HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/20022.
3.
4.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY - OCTOBER 14, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Case 02-088 Gau Variance Resolution
Public Hearings:
Case 02-097 Mark Liesner is is applying for a 52,492 square foot variance from
the required minimum 2 acre lot area in the RS (Rural Subdivision Residential)
zoning district and a 76 foot variance from the required 100 foot minimum
setback from a tributary river for the construction ora single family dwelling on
Lot 13, Block 2, Titus 2"d Addition
Case 02-108 Jim Deanovic - Peter Andrea Company, Wensmann Realty and
Jeffers Estate are requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map to designate the north V2 of the Jeffers property from R-L/MD and C-BO to
R-HD. This property is located west of CSAH 21 and south of CSAH 42.
Old Business:
New Business:
Case 02-071 Ray Brandt is requesting to vacate the drainage and utility easements
located on the Timber Crest Park property. This property is located at the
southeast quadrant of'the intersection o£CSAH 21 and TH 13, on the north side of'
Franklin Trail and Bluf£I-Ieights Trail. New casements £or the existing and
relocated utilities will be rededicated as part of the final plat.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the September 23, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad
and Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane
Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, City Engineer Sue McDermott 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 September 9,2002, Planning Commission meeting will be
presented at the October 14, 2002 meeting.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case File #02-098 Janice Galloway is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow retail sales in the C-5 zoning district.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff stated the applicant contacted the City offices this afternoon
and requested withdrawing her application.
B. Case File #02-095 Thomas Knight is requesting variances from the minimum
7,500 square foot lot area and 50 foot lot width for nonconforming Shoreland lots,
the minimum 75 foot Shoreland setback, the maximum 30 percent impervious
surface coverage for Shoreland lots, the maximum 35 foot structure height, and
maximum 10 percent residential driveway slope for the construction of a single
family dwelling located at 15747 West Avenue.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated September 23, 2002, on
file in the office of the City Planner.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcrrm092302.doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
Thomas Knight is requesting variances from zoning ordinance provisions to permit the
construction of a single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland District) and located at 15747 West Avenue SE (Lot 5,
Point Beautiful). A single family dwelling and detached garage are present on the site.
Both are proposed to be removed to accommodate the new structure. The applicant
requests the following variances:
1. A 1,579 square foot variance from the minimum 7,500 square feet of lot area
for nonconforming Shoreland lots to allow a 5,921 square foot lot.
2. A 5 foot variance from the minimum 50 feet of lot width for nonconforming
Shoreland lots to allow a 45 foot wide lot.
3. A 1.2 percent variance from the maximum 30 pement impervious surface
coverage for Shoreland lots to allow 31.2 percent impervious surface
coverage.
4. An 8 foot variance from the maximum 35 feet height in the Shoreland district
to allow a structure 43 feet in height.
5. A 1.9 foot variance from the minimum 907.9 foot elevation for residential
vehicular access on property located within the floodplain to allow access at
906 feet.
6. A 5 percent variance from the maximum 10 percent residential driveway slope
to allow a 15 percent driveway slope.
Staff recommended approval of the requested variances to lot area and width and
vehicular access flood elevation, so the applicant can construct a reasonable use on the
site. Staff believed all nine-hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the
requested height, impervious surface, and driveway slope variances. The applicant
created the hardship by the design of the dwelling. The staff therefore recommended
denial of the requested variances from maximum height, impervious surface coverage,
and driveway slope requirements, as proposed by the applicant. With respect to the
driveway slope variance, even if the Planning Commission does not approve the
requested variance, the City Engineer may approve a driveway slope exceeding 10% in
cimumstances of unusual topography or existing conditions.
Cornments frorn the public:
Applicant Tom Knight, 15747 West Avenue, stated he did not have any problem moving
the shed. The height can be changed as well. He will also adjust to bring all variances
into compliance.
Criego questioned if the variances were granted, what width would he need? Knight said
it would be 24 feet. Staff confirmed.
The hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m.
Planning Commission Minute~
September 23, 2002
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Questioned staff on variance #5 (elevation). Kirchoff said it would be for the
driveway access, as it is an existing condition.
· Questioned staff on variance #6 (driveway slope). Kirchoffpointed out the
survey shows a 15% driveway grade. City code is 10%. Staff felt it could be
13.5%. McDermott explained the grade. After the report went out staffwas
informed the actual grade was 13.5%.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation with approvals and denials.
Lemke:
· If the shed is removed, is applicant under the 30% impervious surface? Kirchoff
responded it would be. The shed would take care of the impervious surface
variance.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Atwood:
· Agreed with commissioners and staff including the impervious surface.
Ringstad:
· Concurred.
Stamson:
· Agreed. Staff's approach is correct.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 02-
012PC A 1,579 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 7,500 SQUARE FOOT
MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS, A 5 FOOT VARIANCE
FROM THE 50 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS,
AND A 1.9 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 907.9 MINIMUM ELEVATION FOR
VEHICULAR ACCESS IN THE FLOODPLAIN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 02-
013 A 1.2 PERCENT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 30 PERCENT
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE, AN 8 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 35
FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT, AND A 5 PERCENT VARIANCE FROM THE 10
PERCENT MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY SLOPE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcrrm092302.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
6. Old Business:
A. Case File #02-07 - 212 Development is requesting consideration of a
Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan to be known as Crystal Bay
Townhomes consisting of 10.62 acres to be subdivided into lots for 26 townhomes.
This property is located on the south side of CSAH 82, east of Fremont Avenue and
½ mile west of CSAH 21.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 23,
2002, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
212 Development, LLC, has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Crystal Bay on the property located south of CSAH 82, directly east of Fremont Avenue
and approximately V2 mile west of CSAH 21. The application includes a request to
approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of 24 dwelling units on 10.62
acres. The development also proposes private open space and 21 boat slips for the use of
the residents.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item on September 9, 2002.
Following the close of the public hearing, the Commission generally agreed the
development was consistent with the PUD requirements. The Commissioners, however,
requested the developer submit new plans and information addressing the following
items:
· Provide calculations indicating the impervious surface in each tier, as well as the
overall impervious surface. The Planning Commission indicated the additional 25' of
right-of-way may be included within the impervious surface calculation, but the
impervious surface may not exceed the allowable 25% in each tier. The total mount
of impervious surface may not exceed 30 pement.
· Review the configuration of the boat slips with respect to water safety and other
issues. No more than 21 slips will be permitted.
· Revise the tree inventory to include only those trees considered significant in the
Zoning Ordinance. Identify which trees will be removed for roads and utilities, and
which trees will be removed for building pads.
· Revise the landscaping plan to meet all ordinance requirements. The landscaping
should also address any required tree replacement. The tree replacement
requirements are over and above the required landscaping.
· Provide details, including height and materials, on the proposed privacy fence along
the west lot line.
· Provide copies of the restrictive covenants for this development.
The remaining issue is the impervious surface in Tier 2. The staffhas discussed the use
of the permeable pavers with the DNR staff. As noted in e-mai1 from Mark Osbom, the
DNR will not oppose the use of this type of product if the City feels it is appropriate. The
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcrrm092302.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
DNR has suggested additional ponding or infiltration be provided to accommodate the
extra impervious surface. The City Engineering staff is reviewing the literature on this
product at this time.
Although the impervious surface in Tier 2 exceeds 25%, the impervious surface on the
entire site is less than the 30% maximum. If this development were not a PUD, the 25%
requirement would not apply. The developer would not be able to exceed the 30%
impervious surface on the site.
Staffrecommended approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat
subject to the conditions.
1. The tree inventory must be revised to include only those trees considered significant
in the Zoning Ordinance. All of the necessary information must be submitted to staff
to verify the calculations.
2. The landscaping plan should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements.
3. The private streets must be platted as outlots. An 11' wide drainage and utility
easements must be provided on either side of the outlot.
4. The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond.
5. All public improvements must be constructed to the standards of the Public Works
Design Manual. Revised plans must be submitted for review by the City.
