HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/2002REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JULY 22, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
e
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Case #02-068 Dennis and Karen Perrier Variance Resolution
Case g02-075 Carlson Hardware Variance Resolution
Public Hearings:
Cases #02-057 & 058 McDonald Construction, Inc., has submit'ted an application
for a PUD amendment and a combined preliminary and final plat known as
Sterling South at The Wilds. The proposal replats Lots 31-40 to accommodate
townhouses and single family homes.
Old Business:
Case #02-072 Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.400 Definitions and
1104.308 (4) Water Oriented Accessory Structures of the Zoning Ordinance.
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. $.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447~4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 8, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the July 8, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Kingstad and
Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler,
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the June 24, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Consent:
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing State~nent and opened the meeting.
A. Case #02-068 Dennis & Karen Perrier are requesting variances for front,
side, sum of side yard and rear setbacks for the construction of a new single family
dwelling on the property located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 8,2002,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Dennis & Karen Perrier
for the construction of a single-family dwelling and attached garage on'nonconforming
platted lots of record located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle. After a revision on the
survey, the applicant is eliminating variance #1, a 1.8 foot variance to permit a 25 foot
structure setback to the front property line:
1. A 1.8-foot variance to permit a 25-foot structure setback to a front property line,
rather than 26.8-feet as required by setback averaging.
2. A 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard setback, rather than the
minimum required 25 feet.
L:~02FILES\02planning comam\02pcminutes~MN0708022.d oe 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 2002
3. A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 62.5-feet
as required by setback averaging.
4. A 0.7-foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of 14.3l-feet, rather
than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum of side yards on a
nonconforming lot.
5. A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet
to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for building walls over
50-feet.
The Staff felt the proposed dwelling may be redesigned and reduced in size to reduce or
eliminate variance requests 2, 3, 4, & 5. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria have
not been met with respect to variance requests #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5, as proposed by the
applicant and staff recommended denial of the requested variances.
Staff recommended the following conditions be included with approval of any variances
deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission:
1. The resolution as 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.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the approved
variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, along with the
proposed finish grades with drainage and an erosion control plan.
3. The applicant shall submit an application for a Lot Combination of Lots 17, 20, &
P.O. 21, and create one legally transferable document (Deed), and shall record said
document at the Scott County Land Records Office.
4. The applicant/owner shall remove all existing impervious surface areas on the
combined lots to create a total impervious surface area equal to or less than 30% of
the total lots area.
5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
Ringstad questioned if the proposed house would fit anywhere else on the property?
Horsman responded there would have to be another side yard variance and went on to
explain the rear yard setback averaging.
Criego questioned if the existing garage would stay on Lots 20 and 21 ? And does the
impervious surface include the garage? Horsman said the impervious surface was
calculated with the boathouse, garage and common property. The applicant meets the
impervious surface requirements.
Comments from the public:
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 2002
Applicant Dermis Perrier, 16502 Inguadona Beach, explained they are trying to improve
the neighborhood and have worked with the City for almost 4 years. The house is over
the property line and will have to be demolished and start over. They have lived in the'
home 29 years and plan on retiring here. He realizes it is a non-conforming lot and
pointed out they are under the impervious surface requirement. Perrier said they could
eliminate 2 variances if he reduces the home by 2 feet and would only need the rear yard
variance. They have expanded their property to the east and south. Another point is that
part of Inguadona Beach Road was always on his property. Back when it was a gravel
road people could not make it up the actual road in the winter, so when the road was
paved Perriers deeded a portion of their property and traded a portion of the common area
to the north. They are very limited with the lot size and are proposing a rambler so it
would fit into the neighborhood.
Lemke questioned the ramifications of losing 2 feet on the home. Perrier felt it was
necessary for aesthetics and it is still a small house. He also pointed out numerous
variances given to neighboring homes.
Criego questioned Perrier if he would consider a larger home with 2 stories. Perrier
responded they considered it and went on tO explain the huge new obstructing 2-story
homes on the lake. The rambler fits into the neighborhood.
Gene Tremaine, 16500 Ingnadona Beach, said the Perriers are really trying to meet the
requirements. Tremaine explained he was forced to put in a huge 2-story, but looks like a
3-story from the lake. It would be nice to have a rambler in the neighborhood. It gives
some distance between the lots. Tremaine said the neighborhood has been trying to
improve their homes and are supportive of the Perriers' request.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Appreciated the applicants' willingness to be flexible and sensitivity to the
neighborhood. A rambler would have more appeal to his neighbors.
· Supported staff's findings with the 2 foot side yard and thgre is a willingness on
the part of the applicant.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with staff's findings. Support a variance for a rear yard setback.
However, it may be necessary to move the 2 feet and remove the other variances.
Criego:
· If the Commission agrees with staffthen the applicant is reducing the length of
the home by 12.5 feet.
· The average width of a lot is 50 feet. This one is 55 feet and historically has
stayed with the total 15 feet distance between properties.
· Agreed with staff, a very nice home can be managed with only one variance and
that is with a rear yard setback variance.
L:\O2FILES~02planning comm\02pcrninute$~/iN0708022.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 2002
· Understand reducing the length of the home is a burden on the applicant. But to
have a home 40 by 75 feet long on a substandard lot is pretty unusual. Have
never seen that before.
· Questioned if the eaves were included with the setbacks. Horsman responded the
applicant is proposing 2 foot eaves. He should not have a problem. There is no
encroachment. There may be a problem in the stoop area as proposed.
Lemke:
· Most ofthe house is 32 feet wide. The widest part ofthe home is 40 feet. It/sa
modest size - 1,800 foot square house.
· Lemke questioned the rear yard setback. Horsman explained the setback
averaging would be under the 9.2 foot variance. The proposed setback is 50 feet.
· This is making the house much smaller with the 2 foot reduction.
· Only needs to eliminate small variances.
On non-standard lots - 50 feet has been the guideline. It is a reasonable use of the
property.
Stamson:
· Concurred with the majority of the Commissioners and staff. The hardship
criteria have been met but a reasonable correction to eliminate the hardship would
be to draw the house back to the averaging from the OHWM.
· Explained lake creep. This is a classic example. This home is drastically closer
to the lake than the adjoining properties.
· The applicant could easily build a two-story. A small foundation size does not
mean a small house.
· The applicant does not want to have a 2-story. He has a small lot, there are some
tradeoffs. The Commission is not eliminating his ability to build a reasonable size
house.
· Agreed with staff- it is reasonable.
Open Discussion:
Lemke:
· The neighboring homes are not going to be demolished soon. As proposed the
applicant is actually moving the structure away from the lake.
· Understood lake creep, but has a hard time when the applicant is moving the
structure back from the lake.
Stamson:
· The reality is the house can be pushed back. It is a replacement home.
Criego:
· Agreed with Stamson there are other ways to scale down. The fact of the matter
is that it is a small piece of property. This house will be further towards the lake
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~VlN0708022.doc
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 2002
than the neighboring properties. A precedence should not be set. It is a violation
of neighbor's rights.
Agreed with staffs position and conditions.
Approve the rear yard setback.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE
A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCE REQUEST, 1, 3, 4 AND 5 AND
MODIFYING REQUEST 2 TO APPROVE A 9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
REAR YARD SETBACK OF 16 FEET INCLUDING STAFF'S 5
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Atwood, Ringstad and Stamson. Nay by Lemke.
MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process.
B. Case #02-075 Bernard Carlson is requesting a variance to the required rear
yard setback to allow the construction of an addition to Carlson Hardware Store
located at 16281 Main Avenue SE
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Mr. Bernard Carlson
(applicant/owner) to allow the construction of an addition to an existing commercial
building on the property located at 16281 Main Avenue. The proposed addition will be
attached to the side of the existing building and extend to the rear lot line. The request is
for a 10-foot variance to pe~it a O-foot structure setback from a rear property line rather
than the minimum required 10-feet.
The City Building Department noted the applicant must provide soils and structural
engineers' plans on the method of protecting the adjacent buildings. The City
Engineering Department commented the existing manhole is under the concrete of the
loading dock, and a new manhole outside ofbnilding slab envelope must be built. In
addition, the line from the new manhole to the existing becomes a private service.
