HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/25/2002REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
A. Case File #02-110 Danes/Colluci Variance Resolution.
Public Hearings:
Case #02-126 Eagle Creek Development is requesting an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation on approximately 4 acres of
vacant land on the east side of the Deerfield Development. The amendment would
designate this property from the Low to Medium Density Residential (R-L/MD)
designation to the High Density Residential (R-HD) designation.
Case #02-123 Karl Holm is requesting a variance from the 25 foot front yard
setback for the construction of an addition to a single family dwelling located at
3201 Spruce Trail SW.
Case #02-124 Layton and Marge Kinney are requesting a variance from the 75
foot average shoreland setback for the construction of an addition to a single
family dwelling located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail NE.
6. Old Business:
Case #01-079 Kenneth & Carol Boyles as asking to consider an approval of an
amended survey for the approved variance.
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.~, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNI~ EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the October 28, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Ringstad and Stamson,
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff and Recording Secretary
Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Absent
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the October 14, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Consent:
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case #02-110 Mark Danes, is requesting a variance from the average
shoreland setback, a variance from the minimum 15 foot side yard setback
separation between buildings on adjacent nonconforming lots, and a variance from
the side yard setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet in length for the
construction of a single family dwelling for the property located at 16308 Park
Avenue.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated October 28, 2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
Mark Danes (representing David and Sheryl Colucci) is requesting variances from the
zoning ordinance for the construction of a single family dwelling on property zoned R-1
(Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) located at 16308 Park
Avenue (Lot 11, Lakeside Park). The property is guided Urban Low/Medium Density
Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is a riparian lot, and is
served by a private driveway. A seasonal dwelling, constructed in 1920, currently
occupies the site.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN 102802.doc
Planning Commission Minutex
October 28, 2002
In order to construct the proposed dwelling, the following variances are required:
A 7.3 foot variance from the required 65.2 foot average shoreland setback to
allow a 57.9 foot shoreland setback.
A 2.6 foot variance from the required 15 foot separation required between
structures on adjacent nonconforming lots to a allow a 12.4 foot separation.
A 6.3 foot variance from the 13.6 foot side yard setback required when a building
wall exceeds 50 feet in length to allow a 7.3 foot setback.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was noticed about the variance requests
and recommended denial of the shoreland setback variance because the dwelling can be
shifted to east to maintain the average shoreland setback.
Staff recommended denial of the 6.2 foot variance from the 65.2 foot shoreland setback
and the 2.6 foot variance from the 15 foot side yard separation setback, based upon the
following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant the granting of variances.
2. A reasonable use can be constructed on the site without these two variances.
Staff recommended approval of the 3.6 foot variance from the 13.6 foot additional
setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet in length, with the following
conditions:
1. 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 driveway shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width.
4. Impervious surface shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area.
Comments from the Public:
Mark Danes, Danes Construction, 1100 Butterfly Lane, Jordan, noted the survey
indicates a potential 12 foot porch which is really for a deck. Danes pointed out the 65
foot setback is not where the shoreline exists at this time. The applicants would not be
opposed to reducing the size of the deck to meet the 65 foot setback. Danes felt they
could make the 10 foot driveway work as well.
Atwood questioned the side yard separation. Danes explained the problem with the
existing neighbors' setbacks and structures that were 5 feet from the property line.
Stamson clarified there was a 15 foot separation between the homes.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN 102802.doc 2
.Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Kirchoff stated the structure setback was 7.3 feet on the south side and 5.1 from the
garage to the lot line. The neighbor's house is 10 feet from the lot line and the applicant
is proposing an additional 7.3 feet from the line.
Criego questioned the straight wall of 96 feet on the south side. Danes said it was
actually 72 feet with the garage. The applicants are not opposed to jogging it over 2 feet.
The ordinance requires an additional setback for anything over 50 feet.
Stamson suggested moving the garage over. Kirchoff explained the problems with
shifting the stmcture.
Danes pointed out the neighbors have their structures at the 5 foot setback line restricting
the applicants from building.
Dave and Sheryl Colucci stated they would work with the City in anyway and would like
to live on the lake as he has been a resident for many years.
Bruce Lind, 16316 Park Avenue, said he has some concerns with the proposed house.
The space between his existing house and proposed house will be approximately 17.3 feet
meaning most the windows on the south will be facing directly into his master bedroom
and bath. He also had a concern with the proposed garage being 10.6 feet between the
two garages. Another issue was his retaining wall. By digging a walkout, there is
potential for wall failure. He is also concerned with the elevations and runoff. Lind felt
the applicant's proposed house will be looking down into his house.
Mark Danes addressed Lind's concern for grading.
Criego pointed out the concern for runoff.
Danes continued to explain the walkout grading and slope, as well as the proposed house
plan. Lind questioned the height of the windows. Danes responded.
The hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego: · Agreed with staff the average shore line setback should be at 65.2 feet. The
applicant is willing to do that.
· The 72 length building seems to be incredibly long. Recommend moving the
garage over a couple of feet just to break itup. That will solve the 15 foot span
between houses, which is important for safety/fire issues.
· Move the garage 2.6 feet to eliminate the variance.
· Approve the length of the building with the variance.
· Make the driveway 10 feet.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutcs\MN 102802.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
· Usually the plat has the drainage plan on it. This doesn't seem to have it.
Kirchoff pointed out the directional arrows indicating drainage on the survey.
· Kansier explained this was a preliminary drawing. It will be more specific at the
time the permit is submitted.
· Recommended a condition to put in gutters to help the neighbor with runoff.
Atwood: · In favor of the variance to retain the shoreland setback at 65 feet.
· Mr. Danes has shown sensitivity to the neighbors.
· Continue to be sensitive to the retaining wall.
· Agreed with Criego on the 10 foot driveway and the 2.6 garage movement.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with the Commissions that moving the garage over 2.6 feet should solve
the variance request.
· Legitimate concern with the runoff. Engineering would not approve until the
runoff issue was addressed. Kansier responded the engineering department is
pretty conscientious about making sure the drainage will work. They also do
inspections on a regular basis to make sure there is no runoff or damage to the
adjacent property.
· The permit process will take care of the neighbor's concern.
Stamson: · Agreed with the Commissioners. The 65.2 foot setback is easily obtainable on
this lot, so there is no hardship.
· By pushing the garage over, the applicant can eliminate the need for a 2.6 foot
variance without any major impact on the design. No hardship.
· There is a hardship with the 3ra request. By moving the structure from the south to
the north does not solve any problem.
· Agreed with Criego to add gutters as a condition.
· Questioned the boathouse on the site plan. Kirchoff responded there is not a
provision in the ordinance that requires it be removed. But as long as they don't
touch the boathouse, it can remain. It was also included in the impervious
surface.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO BRING
BACK A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ON THE
SHORELAND SETBACK THAT IT BE AT THE 65.2 FOOT AVERAGE. A MOTION
TO INCLUDE APPROVING A 6.3 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE LENGTH OF THE
BUILDING. AND A MOTION DENYING A 2.6 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE
SOUTH END OF THE PROPERPTY. ALSO INCLUDE THE CONDITIONS TO
ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY AND ADD GUTTERS ON THE NORTH AND
SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWiN102802.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
B. Case #02-113 Randy and Patrice Simpson a variance from the 25 foot front
yard setback for the construction of an addition to a single family dwelling for the
property located at 2933 Spring Lake Road.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated October 28, 2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
Randy and Patdce Simpson are requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance for the
construction of a garage addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned
R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 2933
Spring Lake Road (part of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite and 30
feet of vacated 6th Street right-of-way and a portion of the platted Reserve). The property
is guided Urban Low/Medium Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The property is a riparian lot abutting Spring Lake. The property is also a comer lot with
frontage on Spring Lake Road and 6tn Street (an unimproved road). A single family
dwelling, constructed in 1969, currently occupies the site. In 1992, an addition was
constructed to the dwelling that does not comply with the minimum front yard setback
from the 6th Street right-of-way. At its closest point, the dwelling is 19.3 feet from the
property line. In order to construct the proposed addition a 15 foot variance from the
required 25 foot front yard setback is necessary to allow a 10 foot setback.
Staffrecommended denial of the requested 15 foot front yard variance to allow a 10 foot
setback from the 6th Street right-of-way based upon the following:
1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship exists to warrant the granting of
the variance.
2. A large garage addition can be constructed within the buildable area of the property.
3. The addition would expand the nonconformity of the existing structure.
Should the Planning Commission approve this request, staffrecommended the following
conditions:
1. 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.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Ringstad questioned how the City classified the addition in1990. Kansier said there was
no information available at the time. She also pointed out she did not know what the
required setback was on comer lots at that time.
L:\02FILES\02planning corran\02pcminules~VlN 102802.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Criego questioned the vacation of 6th Street. Kansier responded only a portion of the
street was vacated. It is a platted right-of-way and winter access to Spring Lake. There is
traffic.
Stamson also pointed out the neighbor's garage access is on 6th Street.