Criego questioned the modifications as part of the PUD. Kansier responded there would
be 2; private streets are a modification. There are two setback requirements, both along
Fremont Avenue rather than the 25 feet, these are 15 feet at the closest point. There is a
setback to the private street. Instead of the 25 feet to the curb they are requesting 20 feet.
The second modification has to do with impervious surface in Tier 2. If you count to
give the developer credit for the pavers, it is not a modification.
Applicant, John Klingelhutz, said having all the driveways in the second tier uses up the
impervious surface. However, they have come up with pavers that will address the issue.
Klingelhutz explained process and tile system.
Criego questioned where this process is being used. Klingethutz said there is property in
Prior Lake using it now. McDermott said the City has looked at this issue before. The
concern is for the maintenance. The tiles have to be maintained so the system will still
work. Rye said some of the material submitted pointed out annual sweeping or
vacuuming of the pavers. There is no question there is a maintenance factor.
Klingelhutz said the Association would take care of it. The company said it could be
done every 3 to 5 years. He suggested maintenance could be made a condition of the
Association.
L:\02F1LES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcmn092302.doe 5
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
Ringstad questioned the maintenance price on a 3 or 5 year basis. Klingelhutz guessed
around $2,500 to $3,000.
Atwood questioned maintenance procedures. Klingelhutz responded.
Criego questioned the total length of the dock. Klingelhutz said the dock length
remained the same, they just changed the design to run parallel with the shoreline.
Criego said there are no documents showing the change. Kingelhutz explained the design
to allow more open water. Kansier felt it was shorter.
Klingelhutz also displayed a map showing the drainage. The second tier will run off into
the NURP pond.
Rye confirmed the dock dimension change is 10 feet shorter.
Lemke questioned the snow removal with pavers. Klingelhutz said it would handle it and
explained the snow removal procedures.
Commissioner Stamson opened the public hearing to only the specific issues discussed
(above).
Kyle Schroeder, 15555 Highland Avenue NW, felt the homeowners covenant is standard.
Kansier stated the homeowners association is the same as any subdivision development.
During the construction, the city has control, the next generation of homeowners is not
restricted by the City. Schroeder said he did not understand the impervious surface issue.
Kansier explained and confirmed the development was under 30% overall. He also felt
the pavers were a test and should be tested away from the lake where it wouldn't make
any difference if it didn't work. Schroeder questioned the paver maintenance upkeep by
the association.
Dave Retzlaff, 15559 Skyline Avenue, said he can not see the development from his
home but did not go along with the project. He agreed with Mr. Schroeder on the pavers.
Nothing has been proven that the pavers work and should not be allowed. Retzlaff
questioned variances. Kansier responded there were no variances requested and went on
to explain the differences between variances and modifications. The modifications are
setbacks with the private streets and the decision on the pavers. Retzlaffquestioned the
calculations on the tiers. Kansier responded it was based on the driveway. He suggested
reducing the housing size. It is a matter of money. A simple solution is to cut down on
the livable space. Retzlaff questioned the developer donating land. Does he want a favor
from the City? Stamson explained the land donation is a requirement for the City
parkland and in this case the City is taking cash. Stamson said the County is requesting
roadway easement for future development. Kansier explained the developer is donating
the additional land without payment.
The heating was closed.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcnm092302.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23. 2002
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Questioned the e-mail to Jane Kansier from Mark Osbom regarding the paving
area as impervious. If the developer goes to pavers, it will still be covered.
Kansier said they included all that area as hard surface when they did their
drainage plans. The DNR agreed. It has already been done.
· The developer akeady included extra drainage.
Paver Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· Questioned staff on any specific guidelines regarding recommendations on this
new (paver) product? None of the Commissioners are engineers. Any guidance
would be helpful. McDermott said the City has not allowed the pavers in the past.
It the City allows them now, they should consider writing the ordinance to give
people credit. Maybe 10% for using this.
· Questioned if any other Cities have guidelines to this? McDermott and Kansier
said they were not aware of any.
· Kansier said her conversations with the DNR are similar. It is a new product and
technology and somewhat unproven at this time.
· McDermott said they looked at similar products. One of the concerns of the City,
which the developer addressed is the freeze/thaw cycle. If the drain cycle system
is designed property, it should not be an issue.
Atwood: · Suggested being really specific on the instillation with inspections.
· McDermott agreed to ensure the City is getting what it approved.
Stamson: · Supported using the pavers in this specific instance. We are looking at
impervious surface at 25% where normally the City allows 30%.
· Comfortable trying something different. It this was not a PUD, 30% would be
allowed.
· The developer allowed additional ponding/'or non-impervious surface.
· Additionally, it is covered by the homeowners association and maintenance.
There is some assurance.
· Going in as part of the development process verses an individual, an engineer will
be closely monitoring the project.
· Overall there is little risk as a problem. It will be a good test, because it is under
30%.
· The downside is minimal even if it doesn't work. The developer has compensated
in other ways.
· Questioned if the City can allow modifications on impervious surface areas.
Kansier said it would be done through proper installation and inspection.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcrainutes\pcmn092302,doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2002
· Recommend to City Council a modification allowing 30% in Tier 2 subject to the
condition that the developer us this system. It is a unique situation.
Lemke:
· Questioned staff on the percentages if9,000 square feet were taken out of Tier 2.
Kansier said it would be 25%.
· The developer said they would use this for all of the driveways and it would be
well under 25%.
· This would be a net gain if the product worked as advertised, there would be less
runoff than if we had a regular development. It is a gain and a benefit.
· Agreed with Stamson, most of the runoff does not drain to the lake anyway.
There should be no major problems.
· Questioned if there was any kind of warranty on the pavers. Rye said he would
be surprised if they did. Them are so many factors outside the company's control.
The company may warranty the structure of the bricks. That's all they are
providing. The rest is up to whoever is installing it.
· Klingelhutz said the whole system would not work unless it was properly
engineered. It's not the brick, it's getting the water to the area. Engineering
could inspect it.
Criego: · Starting off was against it, but now feels strongly the other way. If the developer
is suggesting replacing the driveway with the pavers, it would be well below the
25% impervious surface.
· In favor of going forward with the plan.
· Still has concerns about the dock and should be checked by the DNR.
· There is a good relationship between the neighborhood and developer.
· Excited about the project.
Lemke:
· Add condition that maintenance of the pavers be added to the recommendation of
the approval.
· It also appears the boat slips have been pulled in closer to the shore.
· It will be a very beautiful addition to the City.
Atwood: · Agreed with Lemke.
· It appears the docks have been pulled in.
Ringstad: · There is a good working relationship between the developer and neighbors.
· The pavers - The townhomes will be marketed at $500,000+, those residents will
protect their interest. The homeowners will keep up their area.
· Just to ensure the pavers are what we think they are, perhaps post a Letter of
Credit for 5 years to meet the expectations.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcmn092302.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
· This should be a very nice project.
Stamson: · The developers have done a great job of addressing all issues.
· It is a nice design - an asset to the City.
· The pavers will work. It is a unique situation. All the risk has been mitigated.
· The trees will be protected on site.
· All other issues have been addressed to satisfaction.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE
PRELIMINARY PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS CRYSTAL BAY SUBJECT TO THE 5
CONDITIONS STATED BY STAFF. ADD #6, THAT THE DRIVEWAYS BE
IMPLEMENTED WITH THE PROPOSED SUBSTANCE PRESENTED. CONDITION
#7 - ADD STATEMENTS IN THE CONVENANTS THAT THERE WILL BE
MAINTENANCE TO THE PAVERS. CONDITION #8, RECOMMENDATION THAT
THE DNR CONSIDER THE REQUEST THAT THE DOCKS ARE AS CLOSE TO
THE SHORELINE AS POSSIBLE AND STILL OPERATE. CONDITION #9, ALLOW
THE 30.2% IMPERVIOUS SERFACE IN TIER 2, NOTING SUBSTANTIAL
REDUCTION DUE TO THE PAVERS PRESENTED. RECOMMEND THE DESIGN
OF THE PAVERS BE REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
DEPARTMENTS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by alt. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS CRYSTAL BAY, SUBJECT TO THE
ABOVE CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on October 7, 2002.