Integra Telecom noted existing telephone lines that service building will need to be
relocated.
The Planning staff has determined the variance request for the rear yard setback does not
meet the nine hardship criteria, since it is a business decision to expand the existing
building due to economic growth and the need for additional space for storage and
display of materials. The applicant can redesign the addition to meet the required 10'
setback with a comparable yet smaller addition. The staff therefore recommended denial
of the requested variance.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~MN0708022.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8. 2002
Staff also noted if the Planning Commission found the variance met the hardship criteria,
it should be subject to the condition that no outdoor storage of equipment or dumpsters
will be allowed without providing screening from public view.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Bernie Carlson, 16281 Main Avenue, felt this was going to be a slam dunk but
understood the staff's recommendation following the ordinance. The main point is this is
not a new building and does not meet the new ordinance. It makes sense to add on to the
existing building which has a zero setback. If it is not built on, it will leave a small area in
which to collect trash and snow. The manhole hole was not an issue he was aware of. It
is not a project-breaker either way. Carlson said he wants to invest money and improve
downtown.
Stamson: · Questioned the manhole. Carlson said there is no visible manhole and he's never
been aware of one in the 15 years he's owned the property.
· Kansier explained they would work with applicant on the manhole issue.
Criego:
· Questioned Carlson on loading and the access behind Fongs. Carlson explained
the proposal and felt he could work out any problems with Fongs.
Atwood:
· Questioned what the alley was used for. Carlson explained the major use was
used for deliveries by Viking Liquor. The video drop-off is not in the back of the
video store anymore reducing significant traffic. Carlson also explained the
additional parking and common trash container.
Criego: · Concern is for delivery trucks in the alley such as trash pickup and larger tracks.
Carlson said he agreed with Fongs to cut the comer to 14 feet.
· Carlson also explained he would stay 4 feet away from the Extra Inning property.
Lanny Adler, owner of Extra Innings Saloon, concern was for the soil and structure
conditions for his property 4 feet away. Would he have problems down the road and who
would be responsible? Adler said he could find the manhole.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad: · Thrilled the hardware store is doing well, but agreed with staff's recommendation
that the hardships have not been met.
· Denied the request.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.d oc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
duty ~, 2002
Criego:
· Is this a side or back yard setback? On Main Street you can build up to the
existing neighbor, but not the back yard. If it was a side yard he would be able to
build up to the line.
· Realistically this is a side yard.
Lemke: · Questioned staff on a minimum distance for an alley. Kansier said there was
nothing for a private driveway or access. This is a private driveway. It is not that
much different from what is there now.
· A strict reading of the 9 hardship criteria - it might be a stretch that it is met.
· The applicant's request makes sense. Understands the front access is on the side.
· Support the request since the applicant is willing to work with Fongs.
Atwood:
· Agreed with the rear and side issue.
· Had an issue with the "undo concentration of structures in relationship of
surrounding land." Viewed the land but technically the hardships had not been
met, but it is a reasonable request fi'om a business owner to expect that area for
construction.
· Supported.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Ringstad, the hardships have not been met, however, the i~onffback
yard setback argument is an issue. The way to do that is to overrule staff
indicating Eagle Creek Boulevard is the frotu. That then eliminates 10 feet offthe
building. We do not have the right to do that.
· When this ordinance came up a few weeks ago, I brought up the fact rear yard
setbacks were not needed at all. I stood alone on that issue and everyone else felt
a I0 foot setback was needed. It was argued for quite a bit and I was overruled
because the others strongly felt a 10 foot setback was needed. Now the very first
building we see, they are saying it is not needed. In that case, the ordinance
should be reviewed.
· A variance is not warranted in this case.
· Did not support.
Criego: · Did not disagree with Stamson. But felt there were two side yards, a front and
back yard. The back yard is the extension of the building. My log/c is not as
sound as I thought it was.
· We can't allow variances without hardship criteria.
· Can we allow side yards to be zero.
· If there is justification it is a comer lot - that's the hardship.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteskMN0708022.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8. 2002
Stamson pointed out staff and most Commissioners felt very strongly that there should be
10 foot division. A variance should not be granted - the ordinance should be changed.
Criego agreed. The Commissioners continued to discuss the back yard versus the
variance request.
Criego questioned how the City addresses the issue of not damaging the neighboring
property. Kansier explained it would be addressed at the building permit phase.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR
THE VARIANCE AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION. THE
FINDINGS BEING IT IS A UNIQUE CORNER LOT AND SITUATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke and Atwood. Ringstad and Stamson voted
nay. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
A recess was called at 7:50 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:04 p.m.
C. Case #02-076 Hillcrest Homes, Inc. is requesting variances to allow grading,
fill and excavation within the bluff impact zone on property located at 14764
Rosewood Road.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Hillcrest Homes, Inc. to
permit a boulder retaining wall to remain on the property located at 14764 Rosewood
Road. The boulder wall and fill were installed during the construction of a single-family
dwelling that was approved under Building Permit # 01-1206. The applicant had
submitted a building permit application and survey for the project, but the submitted
materials did not include the retaining wall and the grading/filling work conducted within
the bluff impact zone as part of the proposed project. Thus this work was done without a
permit. An inspection of the project by staff discovered the work. The applicant is
requesting a variance to permit the import of materials and grading/filling within the bluff
impact zone.
The Area Hydrologist with the Department of Natural Resoumes submitted comments on
this request. The DNR visually inspected the site and directed the applicant to correct the
riprap boulders placed along the shoreline. He reserved judgment on the work in the
bluff impact zone until an engineers report was submitted, but commented that removing
the boulders and imported fill at this point may have greater potential for erosion and
slope failure.
Staff felt all nine-hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the requested
variance to permit the import of materials and grading/filling in a bluff impact zone. The
L:\02FI LES\02planning comm\02pcmin utes~vlN0708022.doc
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8. 2002
applicant created the hardship when the boulder retaining wall and fill were installed on ·
the subject property. The site was not developed as approved under Building Permit #
01-1206. The staff therefore recommended denial of the requested variance as proposed
by the applicant.
Criego asked to restate the ordinance for the side yard wall. Horsman explained. He also
pointed out the retaining wall in the drainage easement.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Chris Deanovic, President of Hillcrest Homes, said the staff report was correct
but wanted to explain the process of building on Prior Lake. Staff was correct on the
description of the east retaining wall in the easement. The corrections have been made
and will have it inspected by engineering. Also the DNR did have some requests for the
retaining wall on the lake. He has done a fair amount of home construction on the lake
and has never included retaining walls on the building permits. He did admit he was
unaware of the ordinance. The DNR has signed offon their work. Deanovic said he did
not try to sneak in a 150 foot retaining wall. The point is, now what do we do? They
waited a month to hear 15om the City Attorney and then started to put pressure on staff.
He was forced to go ahead and try to continue the project. That's when it was decided to
go for a variance. He would like to deal again with the bluff ordinance. It doesn't work
on this lot. Deanovic said they would like to get back on the project.
Stamson reiterated Deanovic's situation. Deanovic built a retaining wall making it less
steep at the base.
Deanovic explained the slope vegetation and the process. He felt taking the wall out will
do more harm than good. They didn't want anything washed out. One of the things the
ordinance is trying to do is avoid going in and cutting out the bottom of the lake. The flat
spot on the lake has always been there. It has never been touched. It is a tough site. He
is also dealing with the drainage issues with staff.
Criego questioned how much total fill was brought in. Deanovic said probably 10 loads,
6 for the road and 4 down to the retaining wall. The upper loads did not need permits, it
was part of the building permit. The lot sat for a long time because it was a difficult lot.
They are trying to work with staff for the best solution. He's had a "stop work order" on
this since February.
Horsman said the total footage would be 100 feet of the boulder wall in the impact zone.
Criego questioned if the boulders were technically in the bluff. Kansier responded they
were and Deanovic admitted he filled in the bluffwhich is specifically against the
ordinance. Deanovic responded they had done work in the bluff area. Kansier said the
City requires grading permits and this is far more than balance. The permits are very
limited. It is nothing new.
L:\02FILES~02planning eomm\02pcminutesXlvlN0708022.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 2002
Atwood questioned how far the easterly wall moved. Deanovic said they moved it out
about a foot from the 5 foot easement. Part of it encroached into the neighbor's property.