Comments from the Public:
Randy Simpson, 2933 Spring Lake Road, said the road is used by ice fishermen as a
winter access, not a boat access. Simpson said the staff in 1990 did not interpret the lot
as a comer lot. He had to downsize his plan at that time. He questioned if it is still really
a street. He also pointed out other vacations in the platted subdivision. In response to
staff's hardships, Simpson questioned if the street was partially vacated, is it really a
comer lot? The ordinances pertain to streets not half streets. The street is maintained by
the homeowners and Sportsmen's Club, not the City. Simpson pointed out staff felt the
applicant created the problem, but he did not agree. There are other locations on the
property to place the garage but he feels this location is aesthetically the best. He felt he
was penalized to have setback averaging from the neighbors' homes. Simpson pointed
out the other options would block his view of the lake as well as the neighbors. He said if
he did not get the requested variance there are other options to vacate the street.
Stamson questioned the applicant's existing tarred driveway onto 6th Street. Simpson
said he uses it for parking his boat trailer and equipment.
Criego questioned the applicant having a driveway on 6th street, implying that it is a
street. Simpson responded it needs to be determined.
The public heating was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· Simpson made some excellent points, but concerned in keeping some continuity
from 1990.
· Could possibly support to continue the current garage line to eliminate additional
new setback requirements toward the street or alley.
· Simpson said one reason to stagger the garage is the length requirement in the city
ordinance. Kirchoff said the ordinance was for a side yard - not a front or comer
lot. It implies to only interior side lot lines, not side streets or comers.
Atwood: · Interested in the comer lot issue, it seems to be repetitive.
· Sympathetic to the applicant with the uniqueness of the lot.
· It is not a busy road or alley.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN102802.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Criego:
· Questioned staff if there was a limitation on garage size? Kirchoff said "No".
· Did staff ask legal advice if that was considered a street? Kirchoff said legal staff
stated it was a street.
· Kansier clarified it was a platted 60 foot wide street, although never improved to
that width. Half of it was vacated so there is still a 30 foot public street width.
There are a number of platted streets in the City that have nothing on them. In
this area, the City still applies the comer setback, even though the street is
unimproved.
· This is never going to be a street, but will be an access to the lake.
· Kansier said it is technically a platted street - there is access to the neighbor's
garage as well as the applicant's access. It is used by the public for access as
well.
· Questioned when was the adjacent garage put in and how far fi.om the line is that?
Kirchoff responded she did not have any information when it was constructed but
it is 25 feet from the property line.
At'wood:
· Questioned if the structure was built in 1990. Simpson indicated it was. Kansier
said the information provided is very sketchy. Assumed it was put in as an access
or more of a parking or storage pad.
Stamson: · As far as determination as a street - it has a platted right-of-way, has two accesses
and is used by the public. There is no question it is a street.
· Staff's interpretation is correct.
· As far as a variance and hardships - it is a tougher call.
· One thing the Commission looks at is the hardship created by the application of
the ordinance alone. The ordinance is written for the entire City.
· In tiffs case, the 25 foot setback throughout the city is valid. In applying it to this
situation it is a little overkill. Maybe one of the hardships has been met, but not
all, not enough to grant a variance.
Open Discussion:
Criego:
· Ifyou believe it is a street, you have to abide by the 25 foot setbaek. Thereare
other ways of adding to the garage.
Ringstad:
· Getting back to what happened in 1990 - what was the City classifying the street
at that time?
Criego:
· What was done 12 years ago may not be valid now. Times change. Ringstad
came up with an alternative that works. It would have a 5 foot variance.
L:\02FI LES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~VlN 102802.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Stamson:
Starting to define streets is going to be a problem. There are several unusual
streets in the City. The Commission.just looked at one (Oakland Beach) where
the street does not sit on the right-of-way.
,, There is other ways to build a garage on this property.
· Leaning towards denying. It does not qualify for any of the hardships.
Ringstad:
· Agreed to deny the request as presented. Having a tough time not granting some
sort of variance from 12 years ago. It was not that long ago.
· Suggest tabling this to see if the applicant and staff can come to some sort of
compromise.
Criego:
· The applicant currently has a two car garage. Now he wants to add another garage
and a half. How does that fit into a variance request? Look what the
Commissioners have done in the past.
Stamson:
· Agreed. In the past the Commissioners felt not having a two car garage was a
hardship, a third car garage is a convenience and not warranting a variance.
· Including that as well as the previous discussions - there is no hardship.
· There is no denial of the property. He can build a fairly good size garage addition
within the ordinance requirements.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Ringstad to see if the applicant and staff can work something out.
Ringstad:
· What I am heating from everyone is that were not in favor of supporting what is
before the Commission. If something comes before the Commission that is new,
it is a new consideration.
Stamson:
· Does not have a problem tabling so the applicant may want to alter or change his
request, but the concern is the way it has been presented. It gives the appearance
that the Commission is negotiating a variance. It either warrants a variance or not.
Hate to give the impression that we are allowing staff to negotiate a variance with
an applicant. It is not proper.
· Kansier agreed. Staff does not have the authority to negotiate a variance.
Atwood:
· The applicant stated he had other options.
· Kansier explained they did speak to the City Attorney about vacating the right-of-
way. The attorney felt at this point in time, it would be difficult to show it was in
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN 102802.do¢ 8
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
the public's interest to vacate. It was basically their opinion the City would be
causing problems for themselves.
Criego:
· The other issue is that it is not a hardship to add a stall and a half to an existing 2
car garage, whether it is to the front, back or side. A two car garage is sufficient.
If there is a need for additional storage then the property is certainly large enough
to adapt.
Stamson:
· Concurred. That has been the Commission's stand in the past. Denied a third car
garage on more difficult lots.
· In the interest of being fair, the criteria the Commission has consistently used has
not been met.
The Commissioners agreed to deny the request.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02-
019PC DENYING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
C. Case #02-106 Consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance concerning
the height and opacity of fences on corner lots.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated October 28, 2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
The following zoning ordinance amendment is based upon a request from a resident, who
resides on a comer lot abutting Carriage Hills Parkway. The property owner would like
to construct a fence 6 feet in height along Carriage Hills Parkway; however, the current
ordinance only allows a 4 foot fence in front yards.
On September 23, 2002, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of amending
the fence ordinance concerning comer and riparian lots. Overall, the Commission felt as
though the existing ordinance is adequate, and did not recommend changes to the
ordinance. However, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment
to allow comer lots to have a fence six feet in height along a side street.
Whether or not comer lots shall be given the right to have a 6 foot tall fence along a side
street is a policy issue. The current ordinance provisions were generally intended for
aesthetic as well as visibility purposes. Provided the fences are only placed along arterial
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~VlN102802.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
and collector roadways, these intentions should be carded through with this proposed
amendment.
The staffhas no objections to the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment will
offer visual protection for the "rear yard" of comer lots located on collector roadways.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Did City Council recommend this change or the applicant? Kansier said it was
brought before the City Council by Mr. House in an open forum. The City
Council asked to bring it to the Planning Commission for a public heating.
Comments from the Public:
Tim House, 14458 Nightingale Circle, explained everything staffpresented is what he is
looking for. House read a statement for the record in support of the amendment.
The public heating was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood: · Suggested reopening the discussions the Commission had back in September
when the decision was made not to change the ordinance.
· Not of thc mind to change the ordinance at this time.
Ringstad:
· Felt the Commission did not want to do anything at that time until it was opened
at a public meeting, which is occurdng tonight.
· Could support the change.
· City Council brought it back for a public heating. After heating Mr. House speak,
would be in favor.
Criego:
· Couple of concerns: 1) of safety; If this amendment takes place, it could be a case
where stopping at any of the stop signs moving onto a parkway like that could
cause visual problems. That needs to be addressed. 2) Aesthetics of fence and the
type offence along those parkways are important along with the maintenance of
them.
· Historically the Commission and staff have considered comer lots as two front
yards. If there are 4 foot fences, as the applicant indicated, it seems to be
appropriate on the sides except for one thing - it eliminates his concerns except
for passersby looking into his yard. It would stop the dogs and snowmobiles.
That may have more of a pleasing appearance than a 6 foot 100% privacy fence.
· These issues need to be discussed.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vlN102802.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
· Understands Mr. House's desires but have to look at safety and the aesthetic
value.
Atwood:
· Part of the Commissioners' discussions in September revolved around a case by
case basis. To change the entire City ordinance for one person is not right.
Criego:
· The issue - Is there one unique situation or is it a City problem? To the best of
the Commissioners knowledge there were no other issues raised to change the
ordinance.
Stamson:
· Strongly opposed to allowing 6 foot privacy fences for any side yard that fronts a
street. The ordinance asks if there is a public need for the amendment. The
ordinance now allows ample opportunity to put in a fence to stop foot traffic or
plant landscaping to provide privacy.
· After discussing this issue in September, drove around town and observed a
number of people who addressed the problem within the ordinance.
· Lives on a collector street. Apple Valley must have allowed this with privacy
fences which created a tunnel effect with mismatched fences along the street, it is
not aesthetically pleasing. It is wrong to think that doesn't have an effect on the
City as a whole and the neighborhood.
· The fence ordinance was rewritten a few years ago and the Commission went
through this extensively. Several meetings, workshops and polling other cities
were done. At that time, the Commissioners didn't feel there should be a fence
allowed in the front yard. ·
· Lots of discussion on this issue.
· Strongly against amending this ordinance.
Ringstad:
· Questioned surrounding city surveys. Stamson and Criego responded there many
discussions and the Commissioners felt strongly on this issue.
Atwood:
· Well aware of the mismatched fences in Apple Valley and how unappealing it is.
