park is 21,856 square feet in
area. The lot is 81.47' wide at the front lot line, 51.14' wide at the OHW, and
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-030~pc report. DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FjvIPLOYER
approximately 274 feet deep on the shortest side. The front lot line of this lot is
located 90+ feet from the curb of Candy Cove Trail. There is an excess right-of-
way at this location that was originally part of the TH 13 right-of-way, but has
since been turned back to the City. The property to the west has an easement
for landscaping and access across this excess right-of-way; the City expects to
provide the same easements to this property. This excess right-of-way also
provides access to the lots to the east of this site.
The lot is considered a nonconforming lot of record because it does not have the
minimum required lot width of 90' at the front building line. The lot also does not
meet the minimum lot width of 75' at the OHW.
The high point of this property is 986' MSL at the north side of the lot, and
descends to 904' MSL at the lake. The lot is considered a bluff under the
Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The top of bluff and the 25' bluff
setback are shown on Exhibit A.
Using the required setbacks, including the front yard, side yard, and top of bluff,
this lot contains a building envelope approximately 100 square feet in area.
The applicant is requesting variances to construct a single family dwelling on this
lot, as shown on Exhibit B. The proposed dwelling is a 1 ½ story structure with a
20' by 22' attached garage. The footprint of the house and garage includes
1,796 square feet. The applicant is also proposing a 22' by 16' deck and a 19'
by 18' deck, both located on the lakeside of the house. The proposed
impervious surface on the site is 23%, which is within the allowed limits of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant is proposing to place the structure on the lot so it is located 0' from
the front property line, 8.7' from the west side lot line, 11.3' from the east side lot
line, and approximately 210' from the OHW. Although the proposed structure
would be located at the front property line, it would be at least 90' from the curb
of the existing street. The applicant is proposing this setback in order to pull the
house as far out of the bluff as possible.
The structure is also located within the bluff impact zone. The applicant has
submitted a geotechnical report, prepared by a licensed engineer, which states
that slope stability is not a concern at this location. Engineer's reports are
required by the Zoning Ordinance for any lots with a bluff, and are usually
submitted with a building permit. This report was prepared prior to submittal of
the variance application to answer any questions about the stability of the bluff.
A copy of this report is attached for your information.
The DNR did not comment on this request. The City Engineering Department
comments are attached. The Engineering Department comments note that the
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-030\pc reporLDOC
Page 2
City will grant an easement for landscaping and access across the right-of-way.
In addition, the City will be responsible for providing sewer service at the time the
building permit is issued.
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 lot was platted in 1921, pdor to the existence of any Shoreland
Management requirements. The applicant has no control over the existing
width of the lot at the OHW. In addition, the bluff on this lot extends nearly to
the front property line, resulting in a building envelope of approximately 100
square feet. This is an exceptional or extraordinary condition on this lot
resulting in an undue hardship. There is no building envelope without
variances.
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 conditions applying to this lot are peculiar to this lot and to a few other
lots in the immediate area, The lot is a nonconforming lot of record.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial
property right. The lot does not contain a building envelope without
variances.
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.
In staff's opinion, the granting of the variances would not impair light and air,
increase congestion in the streets or endanger public safety. The applicant
has submitted a geotechnical report prepared by a registered engineer that
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-030~pc report. DOC Page 3
addresses the bluff stability at this site. The house also is set back as far out
of the bluff as possible, without going over the front property line.
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 requested variances would not unreasonably impact the
character of the neighborhood.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
This is a nonconforming lot of record that does not include a legal building
envelope without the granting of variances. The applicant has submitted a
geotechnical report to address bluff stability.
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 variances is necessary to allow a reasonable use of this
property, and to alleviate a demonstrable hardship.
8. 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 is not a result of the owner's action, but rather as a result of the
application of the ordinance.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
The applicant has not stated a need for the variance based on increased
costs or economic hardship.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above findings, the staff finds that this request meets the nine
hardship criteria. There is no legal alternative for the construction of a house on
this lot. The staff therefore recommends approval of the requested variances.
L:\02 FI LES\02varian ces\02-030\pc report. DOC
Page 4
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.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Ordinance criteria. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
denying the variance requests.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends Alternative #1. This action required the follOwing motion:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-007PC approving the requested
variances to the lot width at the OHW, the front yard setback, the bluff setback
and the driveway width.
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-030~pc report. DOC Page 5
RESOLUTION 02-007PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT
WIDTH AT THE OHW, A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD
SETBACK, A VARIANCE TO THE BLUFF SETBACK~ AND A VARIANCE TO
THE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mark Toohey has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a single
family home to be constructed on property zoned R-lSD (Low Density Residential
Shoreland District), located at 5584 Candy Cove Trail, and legally described as
follows:
Lot 31, Candy Cove Park, Scott County, Minnesota
The Board of Adjustment reviewed the application for variances to the minimum lot
width at the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW), the required front yard setback,
to the bluff setback, and to the maximum driveway width as contained in Case #0-030
and held hearings thereon on April 22, 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 and on 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.
There is a justifiable hardship caused by the width of the existing lot, and by the
topography of the lot, so reasonable use of the property is not possible without the
granting of the variance.
1:\02 files\02variances\02-030\pcres 02-007pc.doc l
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Pr. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
7. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is necessary
to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. The contents of Planning Case File #02-030 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:
1. A 23.86' variance from the minimum 75' lot width at the Ordinary High Water
Elevation (OHW);
2. A 25' variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow the structure to be
setback 0' from the front property line rather than the minimum requirement of
25 feet;
3. A variance to allow a structure to be located within the Blufflmpact Zone;
4. A 4' variance to allow a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather than
the maximum 24 feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 22, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Community Development Director
l:\02files\O2variances\02-030\pcres 02-O07pc.doc 2
Location Map
200 0 200 400 Feet
, I
EXHIBIT A
978.0-~
/LOW FLOOR 970.3 /
L°^~^c~ F~-°°~ ~.5 J
EXHIBIT B
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
JAMES D. BATES
ALLISON J. GONTAREK
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL, #210
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
Telephone: 952.447.2131
Facsimile: 952.447.5628
E-mail: huemoellerbate~aol.com
OF COUNSEL:
CHARLES C. HALBERG
March 13, 2002
Prior Lake Planning Commission
16220 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake MN 55372
Via Hand Delivery
Re: Request for variances to allow a building permit for property located at 5584
Candy Cove Trail, Prior Lake, Minnesota
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Our client, Mr. Mark Toohey, purchased a non-conforming platted lot of record,
legally described as:
Lot 31, Candy Cove Park
with a street address of 5584 Candy Cove Trail, Prior Lake, Minnesota. He purchased the
lot on August 18, 1995 from Esther A. Stankovich with the intention to build a home on it, a
dream of his since childhood.