It has been pulled back outside the easement. The current survey does not show the
corrected work.
Horsman said the retaining wall is higher than 4 feet in some places, therefore the wail
would have to go back 10 feet. The key is to keep the walls out of the easement.
Deanovic said they will make sure the wall will be 4 feet or less.
Ringstad questioned what happens in the building phase when the boulder wail in the
bluffimpact zone. Where does the City go from here? Horsman explained a proposed
survey is reviewed by the building, planning and engineering departments. In a case like
this, it would have been caught and the applicant would be notified it was not permitted.
To get a grading permit, the applicant would have to supply exactly what is being
changed. At that time, it would be reviewed by the engineering department.
Stamson questioned if this would have been approved. Horsman said it would not.
Criego questioned why the wall was not caught by the building inspectors. Kansier
replied it was. A resident also complained.
Duane Melling, 4833 Beach Street, built the house across the street and said his view of
trees have now been replaced by a three car garage surrounded by a 4 foot stone wall.
The applicant has created a drainage problem with the new retaining wall. The organic
soil is being washed down into the lake. If the wall exists, it will force water into a 4 to 5
foot area between the properties with the washed out of muck and topsoil. It was
washing out before. Melling pointed out the water quality article in the recent Prior Lake
American. What the applicant is doing is not going to solve the problem. Melling
explained some of the washout on his property and suggested installing a culvert. It is a
hardship for the neighbors and he would like protection.
Criego asked Mr. Melling if he had any problems or issues with the boulder wall along
the bottom of the bluff. He said it was a shock to come back this spring and see a boulder
wall but understands the applicant needs to protect the waterline coming in and washing
out the property.
Evan Shadduck, 4841 Beach Street, felt the applicant is doing a pretty good job over all.
There was an error stated earlier - the applicant has been working on the project and
boulders have been moved without the City knowing it. The wall was constructed in the
winter. He called the engineering department out of concern. His point is so much with
the current construction as it is, two 4 inch pipes were stuck out over the retaining walls
forming a pond of sand and mud. The mud was all over. Shadduck explained the pipe
situation. He thanked the City for watching out for residents. But understood the
contractor needs to finish his project. There has been a lot of washout since the rains.
Shadduck felt the lower retaining wall does not affect the area.
L:\02FiLES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc l 0
Planning Commission Meeting
July ~, 2002
Chris Deanovie said he is aware of the ponding and will take care of it. The two pieces
of the tube are from the project and explained why they were there. The project still has
a "stop work order" - they cannot work inside.
Stamson questioned Deanovic on getting a permit for the boulder wall. Deanovic
explained the process working with staff. Horsman agreed with Deanovic's comments.
Jim Albers, ~ 6043 Northwood Road, the realtor representing the applicant, explained the
bluff ordinance. Albers cited a bluff issue on Twin Island. He did not believe staff's
bluff line was correct. The issue at hand is that section of wail in the bluff impact area.
Albers distributed pictures taken last winter of the project. He argued with Horsman on
the bluffordinance interpretation, the top of bluff and their DNR violation issue. Albers
felt the bluff definition was not clear. A brief discussion followed on the applicant's
surveyor determining the top of bluff. The question is where does the builder have to
remove it? Is removing it going to do more damage than has been done already? Their
engineer (not the city) felt the retaining wall should be lef~ in. Albers felt if the siop-
work order had not been done, these issues would have been handled a lot faster and
there would have been grass on the site and we wouldn't be dealing with the erosion issue
brought up by the neighbors.
Kansier stated this lot is difficult to build on. There are several files on this property with
the bluff determination. The bluffline was determined at the time the building permit
was issued. These are State roles and the City has to enfome them by law. The City
works extensively with the DNR on the definition and interpreting it correctly.
Stamson pointed out in this particular situation, a determination was made where the
bluffwas and agreed to by all parties before the construction of the house.
Kansier said the issue is the retaining wall. It is apparent fill was placed in the bluff
impact zone wherever the Commission defines that to be. That is the issue to deal with.
Duane Melling questioned if the wall was set back the proper distance. Kansier said
there was no variance requested. If the wall is more than 4 feet in height, it has to be
moved back to a minimum of 10 feet off the lot line. If it is less than 4 feet it has to be out
&the easement. Melling also questioned the drainage on his property. Assistant City
Engineer Larry Popple explained the engineering department will be working with the
applicant.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Questioned what type of materials should be in place of the 5 foot easement to
insure that the drainage goes to the lake and what would the engineering
recommend. Poppler explained the culverts and drainage.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vlN0708022.doc 1 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8. 20O2
· Questioned the drainage down to the lake. Important to note that every effort is
made to correct the problem with the proper materials. Kansier stated the City
will monitor the p~'oblem.
· Why has the City not made a recommendation? This is not a variance issue, it is a
violation of the ordinance and it should either be removed for fined.
· Kansier responded that in all violation cases the City gives people options. The
City tells them the available options and ask them to pursue a remedy. Horsman
said the City Attomey did feel a variance was an option. However, it is an after-
the-fact variance created by the applicant.
· Under the terms of how the Commission reviews variances, can't state this is a
legitimate variance. If the Commission denies this, what remedy will the City
take? Horsman explained it will depend on the Commissioners. Ordinarily the
City would issue a citation and bring the applicant to court.
· This was an honest error. How big an issue is this? Compared to the property
and the neighbors. He didn't take the bluff away, he added boulders. Pretty
straight forward. They violated an ordinance and the penalty could be $500 or
$1,000.
· Kansier said that is not an option. The City's job is to enforce the ordinance. The
City Attorney and City Council have options. Staffwill pursue this just like all
other violations. We have had other violations come before the Commission
which have been denied and staff has taken the next steps forward.
· Horsman stated the applicant wanted to keep the wall, staff's position was "No, it
is not a permitted use." The applicant is having his public hearing to deal with the
action.
· Stamson questioned the City Council process. Kansier explained the court
process.
· This does not have any major impact on the bluff or lake. Does it warrant a
variance?
· Guidelines are to deny the variance. But this should not prolong the project. The
bigger issue is the drainage on the east side of the property line.
Lemke:
· The DNR's comment is that removing the boulders may have greater potential for
slope failure. Concemed about that. Understand the wall was built without a
permit.
· The reason we have the bluff ordinance is to protect the bluff.
· Inspected the wall from the lake side. It appears to protect the bluff. It should
stay but don't know how.
· The bluff ordinance probably needs reworking. Its not for us to do, it is a State
Ordinance. If someone does something to protect the bluff- I have concerns
about taking the wall out.
Atwood:
· Agreed - not a fan of an after-the-fact variances, but if there is potential for slope
failure it should stay.
L:\02 FI LES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc 12
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 2002
· Feel strongly about erosion on the neighbors.
· The applicant will deal with it.
· Impression is that the City staff and the community would hold the applicant to
fixing the erosion.
· Grant the variance.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with 80% or 90% of the comments, but it was wrong, it was a mistake to
put the wall in. What if we look at another variance of the same thing tomorrow?
Another boulder wall in a bluff impact zone with someone saying "Gee, I didn't
know, it will do more harm than good to move it now." Now we created a
snowball and a precedence.
· Cannot support.
· Deny the request and remove all the boulders in the bluff impact zone.
Stamson:
· This fails greatly. The applicant created this problem. I don't like the grasping of
straws for the greater potential for erosion.
· This wall was not necessary for the bluff. It was put in for aesthetics.
· The engineer does not say the wall is necessary. He just said it isn't doing
anything to endanger the slope. He says it doesn't hurt anything being there.
· Hard time granting a variance on the assumption the wall is actually doing
anything.
· Read Pat Lynch's DNR comment - He really doesn't know without looking at an
engineer's report and that maybe that is the case. He is not saying the wall should
or shouldn't be removed.
· The applicant did not try to do something behind the City's back, he was careless.
· Agreed with Ringstad, every time someone touches the bluff, they come here and
say it's got to stay because we did it. To suddenly grant that because we think it
is a minor issue, is really going in the wrong direction. People will be going out
building blmef in the bluffall the time. It is one of the hardest things to enforce
now. If we Start looking at them saying '%vell they did it, now we're stuck with
it." It is a very slippery slope.
