HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/09/20027.
8.
9.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Case #02-123 Karl Holm Variance Resolution
Public Hearings:
Case #02-133 Consider an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map for the
Spring Lake Regional Park Property located in Section 4, Spring Lake Township.
Case #02-134 Consider an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map for the
Stemmer property located in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 4, Spring Lake Township.
Old Business:
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372~1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the November 25, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad
and Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane
Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording
Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the October 28, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Consent:
A. Case File #02-110 Danes/Colluci Variance Resolution.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT
AGENDA.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. 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 01-HD) designation.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 25,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vlN 112502.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 25. 2002
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 Adelmann 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.
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 Adelmann Street
with an apartment complex.
The Planning staff recommended denial of the request. The proposal is 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 Adelmann Street will eventually
extended to the south, there are no plans for this extension in the near future. The City
has not included this extension in the CIP, nor has the developer submitted a preliminary
plat. The availability of services is also an issue. There are no services adjacent to this
site.
Comments from the public:
Harold Jesh, representing the developer, John Mesenbrink, Eagle Creek LLC, stated he
realizes there are some issues of concern for the City, both for the present and in the
future. The housing development of approximately 4 acres would provide 120 unit
market rate apartments meeting the needs of the City. At this time, the developer has 3
clients interested in bringing businesses into the industrial park which includes an
additional 60 jobs. Jesh asked if there was anything that could be approved contingent
upon, be it a preliminary plat or access of services or a compromise on this issue.
Kansier responded there was nothing to act on. There is no preliminary plat. The staff felt
this project was premature.
Jesh said they have an interest to develop an apartment building in the area. Mr.
Mesenbrink has an interest in the Prior Lake area and would like to go forward with the
two 60-unit apartment buildings.
Stamson questioned Jesh if this project would be developed at the san~e time they work
on the industrial park. The staff's concern is access to the property, how are you going to
address that? Jesh said he is asking for a compromise and some contingencies that staff
would recommend so the applicant can continue to work on this project and meet the
City's concerns.
Criego questioned the developer why he would take 4 acres and develop it High Density.
Jesh felt there is a need for apartments in the Prior Lake area.
L:\02FI LES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 112502.doc 2
]>]anning Commission Meeting
November 25, 2002
Criego questioned if Jesh sees other parts of the R2 area being zoned to High Density.
Jesh responded he could not answer at this time.
Kansier briefly explained the R2 area in the Deerfield Development.
Rye gave a historical background with City Council on the Adelmarm access.
Stamson recapped the issues. Understands it is prernature to develop. Kansier explained
the Deerfield development and the City's concern is that segment of road is built through
a private street.
Jesh said the 120 units would not be built immediately; it would be built in phases. They
do believe Prior Lake is rapidly growing and this is an opportunity for multiple housing.
Lemke questioned a time line on phasing. Jesh responded there would be a number of
phases, starting with the platting.
Scott Kilau, 5431 Fawn Court, said he bought his residence about a year ago and would
be looking right at the proposed apartments. D.R. Horton promised the trees would not
be removed; in fact the area would be parkland. He's lived in Prior Lake for 6 years and
was looking forward to living in this area. He is against all the problems associated with
high density areas. This is not the right place for apartments in a R2 area. Kilau was not
against townhomes.
Lisa Kasperek, 5441 Fawn Court, said she too was told by D.R. Horton the woods would
remain. She is not against the area being built as townhomes but is against the
apartments with all the traffic. Kasperek agreed with staff in denying the proposal.
The meeting was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Not in favor of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a number of reasons.
The main reason is the history of this project.
· Appalled the residents were told by D.R. Horton the area would remain parkland.
· It would benefit all to refresh the Commissioners, that piece of land was taken out
in the first phase because the density was challenged. The density (for apartments)
was not supported by the Planning Commission and City Council. Three years
later the owner is asking the City for the same thing.