The lot is steep, sloping to the shore of Candy Cove on Prior Lake. After conferring
with the Prior Lake City Engineering and Planning Departments, Mr. Toohey's request
involves three variances to the Ordinances currently in effect:
(A) a variance from the bluff set back requirement (Ord. 1104.308(2));
(B) a variance from the width requirement at the ordinary high water mark and width
requirement at the front of the lot (Ord. 1104.302(3));
(C) a variance from the standard front yard set back (Ord. 1102.405(3)).
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Page 2
March 13, 2002
At the suggestion 0f Planning staff, the house Was moved forward on the lot to
minimize the impact on the bluff impact zone. Mr. Toohey has, as required by the City,
performed borings to establish the stability of the soil and the engineer's report is enclosed
with this application.
To promote the most appropriate and orderly development within the community, the
Minnesota statutes authorizes zoning ordinances and allows for the Board of Adjustment:
To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in
instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because
of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to
grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
Minn. Stat. §462.357, Subd. 6(2) (emphasis added). Case law states that "[t]he statute is
clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant variances where.., the property
owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the
ordinance." Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of the Ci_ty of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917, 922
(Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
Based on the nine hardship criteria used by the Planning Commission to evaluate
variance requests, Mr. Toohey has significant obstacles to overcome under a strict
application of the Ordinances. It is only reasonable to grant him the ability to build his
modest, strategically placed dwelling as shown on the submitted drawings.
Under the first criteria, Mr. Toohey's lot is a non-conforming, steep and oddly shaped
platted lot of record. When Mr. Toohey originally purchased his property, access existed
across adjacent public property. Mr. Toohey has now been arbitrarily excluded from the use
of this original access. Based on this exclusion, Mr. Toohey has been assured by the City
that he will be granted access over and across a public right of way ("Tract C") for ingress
and egress purposes. In order to smooth this process, we have enclosed a proposed
Agreement for Private Improvement of Public Property between Mr. Toohey and the City
granting Mr. Toohey access and allowing a driveway improvement. As part of this variance
request, we respectfully ask that this Agreement be approved.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Page 3
March 13, 2002
To ovemome the practical difficulties and undue hardships associated with his
property, Mr: Toohey has developed a modest home plan which he proposes to place as far
up on his property as possible. Although the adjustment to minimize the bluff impact
created a need for a front setback variance, the buffer of Tract C was considered a mitigation
to the front setback deviation. Mr. Toohey has valiantly complied with all requests of the
City in locating his home site and his sole objective is to build a modest house and enjoy the
property he purchased.
Second, the lot and area surrounding it are steeply sloped, a condition that does not
apply generally to other land in the Use District. Soil testing has been performed at the
City's request to verify the stability of the soil (see enclosed engineer's report) and Mr.
Toohey's proposed plan places his house significantly farther back on the bluff than the
existing house to the west. Mr. Toohey has mitigated the peculiar challenges of his lot as
much as possible, possibly more than his proposed neighbors.
Third, the need for the variances is conclusive. Simply stated, without the requested
variances, Mr. Toohey is unable to build on his property. This significantly devalues the lot.
Mr. Toohey purchased a lot he was assured was "buildable." Denial of his ability to build is
a removal of a substantial property right.
Fourth, allowing Mr. Toohey to build in no way impairs the supply of light and air to
any adjacent property. As previously mentioned, Mr. Toohey is substantially back from any
neighboring houses. His proposed plan is a modest structure, placed as far back on the
property as possible. No additional congestion will result from allowing Mr. Toohey to
build his house, no additional danger of fire or to the public safety will be created.
Fifth, while Mr. Toohey's proposed plan is modest, it is well within the neighborhood
standards. Allowing him to build in no way diminishes or impairs established property
values and will actually increase the overall presence of the neighborhood. Tract C, over
which Mr. Toohey's access will run, is unsightly and overgrown. His proposal allows for
landscaping and creating a driveway, significantly improving the curb side appearance of the
property and the entrance to the neighborhood.
Sixth, the granting of the variance request will preserve the spirit and intent of the
Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances by contravening the undue hardship created by conditions
unique to the property due to its shape and size and proximity to the lakeshore.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Page 4
March 13, 2002
Seventh, this request for variances is not a convenience but a necessity. Mr. Toohey
has worked very hard with the City Engineering and Planning Departments to bring the
house as far forward as possible and made other adjustments to bring the proposed building
within Ordinance standards. The granting of variances is necessary in order for Mr. Toohey
to build on his property.
Eighth, the strict application of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances to Mr. Toohey
property would provide for no buildable area. However, it was platted as a buildable lot.
Mr. Toohey had no part in the platting and purchased the property in good faith and in
reliance on the fact he could build a house on Candy Cove, his long held dream.
Finally, while the house will be expensive to build, Mr. Toohey is willing to assume
the cost and brings no argument regarding economic hardship, with the exception that if
variances are denied, the direct result is an unbuildable platted lot of record.
Based on the principles set forth under Minnesota statutes and the Rowell decision,
we believe the Planning Commission should find as follows:
1. Strict application of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances will result in undue
hardship with respect to Mark Toohey's property because it will preclude the preservation
and enjoyment of Mr. Toohey's property rights, by denying him the ability to build on a
platted lot of record.
2. The undue hardship results from the circumstances unique to the property because
of the shape, size and grade of the lot.
3. The undue hardship is caused by the provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinances and is not the result of the actions of the owner, because the owner's proposed
use of the land is reasonable and the strict application of the ordinances would preclude such
reasonable use.