B. Case File #02-88 Richard Gau is requesting a 13.3 variance from the
required minimum 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of entry addition
to an existing single family dwelling and a three foot variance from the maximum 24
feet of driveway width on property located at 16994 Monroe Avenue SW.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated September 23, 2002, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Richard Gau is requesting variances to permit a 6 foot eave/overhang and 8 foot stoop to
encroach into a required front yard setback on the property located at 16994 Monroe
Avenue SW. The existing single family dwelling maintains a 19.9 foot front yard
setback. The steps of the stoop are proposed to be 11.7 feet from the front property line
and the eave/overhang over the garage is proposed to be 14.1 feet from the property line
abutting Monroe Avenue. In conjunction with the stoop and eave addition, the applicant
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcrrm092302.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
is also increasing the width of the driveway to 27 feet. The project was started without a
building permit.
The applicant requests the following variances:
1) An 8.3 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for the
construction of an 8 foot stoop and 6 foot overhang.
2) A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential
driveways.
Staffbelieved that all nine-hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the
requested variances to permit the 8 foot stoop, 6 foot eave/overhang, and 27 foot wide
driveway. The applicant created the hardship by the design of the addition and the
driveway. Staffcould support a smaller front yard setback variance to improve the safety
of the dwelling entrance, but not the proposal. The staff therefore recommends denial of
the requested variances as proposed by the applicant.
Lemke questioned ifa 2 foot variance is permitted. Kirchoff said the house already has a
2 foot eave.
Applicant Richard Gau, 16994 Monroe, questioned the difference between an awning and
eave. Kansier explained the awning is attached to the building. His covering is a
structure. Gan presented pictures of his driveway indicating there was no ample parking.
He would like to fit into the neighborhood and felt there were no other options. Gau
explained the procedure and invited the Commissioners to come to his home and view the
situation.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Agreed the applicant's intentions are pure.
· Agreed with staff that he could have the same amount of safety to the entrance
with a different design.
Ringstad:
· Suggested tabling this two weeks ago to work out something between staff and
the applicant. However, there was no compromise.
· There are 9 hardship criteria and all 9 must be met for a variance. This meets
very few hardships. Cannot go along with any of it, including the driveway
extension of 3 feet.
· Support staff's recommendation to deny.
Criego:
· As it relates to the driveway entrance - it was discussed at the last meeting to
widen the driveway. Not sure why that was not taken as input. It still allows the
applicant extra space.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcmn092302.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
· It does not meet the hardship and would not recommend approval of the 3 foot
variance.
· As it relates to the overhangs - awnings clearly indicate a temporary light
structure without being substantially put together will pillars and 2xS's. This
clearly not an awning. Cannot approve. No hardship.
· One area it does meet the hardship is overhang over the stoop and stairway. There
is a safety issue and should allow the applicant some structure covering.
Lemke: · Questioned staff on the intent of the 24 foot width driveway ordinance. Kansier
explained the ordinance requirements. There are a number of public safety
aspects as well.
· Limit the driveway to 24 foot is for people to park along the street. That is not the
case here. The reason to hold it to the standard does not work. The lot is narrow.
· There is hardship along the property - it is a comer lot with two front yards.
· The applicant is not asking for a bigger house or increase of impervious surface.
The overhang does not increase anything.
· Could fine 9 hardships in this request.
Stamson:
· As far as the overhangs and stoops. It comes down to what the intention of a
variance. It is when someone is denied use of their property when there is no
alternative. In this case, what the applicant is trying to accomplish makes sense.
But this could be accomplished within the ordinance or with a reduced variance.
Kirchoff stated a 5 foot awning would be permitted over the stoop.
· This does not qualify for a variance. He has other options.
· The driveway - in general there is an opportunity to go from a 3 car driveway
down to a 2 car driveway. In this case, the property line is so short.
· There is no public parking on his street. Leaning towards a variance being
warranted in the driveway case.
Open Discussion:
· Ringstad felt if the Commission grants Mr. Gau the variance, then they have to be
prepared for others in the City.
· Stamson agreed but felt there was a number of unique circumstances on this
property qualifying for a variance. The slope issue, lack of on-street parking. It is
unique. It is an existing home, not new construction.
· Criego pointed out the applicant could have a hammerhead driveway. This is not
unique.
· Lemke felt the intent of the ordinance is to have reasonable use of the property.
There is enough room for snow storage.
· Criego said there are alternative ways to solve the problem. The applicant can
park 4 cars right now. Nothing different from anyone else.
L:\02FlLES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcmn092302.doc 1 ]
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 02-
011PC DENYING VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 11.7 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR AN 8 FOOT STOOP, A 14.1 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR
A 6 FOOT EAVE, AND A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY.
Criego questioned if the applicant could build something over the stoop for safety
without a variance. Ringstad agreed. Kirchoffsaid he could have an awning without a
variance. Criego felt an awning is temporary.
Ringstad withdrew the Motion.
Gan stated with the two foot overhang, water freezes in the winter and spring. He felt the
proposal would be the most efficient way to keep people safe.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY (~RIEGO, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO COVER THE EXISTING STOOP AND STAIRWAY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Ringstad, Criego, Atwood and Stamson. Nay by Lemke.
MOTION CARRIED.
Kirchoff explained the appeal process.
7. New Business:
A. Discussion on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance concerning fences on
corner and riparian lots.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 23,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of regulations pertaining to
residential fences on comer and riparian lots.
The most recent discussion about fences is the result of a discussion at the City Council
forum. A City resident with a comer lot would like to place a 6' high fence along
Carriage Hills Parkway. Since this street is not classified as an arterial, the front yard
fence provisions apply. The City Council directed staff to review an amendment to the
ordinance addressing these situations.
The subject offences in the area between houses and the lakeshore is not new. In 1996,
the Council considered an amendment to the fence ordinance to restrict the placement of
fences in the 75-foot lakeshore setback. Staff made no recommendation on the draft
ordinance that limited fence height to 5 feet and opacity to no more than that of a chain-
link fence. After a gmat deal of discussion, the Planning Commission recommended
denial of the proposed ordinance. One of the reasons given was that it did not appear to
L:\02FILES\02planning eomm\02pcminutcs\pcmn092302.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
be a widespread problem that necessitated an ordinance amendment. The City Council
subsequently denied the ordinance on a 4-1 vote.
One of the concems raised by staff at that time, which the feel the same today, is that
additional regulation of fences would mean the establishment of a permitting process for
fences. At the very least, this would require staff review offence plans. It could also
lead to a requirement for surveys to verify location relative to property lines. It would
also mean field inspections. Given our current staffing circumstances, establishing a
permit system for fences will add an additional load on the staffwhile addressing what
appears to be an infrequent problem. The issue has arisen twice in the past 6 years and
would hardly seem to justify an ordinance amendment and potential staffing
modifications to deal with it. In both cases, a disagreement between neighbors has raised
the issue. Unless the Council has an experience different than the staff, it does not appear
to be a problem of such magnitude and frequency as to require an ordinance amendment.
Criego asked for clarification on the comer lot problem. Kansier responded the problem
is the side yard and is matter of aesthetics. It becomes a stockade appearance with a solid
wall offences, such as Carriage Hills. Carriage Hills is all side yards on the comer lots,
accesses are off the local streets.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Has empathy for riparian lots for someone losing their view of the lake but they
are no different than anyone else, blocking views. It has to be fair to all.
· Rye that was basically the argument pointed out the last two times it came before
the Council. Them is the question of aesthetics but by the same token are we
depriving someone of a right that everyone else in the community enjoys simply
because of their location.
Stamson:
· In favor the leaving the ordinance the way it is. You could end up having row
after row of mismatched uneven fences. It is different if it's along County Road
42 where there is a definite need for some kind of privacy, which we allow.
· When its smaller streets the tradeoffis too great.
· My situation is the same. The aesthetics of the neighborhood would be severely
impacted.
· Not in favor of allowing privacy fences on those particular streets. Allowing a
fence with some opacity is a good idea and it meets the needs of keeping children,
animals or people out of your yard.