Criego
asked Stamson to summarize:
The Commissioners and staff extensively researched this issue two years ago in
writing the current ordinance. Very comfortable with the existing ordinance.
There has not been a rush of calls to City Hall to change. It works well.
Additionally there is ample opportunity to address all the concerns presented by
dual frontage lots in the current ordinance. Drive around town and see all the
residents who have 4 foot fences with landscaping meeting all the criteria. These
issues can be addressed.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~MN 102802.doc I ]
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
· As a City as a whole, the Commissioners have to maintain the standards that have
been set forth. This one goes against what is to be achieved. What is in place has
worked very well.
· Also, there is a safety issue.
Criego:
· Most comer intersections will have stop signs, if people start putting up privacy
fences there is a probability the view of oncoming cars will be reduced and those
particular streets are traveling 30 to 40 mph. The longer distance to view
oncoming cars is important.
· Agreed with Stamson. As a city-wide ordinance this will affect every property.
· Stamson explained 3 comer lots and vision problems created with privacy fences.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Cfiego and Atwood, nay by Ringstad. MOTION
CARRIED.
A recess was called at 8:06 pm. The meeting resumed at 8:14 p.m.
D. Case #02-115 Consider amendments to Sections 1101.1000 (Definitions of
Temporary Uses) and 1101.510 (Allowable Temporary Uses) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 28,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to temporary uses within Non-Residential districts. This amendment was
initiated by direction of the City Cotmcil.
The proposed amendment has two parts. The first part is an amendment to Section
1101.1000, adding a definition of temporary uses. The second part is an amendment to
Section 1101.510, expanding the types of temporary uses permitted in nonresidential
districts and establishing a procedure for those types o£uses.
Staff recommended the amendment as proposed.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· What brought up this ordinance change? Kansier said the City was asked to see if
a nursery school facility could be established in a Business Office disthct for a
temporary use. It is not a permitted use at this time. There is currently
construction going on in their facility.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWiN102802.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Atwood:
· Staff seems comfortable with it as it is. What would be the process for this
nursery school? Kansier explained the process.
Criego:
· This could also be an outdoor use as well. Kansier said it could as long as it did
not construct new structures. It would have to go before the Commission as a
Conditional Use Permit. Kansier said this offers a little more flexibility. This
temporary use provision would apply only to uses not normally permitted in the
district.
Stamson:
· Does this apply to community carnivals, like downtown Lakefront Days? Kansier
responded it was still in the ordinance as a temporary use. A permitted temporary
use.
· What about reoccurring temporary uses? Should there be some limit? Kansier
said it was a good question. By continuing reapplying, it is not a temporary use.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· No problem with the ordinance if there is flexibility to deem it worthwhile or not.
It could help the City in this growth period, as long as it stays in the C1 and C5
District. Keep it out of the Residential areas.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Criego, it makes it more flexible for the City to address temporary
issues relating to growth and accommodate businesses and opportunities that
become available without changing the character of the district by making it
permanent.
· Does a good job and strengthens the controls the City has on temporary uses.
· Recommend passing.
Ringstad and Atwood:
· Agreed to approve.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVING
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWiN 102802.doc 13
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
E. Case #02-114 Consider an amendment to Section 1102.1105 (Dimensional
Standards in the C-3 District) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 28,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to the required rear yard setback in the C-3 (Specialty Business) district. This
amendment was initiated by direction of the City Council.
The purpose of the minimum and maximum setbacks and the build-to line is to fully
utilize the lot area within the downtown district and to creme a pedestrian-friendly
streetscape. This is best accomplished by building as close to the street frontage as
possible. Parking and landscaping requirements are not applicable in the C-3 district.
Staffrecommended approval of proposed amendment.
There were no public comments.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Tried to eliminate this in the draft stages in writing the ordinance. Thought it was
a bad idea at the time.
· Support eliminating it at this time.
· Support the amendment.
Ringstad:
It seems to go along with everything we are trying to promote with downtown.
Support.
Atwood:
· Agreed. In favor of recommending.
Criego:
· Would approve based on a proper answer to the question of how does the safety
issue take place with fire. Normally there would be a front, rear or side exist. If3
sides are eliminated, that leaves one side. How is the safety issue addressed.
Kansier said that requirement would follow under the building code and fire
codes, rather than the zoning ordinance.
· In favor of the change.
MOTION BYATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vlN 102802.doc 14
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
This will go before the City Council on November 4, 2002.
6. Old Business:
B. Case #02-112 Ray Brandt is requesting consideration for a final PUD plan
consisting of 28.19 acres to be developed with 148 townhouse units and open space.
This property is 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.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 28,
2002, on file in the office of the City Plarming Department.
Ray Brandt and Pulte Homes have applied for approval ofa Plarmed Unit Development
(PUD) Final Plan for 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
total site area in the PUD includes 28.19 acres, zoned R-4 (High Density Residential).
The development consists of 148 town_house units and common open space.
The Planning Commission must review the Final PUD and make a recommendation to
the City Council. The staff suggests the following findings:
1. With the above listed revision, the Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved
preliminary plan.
2. The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the criteria for a PUD listed in Section
1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. This plan is also consistent with
the City Council findings listed in City Council Resolution #02-134.
The staff also recommends approval of the Final PUD Plan be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The following revision must be made before the plan proceeds to the City Council:
a. The plan must be revised to include the location of the monument sign.
2. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council.
3. A signed PUD agreement must be approved by the City Council.
4. Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final
plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the final
approval information. Once set will be filed at the Planning Department and
maintained as the official PUD record. The second set will be returned to the
developer for their files.
Ray Brandt, of Brandt Engineering, said he will revise the survey before it goes to the
City Council indicating the monument on County Road 21 and Highway 13.
L:\02F1LES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vlN 102802.doc 15
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Overall, the plan is fundamentally what was presented. Comfortable with staff's
changes.
· Add a Planning Commission recommendation to City Council to consider the
importance of the intersection of Highway 13 and County Road 21 and work with
the developer to provide some kind of landscaping identifying Prior Lake. It is a
prime opportunity to provide some identity features at the intersection. It would
be something the City participates in.
Ringstad:
· Liked the idea of working with the City on the landscaping. Something special
could be done.
· Add the recommendation as a condition.
· Concurred with all the comments.
Atwood:
· Agreed with the Commissioners. The City's participation in the landscaping could
be a condition.
Criego: · Agreed with Commissioners' recommendation.
· Did disagree with the project as a PUD but it will go forward.
· One of the concerns of the project was that there was no substantial advantage to
the City or citizens. It felt like this was going in with no specific advantage. If
something can be done with the comer, and the applicant can make it happen, that
will add some substance to sway me the other way.
· Have City Council work closely with the applicant and improve the comer.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE FINAL PUD SUBJECT TO STAFF'S FOUR
CONDITIONS WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT
SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL DEVELOP A LANDSCAPE DESIGN
THAT ADDRESSES THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY 13 AND COUNTY ROAD 21,
TO PROVDE A PEDESTRIAN AND FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT INCLUDING A
UNIQUE IDENTITY TO PRIOR LAKE.
Vote taken indicated by ayes. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on November 18, 2002.
7. New Business: None
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~VlN102802.doc ] 6
?lanning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The next Planning Conunission meeting will be scheduled Tuesday, November 12,
because of Monday's holiday.
The Commissioners should let staffknow if there will be present for the second meeting
in November as it is the week of Thanksgiving.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
Planning Coordinator
Jane Kansier
Recording Secretary
Connie Carlson
L:\02FiLES\02planning comm\02pcrninutesWiN 102802.doc 17
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CASE FILE:
4A
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
VARIANCE FROM THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK
REQUIRED WHEN A BUILDING WALL EXCEEDS
50 FEET IN LENGTH FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A
RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES FROM THE
SHORELAND SETBACK AND 15 FOOT
SEPARATION ALLOWED FOR NONCONFORMING
LOTS
16308 PARK AVENUE SE
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
NOVEMBER 25, 2002
02-110
INTRODUCTION:
On October 28, 2002, the Planning Commission held a punic hearing on the request
from Mark Danes (representing David and Sheryl Colucci) for a 7.3 foot variance from
the required 65.2 foot average shoreland setback, a 2.6 foot variance from the 15 foot
separation required between structures on adjacent nonconforming lots, and a 6.3 foot
variance from the 13.6 foot side yard setback required when a building wall exceeds 50
feet in length for the construction of a single family dwelling on property and zoned R-
I (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 16308
Park Avenue (Lot 11, Lakeside Park).
The Planning Commission, by a unanimous vote, directed staff to prepare a resolution
approving a 6.3 foot variance from the 13.6 foot additional setback required when a
building wall exceeds 50 feet in length for the construction of a single family dwelling,
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.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-110",PC Report CC Agenda.doc
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 - Danes Variances
November 25, 2002
Page 2
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
3. The driveway shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width.
4. Impervious surface shall not exceed 30 percent.
5. Gutters shall be installed on the north and south elevations of the dwelling.
The Commission denied a 6.2 foot variance from the average 65.2 foot shoreland
setback and a 2.6 foot variance from the required 15 foot separation between buildings
on adjacent nonconforming lots, based upon the following:
1. A hardship has not been demonstrated because shifting of the dwelling on the tot
can eliminate both variances.