4. A variance preserves the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances,
produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest, because the reasonable
use is consistent in all respects with the existing and proposed land use in the neighborhood,
and provides an enhancement to the neighborhood as a whole.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Page 5
March 13, 2002
On behalf of Mr. Toohey, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission
approve: (1) the requested variance from the bluff set back ordinance, (2) the requested
variance from lot width requirements at the ordinary high water mark and at the front of the
lot, (3) the requested variance fi'om minimum set back from the front of the lot, and (4) the
Agreement for Private Improvement of Public Property. This has been a protracted effort
and Mr. Toohey has had many obstacles to overcome before this request could be submitted.
He has unfailingly attempted to move within the channels provided for citizens and has
communicated his plans Openly with City staff. We appreciate your consideration.
V . yyour
Allison J. Gontarek
Enclosures
cc: Mark Toohey
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Foohey Variance, #02-030) for the
following:
Water .X City Code ~ Grading
Sewer × Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain 24 County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion Control z% Other
Recommendation: Approval Denial Conditional Approval
Signed: ...._.~ L,,..~ ~'~ C~~ Date:
Please return any comments by Thursday, April 4, 2002, to
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9812
Fax: (612) 447-4245
h\02files\02varia nces\02-030\referral.doc
Page 2
EXPLOR.ATORY
BORINGS
FOR
MARK TOOHEY
Job Number 010594
5300 S. County Road 101
Minnetonka, iVlN 55345
Phone: (612) 474 7964
.AD VA /¥CE SUR V£YI? 'G & ENGINEERI:¥G CO.
3URVEYEYG / E)v'GINEERI:¥'G / GEOTECHi¥ICAL
5500 Soud~ Count? Road 101 Minnetonka. MN ~;; ~ Phone 9~> 474 7964 Fax 9__ 474 8267
November 20. 2001
*ir. Mm'k Toohey
5663 136th Street Court
S,:vage. Minnesota. kin 55378
?hone: 9~2 447 4860
DearMark:
At your request, we have conducted a preliminary investigation of
soil conditions on your site at the locations you specified.
Tlne following is a tabulation of data about your site:
Site Address: 5584 Candy Cove Trail SI~
City. Prior Lake, Minnesota
Leg~j_De~sc~ri?tio.n: Lot 31. Candy Cove Trail
Benchmark: Top of manhole = 971.26
Datum: the North American Datum
METHODS:
The investigation consisted of exploratory soil borings to aid in
identif,ving soil and water conditions. We have indicated the
approximate locations of the borings on an attached site plan sketch.
Elevations are very approximate.
Borings were taken with a truck mounted CME 45 drill fig using
solid stem continuous-flight augers. Soils encountered in the
borings were visually and manually examined in the field by the
soils en~neer. The soils are classified on the basis of texture and
plasticity in accordance with ASTM D2487 "Unified Soil
Classification System" and a chart explaining that system is attached.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
I SB# j TOP I WATER FIRM DESCPJPT~O.X OF FIRST FiRM SOIL ENCOUNTERED
[ 1 { 974 I DRY 974 Firm . brown sandy clay'(CL), some rocks, dr2,'
2 969 I DRY 969 Firm, brown sandy clay (CL). some gravel
3 976 DRY 976 Firm, brown sandy clay' ICL)
The above table is a summary, of the soil boring results. The "SB#" column
indicates the soil boring number which corresponds to the attached site plan. The
"TOP" column indicates the assumed elevation at the top of the soil boring. The
"WATER" column lists the elevation at which water was encountered in the
borings iwmaediately after the completion of the boring or if no water table was
encountered, "DRY". The "FIRM" column indicates the elevation at which
suitable soils were first encountered in the boring and the "DESCRIPTION"
column describes these suitable soils.
On this site, the firm brown sandy clay encountered at the surface is suitable for
the support of your proposed dwelling. It is our opinion that these suitable soils
are capable of supporting footings proportioned to exert a bearing pressure of no
more than 2000 pounds per square foot. It is also our opinion that these soils are
stable on slopes up to 1:1 and the grading and drainage plan which shows
proposed contours and the existing topographic map, which shows the slope of the
existing site, shows slopes that are much flatter, and it is therefore our opinion that
slope stability is not a concern for the proposal to place a home on the site as
shown by our grading and drainage plan.
STANDARD CAUTIONS & LIMITATIONS:
We measure the depth of any ~ound water that may have accumulated in the
borings immediately at completion of the borings. We do not monitor the borings
over a period of time. Borings left open are a hazard to pedestrians, leave an
opening ~br pollutants, and quickly cave in rendering any measurements oflirtle
value. The water levels x~e observe are thus only an indication of an immediate
and rapid flow of water into the borings indicating that drain rile system might be
over tmxed in such soils. Slow inflows may not be detected and variations in
rainfhtI can affect ~ound water levels.
While it is our opinion that a properly designed and installed drain tile system and
submersible sump pump will keep most below ~ade spaces do'. and should be a
standard part of all new construction, we make no guarantees in this regard.
Of necessity, the area of the borin~ in relation to the area of the site and the depth
of the borings are limited. Suggestions and recommendations of this report are
opinions based on data obtained fi'om the borings.
If upon excavation, conditions that are not consistent with the borings are revealed,
it is a~eed that you will notify, us so that we may gather iimher information and
modi~ our opinion or indicate that no modification is necessary in a written
addendum to this report; or hiling to engage our services to prepare such written
addendum it is a~eed that you proceed at your own peril.
I hereby certif.v that is report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Re~stered Professional En~neer under the Laws of the State of
Minnesota.