· Staff gave good reasons to deny. Look at the history the City had with this
project.
· How could this possibly meet the needs of the City? How would the City be
assured the project would bring in 60 new employees? Prior Lake is embracing
High Density housing throughout the City and there is no need for additional
apartments.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 112502.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
November 25, 2002
Ringstad: · Agreed with Atwood. Cannot support.
· Would like to see some consistency with the current housing in the Deerfield
project. This is not consistent.
· Did not like the only current access would be the private road.
· There are several apartment units and high density townhomes that have been
recently approved by the Plarming Commission and City Council.
· Cannot support the Amendment.
Criego: · The current property is zoned R2, as well as the surrounding area.
· See no reason to take 4 acres out of the area and make it High Density.
· Believes R2 is the correct zoning. No need to change to High Density.
· Does not support.
Lemke:
· Agreed with Criego.
Stamson: · Agreed with StafI~s assessment. This is premature for this piece of property.
· Too much of this area is undeveloped and still up in the air to warrant saying
either way it would work. It is unknown how the rest of the area is going to
develop. It is too early to decide on the zoning.
· Deny the request.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, RECOMMENDiNG DENIAL OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will before the City Council on December 16, 2002.
B. 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.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated November 25, 2002, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
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. In order to construct the proposed addition the following variance is required:
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~MN112502,doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
November 25, 2002
An 11.4foot variance from the required 25foot front yard setback to allow a 13.6foot
setback from Sunset Trail (a side yard abutting a streeO.
The fact the applicant would like to construct an addition 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.
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.
Comments from the public:
Karl Holm, 3201 Spruce Trail, said the north side deck is at 24.7 feet to the property line
and is not in violation. The west side deck had been installed when they bought the home
and was not aware of the City's guidelines. He is under on impervious surface. Holm
addressed the 9 hardship criteria. His main concern was to increase the living space. He
felt it was impractical to add on to the back of the property because of the terrain and
drainage issues.
Criego questioned the speed limits on the streets and who maintains the boulevard right-
of-way. Holm said 35 and 30 mph and he maintains the right-of-way.
The hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad: · It is a beautiful lot; unfortunately all the hardships are not met.
· Many families do outgrow their homes. Rather than variances, maybe relocation
will meet the applicant's needs.
· Will not support.
Criego: · Originally felt the same as Ringstad, but in looking a little more at the layout and
listening to the applicant, can see a unique situation.
· First of all, the front yard should be 25 feet assuming a normal setback from a
street, there is a unique situation with this property. It is almost 50 feet to the
curb.
· Would agree if it was a normal street with a normal setback. The applicant has
maintained the 37 feet of right-of-way.
· He can expand his home without interfering with the intent of the ordinance.
· There is a hardship because of the excessive setback on the west side; there are
drainage and elevations issues.
· Provide the request.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~viN 112502.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
November 25, 2002
Lemke:
· Questioned staffwhy the setback is 37 feet. Larry Poppler explained the tight-of-
way width. Speculates Spring Lake annexed in early and the standards have
changed. This street is a little larger than local residential streets. It is a
Municipal State Aid Street and has more traffic than a typical residential street. It
is a shortcut from 170th to Highway 13.
· Appreciates Ringstad's feelings on the issue, but what was a reasonable usable
living space 30 years ago is not the case today.
· The addition will probably not even be seen from Sunset Trail because of the
change in elevation and trees.
· Agreed with Criego to grant the variance.
Atwood:
· Agreed this is a unique situation and does not undermine the intent of the
ordinance.
· There are some hardships due to the setback, uniqueness of the lot and large
setback.
· Support the variance.
Stamson:
· DeeplydisappoimedwiththeopinionsoffellowCommissioners. Theyare
loosing the scope of what a variance is. The idea is to deal with situations where
a person has a proven hardship denying reasonable use of their property. The fact
that there is a large right-of-way is certainly unique, but doesn't in any way create
a hardship.