· Will not grant the variance.
Atwood questioned if the Commissioners could have this looked at during the building
permit stage. Kansier said the language is there.
Stamson said the problem is, this was done. If he would have brought it up during the
building permit stage, it would have been caught.
Atwood felt the applicant didn't know. Stamson said he should have asked. The
language is in the ordinance. If it was in his paperwork up front, it would have been
caught.
Atwood felt Stamson was correct, the wall was for aesthetics.
L:\02F1LES\02planning comm\02pcrffm u t eshMN0708022,doc 13
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 2002
Atwood questioned the "stop-work-order". Horsman explained the situation came about
based on a complaint and further explained the corrections that needed to be done. The
corrections have not been verified.
Kansier explained the City has to be consistent with all applicants.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY R1NGSTAD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 02-
010PC DENYING THE VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE IMPORTATION OF
MATERIAL INTO A BLUFF IMPACT ZONE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Ringstad, Criego and Atwood. Lemke nay.
MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
A recess was called at 9:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
D. Case #02-072 Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.400 Definitions and
1104.308 (4) Water Oriented Accessory Structures of the Zoning Ordinance.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO TABLE TO THE JIJLY 22,
2002, MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Old Business:
A. Case Files #02-024 and #02-025 - Consider a Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plat to be known as Timber Crest Park. The proposal includes 28.19
acres to be subdivided into 148 townhouse units located in the southeast quadrant of
the intersection of County Road 21 and Highway 13, on the north side of Franklin
Trail and Bluff Heights Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Ray Brandt has applied for approval of a development to be known as Timber Crest Park
on the property located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH
13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail. The property owner, Prior
Lake Apartments, has also signed the application.
The application includes the following requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN0708022.doc 14
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 2OO2
This property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The proposal calls for a
town_house development consisting of a total of 148 dwelling units on 28.19 acres. The
development also includes parkland and private open space.
On May 21, 2002, the applicant submitted a complete application that called for a
development consisting of 170 units. Since the application was complete, the staff
scheduled a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Notice of this hearing was
published in the Prior Lake American and sent to owners of property within 500' of the
site.
This original proposal involved filling a large portion of the wetland on the site. The
Wetland Technical Evaluation Panel ('rEP) subsequently advised the developer that the
proposal was inconsistent with the Wetland Conservation Act, and could not be
approved.
As a result of the TEP decision, the developer submitted new plans on June 11, 2002.
Because of the timing of this submittal, the staff has not had the opportunity to review
these new plans. In addition, the developer must submit a revised wetland mitigation
plan and revised storm water drainage calculations. However, since the public hearing
had already been published and notices sent, the staffhad no choice but to place this item
on the agenda.
The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on June 24, 2002, and accepted
limited testimony. The Planning Commission then continued the public hearing to July
8, 2002, to allow staff time to further review the revised plans.
One of the major issues pertaining to this development is whether or not the plan meets
the pLrD criteria. The primary justification for a PUD appears to be the use of the private
streets. A cluster development of this type is permitted in the R-4 district, so a similar
development with public streets, and meeting the required setbacks could be done
without a PUD. The plan is consistent with the requirements for a conventional cluster
development.
The other major issue pertaining to this development is the design of the storm water
runoffsystem. There are several issues pertaining to the proposed design that must be
addressed. It is more than likelYthat the system will need to be redesigned entirely.
This site is zoned R-4, and is appropriate for a higher density residential development.
Some consideration should be given to the use of this site for multi-family buildings. It
may be POSsible to develop a similar or greater number of units on the site in fewer
buildings. Fewer buildings would also potentially disturb less of the site.
If the Planning Commission finds that the PUD process is appropriate for this
development, the staff would recommend the following conditions be attached:
L:~02FILES~02planning comm\02peminutesWIN0708022.doc 15
Planning Commission Meeting
,~uly 8, 2002
1. The developer must address all of the issues in the memorandum from the City
Engineer dated duly 3. 2002.
The Planning Staff recommended denial of the request. There are several major issues
that must be resolved.
Atwood questioned the modifications for building materials. Kansier explained they
would have to reduce the units to 4 or less.
Atwood questioned 60% of Class I material. Kansier responded.
Criego questioned if staff recommended a PUD. Kansier said they had several
discussions with the applicant. Kansier explained the difference.
Comments from the public:
Gary Grant, Vice President of Pulte Homes, said they are happy to be in the City of Prior
Lake and gave a brief background on their business. Grant pointed out this property is
zoned for 30 units per acre, however they have decided to go with less to blend into the
neighborhood. Grant presented diagrams and photos of homes they have built in the
Twin Cities area similar to the proposal. The homes are affordable. This project will be
built in one phase and a professional association will maintain the project.
Ray Brandt from Brandt Engineering responded to some of staff's issues. The street
lighting has a plan prepared by Xcel Energy. There would be a greater impact to the site
with a higher density. Brandt said there were no major issues and he will do whatever the
Engineering Department requests and meet the conditions. The useable open space is
more than adequate. Brandt said he didn't think there would be a problem with Pulte
Homes for access to the park.
Steve Blonigan, 5210 Credit River Road, did not agree with the traffic report submitted
by the company hired by the applicant. He interpreted the letter from the Craig Jensen,
Scott County Transportation Planner dated March 21, 2002, to Jane Kansier, as not
wanting any more traffic on County Road 21. Kansier explained that letter was
addressing the proposed access on County Road 21. The access was changed. Blonigan
felt that indicated the project should go elsewhere. Blonigan did not feel bigger is better
- the City does not need more apartments and did not want the additional vehicles.
Robin Grund, 4824 BluffHeights Trail, said her first concern was the existing traffic in
the area, especially Franklin Trail and Highway 13. Adding apartments will add to the
problem - it is a safety issue. A second new apartment development is going in next to
this project. Grund questioned if there was any plans to address Franklin Trail. Kansier
responded she would check the Capital Improvement Plan. Grund's other concern was
the adequate size of the street to hold the traffic.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc 16
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8. 2002
Tom Klingen, 16516 Franklin Trail, owns the apartment building next to the project,
stated his concern was also for the traffic, especially the access. His building is located
20 feet from the property line and is concern for the noise and pollution problems. He
felt this site is a very difficult high density site to work. Klingen said he would not
consider the higher density with 500 homes a threat on this property.
Linda Micko-Rasche, 16461 Franklin Trail, stated she lives on the worst possible corner
of Franklin Trail and County Road 21. Other neighbors have left the meeting but their
concern is for the traffic.' She called the Prior Lake Police Depamnent for the accidents
that occurred at Franklin Trail and County Road 21. Micko presented the report and
pictures of an accident. Micko questioned if the City talks to the County about projects.
Kansier responded they have frequent discussions with the County. She would like the
traffic reduced. Micko questioned the single garage units and wondered where the
additional parking would be. Kansier responded. Her final comments to the developers
that backfilled around the pond in her back yard that several trees were destroyed.
Leo Fecht, 16475 Franklin Trail, lives across from the potential project. He was very
happy to move into the area with all the lush green trees. Fecht hates to see all the trees
and the nature destroyed especially with the global warming. We are losing all our
oxygen and water supply. We are not taking care of Prior Lake itself. Step back and take
a look to what people are dong to this world. Fecht suggested a moratorium for Prior
Lake and not be concerned with all the tax money. Why bring in more problems?
Requested denial of the project. It would be wonderful if the planners would consult with
the professionals at the University of Minnesota.
Gary Grant said he is not surprised by the comments. This property is a very hard piece
of property to work. He too, is very concerned for the trees and the outdoors. They will
work with staff and intend to partner with the community.
Allan Kiugman from Westwood Company, explained the traffic study and average
number of units in the report. Over all, these are very low numbers in terms of
contribution to the surrounding area.
Criego asked Klugman to restate the early morning traffic numbers. Klugman explained
the 65 trips are the highest in a 60 minute period. This also includes all traffic, delivery
trucks, etc.
Atwood questioned the busiest hours - Klugman said they counted for a two hour period
which was 7:30 am to 8:30 am and then 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm.
Atwood questioned the location of the property taken into account. Klugman responded
that the location of the land is taken into account. He also explained the different uses.