ADVANCE SLrR. VEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
James H. Parker P.E. & P.S., No. 9235, President
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Inorganic clu.xs To plasticity, gravely cla.x s. sandy clays, silt?' clays, lean clays
(CL)
iow
medium
< SW) graded gravely or no tines
Well
and
little
SP) Poorly graded and gravely sands, or no fines
little
(GW) Well ~q'aded gra,.e!s and gn'avel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
(SC) Cia>e? sands, sand-clay mixtures
(GC) Clayey gravels, gn'avel-sand-clay mixtures
(SM) Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
(OL) Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity
(OH) Organic clays of medium to high plasticity
(Pt) Peat. muck. and other highly organic soils
(ML) Inorganic silts, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sand
(CH) Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
(MH) Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous silts, elastic silts
(GP) Poorly graded gravels and ~avel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
(GM) Silty gravels. ~avel-sand-silt mixtures
LOK',TORY SOIL BORING LOC-
I~)~ ~az POJ ' i l)~,:001¥ir. Mark Tooi~ex ?'ior Lake. Minnesota ]
I J~ i3x, O BY DxTE c'LiENT CITY
t ::'. ~r;vx
974
973 1
972
971 3
970 4
969 5 Firm, brown sandy clay (CL), some rocks, dry
968 6
967 7
966 8
965 9
964 10
963 11
962 12
961 13
Compact, brown poorly graded fine sand (SP), gravel layers
960 14
959 15
958 16
continued next page
*W - DENOTES WATER LEVEL DETECTED AT COMPLETION OF BORING. MAY RISE ! (D=DRY)
*N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BLOW' COUNT
ADVANCE SURVEYING / ENGINEERING / GEOTECHNICAL
. ~00 HIGHWAY 101 SO. MINNETONKA. MINNESOTA 55345 PHONE: 474 7964
IEXPLOR. ATOR¥ SOIL BOR,NG LOG #
]0i~;51>-t POJ I b08_0~; Mr. ~lark i
[ .,t) BNO BY DATE ( k,~-, T
Prior Lake. Minnesota
CiTY
11
957 17 Compact, brown pooriy zraded,,fine sand ISP), gravel layers
956 18
,Compact, brown well ~raded sand (SW)
19
I
"W. DENOTES WATER LEVEL DETECTED AT Ct)ivlPLETION OF BORING. MAY PriSE ! ID--DRY)
'N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BLOW COUNT
ADV.4~N'CE SURVEYING / ENGINEERING / GEOTECHNICAL
5300 HIGHWAY I01 SO. MI:~ETONKA. MINNESOTA 55345 PHONE: 47g 7t}64
] EXPLOILA. TORY SOIL BORING LOG~ = ~' ]
~;, ~;<a POi , /)8 _)l)~ 3/Ir. Mark ,roohe? Prior Lake. Minnesota
' 'E.'xO BY DA 7E CLIENT CITY
i~', ~i,I'H DESCRIPTION
969 0
968 1
967 2
Firm, brown sandy clay (CL), some grave!
966 3
965 4
964 5
963 6
962 7
961 8
960 9
959 10 Compact, brown well graded sand (SW)
958 11
957 12
956 13
955 14
954 15
953 16 Compact ~ brown poorl~v ~raded fine sand (SP)
continued next page
*W - DENOTES WATER LEVEL DETECTED AT COMPLETION OF BORING. MAY RISE ! (D;DRY)
*N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BLt~)W COUNT
ADVANCE SURVEYING / ENGINEERING / GEOTECHNICAL
53 )0 HIGHWAY 0 SO. MINNETONKA. MINNESOTA 55345 PHONE: 474 7064
] E~XPLORATORY SOIL BORING LOG # 2 ]
! il! 05~)4 PO.I I 1~08,'2001 Mr. Mark Toohe,, Pr or Lake. ¥1inne.';ota
] JOBNO BY DATE L,_I_N CITY
952 i?
951 18 Compact, brown poorly graded fine sand (SP)
950 19 -D-
*w. DENOTES WATER LEVEL DETECTED AT COivlPLETION OF BOFd'NG. MAY rdSE ! (D=DRY)
'N - STANDARD PENETILA. TION TEST BLOW COb~T
ADVA.NCE SURVEYLN'G / ENGI_N'EERING / GEOTECHNICAL
5300 HIGHWAY 101 SO. MINNETONKA. MINNESOTA 55345 PHONE: 474 7964
I EXPLOP,.ATORY SOiL :BORING LOG # 31
,]~/5~:.a POJ i ] 08,2'~0i bi!'. ',,lark Toohev Prior Lake. ¥[innesota
Ol;'~.O BY DA, :: CLIE: :T CITY
{ :;' ,:~¢',
9,76 0
975
9'74 2
973 3
972 4 Firm, brown sandy clay (CL)
971 5
970 6
969 7
968 8
967 9
966 101
965 11 Compact, brown poorly graded sand (SP), some gravel
964 12
963 13
962 14
961 15
Compact, brown well graded sand (SW)
960 16
continued next page
%v- DENOTES WATER LEVEL DETECTED AT CONIPLETION OF BORING. MAY RISE ! {D--DRY)
'N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BLOW COL~'NT
ADVANCE SURVEYING / ENGINEERING / GEOTECHNICAL
5300 HIGHWAY 101 SO. MINN£TONKA. MINNESOTA 55345 PHONE: 474 7964
I EXPLORATORY SOIL BORING LOG '=
i :'":-:~).a POJ t 1/08,_001 5/ir. Mark ~ oone,. Prior Lake. Minnesota
:a ~x :~l~,'!'~.i DESCRIPTt(Y< V*'*
959 17 Compact, brown well .*raded sand (SW)
958 18
957 19
956 20
955 21 Cgmpact, brown poorly ~raded fine sand (SP)
954 22
953 23
952 24 -D-
DENOTES WATER LEVEL DETECTED AT COMPLETION OF BORiNG. MAY RISE ! (D=DRY)
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BLOW COUNT
' ADV.A.NCE SURVEYING / ENGINEERING / GEOTECHNICAL
5300 HIGHWAY I01 $O. MrNNETONKA. MINNESOTA 55345 PHONE: 474 7964
24,0 '~
zo.o ~
NOTE: EXTRA
REQLJIRi
"~AC, T O, AS OESORIBED E
SURVEYING ¢O. FOR I'~E C
PRIOR LAKE..