· People pick their lots, its something you pay for when you decide where you are
going to live. That's a tradeoffwhen you buy the lot
· The ordinance works.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcmn092302.doc 1 3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23. 2002
Ringstad: · Agreed with Stamson, people pick their lots.
· No need to change what is currently in place.
· It is an infrequent problem, no need to recreate something right now.
Lemke: · Agreed. The first step is a public hearing and if there are 75 people present
talking about specific problems, I might change my view.
· It's not a big enough problem to warrant a change.
Atwood:
· Agreed with staff and the permit process.
Rye stated if there was a public hearing it would have to be on something specific.
The Commissioners agreed to report back to the City Council to leave the fence
ordinance as is.
Stamson questioned the commercial sign ordinance addressing flashing light signs. Rye
said they are generally not allowed except a time and temperature sign.
Stamson said it is noticeably starting in Savage. Most cities have ordinances that do not
allow blinking lights, and this is a way around it. Would like to take a look at the
ordinance.
Rye said staff will take a look at it.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye briefed the Commissioners on Lakefront Plaza.
Kansier said there will be joint city council/advisories to hear a presentation on the 2020
Strategic Plan for the City, October 14, 2002, around 5:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. The regular
Planning Commission meeting will start at 7:00 p.m.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Don Rye Connie Carlson
Director of Community Recording Secretary
Development
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcmn092302.doc 1 4
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CASE:
4A
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING
VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 14.9 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK FOR A 5 FOOT STOOP AND 5
FOOT EAVE AND A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY
16994 MONROE AVENUE SW
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
OCTOBER 14, 2002
02-088
INTRODUCTION:
On September 9, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item
and unanimously voted to table the requests so that the applicant and staff could
discuss other alternatives. The Commission reviewed the item again on September 23,
2002, and by a vote of 4 to 1 directed staff to prepare a resolution approving a front
yard setback variance to allow the property owner to construct a stoop to cover the
existing concrete slab and a variance to allow a 27 foot wide driveway.
The attached Resolution 02-011PC approves the following variances:
1) A 5.1 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for
the construction of an 5 foot stoop and 5 foot overhang to permit a
14.9 foot setback (Zoning Ordinance Section 1102.402: Dimensional
Standards).
2) A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential
driveways to permit a 27 foot wide driveway (Zoning Ordinance
Section 1107.205. Driveways).
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction for the
approval of the variances for the construction of a covered stoop and eave and 27 foot
wide driveway.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Planning Report - Gau Variances
October 14, 2002
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES:
Approve the attached Resolution 02-011PC approving the variances because the
Planning Commission finds a demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Ordinance
criteria.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative # 1.
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-011PC approving variances to allow a
14.9 foot front yard setback from the public right-of-way abutting Monroe Avenue and
a 27 foot wide driveway.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-088~PC Report.doc
RESOLUTION 02-011PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 14.9 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK FOR A 5 FOOT STOOP AND 5 FOOT EAVE
AND A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the Cky of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Richard Gau has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the
construction of a 5 foot stoop and a 5 foot eave addition to an existing single family
dwelling and a 27 foot wide driveway on the property located in the R~i (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland District) at the following location, to wit;
16994 Monroe Avenue SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 12,
Block 32, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#02-088PC and held a hearing thereon on September 9, 2002.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances 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, the proposed variances will not resuk in the
impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably
increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the
public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any
other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed variances are not the result of the property owner's actions. The
nonconforming lot width and prohibition of on street parking on Monroe Avenue SW are
pre-existing conditions in which the property owner does not control
By constructing the stoop and eave addition, the applicant will be improving the safety of
the entrance. The additional width of driveway will increase the amount of off-street
parking available to the subject property.
1:\02files\02variances\02-088~appr resolution.doc l
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The granting of the variances, as determined by the Planning Commission, is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variances will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, but are necessary to
alleviate a demonstrable hardship.
8. The contents of Planning Case #02-088PC 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 approved the
following variances to allow the addition to the existing single family dwelling and driveway
expansion:
A 5.1 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for the construction of a
5 foot stoop and 5 foot overhang to allow a 14.9 foot setback (Zoning Ordinance Section
1102.402: Dimensional Standards).
2. A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential driveways to allow a
27 foot wide driveway (Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.205. Driveways).
The following conditions of approval shall be adhered to and subject to the issuance of a
building permit for the proposed addition:
The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along wkh 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. A revised survey shall be submitted that identifies the approved front yard setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 14, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\02files\O2variances\O2-O88~appr resolution.doc 2
PLANNING REPORT
16200
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CASE FILE#:
5A
CONSIDER VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
4525 JACKSON TRAIL
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
OCTOBER 14, 2002
02-097
INTRODUCTION:
Mark Liesener is requesting variances from zoning ordinance provisions to permit the
construction of a single family dwelling on property zoned R-S (Rural Subdivision
Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 4525 Jackson Trail
(Lot 13, Block 2, Titus 2nd Addition). The property is guided Urban Low/Medium
Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The site is a vacant, riparian lot, as it abuts an unnamed tributary watercourse
connected with Pike Lake. Trees are scattered throughout the property. Municipal
water and sewer is currently unavailable to the site.
The applicant requests the following variances:
1. A 52,492 square foot variance from the required minimum 2 acre lot area in
the R-S zoning district to allow a 34,628 square foot lot. (Zoning Ordinance
Section 1102.306 (3) Dimensional Standards.)
2. A 76 foot variance from the required 100 foot setback from an unnamed
tributary watercourse. (Zoning Ordinance Section 1104.301 (3) Setback
Requirements.)
BACKGROUND:
The subject property was platted as part of Titus 2"d Addition in 1974. The lot is
approximately 160 feet at the minimum required 25 foot front yard setback and 34,628
square feet in area. Although the property is a lot of record, it does not comply with
the minimum lot area standard set forth for lots zoned R-S. An unnamed tributary
l:\02files\02varianees\02-097~p¢ report.doc
Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Planning Report - Liesener Variances
October 14, 2002
Page 2
watercourse extends along the east boundary of the lot, which requires a 100 foot
setback from the ordinary high water level (OHW).
In 1999, the
applicant was
granted a lot area
and 70 foot variance
from the minimum
100 foot setback for
the construction of a
single family
dwelling. In 2000,
the applicant was
granted a one year
extension until
September 2001 to
utilize the variances.
The zoning
ordinance states "all
variances shall be
revoked and canceled if one year has elapsed from the date of the adoption of the resolution
granting the variance and the holder of the variance has failed to make substantial use of the
premises according to the provisions of the variance." A building permit was not issued
for the subject site, so the variance process must commence once again.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant would like to construct a single family dwelling on property zoned R-S
(Rural Subdivision Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District). Although the lot
was platted for residential use, it does not comply with the minimum 2 acre
dimensional standard for lots in the R-S zoning district, and a variance must be granted
to allow a single family dwelling (a reasonable use) to be built. The zoning ordinance
does not allow the development of nonconforming lots in unsewered areas without a
variance. The subject lot is 34,628 square feet.
Furthermore, the subject property was not platted to accommodate a 100 foot setback
from the ordinary high water level (OHW) of the unnamed tributory watercourse that
flows along the east property line. Thus, the buildable area (area remaining after
minimum setbacks have been met) results in a narrow strip that ranges from
approximately 15 to 40 feet in width and approximately 200 feet in depth. In order to
construct a reasonable use, a variance would need to be granted from the minimum
setback. The proposed dwelling is shown 24 feet from the OHW.
l:\02files\02variances\02-097\pc report.doc
Planning Report - Liesener Variances
October 14, 2002
Page 3
Two sets of building plans were submitted, neither of which are consistent with the
building footprint on the survey, so this report is based upon what was presented on
the survey only. Dwelling "A' is 80 feet in width by 38 feet in depth and is a two-
story design. Dwelling "B" is also a two-story design with a side loading tuck under
garage but is only 53 feet in width by 22 feet in depth. The proposed dwelling shown
on the survey is 82 feet (but scales as 84 feet) in width by 44 feet in depth.
The proposed dwelling shown on the survey complies with other applicable bulk
standards, as shown in the following table.