· It gives the applicant a larger yard than normal. There is no hardship. If that was
part of his yard, his property taxes would be higher.
· It doesn't create a hardship by the fact he doesn't own the property, he uses like it
is.
· The idea behind the setbacks from the tight-of-way is to allow the proper use and
development of the tight-of-way itself. The fact is that the curb is 35 feet today is
not the issue. If that is the case, we would have written the ordinance to say "a
setback is this distance from the curb".
· The concern is the City's ability to utilize the tight-of-way. It needs to be
protected.
· The lot is 12,000 square feet and not un_reasonably narrow.
· The applicant can add to the back of his lot, he is not on a bluff, it is just a slope.
· There is clearly no hardship and will not support.
Open discussion:
Criego: · Sadden by Stamson's disappointment in the Commissioners.
· Understands what Stamson suggests.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~vlN 112502.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
November 25, 2002
· It is a small house and needs to be expanded. It could be expanded to the south
and would strongly recommend it. But the fact is the City has a 37 foot setback.
It used to be a County Road. This particular comer lot is unique.
· The intent of the ordinance was 25 feet plus some average from the curb. It is
hard to base an ordinance on averages because one could get hurt - it could be
larger than 15 feet. In this case the setback is much larger than the normal. For
that reason, we are asking the applicant to extend his house maybe not in the most
practical way.
· Go for the variance.
Stamson: · The variance process is not a design review. It is there to allow flexibility in the
ordinance. It is to offset situations that create a distinct hardship. That is not what
is happening there.
· It is not fair to the balance of the City who is forced to live within the ordinance.
· The idea is not to have a setback to the curb.
· It is only a hardship because the applicant can't get what he wants. It is an
inconvenience. He can add on the back of his house.
· Drainage is an issue on the other side of the street.
· You can't create a hardship simply by denying someone an addition. The ability
to add on is not being denied.
· Based on the standards used in the past, is the denial of a family room addition a
limitation of unreasonable use?
· The addition of a family room is not a hardship.
· This is not a substandard 6,000 square foot lot, it is a large lot.
Atwood: · Maybe the vacation of a right-of-way issue should be discussed.
· This is unique.
Stamson:
· Unique is not a hardship. The issue is space on the applicant's lot. It is fairly
large.
· Generally when the Commissioners look at variances, the lots are 6,000 square
feet and 50 feet wide. There is more than buildable space on this property. It is a
standard lot.
Lemke:
· The topography limits the building pad because of the drainage. More grading
would have to be done.
Stamson: · Premium lots are sold like his and made into a walkout. Drainage is a matter of
grading.
· Convenience is not part of the hardship criteria.
L:\02F1LES\02planning comm\02pcminmesWiN 112502.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
November 25, 2002
Lemke:
· Questioned staff if they would vacate the right-of-way. Poppler said thc City
would not bc in favor of it - do not know how much future traffic would be on
this road. It is not a policy. More than one lot would have to bc vacated.
· Agreed with Criego, that reasonable use of the property is warranted.
,, It is not a site line issue.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A
RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS GRANTING THE VARIANCES REQUESTED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke and Atwood, nays by Stamson and Ringstad.
MOTION CARRIED.
C. 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.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Plarming Report dated November 25, 2002, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Layton 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. 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 the following variance is required:
A 29foot variance from the 75foot Shoreland setback to allow a 46foot setback from the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Prior Lake.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was noticed about the variance request and
commented if the addition were moved to the west side &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 the proposed variance can be reduced.
The fact 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 Shoreland setback. Staff believed the Shoreland
setback variance was not warranted because the applicant has not demonstrated an undue
hardship and a reasonable use is currently present on the site.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Marge Kinney, 14458 Shady Beach Trail, her husband, Layton and Doug
Nelson the builder, were present. Kinney stated they would like to add a 3 season pomh
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 112502.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
November 25, 2002
to gather their family together in one place for birthday and holiday dinners. The home
was built in 1967. Their family has grown and the home no longer meets their needs.