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5D
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE
SETBACK OF 1' TO A FRONT LOT LINE; A 1.3'
SlDEYARD SETBACK;A BUILDING SEPARATION
LESS THAN 15'; A SUM OF SIDE YARDS LESS THAN
15 FEET; AN LAVE ENCROACHMENT INTO A SIDE &
FRONT YARD; A 63.8' BUILDING WALL SETBACK TO
SIDE YARD; AND A DRIVEWAY SETBACK TO THE
SIDE YARD ( Case file ~02-029PC)
STEVEN & PATRIClA MOSEY
14620 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_YES NO
APRIL 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from the property
owners for the construction of an attached garage and second story addition to
an existing single-family dwelling on a nonconforming platted lot of record
located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue. The applicant is requesting the
following Variances:
1. A 24-foot variance to permit a 1-foot structure setback to a front property
line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks [Ordinance
Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (3)].
2. A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42-feet on a
nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet
[Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
3. A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1-feet between all
structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than
the minimum required 15-feet [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required
Yards/Open Space (8)].
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
A 4.7-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within
.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet
setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments (1)].
A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0'
of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback
[Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments (1)].
A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be
setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required
7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405
Dimensional Standards (6)].
A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback
10.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for
building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional
Standards (6)].
8. A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather than
the minimum required setback of 5-feet; and,
A 4' variance to permit a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather
than the maximum allowed 24' [Ordinance Section 1107.205 Driveways
(1)].
DISCUSSION:
Lot 14, Oakland Beach, was platted in 1926. The subject property is a legal
nonconforming platted lot of record. The property is located within the R-1
District (Low Density Residential) and Shoreland District (SD). The subject lot
has dimensions of 40' front & rear lot lines, by 100' side lot lines, for a total lot
area of 4,000 square feet. According to Scott County land records, the applicant
does not own the adjoining properties (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey).
City records indicate in 1976 a previous owner was granted an 8' variance to
construct a room addition within 2' of the south lot line. In 1981, the same owner
was issued a building permit for an addition to the garage on Lot 10. At the same
time, both Lots 10 and 14 were owned by the same person. Lot 14 was
purchased by the applicants in 1996. The current owner and applicant received a
building permit in 1996 to remodel the interior of the existing house, and for a
gas fireplace. In 1997 the applicant was issued a permit for the deck addition.
The applicant now proposes to build a 28' by 19' garage with second story
addition attached to the existing dwelling. The proposed front setback of 1'
requires a 24' variance. Setback averaging will allow a 20' setback (16.8'
L:\02 FI LES\02vadances\02~029War02-029PC.doc
Page 2
average). The existing house is currently setback 1.3', but the addition is
considered an expansion which is not permitted under City Code. The existing
structure does not have a garage, only a paved driveway/parking area in the
location of the proposed addition. In addition, the applicant is proposing to
remove a portion of the existing driveway in order to reduce the impervious
surface area. (Attachment 2 - Building Plans).
As proposed, the sum of side yards on the subject lot total 11.42'. This requires
an 3.58' variance, as the minimum sum of side yards allowed is 15' on
nonconforming lots. This variance request could be eliminated by reducing the
garage width by 6', and provide for a sum of side yards of 17.42' [Ordinance
Section 1101.502: Required Yards/Open Space (8) Nonconforming Lots].
When the proposed addition setback of 1.3' is combined with the setback of 7.8'
for the existing structure on Lot 15, the building separation of 9.1' is less than the
required minimum separation of 15' between all structures on the subject
nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot. This requires a variance of 5.9' for
the garage/room addition [Ordinance Section 1101.502: Required Yards/Open
Space (8)].
The eave and gutter encroachments will require two variances: a 4.7' variance
to allow the eave/gutter to encroach within .3' of the side lot line, and a 5'
variance to permit an eave/gutter to encroach within 0' of the front property line.
The existing house eaves currently encroach into the same side yard; however,
this addition is considered an expansion of a nonconforming structure and not
permitted by code. The side yard encroachment variance could be eliminated
again by reducing the garage size 6' in width.
The proposed addition will add 19' to both side yard exterior building walls of
44.8' for a total wall length of 63.8'. The Zoning Ordinance requires that two
inches per foot be added to the side yard setback for walls over 50' long (63.8' -
50' = 13.8' x 2" = 27.6" or 2.3'+ 5'= 7.3', & 2.3'+ 10'= 12.3'). This requires a 6'
variance to permit a 1.3' side yard setback on the south line, and a 2.18'
variance for a 10.12' setback on the north line.
The existing driveway area is approximately 22' deep by 39' wide for 858 square
feet of coverage area. The applicant is proposing to eliminate an area along the
north lot line of approximately 10' x 20' for 200 square feet. As proposed, the
driveway would extend out from the addition at 1.3' from the south lot line, and
requires a variance of 3.7' because this does not meet the minimum 5' side yard
setback for driveways. In addition, the proposed driveway is 28' wide at the
private R-O-W line (right-of-way) which requires a 4' variance to exceed the
allowable width of 24' [Ordinance Section 1107.205 Driveways].
L:\02FILES\02varlances\02-029\Var02-029PC.doc Page 3
The applicant submitted an impervious surface worksheet which identifies an
existing 2,789 square foot of impervious surface for 41.8% of the total lot area,
including the common area between the rear lot line and the 904' OHWM. The
proposed garage/room addition would be built over existing driveway and would
not add to the impervious surface area. In addition, the applicant is proposing to
remove 200 square feet of existing driveway for a proposed impervious surface
coverage area of 2,589 square feet or 38.8% of total area. The proposed
reduction of impervious surface area is allowed under the City code, as an
existing site that is being altered, remodeled or expanded without expanding the
existing impervious surface (Attachment 3 - Existing Impervious surface
Area).
The applicant submitted a narrative describing their reasons for the requested
variances (Attachment 4 - Applicant Narrative).
In addition, staff received a letter from the adjoining Lot 13 property owner
expressing support for the applicant's variance request (Attachment 5 - Letter
Dated 3-21-02).
The City Engineering Department noted the existing gravel road is on the
property east of the platted R-O-W, along with the sanitary and water utifities. If
the road were to be moved to its platted location as depicted on the survey, the
R-O-W would be 1' from the proposed structure.
The Department of Natural Resources responded that as long as the impervious
surface area is OK, the DNR is not opposed to the side and front yard setbacks.
They alone will not have measurable negative impact to the lake.