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF PROPOSAL TO ORDINANCE BULK STANDARDS
Setbacks Ordinance Requirement Proposal
Front 25 feet 73 feet
Side 10 feet 15 feet
Rear 25 feet 103 feet
Tributary Watercourse 100 feet 24 feet
Impervious Surface Coverage I 30 percent I 14.8 percent
Minnesota DNR Comments
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was noticed about the variance requests
and recommends that the house pad be reoriented to increase the setback from the
watercourse (see Attachment 7). If this relocation is not feasible, the DNR expects that
at least the 30 foot setback, approved in 1999, would be met.
The watercourse does not have a federally designated floodplain associated with it.
Section 1104.308 (3) of the zoning ordinance requires the lowest floor of a structure to
be at least three feet above the flood of record, three feet above the OHW, or by
conducting a technical elevation to establish a flood protection elevation. Engineering
along with the Prior Lake - Spring Lake Watershed District has confirmed that the 100
year flood elevation is 802.9 feet, thus the minimum floor elevation is required to be
805.9 feet. The survey indicates that the lowest floor is proposed to be 805.9 feet.
Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS)
Since municipal water and sewer is unavailable, the property will be required to have a
private well and septic system. A permit for the Individual Sewage Treatment System
(ISTS) must be obtained from Scott County. For this type of structure, a 75 foot
setback is required from the OWH of the unnamed tributary watercourse. This
information has not been provided as part of this application, but is required to be
provided on the survey submitted with the building permit application.
l:\02files\02variances\02-097\pc report, doc
Planning Report - Liesener Variances
October 14, 2002
Page 4
VARIANCE HARDSHIP FINDINGS
Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a Variance from the
strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance, provided that:
Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of
this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional
or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot
in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in
which said lot is located.
The property is a legal, nonconforming lot because although it was legally platted
in 1974, the lot does not meet the current minimum lot area required for properties
zoned R-S. Thus, the strict application of the ordinance would result in an undue
hardship upon the property owner because without the variance the property
cannot be developed. An undue hardship means "a condition resulting when
reasonable use cannot be made of a property if used under conditions allowed by
the official control, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to
his property not created by the landowner, and, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not
constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the ordinance."
The tot complies with minimum lot width required of properties in the R-S zoning
district, but a 100 foot setback limits the buildable width to a range of 15 to 25 feet,
so strict interpretation of the ordinance would result in difficulties in using the lot
for a single family dwelling. However, 90 percent of the proposed dwelling is
located within the required setback. In 1999, the applicant was granted a 70 foot
variance from the 100 foot setback to maintain a 30 foot setback. The current
proposal indicates the dwelling is 24 feet from the 802.9 elevation
Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
The property is a substandard lot of record and is unbuildable without relief from
minimum dimensional requirements. Titus 1'~ and 2na Additions are the only plats
zoned R-S, which intends to provide areas for large lot development outside the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area 0VlUSA). This development does not have access
to municipal sewer and water, so the lots are required to be larger to accommodate
private systems.
1:\02files\02variances\02-097\pc report.doc
Planning Report - Liesener Variances
October 14, 2002
Page 5
The 100 foot setback from the tributary watercourse is a unique condition applying
to a few properties within the vicinity. However, a reasonable use, which is
considered a single family dwelling with a two stall garage, can be constructed on
the property without the large setback variance.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The lot area variance is essential for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right, because the applicant/property owner did not plat the property, or
this particular element of the site was not under the control of the applicant.
A single family dwelling with a detached garage is considered a reasonable use for
this property. A reasonable use cannot be constructed within the buildable area, so
a variance from the minimum tributary watercourse setback is necessary for the
enjoyment of the property. Staff supports a 40 foot variance versus the 76 foot
variance requested by the applicant.
The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the lot area and setback variances should not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to adjacent properties, increase congestion or endanger
public safety, provided conditions of approval are met.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character
and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair
established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way
impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area.
Relief from the R-S zoning district minimal dimensional standards to allow a
reasonable use to be constructed on the property will not unreasonably impact the
neighborhood, as the property was platted for residential use and three other
homes were constructed within this plat.
The granting of the setback variance will impact the character and development of
this area. Permitting the construction of the proposed structure 24 feet from the
OHW of the watercourse will affect the perceived health, safety, and comfort of
the immediate area. Although a setback variance is warranted to allow a dwelling
to be constructed, staff supports the 40 foot variance suggested by the DNR. This
l:\02files\02variances\02-097\pc reporLdoc
Planning Report - Liesener Variances
October 14, 2002
Page 6
variance would provide a minimum of 50 feet of buildable width at the lot's
narrowest point.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of
this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the lot area variance will not be contrary to the intent of the R-S
zoning district, which states that its purpose is to provide suitable areas for large lot
development outside of the MUSA.
The shoreland ordinance intends to "preserve and enhance the quality of surface
waters, preserve the economic and natural environmental values of shoreland, and
provide for the wise utilization of waters and related land resources." The
requested 76 foot variance from the required setback appears to be inconsistent
with the intent of the shoreland ordinance. However, a 40 foot variance would
still allow a reasonable use to be constructed and would provide some protection
for the watercourse.
The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
A demonstrable hardship is present to warrant variances from minimum lot area,
because without relief the property would remain unbuildable.
The requested 76 foot setback variance could be reduced, so the variance serves as a
convenience to the applicant. At the very least the dwelling should maintain the 30
foot setback approved in 1999. The house footprint could be shifted or reoriented
as recommended by the DNR to significantly increase the setback from the
watercourse.
The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance
to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property.
The subject site is only 34,628 square feet in area. The zoning ordinance requires
lots within the R-S zoning district to be 2 acres in area, so this lot is
nonconforming. The applicant did not create the nonconforming lot, so the
hardship results from the application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance and
not from action of the applicant.
Although the strict application of the ordinance creates an undue hardship, the
proposed 24 foot setback is a direct result of the actions of the applicant. A
l:\02files\02variances\02-097\pc report.doc
Planning Report - Liesener Variances
October 14, 2002
Page 7
reasonable use can be constructed on the property with a 40 foot variance (60 foot
setback).
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall
not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Although the construction of a dwelling will significantly increased the value of the
property, staff does not believe that this is the sole purpose of the application. The
property was platted for such a use in 1974.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant is requesting variances to construct a single family dwelling on property
zoned R-S and SD. The subject lot does not comply with the minimum lot area
established by the zoning ordinance, because it was platted in 1974, prior to the current
ordinance being adopted in 1999. Moreover, the proposed dwelling does not comply
with the minimum setback from the tributary watercourse that extends along the east
portion of the site.
Since the property is a legal, nonconforming lot of record and the required watercourse
setback significantly constrains the site's buildable area, variances are warranted. The
property owner cannot construct a reasonable use without relief from the zoning
ordinance. However, the 76 foot setback variance seems excessive considering a
dwelling can be constructed on the property while maintaining a greater setback.
Staff supports the lot area variance, but not the 76 foot tributary watercourse variance.
A reduced 40 foot setback variance is appropriate, because it provides more protection
to the tributary. This is also consistent with the variance approved by the Planning
Commission in 1999.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested 52,492 square foot variance from
minimum lot area and a 40 foot tributary watercourse setback, subject to the following
conditions:
The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption.
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
l:\02files\02variances\02-097\pc report.doc
Planning Report - Liesener Variances
October 14, 2002
Page 8
3. The applicant shall obtain ali necessary permits for an Individual Sewage
Treatment System (ISTS) from Scott County.
4. The ISTS shall comply with applicable regulations.
5. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted with the building permit
application.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTIONS REQUIRED:
The staff recommends approval of this request in part, and denial in part. This
requires the following motions:
1. A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-014PC approving a 52,492 square
foot variance from the 2 acre minimum lot area in the R-S zoning district and a 40
foot variance from the 100 foot setback from the unnamed tributary watercourse.
2. A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02~015PC denying a 76 foot variance
from the 100 foot setback from the unnamed tributary watercourse.