They have 5 grandchildren and it is important to have the entire family together. It is no
longer possible to seat the family together for a dinner. Kinney stated the family is so
important to them they are very distressed by the lack of dining space. The home is no
longer functional for the families', needs. The addition would solve the problem for more
space.
Kinney said they were terribly disappointed by staff's recommendation and strongly
disagree with staff's findings. Kinney said she understood the minimum variance the
Commission will grant is 25 feet to allow a 50 foot setback. She stated she told staff they
would be willing to redesign the porch to comply with a 50 foot setback. Staff felt the
home was setback 64 feet and was already nonconforming. Kinney felt they exceeded the
setbacks in 1967 when they built their home and the area was Eagle Creek Township.
The lake has risen over the 35 years, and they have lost 24 feet of shoreline. She felt it is
not their fault the lake has risen creating a hardship. The Shady Beach area is unique as it
is a peninsula and fits the hardship criteria. Kinney disagreed with staff's 9 hardship
criteria responses and disputed each. She said it was obvious to them that hardship is
very much like beauty - it is "in the eye of the beholder." They strongly believe it would
be unreasonable to deny their request.
Kinney stated the variances should be granted in the name of justice. They were law
abiding, taxpaying citizens of Prior Lake for 35 years. She served on the Prior Lake
school board for 25 years, learning about establishing and enforcing policy. She learned
rules should be fair and consistent believing the City's rules are fair and consistent. One
should not make or enforce a rule simply because one has the power to do so. She
strongly questioned staff's recommendation to deny the variance. This addition will do
no harm to the neighbors or to the water quality of Prior Lake. She wants her home
functional to can'y on family traditions and continue to be positive influence on their
children and grandchildren's lives.
The hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Would like to pass as the applicants are neighbors.
Atwood:
· For the ~ery reason the applicant stated the loss of lakeshore, does not see how
further encroachment to the lake could be allowed.
· Questioned the applicant's second proposal. Kirchoff explained the second
proposal, but it was not shown on the survey.
Ringstad:
· Did not agree with Mrs. KJnney's hardship assessment.
L:\02FI LES\02planning comm\02pcminute$\MN 112502.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
November 25, 2002
· Cannot support further nonconforming encroachment to the lake. Has never
supported encroachment.
· The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
· Hardship #5 - is to maintain the character of the lot.
Will not support the request.
Stamson: · Agreed with Ringstad. It all comes back to hardship.
· Traditionally, a 3-season porch or a lack of one does not create a hardship. There
is reasonable use of the property.
· Denial of this request does not create a hardship.
· The guidelines are State Statutes. It is not a convenience for the owners. Hardship
goes far beyond the dictionary definition.
· There is no clear hardship. Will not support.
Lemke: · Has no doubt there is a hardship.
· Believes in supporting the protection of the lake. State Statute is a 50 foot
setback; the City's is 75 feet.
· Cannot see how this fits into the current ordinance.
Criego: · Has empathy for the Kinneys, but the Commissioners are very strong on
protection of the lake which includes setbacks and impervious surface.
· Mrs. Kinney mentioned a 50 foot setback, but it is 75 feet.
· The applicant is a 64 feet now, which is not an issue.
· The Commission cannot allow this one to pass. Most of the lake requests are for
lake setbacks. If this was voted in, there would be a flood of requests and why
would their requests be any different than the applicants?
· The Commission feels strongly on these issues, they are somewhat lenient on
some issues, such as side yard setbacks. This is a fairly large size home.
· Believe strongly on the 75 foot setback. For that reason the Commission must
stick to the requirement.
Stamson: · Appreciated Mrs. Kirmey's rulemaking opinion.
· The Commission has to stay consistent with the ordinances. They have taken a
very defined approach on lake setbacks.