Staff's recommendation is to reduce the garage width from 28' to 22'. This would
add 6' to the south side setback, and would eliminate four of the variance
requests (3, 4, 6, 8). The proposed garage/room addition will only allow a 1'
driveway depth from the 20' platted private road access, and staff has concerns
regarding vehicle parking in the right-of-way, should the existing road be moved
to the platted R-O-W. However, under the current conditions, with some of the
existing garages built in the platted R-O-W, the road may not be moved.
In addition, staff suggests redesigning the garage/room to 22' x 19' to reduce the
impervious surface area by an additional 114 square feet, and remove the
existing paved driveway in this area for reduction of an additional 132 square
feet of impervious surface area (6' x 22'). This variance request could be
reduced or possibly eliminated by resizing the garage width to 22', and recessing
the garage wall 6' away from the south lot for a 7.3' setback.
If Lots 10 and 14 were under single ownership, the garage on Lot 10 would be a
permitted use under Zoning Ordinance 1101.501 Lot Provisions (3, d), Two or
L:\02FILE S\02varia nces\02-029\Var02-029PC.doc
Page 4
more nonconforming lots of record under single ownership separated by a
privete road or driveway may be combined and used as a single buildable lot
underthe following conditions (reads in part). However, Lot 10 is owned by the
applicants father, and therefore this condition does not apply
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 property is a nonconforming lot of record and an existing
condition over which the applicant has no control. Some variances will be
needed to build a garage addition. However, the applicant can control the
design and size of the proposed additions and eliminate the need for half of
the variances requested.
=
Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use DistriCt in which the
land is located.
The lot is a legal nonconforming lot of record and has an existing
nonconforming structure without a garage. Plats of this era (1926)
subdivided lots with smaller dimensions (50 ' wide) and are peculiar to the lot
and adjoining properties of the Oakland Beach subdivision..In addition,
because of the structure's location and proximity to the front lot line, this
precludes the ability to build a garage without some form of front setback
variance. However, four of the requested variances can be eliminated or
reduced with a redesign of the proposed addition.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
A front setback variance appears necessary for a garage addition of
reasonable size and to preserve a substantial property right of the owner.
However, the variances requested for the setbacks to the side, sum of side
yards, eave encroachment, driveway and building wall, may be reduced or
eliminated with a revised building plan.
L:\O2FILES~02va~iances\02-029~VarO2-029PC.doc Page 5
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 variances should not impair these stated values, unless
the road were moved to the platted right of way, and within 1' of the proposed
garage.
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 requested variances to permit a garage and 2nd stoW
addition will not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood, or
diminish property values or impair health, safety and comfort of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Since this is a platted lot of record, and no garage exists, the granting of 4 of
the requested variances is not contrary to the intent of the Ordinances or the
Comprehensive plan. However, Variance #'s 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9, can be reduced
or eliminated with a redesigned garage/room addition plan, and therefore,
they are contrary to the intent of these Ordinances and the Comprehensive
Plan.
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.
With respect to variance requests 1,2, 5, & 7, a hardship exists and a
variance is required to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty to
build a smaller garage and second stow room addition to the existing
structure. However, no hardship exists pertaining to all variances as
requested.
8. 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.
A hardship results from the provisions of the Ordinance with regards to four
variances to construct a garage and second stow addition to the existing
structure. However, the applicant can reduce the size of the proposed
L:\02 FILES\02vadances\02-029\Var02-029PC.doc
Page 6
garage and room additions to reduce or eliminate all eight requested
vadances.
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 variances.
in this case financial considerations are in addition to the other 8 hardship
criteda half of the variances requested.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff believes that all of the Variance hardship cdteria have been met with
respect to variance requests 1, 2, 5, & 7, but the criteria is not met for requests
3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot
to allow for a garage addition because of the location of the existing structure on
the nonconforming platted lot of record.
In addition, staff feels the garage and room additions may be redesigned and
reduced in size to eliminate Vadance requests 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. Therefore, the
variance hardship criteria have not been met with respect to 4 of the variances
as proposed by the applicant and staff recommends denial of these requested
vadances.
Staff recommends the following conditions be included with approval of any
variances deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at
Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with
the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey depicting the
approved additions location, and the subject site shall be developed as
shown on the survey to ensure additional variances are not required.
3. The building permit is subject to all other city ordinances and applicable
county and state agency regulations.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any
variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the
circumstances, in this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff
to prepare a resolution with findings approving the variance requests.
L:~02FILES\02vadances~02-029\VarO2-029PC.doc Page 7
2. Approve variances #1,2, 5 & 7, with findings and deny variances 3, 4, 6,
8 & 9. This action will require the applicant to submit a revised survey and
plan.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
4. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a Iack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends alternative # 2:
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-005PC approving variances 1,
2,5&7.
2. Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-006PC denying the variances
3, 4, 6, 8 & 9, as requested by the applicant.
L:\02FI LES\02variances\02-029~Var02-029PC.doc Page 8
RESOLUTION 02-005PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 24-FOOT VARIANCE TO FRONT SETBACK;
A 3.5-FOOT VARIANCE TO SUM OF SIDE YARDS; A 5-FOOT VARIANCE
TO PERMIT AN EAVE/GUTTER ENCROACHMENT IN THE FRONT YARD; A
2.1g-FOOT VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING WALL OVER SO-FEET LONG.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Steven W. & Patricia J. Mosey (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from the
Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a garage and room addition to
a single family residence on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential)
District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, 14620
Oakland Beach Avenue SE, and legally described as follows;
Lot 14, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #02-029PC and held hearings thereon on April 22, 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 and on 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.
A legal building envelope does not exist on the subject lot that eliminates the need for
the requested variances for setbacks to front yard, sum of side yards, cave
encroachment, and driveway location. The applicant has no control over the existing
structures location, such that the hardship has not been created by the applicant.
l:\02files\02variances\02-029~aprvres.doc l
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the required setbacks and existing structure
location, as reasonable use of the property does not exist without the granting of the
variances requested.
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, 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 Planning Case 02-029PC 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 alSove, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves with
conditions the following variances for a future garage and room addition attached to a
single-family dwelling as shown in the attached Exhibit 1 - Revised Certificate of
Survey;
A 24-foot variance to permit a 1-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather
than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks [Ordinance Section 1102.405
Dimensional Standards (3)].