He explained the current traffic counts and added the percentage of the proposed
development. Atwood questioned the level of serfice grading. Klugman gave a brief
description of the grading. He has been in this business for 20 years and these numbers
are actually very low.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcrainutesWIN0708022.doc 17
Planning Commission Meeting
duly 8, 2002
Lemke questioned Klugman with the numbers going offFranklin Trail to Highway 13.
Klugman said they would be adding 174 cars in a 24 hour period.
Assistant Scott County Engineer Greg Ilkka, briefly addressed some of the issues
including the letter from Craig Jensen. Speed limits are set by the Minnesota Department
of Transportation, the County cannot directly change that. The speeds are set
appropriately and the local enforcement is good. The County has no issues with the staff
report. Ilkka also reported existing traffic counts. The accidents at Franklin and
Highway 13 are a concern for the County. They are working with the City on turn lanes
and upgrades. However the projects are not in the current CIP. County Road 21 is
approaching capacity. The immediate need is for left turn lanes.
Criego questioned the speed limits and why couldn't the speed be reduced around
Franklin. Ilkka explained the process. The area through the wagon bridge reflected the
comfort of drivers at 35mph. Where there is better access the speed is higher.
Criego said everyone has to quit playing the bureaucratic game and reduce the speed
limit. Ilkka said the County cannot change the speed limit.
Ringstad asked if the County and City supported a reduction would the State reduce it.
Ilkka responded it could help the argument.
Linda Micko-Rasche said it did not make sense with potentially 300 more cars that rash
hour would generate only 65 trips.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Questioned staff on the significant issues with the proposal and recommending
denial. Kansier said based on her conversations with the City Engineer the
problems are not that easily solved. The second issue is whether this development
should be a Planned Unit Development.
· The property is zoned for high density and cannot deny someone the use of the
land. But whether a PUD is appropriate is not the issue.
Atwood: · Private streets - cannot support the entrance with Bluff Heights extending so
close to County Road 21.
,, Not opposed to the development.
· A PUD is appropriate but not in favor of modifying the building materials.
· Felt very strongly for a petition to the State to reduce the speed limit.
· Agreed with the residents that something needs to be done on the traffic issue.
· Not crazy about the park access on BluffHeights Trail.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN0708022.doc
18
Planning Commission Meeling
July 8, 2002
Ringstad: · The main concern is the fact the storm water rUnoff is an issue with the City. Until
it is not an issue or I see something in writing that the system has been designed
appropriately to handle the ground floor area, I will not support.
· It needs to be designed to the City's satisfaction.
· Not sure it needs a PUD process.
· Will not support at this time.
Criego: · There is not enough information to make a decision tonight. Maybe table.
· The land use is appropriate - would rather see townhomes than apartments.
· The purpose ofthe PUD is to give and take. The City and the citizens and
applicants all receive something. The only benefit for the City is the private
streets. It is not a big enough carrot for the City.
· The applicant is asking for lenience between units and less than standard material.
Kansier said the exterior material is for the 6 and 8 unit buildings.
· Go with the normal process, not a PUD.
· Personally stay a PUD but there are additional things the citizens would like to
see on this project. There are not enough trails and walking paths. There needs to
be some clear access to the park from the other neighbors.
· There should be sidewalks on at least one side of the street.
· Class I should be used on all units and would prefer to see 4 units.
· Asking for trouble with single garage. Parking will be a problem.
· A PUD will improve the project.
· The traffic is a continual problem, this project will not affect that2 We cannot stop
development.
· Table.
Stamson:
· Concern for open space, there is a lot of slopes but the site is sloped. It is
acceptable giving the site. '
· Drainage has to be to staff's satisfaction before going forward. That is a major
concem.
· ' Questioned building height separation. Kansier explained.
· Building material has to be Class I.
· Traffic problems are not from the residents on site. Its from people using
Franklin Trail as a shortcut. Once the ring road is complete, less traffic will occur
on Franklin Trail. This development will not be a major impact.
· The interchange with the access point is too close to Franklin Trail, but no other
altemative.
· The PUD was a gray area. Not a lot of benefit to the City - no environmental
gains.
· Allowing the building separation is better for the townhouse than the rental units.
· The drainage must be addressed.
· Put in trails and sidewalks. Be creative and benefit the City.
L:~02FILES~O2planning comm\02pcminutesWiN0708022.doc 19
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8. 2002
· In the long run, the drainage must be addressed before moving forward.
Ray Brandt addressed some of the Commissioners comments - no problem with
walkways around the pond. The private streets are smaller. The storm water issue is just
a matter of working it out with the engineering staff. Brandt explained the "Village"
townhomes and the slopes. Would like to see it approved with the condition that those
issues be worked out with staff.
Kansier suggested continuing to the second week in August. There are time limitations.
MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY STAMSON TO TABLE THE MEETING TO
AUGUST 12, 2002.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all.
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Notices will be sent out for the joint city council/advisory meeting July 29, 2002.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 11:18 pm.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\02FI LES\02planning comm\02pcrnin utesWiN0708022.d oc 20
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD
SETBACK, AND APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
DENYING VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD
SETBACK, THE OHWM SETBACK, THE SUM OF SIDE
YARDS, AND THE SETBACK FOR A BUILDING WALL
OVER 50', FOR DENNIS & KAREN PERRIER, Case
File #02-068
16502 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
JULY 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 8, 2002, to consider a
variance application for the construction of a new single family dwelling with
attached garage on the property located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle. After
review of the applicant's request with respect to the variance hardship criteria,
the Planning Commission approved part of the applicants' request and denied
part of the request. Accordingly the Commission directed staff to draft
Resolution 02-008PC approving the following variance with conditions:
1 ) A 9-foot variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback from the rear lot line
rather than the minimum required 25-feet.
The following conditions are included in the Resolution and must be adhered to
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed dwelling:
1. The resolution must 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.
2. The applicant must submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the
approved variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Commission, along with the proposed finish grades with drainage and an
erosion control plan.
3. The applicant must submit an application for an Administrative Lot
Combination of Lots 17, 20, & P.O. 21 for approval by the City and create
one legally transferable document. This document must be recorded at the
Scott County Land Records Office prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. The total impervious surface area on the combined lots may not exceed 30%
of the total lot area. The applicant must submit a certificate of survey and
impervious surface calculation worksheet identifying the impervious surface
on the lot.
5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state
agency regulations.
The Planning Commission also directed staffto draft Resolution 02-009PC
denying the following requested variances:
A 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard setback, rather than
the minimum required 25 feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional
Standards (4)].
A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the
Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum
setback of 62.5-feet as required by setback averaging [City Code
Subsection 1104.308(2)].
A 0.7-foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of 14.31-feet,
rather than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum of side yards on a
nonconforming lot [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open
Space (8)].
A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback
7-feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for
building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 (6)].
RECOMMENDATION:
The two attached resolutions are consistent with the Planning Commission's
direction for approval of a variance for a structure setback to the rear lot line, and
for denial of the requested variances for a structure setback from the rear lot line,
setback to the OHWM, sum of side yards, and setback for a building wall over
L:\02 FILES\02variances\02-068\CnsntAgnda Rpt.doc Page 2
50-feet long. The staff recommends adoption of Resolutions 02-008PC, and 02-
009PC.
It must also be noted that the applicants' have appealed the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council. This appeal is scheduled for a public
hearing on August 5, 2002.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt attached Resolution # 02-008PC approving the rear setback variance
with five conditions that the Planning Commission deemed appropriate under
the circumstances, and adoption of Resolution #02-009PC denying the
requested variances for a structure setback to rear lot line, setback to the
OHWM, sum of side yards, and building wall over 50-feet.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
This action requires two motions:
1. A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-008PC approving a 9-foot
variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback from the rear lot line with five
conditions; and;
2. A motion and second adopting Resolution 02-009PC denying the requested
variances for a 21.77-foot variance to permit 3.23-foot rear yard setback; a
12.5-foot variance to permit a 50-foot setback to the OHWM; a 0.7-foot
variance to permit a sum of side yards of 14.31-feet; and a 2-foot variance to
permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet to a side lot line.