· The tradeoff with the 75 foot setback is the 30% impervious surface. In order to
justify that, the Commission has to be consistent in the lakeshore lot variance
procedures.
· This variance has to be denied. It does not meet the criteria.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 112502.doc 1 0
Planning Commission Meeting
November 25, 2002
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 02-
020PC DENYING A 29 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 75 FOOT
SHORELAND SETBACK.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
6. Old Business:
A. Case #01-079 Kenneth & Carol Boyles as asking to consider an approval of
an amended survey for the approved variance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 25,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
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.
In November, 2002, the applicant submitted an application for a grading permit for the
construction of the single family dwelling. The survey submitted with the grading permit
differs from the approved survey in that the style and location of the house have changed.
On 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.
Staffs comments were if the Commission felt the survey was consistent with the original
intent, a Motion should be made to amend Resolution 02-01 to include the revised
survey.
Ken Boyles presented an overlay of the proposed change. It will not affect any of the
variances. The house is actually smaller and the impervious surface is less. The
applicant never solved the utilities problem to the lake. Now there is no need for the
extra fill required with the original proposal. The only difference is that it is a different
smaller home.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego: · Questioned the closest distance from the 904 OHWM. Kirchoffresponded it was
50.6 feet.
· No problem with the changes. Approve.
L:\02FILES\02p}anning comm\02pcminutes\MN112502.doc 1 1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 25, 2002
Lemke: · Questioned staff if a notification was sent to the adjoining property owners.
Kansier said it was not necessary.
· Agreed with staff.
Atwood and Ringstad:
· Agreed. Rely on staff's recommendation.
Stamson: · The new design is in the parameters of what was discussed and what we were
looking for. Although, the footprint is different.
· Support the request.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO APPROVE THE HOME AS AN
ATTACHIvlENT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The Commissioners said they would be present for the December 23, meeting.
Stamson questioned the location of the propane tank at the new Holiday Station on
County Road 42. Kansier responded the area around the tank will be landscaped.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Community
Development
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 112502.doc 12
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CASE FILE:
4A
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
VARIANCE FROM THE 25 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ADDITION
3201 SPRUCE TRAIL SE
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
DECEMBER 9, 2002
02-123
INTRODUCTION:
On November 25, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for a variance
from the 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition to 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 Planning Commission, by a vote of 3 to 2, directed staff to prepare a resolution
approving an 11.4 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback to allow a 13.6
foot setback from the property line abutting Sunset Trail for the construction of a 320
square foot (16 feet by 20 feet) living space addition to 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.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
The majority of the Planning Commissioners cited the uniqueness of the property,
specifically the topography and large boulevard abutting Sunset Trail, as the rationale
for granting relief from the required setback for the addition.
L:\02FILES\O2variances\02-123KPC Report Consent Agenda.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIYY EMPLOYER
Planning Report - Holm Variance
December 9, 2002
Page 2
The attached Resolution 02-021PC approves the following variance:
1. An 11.4 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback. (Zoning
Ordinance Section 1102.405 (3): Dimensional Standards).
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached Resolution 02-021PC is consistent with the Planning Commission's
direction for approval of a variance for the living space addition. The staff
recommends adoption of the Resolution.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the attached Resolution 02-021PC approving the 11.4 foot variance
because the Planning Commission finds a demonstrated difficulty under the
Zoning Ordinance criteria.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative # 1.
A motion and second adopting Resolution 02-021PC approving an 11.4 foot variance
from the 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition to a single
family dwelling.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Resolution 02-021PC
RESOLUTION 02-021PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING 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 a variance 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.
Exceptional topographic conditions result in peculiar and practical difficulties
in expanding the living space of the existing single family dwelling.
Site topography and the 37 foot boulevard abutting the west property line,
resulting in a 50 foot separation between the addition and the roadway edge,
create conditions that are peculiar to the subject property.