The attached Resolution 02-017PC approves the following variance:
A 6.3 foot variance from the 13.6 foot setback required when a building
wall exceeds 50 feet in length. (Zoning Ordinance Section 1102.405 (3):
Dimensional Standards).
The attached Resolution 02-018PC denies the following variances:
A 6.2 foot variance from the average 65.2 foot shoreland setback (Zoning
Ordinance Section 1104.308 (2): Setback Requirements for Residential
Structures).
2. A 2.6 foot variance from the required 15 foot separation between buildings
on adjacent nonconforming lots. (Zoning Ordinance Section 1101.502 (8):
Required Yards/Open Space).
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached Resolution 02-017PC is consistent with the Planning Commission's
direction for approval of a variance from the additional setback required when a wall
exceeds 50 feet in length for the construction of a single family dwelling. The staff
recommends adoption of the Resolution.
Resolution 02-018PC is likewise consistent with the Planning Commission's direction
for denial of the shoreland and side yard separation variances. The staff recommends
adoption of this Resolution.
Planning Report - Danes Variances
November 25, 2002
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES:
Approve the attached Resolution 02-017PC approving the variances because the
Planning Commission finds a demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Ordinance
criteria and approve Resolution 02-018PC because the Planning Commission does
not find a demonstrated hardship.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTIONS REQUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative # 1.
A motion and second adopting Resolution 02-017PC approving a 6.3 foot variance
from the 13.6 foot setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet in length for
the construction of a single family dwelling.
A motion and second adopting Resolution 02-018PC denying a 6.2 foot variance from
the average 65.2 foot shoreland setback and a 2.6 foot variance from the required 15
foot separation between buildings on adjacent nonconforming lots.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution 02-017PC
Resolution 02-018PC
L:\02F:lLES\02variances\02-088 ~PC Report.doc
RESOLUTION 02-017PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 6.3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 13.6
FOOT ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIRED WHEN A BUILDING WALL
EXCEEDS 50 FEET IN LENGTH FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake,
Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mark Danes, on behalf of David and Sheryl Colucci, has applied for variances from
the zoning ordinance for the construction of a single family dwelling on property
zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) at the following
location, to wit;
16308 Park Avenue, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 11,
Lakeside Park, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #02-110PC and held a hearing thereon on October 28, 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.
4. The 13.6 foot building wall setback results in a difficulty and warrants a reduced
setback, because the buildable width is reduced to 27 feet.
The additional building wall setback creates a 13.6 foot minimum setback, which
means the sum of the side yards would total 23.6 feet, when the zoning ordinance
only requires 15 feet. The side yard setbacks of adjacent structures are only 5 feet
leaving the subject property to maintain two 10 foot side yard setbacks. This
situation is peculiar to the property.
l:\02files\O2variaaces\02-110\approve resolution.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-424S
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
A variance from the additional side yard setback appears to be necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. Without
some relief from this setback, the buildable width would be limited to 27 feet.
7. The variance from the additional setback for a building wall over 50 feet will not
impact the character of the neighborhood, because a 15 foot building separation
will still be maintained from the structure to the south.
8. The zoning ordinance allows variances where reasons of strict application of
provisions would create an undue hardship. The strict application of the additional
setback creates a difficulty for the property owner.
9. The contents of Planning Case #02-110PC 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 to allow for the construction of a single family dwelling:
A 6.3 foot variance from the 13.6 foot setback required when a building
wall exceeds 50 feet. (Section 1102.405 (6) Dimensional Standards.)
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:
1. 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 driveway shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width.
4. Impervious surface shall not exceed 30 percent.
5. Gutters shall be installed on the north and south elevations of the dwelling.
6. A revised certificate of survey shall be submitted as part of the building permit
application.
l:\02files\02variances\02-110\approve resolution.doc 2
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 28, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\02files\O2variances\O2-110\approve resolution.doc 3
RESOLUTION 02-015PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 6.2 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
AVERAGE 65.2 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK AND A 2.6 FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN
BUILDINGS ON ADJACENT NONCONFORMING LOTS 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 Danes, on behalf of David and Sheryl Colucci, has applied for variances
from the zoning ordinance for the construction of a single family dwelling on
property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) at
the following location, to wit;
16308 Park Avenue, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 11,
Lakeside Park, Scott County, Minnesota.
The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as
contained in Case #02-110PC and held a hearing thereon on October 28, 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 subject lot was platted at only 8,544 square feet, which is significantly less
than the current ordinance would require for a riparian lot, but it complies
with the minimum dimensional standards for nonconforming lots of record.
However, there is ample buildable area on the property. Strict application of
the shoreland setback and side yard separation provisions do not appear to
result in an undue hardship upon the owner in constructing a reasonable use,
which is a single family dwelling with attached garage.
The conditions (i.e., shoreland and side yard setback) applying to the land in
question pertain to other land within the R-1 zoning district. The site is not
l:\02f'fles\O2vari~ces\02-110\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
unique because the majority of the lots on Prior Lake are nonconforming, in
terms of width and area.
The granting of the proposed shoreland and side yard setback variances are not
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the
property owner. Although the home will have to be long and narrow, a
reasonable use can be made of the property without encroaching into those
required setbacks.
The granting of the shoreland setback and side yard separation variances will
impact the character of the immediate vicinity by affecting the perceived health,
safety, and comfort of the area.
One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and
undue concentration of structures and population by regulating the use of land
and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding
them." Allowing the encroachment into the shoreland and side yard separation
setback is inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance.
The granting of the shoreland setback and side yard separation variances will
serve as a convenience to the applicant because they can be eliminated with a
redesign of the dwelling.
10.
The alleged hardship for the shoreland and side yard separation setbacks results
from the actions of the property owner. The footprint of the dwelling created
the difficulty, not the area or width of the lot.
11.
The contents of Planning Case #02-110PC 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:
A 7.3 foot variance from the required 65.2 foot average shoreland setback to
allow a 57.9 foot shoreland setback. (Section 1104.308(2) Setback Requirements
for Residential Structures.)
A 2.6 foot variance from the 15 foot separation required between structures on
adjacent nonconforming lots to a allow a 12.4 foot separation. (Section 1101.502
(8) Required Yards/Open Space.)
l:\02f~es\O2variances\O2-110\deny resolution.doc 2
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 28, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Community Development Director
l:\02files\02variances\02-110\deny resolution.doc 3
~ENT I
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 114, RANGE
22 (Case FiLe #02-126)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
NOVEMBER 25, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Eagle Creek Development has filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for the property located east of Fish Point Road, on the east side of the Deerfield
Development and south of Cottonwood Lane and Adelmarm Street. The proposal is to
amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current R-L/MD (Low to
Medium Density Residential) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential)
designation on approximately 4 acres of vacant land.
BACKGROUND:
This property is presently zoned R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) and is
designated as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The applicant is proposing to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to accommodate an apartment complex that will be accessed from
the east side of the property off of AdeLmann Street. Adelmann Street now stops at
Cottonwood Lane, and does not extend to this site. Access to this site from the east will
require the extension of Adelmann Street through City property and development of the
property to the east. The property owner has not submitted a preliminary plat for this
development.
In 1999, the applicant, along with D.R. Horton, submitted an application to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to designate the easterly 164 acres of the Deerfield development,
including this property, to the R-HD designation. The City Council denied this
application on the basis that the density proposed could be accomplished in the R-2
district. The action was also based on the fact that the ultimate sewer capacity for the
entire Deerfield site was 700 units. The proposal would have allowed well over that
number.
1:\02filcs\02compam\02-126 rncsenbdnk~02-126 pc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Drior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Dh. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
In 1997, when the entire 240 acre Deerfield property was annexed and added to the
MUSA, the City undertook a study of the capacity for this area. The study was based on
the presumption that there would be approximately 700 units on the site. This is the
maximum capacity at this location. The current Deerfield PUD allows 540 units. If the
Comprehensive Plan is amended, this 4 acre site could potentially be developed with an
additional 120 units.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site consists of approximately 4 acres.
Topo~ral~hy: Most of the site drains towards a wetland on the west side of the site.
Vegetation: This property is primarily vacant pasture. There are existing trees located
on the east and west side of the site.
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 an easement on the private streets in
the Deerfield development on the south side of the site. The private street leading to this
site has not been platted at this time.
Utilities: Sewer and water services can also be extended from the Deerfield development
to the south. Again, these utilities have not been platted.
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: To the north of this property is the Norex property,
zoned C-5 (Business Office Park).
West and south of this property is the Deerfield development, zoned R-2.
To the east is vacant land, zoned C-5 (Business Office Park).
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to develop approximately 4 acres of land located on the east
side of the Deerfield development and south of Cottonwood Lane and Adelmarm Street
with an apartment complex.
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.
l:\02files\02compam\02-126 mesenbr/nk\02-126 pc.doc Page 2
OBJECTIVE No. J: 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 issues pertaining to this request have more to do with access and the availability of
services. Currently, the only access to the 4 acre parcel is via an easement across the
private streets in the Deerfield development to the south. The streets leading to this site
have not been platted at this time. This will most likely be one of the last phases of the
development. The developer's narrative notes that access to the site is planned from the
east, off of Adelmann Street. As noted above, Adelmann Street stops at Cottonwood
Lane to the north. In order to provide access to the site, Adelmann would have to be
extended through City property to the north boundary of the property east of this 4 acre
site. Although it is likely that Adelmann will be extended, there are no current plans to
do so at this time. The developer would then be responsible for developing and building
the road through this land. No preliminary plat has been submitted for this property at
this time.