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-068\CnsntAgndaRpt.doc Page 3
RESOLUTION 02-008PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 9-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 16-FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR LOT LINE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Dennis & Karen Perrier (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a new single family dwelling on
property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland
Overlay) District at the following location, 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, and
legally described as follows;
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the
South line of said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point
on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in
INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with
that part of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat oflNGUADONA BEACH,
adjacent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26
minutes 27 seconds East, assumed beating, along the southerly extension of the west
line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36
seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds
East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly
line of said Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of
10.31 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along
the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #02-068PC and held a hearing on July 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
l:\02files\02variances\02-068\aprvres.doc l
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Pr. (952) 447 4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIW EMPLOYER
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 to a rear yard setback will not result in the impairment of an
adequate supply of light and ak 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 does not exist on the nonconforming subject lot that
eliminates the need for the a variance to a rear yard setback. The proposed structnre's
rear yard setback is such that the hardskip has not been created by the applicant.
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the topography of the lot, and the required
setback averaging, as reasonable use of the property does not exist without the
granting of the variance.
The granting of the variance to a rear yard setback, 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 02-068PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following variance for a future single-family dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 -
Revised Certificate of Survey;
1) A 9-foot variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback to a rear property line,
rather than the minimum 25-feet as required by the zoning ordinance.
Approval of this variance is subject to the following conditions:
The resolution must 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.
2. The applicant must submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the approved
variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, along with the
proposed finish grades with drainage and an erosion control plan.
l:\02files\02varianee$\02-068kaprvres.doc 2
The applicant must submit an application for an Administrative Lot Combination of
Lots 17, 20, & P.O. 21 for approval by the City and create one legally transferable
document. This document must be recorded at the Scott County Land Records Office
prior to issuance of a building permit.
The total impervious surface area on the combined lots may not exceed 30% of the
total lot area. The applicant must submit a certificate of survey and impervious
surface calculation worksheet identifying the impervious surface on the lot.
5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 22, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\02files\02variances\02-068\aprvres.doc
RESOLUTION 02-009PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A, 21.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 3.23-
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR LOT LINE; A 12.5-FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 50-FEET TO THE OHWM; A 0.7-
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 14.2-FEET; A 2-
FOOT VARIANCE FOR A 7-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK OF A BUILDING
WALL 74-FEET LONG
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Dennis & Karen Perrier (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of 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, 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, and legally
described as follows;
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the
South line of said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point
on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in
INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with
that part of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat of INGUADONA BEACH,
adjacent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26
minutes 27 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west
line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36
seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds
East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly
line of said Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of
10.31 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along
the easterly and southerly lines of sai6 Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #02-068PC and held hearings thereon on July 8, 2002.
l:\02files\02variances\02-068\dnyres.doc
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota S5372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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 a structure setback to the rear lot line, Ordinary High Water Mark
setback, side yard, and sum of side yards. 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.
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.
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 altemative structure
to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 02-068PC 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 single-family dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 -
Certificate of Survey;
1) A 21.77-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot structure setback to the rear property
line, rather than the minimum required 25-feet.
2) A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Mark, rather than minimum setback of 62.5-feet as required for
setback averaging.
l:\02files\02variances\02-068\dnyres.doc 2
3) A 0.7-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 14.3-feet rather than the
minimum required 15-feet on a nonconforming lot.
4) A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet
to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for building walls over
50-feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 22, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\02files\O2varianees\02-068\dnyres.doc 3
DENNIS PERRIER
VALLEY SURVEYING CO,, P.A.
ATTACHMENT I - CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A O-FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM A REAR PROPERTY
LINE FOR A NEW ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
BUILDING IN THE C-3 SPECIALTY BUSINESS
DISTRICT (File #02-075)
16281 MAIN AVENUE SE
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
JULY 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department held a public hearing on July 8, 2002, to consider a
variance application from Mr. Bernard Carlson to allow the construction of an
addition to an existing commercial building on the property located at 16281
Main Avenue. The proposed addition will be attached to the side of the existing
building and extend to the rear lot line. After review of the applicant's request
with respect to the variance hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed
staff to draft Resolution 02-011 PC approving the following variance:
1. A 10-foot variance to permit a O-foot structure setback from a rear
property line rather than the minimum required 10-feet.
The following conditions are included in the resolution and must be complied with
pdor to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed addition:
1. The resolution must be recorded with 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.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state
agency regulations:
h\02flies\02vadances\02-075\cnsntagndrpt.doc Page
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
3. The subject site shall be developed as shown on the attached certificate of
survey.
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction
for approval of a 10-foot variance to permit a O-foot structure setback to the rear
lot line. The staff recommends adoption of Resolution 02-011 PC.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution 02-011 PC approving a rear yard structure setback variance
with conditions that the Planning Commission deemed appropriate under the
circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends Alternative #1. A Motion and second adopting
Resolution 02-011 PC approving the requested variance to the 10' minimum
building setback from a rear property line for the addition to the existing building
as shown on Attachment 1.
1:\02files\02variances\02-075\cnsntagndrpt.doc Page 2
RESOLUTION 02-011PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK
OF 0' FEET FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE RATI~,R THAN THE REQUIRED
MINIMUM 10 FEET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mr. Bernard J. Carlson has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of an addition to a commercial building on property located in the C-
3 District (Specialty Business) at the following location, to wit;
16281 Main Avenue SE, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Carlsons Hardware
Addition, Plat 25369, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
g02-075PC and held a hearing on July 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.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the proposed
variance for a O-foot rear setback will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public sheets,
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 justifiable hardship caused by the required rear yard setback and the location of the
existing structure, as reasonable use of the property does not exist without the granting of the
variance.
The granting of the variance 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. The factors above do not
allow for an alternative structure to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
7. The contents of Planning Case 02-075PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
l:\02files\02variances\02-075Xaprvres.do¢ 1
3.6200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following
variance for a future building addition to a commercial building as shown in Attachment 1;
1. A 10-foot variance to permit a structure setback of O-feet from a rear property line, rather
than the required minimum 10-feet.
The following conditions shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
proposed addition:
1. The resolution must be recorded with 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.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
3. The subject site shall be developed as shown on the attached certificate of survey.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 22, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\02file$\02varianees\02-075Xaprvres.doc 2
/
/
m
1.1.1
NIVitv
Z
UJ
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE STERLING SOUTH AT THE
WILDS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND A
COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO
BE KNOWN AS STERLING ADDITION AND THE
VACATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS OVER THE COMMON LOT AREA
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
JULY 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
McDonald Construction has submitted an application that includes the following
requests:
· An amendment to the Sterling South at The Wilds Plauned Unit Development Plan;
· A Combined Preliminary and Final Plat;
The vacation of a portion of the existing drainage and utility easement over Lot 89,
Block 1, Sterling South at The Wilds Addition.
The proposal amends the existing PUD plan to allow a combination of detached single
family dwellings and townhouses within Sterling South at the Wilds. The proposal also
includes a replat of Lots 31-40, Block 1, Sterling South at The Wilds, to accommodate
both townhouses and detached single family dwellings.
BACKGROUND:
The Wilds PUD was originally approved as a mixed use development in 1993. In
August, 1994, the final plan for Sterling South at The Wilds was approved by the City
Council. The original plan allowed 88 townhouse units in 44 buildings. In October,
1997, the City Council approved an amendment to the origi~nal plan. This amendment
replaced the then 80 remaining townhouse units with 80 detached single family homes.
The approved plan included 3 styles of single family dwellings that would fit on the
l:\02files\02pudsXstefling south~sterling 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
existing lots in the development. To date, the 8 townhouse units and 24 detached single
family dwellings have been built or are under construction.
DISCUSSION:
PUD Amendment: The proposed amendment would allow a combination of townhouses
and detached single family dwellings on the remaining lots in the Sterling South area.
The style and size of the proposed townhouses and single family dwellings is similar to
the approved style. The proposed townhomes are 2-story walkouts, with double garages,
porches and decks. Each unit includes 1,6380 square feet of floor area. There are also
two styles of detached single family dwellings proposed. Each of these styles is a 2-story
walkout, with attached 2-car garages, porches and decks, and include from 1,700 to 1,900
square feet of floor area. All units will have stucco fronts, and vinyl siding on the
remaining three sides.