A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42-feet on a nonconforming
lot of record rather than the minimum required I5-feet [Ordinance Section 1101.502
Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front
lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503
Yard encroachments (1)].
A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12-foot to a
side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-
feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (6)].
The following conditions shall be adhered to and subject to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed garage/room addition:
The Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the
acknowledged City Assent form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
l:\02files\02variances\02-029\aprvres.doc 2
2. The applicant shall subrnit a revised certificate of survey depicting the approved
addition location, and the subject site shall be developed as shown on the survey to
ensure additional variances are not required.
3. The building permit is subject to all other city ordinances and applicable county and
state agency regulations.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 22, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Community Development Director
l:\02files\O2variances\O2-O29~aprwes.doc 3
RESOLUTION 02-006PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 5.9-FOOT VARIANCE TO BUILDING SEPARATION; A
4.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EAVE/GUTTER ENCROACHMENT IN
FRONT AND SIDE LOT LINES; A 6-FOOT VARIANCE FOR BUILDING WALLS
OVER 50-FEET LONG; A 3.7-FOOT AND 4-FOOT VARIANCES TO PERMIT A
DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND SETBACK TO A FRONT AND SIDE LOT LINES
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Steven W. & Patricia J. Mosey (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a garage and room addition to a single
family residence on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and the
SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue
SE, and legally described as follows;
Lot 14, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#02-029PC and held hearings thereon on April 22, 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 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 on the subject lot that meets or reduces the requested
variances for setbacks to side yard, sum of side yards, eave encroachment, and driveway
location. The applicant has control over the house design and shape, such that the hardship
has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists with a smaller
building footprint.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required setbacks and impervious surface
coverage area as reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
l:\02files\02varian ces\02-029\dnyres.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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 structure to be permitted with a reduced
variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 02-029PC 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
variances for a future garage and room additions to a single-family dwelling as shown m
attached Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey;
1. A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1-feet between all structures on the
nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required 15-feet
[Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
A 4.7-foot variance to permit an cave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side
lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard
encroachments (1)].
A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a
side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet
[Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (6)].
A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather than the minimum
required setback of 5-feet; and a 4' variance to permit a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-
way line rather than the maximum allowed 24' [ordinance Section 1107.205 Driveways (1)].
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 22, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Community Development Director
l:\02files\O2variances\O2-O29\dnyres.doc 2
SURVEY PREPlt~ED FOR:
STEVE MOSEY
14524 GLENDALE AVENUE SE
F~IOR L~KE, M~. 55372
Valley Surveying Co., PA
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL SE
,~ ,
24 GLENDALE AVENUE S.E.
}R LAKE, MN. 55372
,7 8
~
· 25? I--
HOUSE ~:~
_J
North line of lot 14
;' OAKLAND BEAC;H
· ~ ssg° 50' 24" W Ct"
~i lO0 plat U.J
I t--~ 100.07 rfleas --- I~. ,,po
~OUSE
PROP,~]![~ DE3CRIPTION %S PROVIDED:
Lot 14, OAKLAND BEACh, Scott County,
OAKLAND 3EACH 1ST ADDITIOg.:, Scott Coun~v~
i I '
RRR-17-~. 09:4~ L~ I ~Y ~W.~NG CO., P.~
. :/. ':< ?'i <:"'.~ -.' ~' .. '~ '..CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
· ~ .i ?.'..'.:' :~.: -' '.'.i' ImperVioUs Surf~e'CalCUla~ons. ,.
: , ' '" '" .' .:"' '~', :./. '...For:~l.'~oP~es. . ~'Located'~'~e, Shor~l~d Di~ct:(~.
P.01
· ... .. " ., : ' ..... ' ,'., LENGTH WIDTH . SQ. FF..ET
. ....... ..~,~ ~:'~.. ....
,' ..HOUSE'".':' ;'?='::': '.. ' ' ' '. :"" . .. ....
"." ': 'ATTACH:EDG~...~, ~,GE. "..: .,.. :' x .. '"
· .: . · ". '::. '.:'. :-.. :':""... , "...:"... .. .:. .. .~-o:,,:.p~cm:,: sT~u~ ........ :.....: ......... ~_~,, m
, ::DETAci-I~ED:Bi~DG$''.'''': ..': '"'-' x ' . '".'.' ."
:'.':". =-~S~ )." :'...,: :'.."...'...... · .........
"'..'' ': .'""!':"' '.'"":.': .."....' .':" ..,'TOTA'L'DETA'CH'ilD'I:ILrlLDI'IN'GS ....... : ......
OTHER
TOT~DECKS..:..: ........................................... : ...... I~0
ATTACHMENT 4 - APPLICANT NARRATIVE
TO: STEVE HORSMAN
FROM: STEVE AND PATRICIA MOSEY
BUILDING VARIANCE
DATE: 03-21-02
My family and I are attempting to make improvements to our home. We
currently live at 14620 Oakland Beach Ave S.E. We have been living here
for approximately five and one half years. We are a growing family with
two kids, ages 14 and 10 years old. We love living here, but our home does
not have a garage. We are a two-car family along with many other property
owner items, such as; lawn mower, snow blower, bikes, tools etc. We have
very limited storage space. We would like to build an attached garage onto
our existing home. We would also like to add a room above the garage to
give us more room for our family. We have put a great amount of time and
research into our project and feel we are in need for the addition. We will
be asking for variances consisting of; Front and Side Setback, Combined
Side Yards, Building Separation, A Building Wall Over 50 feet, Eave and
Gutter Setback, and A Driveway Setback. These will be needed to build our
proposed garage on our irregular lot. We are hoping that after you see our
plans, and the survey, and give us some time to explain our need that you
will grant us the variances we need to build our addition. If you have any
questions please feel free to call us.
Steve and Patricia Mosey
Home; 440-6611
Steve work; 612 673-5704
Patricia work; 952 707-3367
89/84/1997 19:21 6072774631 DAVID FELDSHUH PAGE 81
ATTACHMENT 5 - LETTER DATED 3-21-02
April 16, 2002
Prior Lake Planning Commission
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave S.E.