The availability of services is also an issue. There are no services adjacent to this site.
Services could be extended from the Deerfield development to the south or from the east.
However, once again, this would require development of the adjacent property.
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 Altemative #2. The proposal seems premature at this
time. Access through the private streets in the Deerfield development for an additional
120 units is not appropriate. Although it is likely that Adelmann Street will eventually
extended to the south, there are no plans for this extension in the near future. The City
1:\02files\02compam\02-126 mesenbrink\02-126 pc.doc Page 3
has not included this extension in the CIP, nor has the developer submitted a preliminary
plat.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the
R-HD designation.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photo
3. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
4. Zoning Map
5. Developer's Narrative
1:\02files\02compam\02-126 mcsenbrink\02-126 pc.doc Page 4
Location Map
Deerfield Comprehensive Plan Amendment
~be Area proposed to
designated as R-HD i
N
400
0 40O
800 Feet
Deerfield Property
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
ATTACHMENT A
Amendment to Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance
The request for the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance is to accommodate an apartment complex that will be accessed from the
East Side of the proper~y off of Adelman Street.
This housing development will provide housing to persons employed in the
industrial park adjacent to the proposed apartment complex along with meeting the
housing needs for the City of Prior Lake.
The section to be amended is from (1102.500) "R-2", Iow to medium density
residential use district, to (1102.700) "R-4" high density residential use district
which will provide applicant the ability to construct an apartment complex on the
site described.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CASE FILE:
5B
CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM THE 25 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING
3201 SPRUCE TRAIL SE
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
~X YES NO-N/A
NOVEMBER 25, 2002
02-123
INTRODUCTION:
Karl Holm is requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance for the construction of a
living space addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low
Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 3201 Spruce Trail
SE (Lot 8, Block 6, Sunset Hills Addition). The property is guided Urban Low/Medium
Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The site is a comer lot with street frontage on Spruce Trail and Sunset Trail. A single farn~
dwelling with a two-stall garage, constructed in 1987, currently occupies the site.
Topography ranges from 937 at the extreme southeast portion of the lot to 922.9 at the
northwest property comer. A retaining wall is located approximately 10 feet from the rear
of the dwelling to accommodate the topography change.
In order to construct the proposed addition shown on Attachment 3, the following variance
is required:
An 11.4 foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback to allow a
13.6 foot setback from Sunset Trail (a side yard abutting a street). (Section
1102.405(3) Dimensional Standards.)
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. $.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 553724714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Harming Report - Holm Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
This property is part of Sunset Hills Addition, which was platted in 1979. The property is
approximately 12,600 square feet in area. The lot measures 87 feet at the required 25 foot
front yard setback. The lot area and width comply with minimum zoning ordinance
requirements.
According to the survey submitted by the applicant, the deck and covered porch on the
existing single family dwelling maintain a nonconforming setback from both streets. The
front porch is only 20 feet from the property line abutting Spruce Trail and the deck is only
20 feet from Sunset Trail.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a 320 square foot (16 foot by 20 foot) living
space addition to an existing single family
dwelling. The addition is proposed to be
located 13.6 feet from the property line
abutting Sunset Trail and 25 feet from the
pro.perry line abutting Spruce Trail. The
zoning ordinance requires structures on
comer lots to have a 25 foot front yard
setback on each street.
As previously noted, the deck on west side
of the dwelling maintains a non-
conforming setback from Sunset Trail.
The zoning ordinance specifically prohibits
rebut/db2g or extmsthn of~." The proposed addition would expand the existing
nonconforming deck setback by replacing it with a larger enclosed living space.
The property owner has a reasonable use of the property, as a single family dwelling with an
attached garage is present on the site.
Applicant's Estimate of Hardship
The applicant contends that the purpose of the variance is to "increase our overall family
living area currently measuring at 1,120 square feet on three levels. This would add to the
size of our kitchen which measures 11 x 11 at this time, increasing its space, efficiency and
livability. Due to the original home being built without a basement and only two bedrooms,
this addition could also be used to accommodate guests as needed."
Also, "according to the survey we had completed with the proposed addition, k shows 37
feet of set back from the curb to the existing property line and 13.58 feet from the property
line to the comer of the proposed addition. The proposed addition to the curb of the road
would equal 50.58 feet."
Planning Report - Holm Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 3
"The conditions of our property indude an
elevation slope from 940 to 923 feet. This
is from our back yard to the northwest
comer of the property line. A retaining wall
was installed to facilitate proper drainage
from the back to the front of the house.
For this reason we feel the only feasible area
to add on is off the west side of the house."
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 tecfc~s 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 strict application of the front yard setback requirement from Sunset Trail does not
prohibit the property owner from developing the property legally permissible within the
R-1 use district, as a single family dwelling with an attached garage is currently present on
the site.
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 condition applying to the land is not peculiar to the subject property, but applies to
all comer lots within R-! use district.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
Relief from the zoning ordinance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
the property owner's right to develop and use the land. A reasonable use is already
present on the site.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the
public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
Planning Repor~ - Holm Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 4
Although the granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent property, it will allow a structure to maintain a front yard setback significantly
less than that required for comer lots in the R-1 use district. Furthermore, it will allow
for the expansion of a nonconforming front yard setback along Sunset Trail.
The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health,
safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the variance may impact the character of the neighborhood by altering
the perceived safety and comfort of the immediate vicinity. The structure will be located
closer to a property line abutting a public right-of-way than other properties within the
Sunset Hills development.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "prevent over crowding of land and undue
concentration of structures and population by regulating the use of land and building
and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding them." Allowing the
structure to maintain a 13.6 foot setback from a front propertyline appears to be
inconsistent with the zoning ordinance.
Another purpose of the zoning ordinance is to prohibk the enlargement, intensification,
expansion, rebuilding or extension of nonconformities. The requested relief from the
zoning ordinance would expand the nonconforming setback along Sunset Trail, and thus
be inconsistent with the zoning ordinance.
The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
The granting of the variance appears to serve only as a convenience to the property
owner, because an undue hardship has not been demonstrated.
The hardship resuks 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 alleged hardship results from the design of the addition or action of the property
owner, not from the provisions of the zoning ordinance. The applicant's desire to
construct an addition that does not compty with the minimum setback created the
variance request.
Planning Report - Holm Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 5
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall
not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Staff does not believe that economics plays a role in this request.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant is requesting a variance for a living space addition to a single family dwelling
on property zoned R-1 and SD. The propertyis a comer lot and is required to maintain a 25
foot front yard setback from both streets.
The applicant has pointed out that the property lies adjacem to Sunset Trail, which has 37
feet of boulevard because k was formerly County Road 81, and that the ske exhibits an
elevation change. Although staff acknowledges that the addition would be over 50 feet from
the roadway and the retaining wall in the rear yard limits an addition size and location,
variance applications are reviewed strictly against the standards in the zoning ordinance, and
the property owner already has a reasonable use of the property.
The fact that the applicant would like to construct an addidon to a single family dwelling that
encroaches into a required minimum setback does not create a hardship. The addition is a
convenience. The applicant's perceived hardship is created by the design of the addition.
Furthermore, the proposed addition would expand the nonconformity of the front yard
setback from Sunset Trail. Therefore, staff does not support the variance request because
the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested 11.4 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard
setback for the construction of living space based upon the following.-
1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that a hardship exists to warrant the granting
of the variance.
2. The addition would expand the nonconformity of the setback from Sunset Trail.
3. A reasonable use is present on the site.
ALTERNATIVES:
Approve the variance requested by the applicant, or approve any variance the Planning
Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this case, the Planning
Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings supporting the
variance.
2. Table or continue discussion of the kern for specific purpose.
Planning Report - Holm Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 6
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission £mds a lack of demonstrated
hardship under the zoning ordinance criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends denial of the request, thus reqttiring the following motion:
1. A motion and second adopting Resolution 02-021PC denying an 11.4 foot variance from
the required 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition.
ATTACHMENTS:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Location map
Applicant's letter
Survey
Addition plans/House elevations
Applicable regulations
Resolution 02-021PC
Location Map
for Holm Variance
ATTACHMENT I
ect Site
BALSA~ ST
400 Feet
4OO
TO: City of Prior Lake plannmg Department
FROM: Karl Holm
DATE: October 23, 2002
RE: East Side Front Yard Set Back Variance
ATTACHMEN ·
We are proposing an addition measuring 16x20 to be added to the West side of our existing home. The purpose of
this application requesting a variance is to increase our overalI family living area currently measuring at 1120 square
feet on three levels. This would add to the size of our kitchen which measures 1 lxl I at this time, increasing its
space, efficiency and livability. Due to the original home being built without a basement and only two bedrooms,
this addition could also be used to accomodate guests as needed.
1. According to the survey we had completed with the proposed addition, it shows 37 feet of set back from the curb
to the existing property line and 1358 feet from the property line to the comer of the proposed addition. The
proposed addition to the curb of the road would equal 50.58 feet.
2. The conditions of our property include an elevation slope from 940 feet to 923 feet. This is from our back yard to
the North West comer of the property fine. A retaining wall was installed to facilitate proper drainage from the back
to the front of the house. For this reason we feel the only feasible area to add on is offthe West side of the house.