ATTACHMENTS:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Location map
Applicant's letter
Survey
Dwelling plans
Existing buildable area
Buildable area with 40 foot variance
Letter from DNR dated September 26, 2002
Applicable regulations
l:\02files\02variances\02-097\pc report.doc
Location Map ATTACHMENT 1
for Liesener Variance
L I
400 0 400 Feet
September 16, 2002
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Prior Lake
Planning Departraent
Prior Lake, MN
- Cindy
Dear Cindy:
I desire a variance on Lot 13, Block 2, Titus 2nd Addition, so
that a home can be built on this lot . It is my understanding tkat a variance
is needed because the proposed home would be too close to the highwater line.
The proposed home will have it's lowest floor three feet above this ordinary
high water line.
If any other variances are needed, I would like them to be taken care
of at this time.
iesener m
APPLICANT'S LETTER
Established in 1962
LOT SURVEYS COUPAHY, IHC.
LAND SURVEYORS
R~GIST~RED UNDER THE LAW6 OF STATI~ OF MINNESOTA
· -rurynr~ (~rrtifirai~
NOlE:Proposed elevations sham
recee~ended by buflder.
Property lecated fn Sectton
23, Township 115, Range
Scott County, MlnnesotJ
¥
ATTACHMENT 3
INVOICE f
F.B.NO... 838-07,08
SCALE: 1"= 30'
O D~otel kon Mo~t
L_
City engineering or watershed dept. bulcl~9 ~ (md deYe~nt c~
Property is located tn Zone X per ~oq.~ er~ lop o~ ~
C~ntty Pa~l NO. 27~32 ~2 C
Lot 13, 91ock 2, TITUS 2N9 ADDITION
ATTACHMENT 4
DWELLING PI ANS
]1
DWELLING A FLOOR PLANS
DWELLING B FLOOR PLANS
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
REGISTERED UNDER TIlE LA~S OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
{~ururuurs (grriifirair
NOTE:Proposed elevations shown
recommended by builder.
Property located in ~ctlon
23, Township 115. Range 22,
Scott County, Hlnnesota
ATTACHMENT 5
INVOICE N~
F.B.NO. 838-07,0D
SCALE: 1" -- 30'
City englneering or watershed dept. buld~n9 H~ end development o~
Property ts located In Zone X per u
C~nity Pane] No, 27~32 ~02 C , ,
Dated Nov~ 19, 1997. ~ob*~ Pr~oged G~e F~
!i!iiiiii?i BUILDABLE AREA
, +.: 2TRIBUTARY
Lot 13, Block 2, TI]US 2ND ADDITION
r-,~. ~-~ EXISTING BUILDABLE AREA
".L.b.~.h.d ,. lO~ ATTACHMENT 6
INVOICE N
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. r.B.NO.
LAND SURVEYORS SCALE: 1" = ~9'
Lot 13, Block 2, TITUS ZND ADDITION
,, 9 BUILDABLE AREA WITH 40 FOOT VARIANCE
September 26, 2002
ATTACHMENT 7
Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 ---:/i
Ms. Cynthia Kirchoff
City of Prior I.mke
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lakc, Minnesota 55372
RE: Mark Lieseuer Variance Application, Unnamed Tributary
Dear Ms. Kirchoff:
I have reviewed the materials you sent me regarding the proposed variance request. Our office reviewed requests
for variances on this parcel in both November and December of 1999, and provided comment at that time.
I note that the 1999 variance application depicted a home on the parcel proposed to be set back 30 feet bom the
watercourse (versus the 100 feet required by ordinance), and that the latest variance request seeks approval to be
setback 24 feet.
Looking at the survey, it appears reorienting the home in a north-south fashion, closer to the west propertyline, can
increase the structure setback from the watercourse. On the enclosed copy of the survey, I took the liberty of
drawing a building envelope comparable in dimension to that on the original survey, and turned it as I suggested.
This increases the setback from the watercourse to nearly 60 feet. Please look in to whether this is a feasible
alternative. If not, I would expect that a setback of at least 30 feet, as proposed in 1999, can be met.
DNR has not objection to the variance from minimum lot size.
The watercourse does not have a federally designated floodplain associated with it. Section 1104.308(3)b. requires
the lowest floor of a structure be at least three feet above the flood of recorck three feet above thc erdin=y high
water level (OHW), or by conducting a technical evaluation to establish a flood protection elevation. If multiple
approaches are used, thc highest flood protection elevation determined must be used for placing the low floor.
The proposed lowest floor of 805.9' should be compared against the OHW, which for watercoerses is the top of the
bank of the channel. From the materials submitted to me for review, it was not clear where the top of channel is.
The low floor should be no less than 3 feet above the OHW.
Please call me at 651-772-7917 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Lynch III
DNR Area Hydrologist
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Divemity C~ Pnnted on RecycleO Paper ContainingDNR COMMENTS
Minimum of 20% Post-Consumer Waste
-L
,/
DNR PREPARED SITE PLAN
Lot 13, Illock ~', TITUS ?~D
zoning ATTACHMENT 8
1102.306
(1)
(2)
(3)
Dimensional Standards.
No structure shall exceed 3 stories or 35 feet in height, whichever is less, except
as provided in subsection 1101.508.
The ground floor area ratio within thee R-S Use District shall not exceed 0.3.
The following minimum requirements and those additional requirements,
exceptions and modifications contained in provisions (4) through (9) below and in
the Subdivision Ordinance shall govern the use and development of lots in the "R-
S'' Use District.
Lot Area
(acres)
2
Lot Width
100
Front Yard
25
Side Yard
10
Rear Yard
25
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
The depth of the front year of a lot shall be at least 25 feet. If the average depth of
at least 2 existing front yards, for buildings within 150 feet along the same block
front of the lot in question are less or greater than 35 feet, the required front yard
shall be the average deptt~ of such existing front years. However, the depth of a
front yard shall not be less than 20 feet or be required to exceed 50 feet.
Through lots shall have a required front yard on each street.
The width of the side yard setback abutting a building wall shall be increased 2
inches for each 1 foot the length of the building wall exceeds 50 feet. The
additional setback will not be applied if there is a break in the building wall equal to
10% of the entire length of the wall. For the purpose of this subsection, a wall
includes any building wall within 10 degrees of being parallel to and abutting the
side lot line of a lot. (Ord. O0-08-pub. 6/10/00)
Side yard widths may be reduced if the side wall of a building is not parallel by
more than 10 degrees with the side lot line, to permit the average depth of the side
yard to conform to the minimum side yard depth in the District, but no side yard
shall be less than 5 feet deep. No side yard shall be reduced to prevent
construction of a driveway from the street into the rear of the lot unless a garage
which has access from the street is located on the lot or an alley provides a
secondary access to the rear yard of the lot.
A single family dwelling which legally existed or for which a valid building permit
had been granted on or before the effective date of this Ordinance, may be
expanded by an addition or dormer, provided the addition does not extend into the
existing side yard and provided the combined width of the side yard for the building
and the adjacent building is not less than 10 feet.
Any parcel which is subdivided for the purpose of creating condominium ownership
is permitted provided that the overall density created within all condominium
parcels and the common lot do not exceed the maximum density permitted within
CiO, of Prior Lake
May 22, 1999 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Zoning Ordinance
(1) Natural Environment:
Single
Riparian Lots
Area Width
10 acres 330
Non-Riparian Lots
Area Width
10 acres 330
(2) Tributary Rivers and Streams:
Riparian Lot Widths
Single Family 100 feet
Duplex 150 feet
Triplex 200 feet
'Quad 250 feet
There are no minimum lot area requirements for rivers and
streams.
(3) Setback Requirements:
Natural Development Tributary Rivers
Lakes
Structure setback from 150 100
OHW (feet)
Unplatted Cemetery 50 50
(feet)
Structure height 35 35
limitation (feet)
Sewage System 150 75
setback from OHWM
(feet)
1104.302 Sewered Lakes, Lot Area, Width and Setback Requirements:
May l, 1999
City of Prior Lake
1104/p4
RESOLUTION ~2-014PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 54,492 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
MINIMUM 2 ACRE LOT AREA FOR PROPERTIES ZONED RS (RURAL
SUBDIVISION RESIDENTIAL) AND A 40 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 100 FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK FROM AN UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
WATERCOURSE A FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Mark Liesener has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the
construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the R-S (Rural Subdivision
Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts at the following location, to wit;
4525 Jackson Trial, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 13, Block 2,
Titus 2na Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#02-097PC and held a hearing thereon on October 14, 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.