For the most part, the townhomes and the detached single family dwellings will fit within
the existing lots. However, the applicant is also proposing to replat Lots 31-40 to provide
additional room for the single family homes. This replat will eliminate two lots, and
reduce the overall density of the existing PUD from 88 units to 86 units.
The proposal does not change any of the approved setbacks. The required setbacks for
each unit will remain as follows:
Front Yard:
Rear Yard:
Side Yards:
25' from back of curb
5' from lot line
10' separation between buildings
Combined Preliminary and Final Plat: The proposed plat of this property does not
include any new right-of-way. The existing streets in the subdivision are private streets,
and the homeowners association handles maintenance. The plat also does not require any
additional drainage or utility easements. The purpose of the replat is to rearrange the
existing lot lines, and to reduce the number of Iots.
Vacation: When Sterling South at The Wilds was platted in 1994, Lot 89, Block I, was
platted as common area for the townhouse development, and as such, was covered by a
drainage and utility easement. The developer is requesting the vacation of a portion of
this easement at this time because three of the new units will be located within this area.
The vacation will not affect the remainder of the easements on the common lot.
Sta. f.f Recommendation: The proposed PUD amendment, combined preliminary and
final plat and vacation are consistent with the existing development of Sterling South at
The Wilds. The staff therefore recommends approval, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The resolution vacating the easement will not be recorded until the final plat of
Sterling Addition has been approved and signed by the City.
1:\02 files\02puds\sterling southksterling pc.doc
Page 2
2. The applicant must provide existing and proposed individual water and sanitary sewer
service stub locations per lot or building.
3. The final plat of "Sterling Addition" is subject to the following conditions, which
shall be met prior to release of and recording of the final plat:
a. A current title opinion or commitment of title insurance be submitted acceptable
to the City Attorney.
b. Payment of all fees prior to release of the final plat mylars.
c. Reductions of the entire final plat be submitted, to the following scales: 1" -- 200';
and one reduction at no scale which fits onto an 81/2" x 11" sheet of paper.
d. Four mylar sets of the final plat with all required signatures be submitted.
e. The developer provide financial security, acceptable to the City Engineer prior to
release of the final plat mylars.
f. The final plat and all pertinent documents must be filed with Scott County within
90 days from the date of final plat approval. Failure to record the documents by
this date will render the final plat null and void.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
PUD Amendment, Combined Preliminary and Final Plat and easement vacation.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the amendment to the Sterling South at the Wilds PUD Plan,
the combined preliminary and final plat and the easement vacation subject to the
above conditions.
2. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the
issues that have been discussed.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the following requests:
· Approval of an amendment to the Sterling South at The Wilds Planned Unit
Development subject to the above conditions;
l:\02files\02puds~sterling south~sterling pc.doe Page 3
· Approval of a Combined Preliminary and Final Plat to be known as Sterling Addition,
subject to the above conditions.
· Approval of the portion of the drainage and utility easement over Lot 89, Block 1,
Sterling South at the Wilds, subject to the above condition.
EXHIBITS:
1. Reduced Copy of PUD and Preliminary and Final Plat Plans
2. Developer's Narrative
3. Map of Existing Development
4. Aerial Photo
5. Building Department Comments
1:\02 files\02pudsXsterling south\sterling pc.doc
Page 4
APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE RECORDED PLAT OF
"STERLLING SOUTH AT THE WILDS"
NARRATIVE
BACKGROUND:
The original design of this PUD provided for all structures to be twin homes. The
twin home concept was then changed to allow single family units On all lots.
McDonald Construction has an interest in the majority of available lots and has
proceeded in building forty and forty two feet homes on numerous lots.
PURPOSE;
There are several areas in the current plat in which the layout of the lots,
easements and streets make it impossible to build the proposed forty and forty-
two foot single family homes.
This proposal will change the layout of lots 31-40 to a layout, which will
ultimately provide for 8 lots instead of the current 10. This will decrease the
density of the subdivision and allow a design that will meet the setback
requirements by increasing the size of the lots. In addition McDonalds would like
to modify the stipulations of the plat to allow twin homes to be built on lot~ 41-
44, and on lots 67-72.
With this proposal a copy of the proposed 40' and 42' hou.se plans has been
provided as well as plans for the Twin Home design. In addition, proposed
building layouts for Lots 3048 & Lots 63-78 are provided in Attachment "G',
which graphically represent the lots w/th the proposed buildings dra;vn meeting
all setback requirements.
HI. PROPOSAL:
On lots 31-34 in the current plat the lot widths average 45.00'. The proposal is to
create 3 new lots in this area.
This will be accomplished by making one lot out of all of lot 31 and the
northwesterly 8.27' of lot 32. Another lot will be created using the remainder of
lot 32, the northwesterly 24.00' of lot 33 and the enclosed portion of lot 89
created by drawing a line between the SE comer of lot 32 and the SW comer of
33. The final third lot will include all of lot 34 and the southeasterly 21.00' of lot
33.
On lots 35 through 40 the northerly borders are changed as follows: Beginning at
the NE, comer of existing lot 34; thence on an assumed bearing, North 77 degrees
42 minutes 54 seconds East 100.46 feet; thence South 86 de~ees 02 minutes 56
seconds West 157.25 feet to the Northeast comer of existing lot 40. The
Southerly bounda~ lines of lots 35 throu~ 40 will change as follows: be~nning
at the Southeasterly comer of existing lot 40; thence South 69 degrees 13 minutes
56 seconds West 90.00 feet; thence South 82 degrees 43 minutes 33 seconds
West 128.57 feet; thence North 89 degrees 32 minutes 35 seconds West 90.00
feet to the Southwest comer of existing lot 35.
PLEASE NOTE:
Lots 35 through 40 will change to create 5 lots from the existing 6. See the
proposal drawing for a pictorial of the changes. The original underling lot lines 35
through 40 are shown dashed with the new proposed boundary, lines solid.
There are sanitary and storm sewer easements that run between lots 71 / 72 - 42 /
43 and 69 / 68 - 44 / 45 respectively. These easements also decrease the lot
frontage and it is nearly impossible to utilize a 40' wide house on the lots.
Therefore it is desired that lots 67 through 72 become approved for McDonalds
Twin Home design as provided in this proposal.
IV. CLOSING REMARKS:
This proposal will decrease the density of the Subdivision. In addition extensive
research and planning has been completed resulting in a comprehensive plan to
ensure remaining lots and proposed homes meet the City setback requirements.
~.~:
on,
g
I
g~NOHNIm4. ,~o~ 3~F~3als3~ --~
Z
ZC
Sterling South at The Wilds
Existing Units
\1
SANTEE TRL.~_~/
EAGLES
Z
ORION CIR NW '
°N
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAY 22, 2002
JANE KANSIER
ROBERT D. HUTCHINS
STERLING SOUTH AT THE WILDS DRC PROJECT SITE REVIEW
Comments:
1. Provide existing and proposed individual water and sanitary sewer service stub
locations per lot or building.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
PERTAINING TO WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
JULY 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to water-oriented accessory structures. The Planning
Commission initiated this amendment on June 10, 2002.
This item was originally scheduled for a public hearing on July 8, 2002.
However, due to the length of the meeting, the Planning Commission continued
the public hearing until July 22, 2002.
DISCUSSION:
The Zoning Ordinance currently defines water-oriented accessory structures as
follows:
A building of 120 square feet or less used to store boating accessories and
equipment located on lakeshore lots that contain steep slopes equal to or greater
than 20% which because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature
reasonably needs to be located closer to the lakeshore ordinary high water mark
(OHW) than the normal structural setback requirement.