3. The proposed addition would increase the value of our home and allow us added living space on the aha level
adjacent to the kitchen area.
4. Our proposed addition would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. Due to it
being a comer lot, this does not apply. It will not unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets. It will
not increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety.
5. Our proposed addition will enhance the character and development of the neighborhood. It will not diminish or
impair established property values and in no way impair the health safety and comfort of the area.
7. We feel the variance we are applying for is necessary due to the size of our existing home measuring at 1120
square feet. This home was built without a basement and only two bedrooms. Building offthe West side would
be most beneficial to increase our living space on the main level. The proposed addition would fit dimentionally and
appear proportionate to our existing home. It would not interfere with drainage flow on the property or upset the
natural beauty of our mature trees
8. The provisions and codes affecting this property include being a comer lot initially zoned as a county road
(C.R. 81) and since changed to a city street. (Sunset Trail)
9. This proposed variance is being applied for to increase our main level living area, add adequate space in the
kitchen for increased efficiency and usefullness and to have a comfortable room for guest accommodations.
APPLICANT'S LETTER
SURVEY PREPAREO FOR:
KARL HOLM
S2OI SPRUCE TRAIL SE
PRIOR LAKE~ MN. 55372
63
Valley Survey}ag Co., PA.
SUITE 120-C , 166~'0 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL )3FFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 55572
iELEPHONE ( 61[.2 ) 447 - 25?0
-- 37.5 ~t~
ATTACHMENT 3
:/
SPRUCE
PROPOSED ADDITION
DESCPdPTION:
Lot g, Block 6, SUNSET HILLS ADDITION, Scott County, Minnesota. Also
showing Ibc Iocntion of visible improvements and encroachments on to or off fwm
~aid property if a~y, as of th/s 4lb day of October, 2002.
NOTES; Benchmark Elevation 930.86 Top of the existing garage slab.
929. I D~nntas existing grade elevation
X
(930.0) l~notes propose~ finishlxl 8rnde elevation
Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage
Match the proposed addition floor to cxisting.
ATTACHMENT.
ELEVATIONS
FLOOR PLANS
ATTACHMENT 5
Zoning Ordinance
(2)
1102.405
(1)
(2)
(3)
All home occupations shall be subject to an annual inspecton to insure
compliance with the above conditions.
k. All applicable permits from other governmental agencies have been
obtained.
Group Day Care/Nursery School in a religious institution, community center, or
academic educational institution complying with all of the following conditions:
a. At least 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil is provided.
b. The outside play areas are fenced and screened with a buffer yard.
Drop off and loading points are established which do not hterfere with traffic
and pedestrian movements.
Dimensional Standards.
No structure shall exceed 3 stories or 35 feet in height, whichever is less, excep~ as
provided in subsection 1101.508.
The ground floor area ratio within the R-1 Use District shall not exceed 0.3.
The following minimum requirements and those additional requirements, exception
and modifications contained in provisions (4) through (9) below and in the
Subdivision Ordinance shall govem the use and development cf lots in the "R-I"
Use District. ~,
Lot Area (Sq. ft.) Lot Width (ft.) Front Yard (ft.) Side Yard (ft.) Rear Yard (ft.)
12,000 86 25 10 25
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
The depth of the front yard of a tot 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 depth of such existing front yards. However, the depth
of a front yard shall not be less than 20 feet or be required to exceed 50 feet.
Through lots and corner 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. 00-08- 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
CiO, of Prior Lake
APPLIC E REGULATIONS
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION 02-021PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN 11.4 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake,
Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Karl Holm has applied for an 11.4 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard
setback for the construction of an addition to an existing single family dwelling
on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay)
at the following location, to wit;
3201 Spruce Trail SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 8,
Block 6, Sunset Hills Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as
contained in Case #02-123PC and held a hearing thereon on November 25,
2002.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public
safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the
proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
The strict application of the front yard setback requirement from Sunset Trail
does not prohibit the property owner from developing the property legally
permissible within the R-1 use district, as a single family dwelling with an
attached garage is currently present on the site.
The condition applying to the land is not peculiar to the subject property, but
applies to all corner lots within R-1 use district.
Relief from the zoning ordinance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of the property owner's right to develop and use the land. A
reasonable use is already present on the site.
l:\02files\O2variance~\O2-123\deny resolution.doc 1
16900 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior I-~ke, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (959} 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Although the granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent property, it will allow a structure to maintain a front
yard setback significantly less than that required for corner lots in the R-1 use
district. Furthermore, it will allow for the expansion of a nonconforming front
yard setback along Sunset Trail.
The granting of the variance appears to serve only as a convenience to the
property owner, because an undue hardship has not been demonstrated.
o
The alleged hardship results from the design of the addition or action of the
property owner, not from the provisions of the zoning ordinance. The
applicant's desire to construct an addition that does not comply with the
minimum setback created the variance request.
10.
The contents of Planning Case #02-123PC are hereby entered into and made a
part of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variance for the construction of an addition to an existing single family
dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey:
1)
An 11.4 foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback
from to allow a 13.6 foot setback from Sunset Trail. (Zoning
Ordinance Section 1102.405 (3) Dimensional Standards.)
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 25, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Community Development Director
l:\02files\O2variances\02-123\deny resolution.doc 2
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
KARL HOLM
3201 SPRUCE TRAIL SE
PRIOR LAKE, MN. §5372
Volley Surveying Co., P.A.
TLLEPHONE ~6t~) 44Z- ~570
SPRUCE
PROPOSED ADDITION
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 8, Block 6, SUNSET HILLS ADDITION, ScoU County, Minnesota. Also
showing Ihe location of visible improvemenla and encroachments on to or off from
~aid property if any, as of this 4th day of October, 2002.
NOTES: Bcnchmmk Elevation 930.86 Top ofth~ existing 8arage slab.
929.1 l)~notes existing grade clevation
x
(930.0) Denotes proposed fiaished grade elevation
Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage
Match the proposed addition floor to existing.
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
ATTACHMENT '1
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CASE FILE:
5C
CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FOOT
SHORELAND SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING
14458 SHADY BEACH TRAIL NE
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
~X YES NO-N/A
NOVEMBER 25, 2002
02-124
INTRODUCTION:
La/ton and Marge Kinney are requesting a variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for
the construction of a living space addition to an existing single family dwelling on property
zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at
14458 Shady Beach Trail (Lot 2, Shady Beach No. 2). The property is guided Urban
Low/Medium Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The subject property is a riparian lot. A single family dwelling, constructed in 1968,
currently occupies the site.
In order to construct the proposed addition to the dwelling shown on Attachrnem 3, the
following variance is required:
A 29 foot variance from the 75 foot shordand setback to allow a 46 foot setback
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWIvl) of Prior Lake (Section 1104.308 (2)
Setback Requirements for Residential Structures.)
BACKGROUND:
The property was platted as Lot 2, Shady Beach No.2 in 1954. The lot is 19,170 square feet
in area and complies with the current shordand ordinance in terms of area and width. The
buildable area on the lot is approximately 5,000 square feet.
According to the survey, the existing dwelling is set back approximately 64 feet from the
OHMW of Prior Lake, and thus maintains a nonconforming setback, Two decks on the
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 - Kinney Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 2
lakeside of dwelling are not depicted on the survey. Staff estimates that the existing deck
above the proposed addition extends 4 to 6 feet from the dwelling, so the existing lakeshore
setback is likely 58 to 60 feet, and the deck over the patio to be 10 to 12 feet from the
dwelling. The property was not within the City of Prior Lake when the dwelling was
constructed.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant would like to construct
a 288 square foot (16 feet by 18 feet)
three-season porch addition to the
lakeside of an existing single family
dwelling. The extreme southeast
portion of the existing dwelling
encroaches into the 75 foot
shoreland setback, thus it is
nonconforming. The addition
proposes to encroach further into the
required shoreland setback
The applicant has submitted an alternative addition plan denoting a slightly different design
that is approximately 260 square feet in area (see Attachment 5). This design would add
approximately 2 feet to the setback. However, the applicant has noted to the staff that this
addition is not preferred.
According to Section 1104.308 of the zoning ordinance, "on shore2and/ots that have 2 adja. a~
back the average setback of the adjacem struaures frcm ~ ordinary high water (OHlgO leM or 50feet,
vJMx, ver ~ greater." According to the survey submitted by the applicant, the structure on the
property to the north is set back 29.5 feet from the 904 contour and the structure to the
south is 125 feet, so the average setback is 77.3 feet. However, the maximum shoreland
setback is 75 feet. The proposed setback is shown as 46 feet (although it scales as 50 feet),
thus the 29 foot variance.
Although the structure likely complied with applicable ordinances when it was constructed,
the dwelling currently maintains a non-conforming shoreland setback. The zoning
ordinance permits construction on a legal nonconforming structure provided that it does not
"extend, exp, m~ or inlmsify the n~gfom~." The proposed addition seeks to expand an
existing nonconformity by encroaching an additional 18 feet into the required shoreland
setback.
According to the survey, the proposed addition complies with the minimum side yard
setback and total site impervious coverage does not exceed 30 percent.