Relief from the zoning ordinance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of the property owner's right to develop and use the land, because
expansion of the living space is not feasible in another location on the property
due to the topography.
l:\02files\O2variances\02-123 \approval 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 zoning ordinance allows relief to be granted from the ordinance whereby
exceptional conditions of the property create peculiar difficulties for the
property owner, so the variance is consistent with the purpose of the ordinance.
Due to the site's unique topography and large boulevard depth, the granting of
the variance will not serve as a convenience to the property owner, but is
necessary to mitigate peculiar conditions.
The alleged hardship results from application of the 25 foot front yard setback
from Sunset Trail and the topography of the property, not from the actions of
the property owner.
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 approves 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 to
allow a 13.6 foot setback from Sunset Trail. (Zoning Ordinance
Section 1102.405 (3) Dimensional Standards.)
The following conditions shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the construction of the living space addition 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.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on December 9, 2002.
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Community Development Director
1:\02 files\02variances\02-123\approval resolution.doc
2
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FOR THE SPRING
LAKE PARK PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 4,
SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
DECEMBER 9, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
On October 21, 2002, the City Council adopted a resolution annexing approximately 275
acres of Spring Lake Park located on the north side of Shoreline Drive and west of
Northwood Road. Since this property was not included on the City plans, the Council
also initiated an amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan to include this property.
The proposed amendment designates this property for Recreation and Open Space uses
on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map.
BACKGROUND:
The Scott County Comprehensive Plan designated this property for Urban Growth
Expansion. On the Scott County Zoning Map, the property is zoned UER (Urban
Expansion Reserve). According to the Scott County Zoning Ordinance, the UER District
is intended "to preserve land in those areas of Scott County identified in its
Comprehensive Plan for logical future extension of urban land uses served by public
utilities. This zoning district is intended to preserve these areas of the County in very low
rural development densities or clustered residential developments that may be compatibly
integrated with future urban development."
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site area consists of approximately 275 acres.
Tol~o~ral~hy: The site has a varied topography with elevations ranging from 980' MSL
to 910' MSL. There are steep slopes located in the center of the site, around the wetland.
l:\02files\02compara\02-133 spring lk pk~slp pc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Vegetation: The property is presently vacant woodland and pasture. Any development
on this site will be subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Wetlands: There is a wetland located at the southeast comer of the site. Any
development of this site will be subject to the wetland mitigation requirements, which
means that any disturbed wetlands must be mitigated.
Access: Access to this site is presently from CSAH 83, a gravel road mrming diagonally
through the property and extending from CSAH 12 (Shoreline Drive) to CSAH 82.
Zoning and Land Use Plan Designation of Adjacent Property.:
The property to the north is zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated for Recreational and
Open Space uses.
The property to the east and west is presently outside of the Prior Lake City limits and is
designated as an Urban Growth Expansion Area. This area is zoned UER.
The property to the south is zoned R-1. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan designates this
property for R-L/MD uses.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan includes this area on the City's
Comprehensive Plan Map and designates the area for Recreation and Open Space uses.
This designation is consistent with the Land Use Plan designation of the portion of Spring
Lake Park already located within the City.
The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives, which are applicable to this request, are as
follows:
GOAL: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: Create an environment in which all citizens have
the opportunity to develop their fuli potential.
OBJECTIVE No. 1: Encourage the development of a broad range of educational and
learning opportunities for persons of all ages.
OBJECTIVE No. 2: Promote leisure time opportunities and experiences which are
rewarding for the individual and families.
Spring Lake Park is a regional park owned by Scott County and operated by the Three
Rivers Park district. Although currently undeveloped, there are plans to develop the
entire park in the future.