Section 1104.308 (4) regulates the use and location of these structures. This
sections currently reads as follows:
(4) Water-Oriented Accessory Structures: One water-oriented accessory
structure may be allowed per lot on General Development (CD) lakes that
]:~02files\02ordamend~.oning~02-072\pc report3.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EiVlPLOYER
have Municipal sewer and water, provided a building permit is obtained from
the City and the following criteria are met:
a. The lot contains a slope equal to or greater than 20% measured from the
front of the principal structure to the ordinary high water mark; and
b. The structure shaft not occupy an area greater than 120 square feet, and
the maximum height of the structure must not exceed 10 feet, including
the roof; and
c. The structure shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous portion
of the lot as viewed from the surface of the lake, assuming summer, leaf-
on conditions. The minimum setback requirement must be at least 10 feet
from the ordinary high water mark and must meet the other applicable
side yard setbacks. The slope shall be verified by a certificate of survey
prepared by a registered surveyor; and
d. The structure shall not be designed or used for human habitation and
shall not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. However,
the structure may contain electrical and mechanical systems; and
e. The structure shall be constructed of treated wood and/or block that is
compatible with the principal structure and designed to reduce visibility as
viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation,
topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on
conditions; and
f. If the proposed structure will be located below the regulatory flood plain
elevation, the structure shall be built compliant with applicable flood-
proofing requirements of the Building Code and Section 1105 of this
Ordinance; and
g. Trees that are 4 inches in caliper or larger should not be removed for the
erection of a water-oriented accessory structure. If removal is necessary,
replacement with like trees shall be made with the approval of the Zoning
Administrator. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and all
disturbed vegetation replaced with sod or suitable landscaping materials;
and
h. The structure shall be attached to a permanent foundation so as to be
immovable from its approved location.
Both the definition and the regulations for these structures are more restrictive
than the existing language in the Minnesota State Shoreland Rules. The
additional restrictions are intended to limit the number and size of accessory
structures on the lot, while at the same time allowing property owners with
access and storage of recreational equipment on riparian lots with steep slopes.
On June 10, 2002, the Planning Commission initiated an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance as follows:
1:\02files\O2ordamend~zoning\O2-O72\pc report3.doc Page 2
An amendment to the definition of a water-oriented accessory structure to
include gazebos, screen houses and detached decks.
An amendment to Section 1104.308 (4) that would reduce the setback for
water-oriented accessory structures to 50' on lots without steep slopes. The
setback for these structures on lots with slopes greater than 20% would still
be 10 feet from the Ordinary High Water Elevation.
The attached draft ordinance includes the specific language for this amendment.
The proposed amendment is still more restrictive than the Minnesota Shoreland
rules, which include a much broader definition for water-oriented accessory
structures, and fewer limitations on setbacks.
The Lake Advisory Committee considered this amendment at its meeting on
June 18, 2002. The LAC recommended approval of the amendment.
Commissioner Criego asked the staff to survey some of the communities around
Lake Minnetonka about their restrictions on water-oriented structures. The staff
surveyed the cities of Minnetrista, Orono, Mound, Deephaven, Greenhaven,
Woodland and Excelsior. A copy of the results is shown in the attached e-mail
from Connie Carlson.
RECOMMENDATION:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states specific findings that must be
met to change the ordinance. These are:
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this
Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the
City.
3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal
requirements.
Whether or not a water-oriented accessory structure should be allowed on all
ripadan lots is a policy issue. The current ordinance provisions were generally
intended for aesthetic purposes. Eadier platted riparian lots tend to have smaller
dimensions and less total area than is required for lots today. There has also
been concern about the encroachment of structures on the lake.
The staff has no objections to the proposed amendment. The proposed
amendment will allow additional storage on riparian lots, and will still limit the
encroachment of structures on the shoreline.
1:\02flles~02ordamend~zoning\02-072',pc repor[3.doc Page 3
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendments as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1,
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment as
recommended by staff and indicated in the attached draft ordinance.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Amendment
1:\02files\O2ordarnendtzoning\O2-O72\pc repor~3.doc
Page 4
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 02- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1101.400 AND 1104.308 OF THE
PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
Section 1101.400 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
Water-Oriented Accessory Structure. A building of 120 square feet or less used to store
boating accessories and equipment located on lakeshore lots that contain steep slopes equal
to or greater than 20% which because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature
reasonably needs to be located closer to the lakeshore ordinary high water mark (OHW) than
the normal structural setback requirement. Examples of such structures include
boathouses~ gazebos~ screen houses~ and detached decks.
Section 1104.308 (4) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
(4) Water-Oriented Accessory Structures: One water-oriented accessory structure may be
allowed per lot on General Development (GD) lakes that have Municipal sewer and
water, provided a building permit is obtained from the City and the following criteria are
met:
a. The lot contains a slope equal to or greater than 20% measured from the front of the
principal structure to the ordinary high water mark; and
b. The structure shall not occupy an area greater than 120 square feet, and the
maximum height of the structare must not exceed 10 feet, including the roof; and
c. The structure shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous portion of the lot as
viewed from the surface of the lake, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. The
minimum setback requirement must be at least 10 feet from the ordinary high water
mark and must meet the other applicable side yard setbacks. The slope shall be
verified by a certificate of survey prepared by a registered surveyor; and
d. The structure shall not be designed or used for human habitation and shall not
contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. However, the structure may
contain electrical and mechanical systems; and
e. The structure shall be constructed of treated wood and/or block that is compatible
with the princip~tl structure and designed to reduce visibility as viewed from public
waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or
color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions; and
f. If the proposed structure will be located below the regulatory flood plain elevation,
the structure shall be built compliant with applicable flood-proofing requirements of
the Building Code and Section 1105 of this Ordinance; and
1:\02files~02ordamend~zoning\024)72~lraftord.doc PAGE I
g. Trees that are 4 inches in caliper or larger should not be removed for the erection of
a water-oriented accessory structure. If removal is necessary, replacement with like
trees shall be made with the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Erosion control
measures shall be implemented and all disturbed vegetation replaced with sod or
suitable landscaping materials; and
h. The structure shall be attached to a permanent foundation so as to be immovable
from its approved location.
i. On riparian lots containing slopes less than 20 percent~ one water-oriented
accessory structure meeting the criteria listed in paragraphs b-h above is
permitted with a setback of not less than 50 feet from the Ordinary High Water
Elevation.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this day of ., 2002.
ATTEST:
City Manager Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
__day of ., 2002.
l:\02file$\02ordamend~zonin g\02-072\dra ftord.doc PAGE 2
LAC MINUTES 6/18/02
dro
Mirsch
expected.
mentioned that in another community
are distributed in the parks.
will propose testing in next year's budget.
that the chlorides from
McDermott areas will
baggies for dog
were higher than
Vo
NEW BUSINESS
a. Lake Issues to be included mmunity Survey
McDermott
winter months can
gather input re, lake. The
residents.
phone during the
e a few questions for the survey to
99 phone survey contacted 400
Braddy
completed
the LAC have
y lake questions
questions
included.
issues
~lied that if the
the LAC can discuss which
10 questions or
forc
members of the LAC should bring
next LAC meeting.
10 questions
b. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to water oriented
accessory structures
McDermott stated that the Planning Commission is requesting input from
the LAC regarding the ordinance relating to the placement of water
oriented accessory structures. The current language in the ordinance
allows one water oriented accessory structure on lots that have a slope of
at least 20%. The proposed language in the ordinance would allow one
water oriented accessory structure regardless of slope.
After much discussion the LAC decided that they approve of the
ordinance modification.
Braddy thanked the Planning Commission for involving the LAC in this
item.
4
Page
Jane Kansier
From: Connie Carlson
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 3:53 PM
To: Jane Kansier
Cc: Don Rye
Subject: Water Oriented Accessory Structures
Jane, I called several cities and asked for their ordinance on water oriented accessory structures, specifically with
gazebos, sheds and boathouses.
Here are my findings:
MINNETR1STA - any structure has to meet the 75 foot setback for OHWM. No exceptions.
ORONO - No structures within the 75 foot setback. One allowance is a Iow lock box which is no bigger than 20 square
feet (4'x5') box to store life jackets, waterskis, ropes, etc.
MOUND - Nothing allowed within the 50 foot setback. No exceptions. No variances granted.
DEEPHAVEN - No structures within 100 feet of setback - no exceptions. Need a variance to replace a boathouse that
does not comply to current ordinances. Can make ordinary repairs.
GREENHAVEN (Lake Minnetonka) ~ 50 foot setback - No structures between house and OHWM.
WOODLAND (Lake Minnetonka) - 75 foot setback from OHWM - no structures - no exceptions.
No reply from Excelsior.
Hope this info helps.
7/16/02
/
/