The property is a legal, nonconforming lot. Although it was legally platted in 1974, it does
not meet the current minimum lot area required for properties zoned Px-S. Thus, the strict
application of the ordinance would result in an undue hardship upon the property owner
because without the variance the property cannot be developed.
The lot complies with minimum lot width required of properties in the R-S zoning
district, bm a 100 foot setback from the OHW of the tributary watercourse limits the
buildable width to a range of 15 to 25 feet, so strict interpretation of the ordinance would
resuk in difficukies in using the lot for a single family dwelling.
The property is a substandard lot of record and is unbuildable without relief from
minimum dimensional requirements. The 100 foot setback from the tributary watercourse
is a unique condition applying to a few properties within the vicinity.
1:\02files\O2variances\O2-O97\approve resolution.doc ]
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The lot area variance is essential for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right. A reasonable use cannot be constructed within the buildable area, so a
variance from the minimum tributary watercourse setback is necessary for the enjoyment
of the property.
The granting of the lot area variance will not be contrary to the intent of the R-S zoning
district, which states that its purpose is to provide suitable areas for large lot development
outside of the MUSA.
9. A demonstrable hardship is present to warrant variances from minimum lot area, because
without relief the property would remain unbuildable.
10. The applicant did not create the nonconfornzing lot, so the hardship results from the
application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance and not from action of the applicant.
11. The contents of Planning Case #02-097PC 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 variances to allow for the construction of a single family dwelling:
A 52,492 square foot variance from the required minimum 2 acre lot area in the R-
S zoning district to allow a 34,628 square foot lot (Zoning Ordinance Section
1102.306 (3) Dimensional Standards.)
2. A 40 foot variance from the required 100 foot setback from an unnamed tributary
watercourse. (Zoning Ordinance Section 1104.301 (3) Setback Requirements.)
The following conditions shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit for
the construction of a single family dwelling on the subject site:
The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. 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 applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for an Individual Sewage Treatment
System (ISTS) from Scott County.
4. The ISTS shall comply with applicable regulations.
5. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted with the building permit application.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 14, 2002.
1:\02file$\O2variances\O2-O97\approve resolution.doc
2
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
h\O2flles\O2variances\O2-O97~approve resolution,doc 3
INNE~O
RESOLUTION 02-015PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 76 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 100 FOOT
MINIMUM SETBACK FROM AN UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
WATERCOURSE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake,
Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Mark Liesener has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the
R-S (Rural Subdivision Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts at the
following location, to wit;
4525 Jackson Trial, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 13,
Block 2, Titus 2"d Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as
contained in Case #02-097PC and held a hearing thereon on October 14, 2002.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, ~he 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.
The 100 foot setback from the tributary watercourse is a unique condition
applying to a few properties within the vicinity. However, a reasonable use,
which is considered a single family dwelling with a two stall garage, can be
constructed on the property without the large setback variance.
The granting of the setback variance will impact the character and development
of this area. Permitting the construction of the proposed structure 24 feet from
the OHW of the watercourse will affect the perceived health, safety, and
comfort of the immediate area. Although a setback variance will need to be
granted to allow a dwelling to be constructed, staff supports the 40 foot
1:\02files\02variances\02-097~deny resolution.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
variance suggested by the DNR. This variance would provide a minimum of 50
feet of buildable width at the lot's narrowest point.
The shoreland ordinance intends to "preserve and enhance the quality of
surface waters, preserve the economic and natural environmental values of
shoreland, and provide for the wise utilization of waters and related land
resources." The requested 76 foot variance from the required setback appears
to be inconsistent with the intent of the shoreland ordinance. However, a 40
foot variance would still allow a reasonable use to be constructed and would
provide some protection for the watercourse.
The 76 foot setback variance could be reduced, so the variance serves as a
convenience to the applicant. At the very least the dwelling should maintain
the 30 foot setback approved in 1999. The house footprint could be shifted or
reoriented as recommended by the DNR to significantly increase the setback
from the watercourse.
Although the strict application of the ordinance creates an undue hardship, the
proposed 24 foot setback is a direct result of the actions of the applicant. A
reasonable use can be constructed on the property with a 40 foot variance.
The contents of Planning Case #02-097PC 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 to allow the construction of a single family dwelling as shown in
Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey:
1)
A 76 foot variance from the required 100 foot setback from an
unnamed tributary watercourse. (Zoning Ordinance Section 1104.301
(3) Setback Requirements.)
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 14, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\02files\O2va riances\O2-O97~de ny resolution.doc 2
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
REG]STER~-D UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESDTA
!~nru~u~r~ Olrrlifirat~
recommended by butlder.
Property tocated in Section
23, TmmshJp 115, Range 22,
Scott County, HInnesota
INVOICE NO, 6~269 -
F*.[}.NO. 836~07~08
SCALE: 1" =_3o'
Property Js located Jn Zone X per
Cmmmnity Panel No. 270432 0002
C ~ ~1 ~ ~d Top O~
/
/ /
Lot 13, Block 2, TITUS 2ND ADDIT]O#
~*'*~' ~- *~" "'" ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5B
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE JEFFERS
PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP
115, RANGE 22 (Case File #02-108)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
OCTOBER 14, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Jim Deanovic, the Peter Andrea Company, Wensmann Realty and the Jeffers Estate have
filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located on the
south side of CSAH 42 and west of CSAH 21. The proposal is to amend the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current C-BO (Business Office Park) and
R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) designations to the R-HD (High Density
Residential) designation on approximately 160 acres of vacant land.
BACKGROUND:
This property is presently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-5 (Business Office
Park) and is designated as C-BO (Business Office Park) and R-L/MD (Low to Medium
Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. At this time, the
applicants are in the process of developing a plan for the entire 320 acre Jeffers parcel.
The most recent concept plan identifies a mixed use development consisting of single
family homes, townhouses, senior housing, and apartments. The development could also
include parkland, a transit hub, a fire station site, and a potential school site. The site
would most Likely be developed as a Planned Unit Development.
This property is also located within the Shoreland District for Jeffers Pond, which is
currently classified as a Natural Environment Lake. The City has asked the DNR to
reclassify this lake as a Recreational Development Lake, and the DNR is in the process of
reviewing this request. In any event, the overall density of this development will be
determined by the lot area in the Shoreland District.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site consists of approximately 160 acres.
l:\02files\02eompam\jeffers\jeffers pc.doc Page I
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYF~R
Toi)o~ral~hy: Most of the site drains towards Jeffers Pond at the center of the site.
Elevations range from 922' MSL at the northwest comer to 870' MSL.
Vegetation: This property is a combination of cropland, pasture and woodlands.
Wetlands: The site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act.
A specific delineation will be required as part of any development application.
Access: Access to this property is presently from CSAH 42 on the north side, where a
driveway provides access to the existing farm house. Some access will also be permitted
from CSAH 21. The specific access points will be determined as part of the development
applications.
Utilities: Sewer and water services are accessible to this site from the existing services in
CSAH 21. The developer will be responsible for extending the services within the site.
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: To the north of this property, across CSAH 42, are the
DNR Wildlife Management Area and the Shepherd's Path property. Although the site is
presently vacant, construction of the Shepherd's Path church will begin in the near future.
The Shepherd's Path property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The DNR
property is zoned A (Agricultural).
West of this property is The Wilds Golf Course and PUD. The portion of The Wilds
directly west of this site is designated for residential development.
To the east, across CSAH 21, is the Vierling farm, zoned C~5 (Business Office Park) and
C- 1 (Neighborhood Conunercial).
The vacant land directly south of this site of this site is the remainder of the Jeffers
property, and is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). South of the Jeffers property is
the Jeffers South development, a mixed use townhouse and single family development
zoned R- 1.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to develop approximately 360 acres of land located south of
CSAH 42 and west of CSAH 21. The concept plan for the development includes a
mixture of single family homes, townhomes, senior housing, condominiums and
affordable housing. As mentioned earlier, the overall density of the development will be
regulated by the Shoreland District requirements; however, the request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan would accommodate the higher density uses proposed for the site.