Prior Lake, M'N 55372-1714
Dear Planning Commission:
We are wrki~g in support of Steven W. and Palricia 3. Mosey's application for a variance
at 14620 Oakland Beach Ave. $1~., lot 14. This addition will not adversely affect the lake
~nd will be an k~oprovcmcnt to the property.
Sincerely,
David F¢ldshuh
o~aldand Beach Ave
arid Martha Frommelt
308 Elmwood Avenue
Ithaca, NY 14850
SE.
16200
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO STRUCTURE SETBACK TO
TH~: ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3894 GREEN HEIGHTS TRAIL
FOR DONALD B. SCHERER, (Case File #02-021PC)
LOT 1, GREEN H~IGHTS 1ST ADDITION (PARTIAL
LEGAL)
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSmR, PLANNIiNG COORDINATOR
__x_
APRIL 22, 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. On April 5, 2002, staff received a phone call
requesting a continuance to April 22, 2002.
The applicant requests the following variance:
1) A 23-foot variance to allow a structure setback of 52-feet from the ordinary high water mark
(OHWlVi) 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 I0, 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.
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, staffvisited the applicant's properly to verify
the existing deck dimensions of approximately 16' x 8'. Staff explained the options to the
L:\02FILES~02vafiances\02-021~VarRpt2.DOC Page 1
Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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 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: I) 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 ora 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.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-021\VarRpt2.DOC
Page 2
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
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,
staffhas determined the request does not meet this hardship criteria.
o
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 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.
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.
. 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
slructure 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.
L:\O2FILES\O2vadances\02-02 l~VarRpt2.DOC Page 3
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.
8. 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 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' stracture setback, rather than the required minimum 75' setback to the OHWM.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-021\VarRpt2.DOC
Page 4
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 fi.om
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 fi.om 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\02variance$\02-021 ~dnyres2.doc 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAl. OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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.
5. 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 ail.
8. The contents of Planning 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 April 22, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\02files\02variances\02-021 \dnyres2.doc
ATTA~CHMENT 1-
SURVEY
~)EC
.ANS
CITY OF PRIOR L~
DEC27
2001
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be SubmilXed with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distn'ct
The Maximum Lmpervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Properry Address ~%%c'cq ~_,--~.~..~:'-,e~4 ~-.~-eXc.~x~-,:~
Lot Area 'Z\, i-t~q ' -a_V, ooe Cz-.qoR'OSq. Feet x 30% = ..............
~ - LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
HOUSE , (4 x '%'2L = .? c, c
X '-
ATTACHiED GAR.AGE 7.&-, x ,-2_..-7 = ,,'? q. ~'
TOTAL PRINC[?LE STRUCTURE ...................... [ k[~.lO
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage, S, x
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDiNGS .......................
DRIVEWAY/PAVED A:R_EAS
(K~rriveway-paved 6r not)
(Sidewalk/?arking Area.s)
TOTAL PAVED AREAS ......................................... t q ~{' t
PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS ~£)~xC ~Gr'x~:,
(Open D~ck~ ~/," min, opening oerween
TOTAL DECKS ........................................................
OTteR
TOTAL OTHER. ......................................................
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
OVER. /"-'x , ~
Prepared By ~--, '~x.,e , VN [c~.4
.. i _.. '.> 7-2. ~.- - .
Phone
Ill
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
7A
REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE THE DRAINAGE
AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ADJACENT TO
LOTS 5, 6, 7 & 8, BLOCK 1, DEERFIELD 2"D (Case
File #02-041)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO-N/A
APRIL 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION
D. R. Horton, Inc. has filed an application to vacate a 5' wide portion of the
drainage and utility easement located on Lot 45, Deerfield 2r~ Addition,
immediately adjacent to the properties at 17252, 17254, 17256 and 17258
Deerfield Drive. This 5' strip of land is to be added to these properties, in the plat
of Deerfield 6t~ Addition. The easement must be vacated in order to allowed the
placement of decks on these units.
As required by State Statute 462.356 Subd.2, the Planning Commission is
required to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposal or
acquisition of public lands as it relates to compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate
easement or right-of-way by resolution. The statute also states "no such
vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the public interest to do so':
DISCUSSION
Deerfield 2nd was originally platted in July, 2000. Lot 45 was platted as common
area for the townhouse development, and as such, was covered by a drainage
and utility easement. On April 1,2002, the City Council approved the final plat to
be known as Deerfield 6th. This plat will add 5' of property to the existing
townhouse lots, described as Lots 5-6, Block 1, Deerfield 2nd, which will allow
the construction of a deck on the townhouse units. In order to facilitate this
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Dh. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
construction, the existing drainage and utility easement over this 5' must be
vacated.
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of
the existing easement comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public
need or anticipated future need for the dedicated property?
Comprehensive Plan Review
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss utility easements, other
than as a function of ensuring access to public utilities. The vacation of this
easement is not inconsistent with any specific goai or objective of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Public Need
There are no utilities located within this 5' strip, so there is no need for a
drainage and utility easement. The remaining area will still retain the easement.
RECOMMENDATION
There is no need for the retention of an easement on this 5' strip of land. The
Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES:
Recommend the City Council approve the proposed vacation of the
easement as presented or with changes recommended by the
Commission.
Continue the discussion to a date and time certain to allow the staff to
provide additional information specifically requested by the Planning
Commission.
Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny
part or all of the applications based upon inconsistency of the proposa~
with specific regulations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and/or
specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the vacation of the
easement.
l:\02files\O2vacations\02-41 deerfield\02-4l pc report.doc 2
CER'~FIOA'E OF SURVEY M 32- 2519- 01
for
D,R. HORTON
Top curb to Oor slob = ......
Scole: 1"=
17252 54 56 ~ 55 Deerfield Drive SE
report wos prepored by me or under my direct 'DE/RFIELD SIXTH
O~e ~ ~ J~ ~OZ Reg. No. 8140
BRANDT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING?~u~"=",,~'il
14041 Burnhoven Drive, Suite 114
Burnsville, MN 55337 i~ '-
{952) 455-1966 M52--2519-01