L:\02FILES\O2varlances\O2-124\PC Report. DOT
Planning Report - Kinney Varimce
November 25, 2002
Page 3
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Comments:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was noticed about the variance request and
commented that if the addition were moved to the west side of the home, the shoreland
setback would increase. Furthermore, if the applicant can successfully argue or demonstrate
a hardship, the DNR would not oppose a setback variance of some sort. However, the
DNR believes that the proposed variance can be reduced.
Applicant's Perceived Hardship:
The applicant believes that the shoreland setback variance is warranted because "our home
no longer meets our needs. It is no longer possible to seat everyone together for a Sunday,
birthday, or holiday dinner. Because our famib/is so important to us, we axe very distressed
by our lack of dining space... The only location to accomplish more clkning space would be
to expand our existing dining room on the lakeside. We axe proposing a glassed-in three
season porch with French doors. When our whole £amily is together and we need to seat
more than our dining room can hold, we will open the doors, mm the table, and expand into
the porch. This would solve our need for more space, and would also greatly enhance our
enjoyment of our home and property."
Also, "our lot has an irregular shape. The shoreline drops back into a bay on our east side,
as does the shoreline for each of the lots immediately to our east."
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 t,,ms 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 pe,~uissible within the Use District in which said
lot is located.
The subject lot complies with applicable provisions of the shoreland ordinance, and is
not unique in its shape or topography. Thus, the strict application of the shoreland
setback provision of the zoning ordinance does not create an undue hardship for the
property owner in developing the property as permitted in the R-1 use district. A
reasonable use, a single family dwelling with a two-stall garage, is present on the site.
Furthermore, a substantial buildable area exists on the property.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other
land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
L:\O2FILES\02variances\O2-124kPC Report.DOT
Planning Report - Kinney Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 4
The condition (i.e., shoreland setback) applying to the land in question pertains to other
land within the R-1 use district and SD overlay district, and is not peculiar to the subject
property.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
A shoreland setback variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial right of the property owner. The properly owner already enjoys a reasonable
use of the property.
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 proposed variance may affect the perception of an adequate supply
of light and air to adjacent property. Requested relief will allow a structure to encroach
further into the required shore, land setback and expand a nonconforming setback.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health,
safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the shoreLand setback variance may impact the character of the
immediate vicinity by affecting the perceived health, safety, and comfort of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "conserve natural resources and
environmental assets of the community." Allowing the encroachment into the
shoreland setback, which intends to protect the water quality of Prior Lake, is
inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance.
Another purpose of the zoning ordinance is to eliminate nonconformities or prohibit
their expansion. Allowing the addition would expand a nonconforming setback
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
The granting of the shoreland setback variance serves as a convenience to the applicant
because it is not necessary to alleviate an undue hardship.
L: \02FlZ,ES \02variances \02-12 4 \PC Report.DOT
Planning Report - Kinney Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 5
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to
the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property.
The alleged hardship for the shore]and setback results from the actions of the property
owner. The applicant is the original owner of the dwelling. The proposed footprint of
the three-season porch addition created the difficulty, not the area, width, shape or
topography of the lot.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall
not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Staff does riot believe that economics plays a role in this variance request.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an addition to an exiting single family
dwelling on property zoned R-1 and SD. A comer of the dwelling encroaches into the
required 75 foot shore]and setback. The proposed three-season porch addition encroaches
even further into the required shore]and setback, so it expands the nonconformity of the
existing structure.
The fact that the applicant wants to construct an addition for dining room space does not
create a hardship. The addition is a convenience. Furthermore, the proposed addition
would expand the nonconformity of the shore]and setback. Staff believes the shore]and
setback variance is not warranted because the applicant has not demonstrated an undue
hardship, as a reasonable use is currently present on the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the 29 foot variance from the 75 foot shore]and setback for the
construction of an addition, based upon the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant the granting of variances.
2. A reasonable use exists on the site.
3. The addition would expand the nonconformity of the shordand setback.
ALTEKNATIVES:
Approve the variance requested by the applicant, or approve any variance the Planning
Commission deems appropriate in the drcumstances. In this case, the Planning
Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings supporting the
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
L:\02FlLES\02variances\02-124kPC Report.DOT
Planning Report - Kinney Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 6
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission fmds a lack of demonstrated
hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends denial of the variance request. This requires the following motion:
A motion and second adopting Resolution 02-020PC denying a 29 foot variance from
the required 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of an addition to an existing
single family dwelling.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Applicant's letter
3. Survey
4. Addition plans
5. Alternative addition plans
6. Applicable regulations
7. Resolution 02-020PC
L:\O2FILES\O2variances\O2-124\PC Report. DOT
Location Map
for Kinney Variance
ATTACHMENT I
ectSite
400 Feet
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Layton and Marge Kinney
DATE: October 25, 2002
RE: Request for a Variance
We built our home in 1967, and have lived at this address in Prior Lake for the past 35 years.
Because our family has grown, our home no longer meets our needs. We are requesting a Variance based on
our need for a larger ~iniug area.
We bought our lot in January, 1967, and hired a local builder, Harold Gustafson, to build our home.
He carefully followed all zoning and building codes. No variances were requested or received.
When we moved into our new home, we were a family of four; we had two small sons, ages 5 and 1.
Our daughter was bom in 1970. Our home has been a wonderful place to live and raise our family. Now,
however, our home no longer meets our needs. Both sons are married, and we have five grandchildren. Our
family now numbers twelve, and we look forward to a son-in-law and more grandchildren when our daughter
marries. It is no longer possible to seat everyone together for a Sunday, birthday, or holiday dinner. Because
our family is so important to us, we are very distressed by our lack of dining space.
The only location to accomplish more dining space would be to expand our existing dining room on
the lake side. We are proposing a glassed-in three-season porch with French doors. When our whole fmnily
is together and we need to seat more than our dining room can hold, we will open the doors, mm the table,
and expand into the porch. This would solve our need for more space, and would also greatly enhance oar
enjoyment of our home and property. We are both retired senior citizens now, so we spend much more time
at home than we did when we were younger and busy working and raising our family. We are both in good
health, and plan to stay in our home for many years to come.
We wish to address each of the criteria for granting a Variance:
1. Our lot has an irregular shape. The shoreline drops back into a bay on our East side, as does the
shoi'eline for each of the lots immediately to our East. The main portion of our home is 104 feet fi'om the
904 h/gh water level. Because the shoreline curves, the lake gets closer to our home on the southeast side,
where the addition is proposed. The southeast corner of our house (where the dining room is located) is 78
feet fi'om the shoreline. Our proposed addition is 18 feet by 16 feet. If we were given a permit to build the
addition per our plans, the distance fi'om the southeast comer of the new room straight south to the shore
would be 60 feet, and the distance to the southeast comer of our lot would be 46 feet. We understand that any
Variance granted would require a minimum of S0 feet fxom the addition to the comer of our lot at the 904
foot level. We can redesign our proposed addition to comply with the 50 foot requirement. To build our
addition in any other location would be impractical and would not fulfill our needs. Therefore, we do believe
strict apphcafion of the Code would result in undue hardship to us.
We are aware of the averaging method of determining setback. A few years ago, that method would
have easily allowed a 50 foot setback for our proposed addition. The house to the East of us sits 29 feet from
the water's edge. When we built our home, the house on the lot to our West was a completely differem
building, and sat approximately 50 feet fi'om the lakeshore. When our neighbors sold the/r home, the new
owner had thc old house moved offthe lot, and he built his new house further away fi'om the lake. The
distance fi'om the southeast comer of the new house to the 904 level is 125 feet. The average, then, becomes
77.25 feet, which is not helpful to us. Therefore, we must request a Variance in order to solve our need.
2. The irregular shape of our lot and the sharp curve of the shoreline are unique, and would apply,
generally, only to other lots on the back side of a point, as we are. Another unique characteristic of our lot is
the topography, which, we think, is favorable for our proposed addition. When we bought our lot it had
never had a building on it. It was a natural hill, sloping up fi'om the road to a height of 918.5 feet, and then
sloping gently down to the lake, which today is around the 903 foot level. It had a moderate number of
mature trees---oak, elm, maple, basswood, and ash. We designed our home to fit the lot, instead of gradit~g
the lot to fit the house. We h~id two goals: 1) to preserve the natural terrain and 2) to preserve as many trees
APPLICANT'S LETTER
as possible. The south side of our house is at the 913.4 to 914.8 foot level. The area where we want to put
our addition is level. Therefore, there is a gentle vertical drop of 9-10 feet down to the 904 foot high water
level. That great difference in the height of the land precludes any flooding problems.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for us to fully enjoy and use our property to
the benefit of our family.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property on either side of us. Our proposed addition will not interfere with our neighbors'
enjoyment of their property in any way. It will not increase congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance and the building of our addition can only improve the character,
development, and property value of our neighborhood. It could not possibly impair the health, safety, or
comfort of our area.
6. We don't know what all of the intents of the Code and Comprehensive Plan are. However, we
believe that the 75 foot setback fi.om the lake requirement (the one for which we are requesting a Variance)
intends to protect both the lake and the land adjoining the lake. If there is a concern that building to within
50 feet of the lakeshore might lessen the area and time for adequate settling of run-offbefore it enters the
lake, we would be happy to recreate adequate area and time through landscaping. We could do that by the
use of either a swale or plants, or both. We are not opposed to having such landscaping being made a
condition of granting the Vahance. With that in mind, we beheve that the gran~ng of the Variance and
subsequent budding of our proposed addition would not have any adverse effect on either the lake or the
property. They will, in fact, improve the property.