On the concept plan, the higher density uses are located along CSAH 21 and CSAH 42.
l:\02files\02compam\jeffers\jeffers pc.doc Page 2
The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives that are applicable to this request are as
follows:
GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT: Encourage the development of
suitable housing in a desirable environment.
OBJECTIVE No. I: Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality
housing.
OBJECTIVE No. 2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality
residential environments.
OBJECTIVE No. 3: Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the
natural environment and the enjoyment of residents.
The proposed R-HD designation is consistent with the above stated goals and objectives
in that it offers a variety of housing and it provides open space and the preservation of the
natural elements of the site. Furthermore, the designation is consistent with the City's
Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing.
The question here is whether the supply of land planned for future commercial uses
should be reduced. The area designated for C-BO is a relatively small area located
between Jeffers Pond and CSAH 21. The topography, access and proximity of the lake
make this area more suited to residential development than to a business office park
development.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as requested.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
the R-HD designation.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
l:\02files\O2compam\jeffers\jeffcrs pc.doc
Page 3
2. Aerial Photo
3. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
4. Zoning Map
5. Developer's Concept Plan and Narrative
[:\02files\02compam\jeffers\jeffers pc.doc Page 4
Jeffers Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Location Map
Area Proposed to be DesigRated
High Densi~ Residential (R-HD)
100
0 100, Feet +
Jeffers Property
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
0
Brief Description of the proposed project:
In part, the estate of Robert Jeffers established that a portion of the real estate known as
Jeffers' Ponds was to become part public park/nature preserve, and part mixed use
housing development for all age groups and income levels. As such, this proposal is
requesting that the northern half of the site be re-zoned and re-guided.
The Comprehensive Guide plan currently shows the approximate Northwest quarter of
the site to be guided for C-BO, Business Park. The remaining 3A of the site is guided for
R-L/MO, Urban Low -to-Medium Density Residential.
We propose that Jeffers' Pond site be reclassified as a R-HD, Urban High Density, which
will allow a mixture of housing types for all income levels. These reclassifications will fit
our proposal and are in accordance with The Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint,
which encourages compact development with access to transit.
Jeffers Ponds, which is a water body created in part due to a dam, is currently classified
as a Natural Environment Lake by the DNR, which was classified in a time when
development of the surrounding properties were not anticipated to be developed with city
sewer and water. Reclassification by the DNR to a Recreational Development Lake,
which is more in line with the current development patterns, has been requested by the
city. Our proposal fits within the guidelines for a Recreational Development Lake.
Our proposal includes mixed densities of residential uses, including single-family lots
(approx. 3.4 D.U./ACRE), quad homes (approx. 4.1 D.U./ACRE), condominiums
(approx. 4.7 D.U./ACRE), town homes (approx. 8.2 D.U./ACRE), and senior apartments
(approx. 24.7 D.U./ACRE). A percentage of units will be classified as affordable. The
highest density of residential use would lie near the existing homestead, and would
include senior apartments, with a transit station for MVTA use across the street.
Townhomes and Single-family lots would surround the West half of Jeffers pond. The
East side of the pond would be Quad homes and Condominiums. See exhibit 'A, '
attached.
We believe these residential uses will have less impact on the water quality of Jeffers
pond by reducing the amount of impervious surfaces, and better meet market demand.
This site is quite hilly, with pocket wetland areas and is not well suited for larger scale
office or commercial development, such as allowed under the current Commemial zoning
categories. These types of developments have higher impervious areas required for
buildings and require large parking lots which doesn't allow for maintaining or enhancing
the existing rolling topography and vegetation. Housing can more easily be developed on
this type of site while being less intrusive. Housing structures have smaller footprints and
require less grading to ease them onto the site. The combination of less disturbance to the
existing topography and less large impervious areas, are a better development pattern to
preserve and protect the water quality of Jeffers Pond. As a means of insuring water
quality we are proposing a 50' deep continuous buffer surrounding the developed part of
Jeffers Pond. This buffer area would contain a public trail encimling the lake and joining
the nature park to the South and be planted with vegetation which would naturally filter
surface runoff.
Due to the picturesque rolling topography and scattered water features, this site is more
suited for residential development. People value living near such natural amenities, and a
majority of the housing units will have views of the water and other natural features. The
trail system and other amenities, such as play areas and a swimming pool, are additional
features, which will make this development an asset to Prior Lake residents. The
proposed nature preserve also ensures that a major portion of the property will remain in
its natural state of beauty.
The proposed development is divided into 5 segments, which can be constructed as
phases in order to lessen the impacts of construction to the surrounding neighbors. This
will also prevent major traffic impacts during construction. Access to the site would be
achieved with four entrances. One entrance currently exists off of Co. Rd. 42. Another
would be added on 42 and two new roads would access off of Co. Rd. 21. For a
development of this size, this number of access points is quite small, and aims to protect
the smooth flow of traffic along both of these county road arterials. Within the site,
internal circulation is continuous, with a minimal number of dead ends and cul-de-sacs.
In conclusion, the reclassification of the North Jeffers Pond site from CBO and R-IJMO
to R-HD Urban High Density residential will better protect the natural character of the
land and also will have less impact on the water quality of Jeffers Pond. The proposed
development fits with the requested DNR reclassification of the pond to a Recreational
Development Lake. It also will meet much needed housing demand, as defined in Prior
Lake's 2020 Visioning Plan, by providing different housing types for people of varied
income and age groups in addition to preserving and enhancing natural features of the
site. The proposal meets the goals of the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint and
will be an asset to the City of prior Lake if reclassification is approved.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
7A
REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE THE EXISTING
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON
THE TIMBER CREST PARK SITE (Case File #02-071)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO-N/A
OCTOBER 14, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Ray Brandt has filed an application to vacate the existing drainage and utility
easements located within the Timber Crest Park property. New easements for
the existing and relocated utilities within the existing easement will be dedicated
as part of the final plat of Timber Crest Park.
As required by State Statute 462.356 Subd.2, the Planning Commission is
required to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposal or
acquisition of public lands as it relates to compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate
easement or right-of-way by resolution. The statute also states "no such
vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the pubfic interest to do so".
DISCUSSION
There is a sanitary sewer line currently located within the existing easement. As
part of the Timber Crest Park project, a portion of this line will be relocated and
extended to serve the new development.
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of
the existing easement comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public
need or anticipated future need for the dedicated property?
l:\02flles\O2vacations\fimber crest\timber pc reporLdoc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Comprehensive Plan Review
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss utility easements, other
than as a function of ensuring access to public utilities. The vacation of this
easement is not inconsistent with any specific goal or objective of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Public Need
The existing utilities located within the existing easement will be relocated. A
new easement will be dedicated as part of the final plat to accommodate the
utilities. With the dedication of the new easement, there is no need to retain the
existing drainage and utility easements.
RECOMMENDATION
There Ps no need for the retention of the existing easements once the new
development has been platted and the new easement is dedicated. The
Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this request, subject to the
condition that the documents vacating the existing easement will not be recorded
until approval of the final plat.
ALTERNATIVES:
Recommend the City Council approve the proposed vacation of the
easement as presented or with changes recommended by the
Commission.
Continue the discussion to a date and time certain to allow the staff to
provide additional information specifically requested by the Planning
Commission.
Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny
part or all of the applications based upon inconsistency of the proposal
with specific regulations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and/or
specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the vacation of the
easement subject to the listed condition.
l:\02files\O2vacations\fimbcr crest\timber pc report.doc
2
Vacation of easements in TIMBER CREST PARK
I am requesting to vacate the easements that exist in what is proposed to become
TIMBER CREST PARK. Some of these easements are no longer necessary and some
will be moved. There will also be new easements required with the proposed platting.
The easements that the City of Prior Lake will still need, that are existing today, will
become a part of the new plat. Some of the existing easements will become part of the
roadway dedication that will be required.