1:\02files\02compam\02-133 spring lk pk~slp pc.doc Page 2
The proposed R-OS designation is consistent with the above stated goals and objectives
in that it preserves the park property for development as a regional park. The designation
will also provide open space and the preservation of the natural elements of the site.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as proposed.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1. The Planning staff finds the proposed R-
OS designation consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The following motion is appropriate for this action:
1. A motion and second to recommend approval of the amendment to add approximately
275 acres to the 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and to designate this area for
Recreation and Open Space uses.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
3. Aerial Photograph
l:\02files\02compam\02-133 spring lk pkkqlp pc.dec Page 3
Location Map
Spring Lake Park
Comprehensive Plan Arrendment
Pdor Lake
Spdng Lake
2000
2000 4000 Feet
Spring Lake Park Property
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5B
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FOR THE STEMMER
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF
THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 4, SPRING LAKE
TOWNSHIP
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
DECEMBER 9, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
On October 21, 2002, the City Council adopted a resolution annexing approximately 65
acres of land located on the north side of Shoreline Drive directly west of Spring Lake
Park. Since this property was not included on the City plans, the Council also initiated an
amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan to include this property. The proposed
amendment designates this property for Low to Medium Density Residential uses on the
2020 Comprehensive Plan Map.
BACKGROUND:
The Scott County Comprehensive Plan designated this property for Urban Growth
Expansion. On the Scott County Zoning Map, the property is zoned UER (Urban
Expansion Reserve). According to the Scott County Zoning Ordinance, the UER District
is intended "to preserve land in those areas of Scott County identified in its
Comprehensive Plan for logical future extension of urban land uses served by public
utilities. This zoning district is intended to preserve these areas of the County in very low
rural development densities or clustered residential developments that may be compatibly
integrated with future urban development."
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site area consists of approximately 65 acres.
Topo~,ral~hy: This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from 980' MSL
to 910' MSL.
l:\02files\02compam\02-134 stemmer~stemmer pc.doc Page 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax {952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Vegetation: There 3 existing houses and outbuildings on this site. The remainder of the
property is woodland and pasture. Any development on this site will be subject to the
Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Wetlands: There is a wetland located itl the northeast corner of the site. Any
development of this site will be subject to the wetland mitigation requirements, which
means that any disturbed wetlands must be mitigated.
Access: There are two access points to this site. The 2 houses on the east side of the site
are accessed via Maple Grove Lane. The remainder of the property is accessed from
Shoreline Drive.
Zoning and Land Use Plan Designation of Adjacent Property:
The property to the north and west is presently outside of the Prior Lake City limits and is
designated as an Urban Growth Expansion Area. This area is zoned UER and RR-2.
Spring Lake Park is located to the east of this site. The Planning Commission is also
considering an amendment to designate this property for Recreation and Open Space
uses.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan includes this area on the City's
Comprehensive Plan Map and designates the area for Low to Medium Density
Residential uses. This designation, which allows densities up to 10 units per acre, is
consistent with the Land Use Plan designation of the residential property along
Northwood Road. The potential developer for this site has indicated the property will be
developed with single family lots. This type of development is also consistent with the
proposed R-L/MD designation.
The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives, which are applicable to this request, are as
follows:
GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT: Encourage the development of
suitable housing in a desirable environment.
OBJECTIVE No. 1: Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality
housing.
OBJECTIVE No. 2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality
residential environments.
l:\02files\O2compam\02-134 stemmer\stemmer pc.doc Page 2
OBJECTIVE No. 3: Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the
natural environment and the enjoyment of residents.
The proposed 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.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as proposed.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Altemative 1. The Planning staff finds the proposed R-
L/MD designation consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
ACTION REQUIRED:
This proposal requires the following motion:
1. A motion and second to recommend approval of an amendment adding approximately
65 acres to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and designating the property for Low
to Medium Density Residential uses.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
3. Aerial Photograph
1:\02files\02eompam\02-134 sternracr~stcmmer pc.doc Page 3
Location Map
Stemmer Property
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Location of
Stemmer Property
Spdng Lake
Pdor
Lake
N
2000
0
2000 4000 Feet
Stemmer Property