7. We do not request this Variance merely for our convenience. We have a real need. Our family is
vitally important to us. We are both retired, and our family is our highest priority. We have both the time
and the energy to devote to our children and grandchildren. We place a high value on family gatherings and
dinners as a way to help develop character and values. They also provide great family fun and build lasting
memories. It is very difficult for us to no longer have the space to seat the whole family for a family dinner.
This difficulty could be solved by the granting of the requested Variance and our building our proposed
addition.
8. The hardship to us as property owners does not result fi.om our own actions. When we built the
house, we followed every requirement of the code that was in effect in 1967. We have cared for and
improved the property throughout our 35 years in our home. Rather, the hardship to us results fi.om the
apphcation of the Code setback requirement to our unique property.
9. Construction costs and/or economic hardship have no bearing on our request for a Variance.
In summary: The requested 50 foot setback has no adverse effect on the neighboring property
owners on either side of our property. It would solve our difficult situation of not having enough space to
accommodate our growing family. We, therefore, respectfully request this Variance be granted.
ank you.
FRANK R, CARDARELLE
Land Surv
:612) 941-3031 Eden Prairie, MN
Survey For
Certificate of Survey
Layton Kinney Book Page
14458 Shady Beach Trail '
Prior Lake, FIN 55372
SHADY BEACH TRAIL
Scal 1"=40'
· Deno Iron Mon. Found
Land Area: 19,170 sq.ft.
House Area: 2195 sq.ft.
Flagstone Wa)k: 560 sq.ft.
Concrete Driveway: ll40 sq.ft
Patio Area: 510 sq.ft.
Exist. Hard ~over
Area: 4405 sq.ft.
23% Land Cover Existing
Proposed Addn.to House:
288 sq.ft.
Total Hard Cover After
Addn.: 4693 sq.ft.
24.5% New Land Cover
~,-.w,,-~,~-.~.,.-,~,,-.,,..------.--~-~,~ Lot 2, Shady Bea.cJ~ No. 2 ~
Scott c-- ..... .4.~ ~/~'~..~. - ,~..-~-
Frank
SURVEY
IT 4
ADDITION PLANS
5
{
ALTERNATIVE ADDITION PLANS
ATTACHMENT 6
Zoning Ordinance
1104.308
(1)
· .-) (2)
public use of the public water or the enjoyment of normal property
rights by adjacent property owners. Examples of the non-significant
conflict activities include swimming, sunbathing, or picnicking. The
covenants must limit the total number of watercraft allowed to be
securely moored, docked, or stored over water, and must require
centralization of all common facilities and activities in the most suitable
locations on the lot to minimize topographic and vegetation alteration.
The covenants must also require all parking areas, storage buildings,
and other facilities to be screened by vegetation or topography as
much as practical, from view from public water, assuming summer,
leaf-on conditions.
Placement, Design, And Hei.qht Of Structures:
Piers And Docks: Setback requirements from the ordinary high-water mark
shall not apply to piers and docks. Location of piers and docks shall be
controlled by applicable state and local regulations.
Setback Requirements For Residential Structures: On shoreland lots that
have 2 adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such adjacent
lots, any new residential structure or any additions to an existing structure
may be set back the average setback of the adjacent structures from the
ordinary high-water mark or 50 feet, whichever is greater, provided all other
provisions of the Shoreland Overlay District are complied with. In cases
where only one of the two lots adjacent to an undeveloped shoreland lot has
an existing principal structure, the average setback of the adjacent structure
and the next structure within 150 feet may be utilized. Setback averaging
may not be utilized when an undeveloped shoreland lot is adjacent to two
other undeveloped shoreland lots. In no instance shall a principal structure
be located in a shore impact zone or a bluff impact zone.
(amd. Ord. 99-78 - pub. 1'i/15/99)
The following shall not be considered encroachments into the lakeshore or
bluff setback:
Yard lights and nameplate signs for one and two family dwellings in
the R-l, R-2 and Ro3 districts.
Floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated
signs, or illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety
and security purposes if these meet the regulations of subsection
1107.1800.
Flag poles, bird baths and other ornamental features detached from
the principal building which are a minimum of 5 feet from any lot line.
d. The following shall not be encroachments on front yard requirements:
Mco, 1, ]999
Ci~. of Prior Lake
l104/plO
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
ATTACHMENT .
RESOLUTION 02-020PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 31.3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 77.3 FOOT AVERAGE SHORELAND SETBACK FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake,
Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Layxon and Marge Kinney have applied for an 31.3 foot variance from the 77.3
average shoreland setback for the construction of an addition to an existing
single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and
SD (Shoreland Overlay) at the following location, to wit;
14458 Shady Beach Trail NE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Shady Beach No. 2, Scott County, Minnesota.
The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as
contained in Case #02-124PC and held a hearing thereon on November 25,
2002.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public
safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the
proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
The subject lot complies with applicable provisions of the shoreland ordinance,
and is not unique in its shape or topography. Thus, the strict application of the
shoreland setback provision of the zoning ordinance does not create an undue
hardship for the property owner in developing the property as permitted in the
R-1 use district. A reasonable use, a single family dwelling with a two-stall
garage, is present on the site. Furthermore, a substantial buildable area exists
on the property.
5. The conditions (shoreland setback) applying to the land in question pertains to
other land within the R-1 use district and SD overlay district, and is not
peculiar to the subject property.
l:\02files\02variances\02-124\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
The granting of the requested shoreland setback variance is not necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the property owner.
The property owner already enjoys a reasonable use of the property.
The granting of the shoreland setback variance serves as a convenience to the
applicant because it is not necessary to alleviate an undue hardship.
The alleged hardship for the shoreland setback variance results from the actions
of the property owner. The applicant is the original owner of the dwelling.
The proposed footprint of the three-season porch addition created the
difficulty, not the area, width, shape or topography of the lot.
The contents of Planning Case #02-124PC are hereby entered into and made a
part of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variance for the construction of an addition to an existing single family
dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey:
1)
A 31.3 foot variance from the required 77.3 foot average shoreland
setback from to allow a 46 foot setback from the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) of Prior Lake. (Zoning Ordinance Section 1104.308
(2) Setback Requirements for Residential Structures.)
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 25, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Community Development Director
h\02files\02variances\02-124\deny resolution.doc 2
FRANK R. CARDARELLEE ~ Land survey~,TTACHMEI,
:612) 941-3031 Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Survey For
Certificate of SurVey
LaytRp Kinney Book Page
14458 Shady Beach Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
File ~; '¢/.~
SHADY BEACH TRAIL
1"=40'
Iron Mon. Found
\
Land Area: 19,170 sq,ft.
House Area: 2195 sq.ft.
Flagstone Walk: 560 sq,ft.
Concrete Driveway: ll40 sq.ft
Patio Area: 510 sq.ft.
Exist. Hard (over
Area: 4405 sq.ft.
23% Land Cover Existing
Proposed Addn.to House:
288 sqJft.
Total Hard Cover After
Addn.: 4693 sq.ft.
24.5% New Land Cover
~,~ .,,~.~.~, w,.~=~.~ Lot 2, Shady Beach No. 2 ~
S9oI;~ c..,~, ,,~..~ .,,. m. ~.v~.~.
( ~' ' ~ ~ Frank R. Oardarelle
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD
SETBACK FROM A PROPERTY LINE FOR KENN &
CAROL BOYLES, Case File #01-079
15358 BREEZY POINT ROAD
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
NOVEMBER 25, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
On March 25, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 02-01PC,
approving a 14.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 10.5 feet to the
rear property line rather than the minimum required 25-foot setback for the
construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on the property
located at 15358 Breezy Point Road. The following conditions were included in
the resolution:
1. The subject site shall be developed as shown on the attached survey to
ensure additional variances are not required.
2. The permit is subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable County
and State agency regulations.
3. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the
Planning Department within 60 days. An Assent Form must be signed
and, pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be
null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed
structure within one year after adoption of this resolution.
The applicant recorded the resolution within the required 60 days, and signed an
assent form.
In November, 2002, the applicant submitted an application for a grading permit
for the construction of the single family dwelling. The attached certificate of
survey was submitted with the grading permit. This survey differs from the
approved survey in that the style and location of the house have changed. On
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EiVlPLOYER
the new survey, the house is located further back from the road than the original
plan. The house is also located closer to the side lot line (10' as opposed to 25')
than the approved survey. The house is still located 10' from the rear lot line and
at least 50' from the Ordinary High Water Elevation. The setbacks shown on the
revised survey are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements and with
the approved variance.
The Planning Commission must determine whether or not the revised survey is
consistent with the intent of the original resolution approving the variance.
ALTERNATIVES:
If the Commission feels this survey is consistent with the original intent, a
motion amending Resolution 02-01 PC to include a new attachment is
appropriate
If the Planning Commission finds the revised survey inconsistent with the
approved variance, a motion and second denying an amendment to
Resolution 02-01 PC is appropriate. In this case, the applicant will be
required to build the house as originally proposed, or file a new variance
application.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends alternative 1. A motion and second amending Resolution
02-01PC to include a new attachment is required. Following approval, the
applicant must record the revised resolution and attachment.
C:\Documents and Settings\Connie\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK3\PCreport4,doc
Page 2
0