HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-97REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, February 24, 1997
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. CASE #97-011 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-1-7 OF THE CITY CODE AND TO
SECTION 8.1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
DEFINITION OF MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT
B. CASE #97-012 JOHN B. MAHONEY CONSTRUCTION IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE
TO PERMIT A 51 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL
(OHWL) OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET; FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION (FOUR SEASON PORCH)
AND DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL)
DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 15731
HIGHLAND AVENUE.
5. Old Business:
REVISED 1996 VARIANCE SUMMARY
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 E~EP6~k Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota ~zJ~372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY I0, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The February 10, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Criego at 6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Stamson, Vonhof,
Wuellner and Kuykendall, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planner Jenni Tovar and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Wuellner Present
Stamson Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECONDED BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE JANUARY
27, 1997, MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Criego, Wuellner, Stamson, and Vonhof.
MINUTES APPROVED.
4. Public Hearings: None
5. Old Business: None
6. New Business:
A. CASE #97-005 MARK MICHAEL - APPEAL OF HOME OCCUPATION.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report.
The City received a complaint regarding Mark Michael's home occupation. An
investigation determined Mark Michael was operating a home occupation involving
warehousing and distribution of memhandise produced offthe site, without a permit, and
determined he must apply for a Home Occupation Permit. A letter was sent indicating
the home occupation must corrFply with the ordinance, by granting of a home occupation
permit, or be discontinued.
Mark Michael contends he was operating his home occupation prior to the change of
ordinance in 1995, and the previous ordinance did not prohibit warehousing or
distribution of merchandise produced off the site, and felt he should be grandfathered in
and granted a home occupation permit.
Staff's conclusion is the appellant never applied for a home occupation permit.
Therefore, the interpretation is, he was and continues to mn a home occupation that is
illegal (no permit granted). The appellant could have applied for a home occupation
permit, but he did not. Therefore, he cannot be grandfathered in and must meet the
current requirements to receive a home occupation permit. Recommendation was to
uphold staff's interpretation of the ordinance.
Comments from the public:
Mark Michael, 4190 Eau Claire Trail, said he initially talked to the Prior Lake Planning
Department and discussed the idea of expansion with a planner and felt he did not need a
permit. The developer and neighborhood Windsong Association were aware of his
intention to have a business in his home and had no objections. He felt the City was
aware of his intentions when the building inspector questioned his large garage. The
Windsong Association requested a copy of the Home Occupation Ordinance from the
City and concluded Mr. Michael's business did not need a permit. Mr. Michael started his
business in 1989 in another home in Prior Lake and stated the business has been growing
since that time. He feels the complainant has misrepresented the facts to the association
and the City. Mr. Michael presented a map of the neighborhood showing his home and
the neighbors supporting him. He stated he located his family in Prior Lake and plans on
possibly expanding his business to the business park. Mr. Michael feels he has complied
with the regulations and should be grandfathered in under the ordinance and continue to
do business out of his home.
Criego:
· Asked applicant when he contacted the City with the permit.
· Michael said around September of 1992. His house was completed in April of 1993.
· There is no documentation regarding the approval of a home occupation.
· Michael said he is using approximately 182 sq. feet for storage. Basically he
warehouses candy bars, coffee and potato chips. Three freezers contain sandwiches.
The office space is 143 sq. feet. The main levels are approximately 800 sq. feet not
including the basement.
· A driver leaves Michael's home at approximately 6:00 a.m. in a van to start
deliveries. Michael has four suppliers with the most frequent supplier delivering to
the residence once a week. The tracks are the size of a gas truck and there are no
semi-trailers. Other suppliers deliver to the residence every 6 to 8 weeks.
Approximately 6 to 8 delivL~ies are made per month.
Stamson:
· Asked about the design of the garage.
· Michael said there is extra heating, 220 volts for the freezers and ceiling fans to keep
it cool All were installed with the original construction of the garage.
Ralph Heuschele, 10315 Thomas Ave S., Bloomington, the manager ofH & H Land
Development of Windsong, President of the Association and member of the Board of
Directors said he has been involved in the operation of the land development from its
inception. He has been aware of the ongoing controversy between the neighbors. About
a year ago the Windsong Association appointed a committee to take a look at a variety of
issues and were identified as covenants compliance issues. It is his undemtanding
someone on the committee contacted the City of Prior Lake on Home Occupation
regulations. The result of the inquiry was that there were no licensing requirement they
(the committee) could identify. A report was issued, which does not speak to the issue of
city licensing. The Board of Directors adopted that policy for the association. Mr.
Heuschele also asked Mr. Frank Worrell, a neighbor of the Michaels, if there were any
problems with the business. Mr. Worrell responded he and his wife did not.
Planning Director Don Rye commented the main mason this appeal is before the
Commissioners is to determine whether or not the conditions of the Ordinance as they
exist, been correctly applied in this case. The issue is not whether it is a nuisance or
anything of that nature.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof.'
· Questioned the Ordinance for 1989. There is no documentation on the building
permit.
· There are 8 criteria that have to be met under the Ordinance.
· The current ordinance states you cannot warehouse products.
· Mr. Michael said there is no documentation stating he did not need a home
occupation permit.
Criego:
· There are two issues to address. Does the business fit the ordinance as it now states?
and,
· Whether or not there was some level of approval prior to the last modification to the
ordinance.
· It appears there was verbal approval from the City that gave everybody the
appearance it was legal.
Stamson: ~
· The use is in violation of conditions (c) and (e) based on square footage and the
activity.
· The interpretation of the 1989 ordinance, most or all of home occupations should
have had a permit.
· Appellant states he was given word from the City that it was not required. It may
have been a misinterpretation. Given the testimony by some of the people I am
satisfied the question was brought up. The building inspector questioned it at the
time and was told the use and did not question the need for a permit.
· The City had ample opportunity to question the use of the garage. There is nothing
specifically in the ordinance prohibiting the business.
· Mr. Michael made a good faith effort to comply.
· The two questionable portions of the new Ordinance were not in existence when the
business started.
· Given the number of written testimonials from neighbors, they had no problem with
the business.
· It is not jeopardizing the community.
· In favor of grandfathering as a use.
Wuellner:
· When the applicant built his house in 1993, he notified his neighborhood association,
called the City who said he didn't need a permit and proceeded to build his house.
· You would not normally get written confirmation stating you do not need a permit.
Mr. Michael proceeded in good faith.
· He should be grandfathered in and the fact he did not have a permit does not make
any sense. He didn't need one.
· The intent of the new ordinances is to get businesses who are getting too big, out of
the neighborhood and into the business areas where they belong. How will the City
deal with business who have outgrown the home and do not comply with the
ordinances? This is a procedural issue the City has to deal with.
· Rye responded the issue is not if you like the neighbor or not, it is being reviewed as a
violation of the ordinance. That is what staffacts on.
· Does not read the ordinance the way the City does and feels Michael should be
grandfathered in.
Criego:
· Agreed with Stamson and Wuellner that Michael made every intent to do his part in
trying to get a permit.
· Read the Ordinance a number of times and still gets confused with the language.
· Michael currently does not meet the new ordinance but started the business previous
to the change and should be grandfathered in.
Kuykendall:
· Michael did not obtain a home occupation permit in 1989 in his previous Prior Lake
home.
· The issue is what happens next week when the business doubles in size? When will
you go to another location?
· Michael responded when the business impacts the neighbors, with more products and
deliveries.
· Michael stated he is also a nurse.
· Generally support staff's recommendation but understands the situation, but where do
you draw the line? When does it become a problem?
· Normally the City does not like these types of occupations in residential areas. That
was the intent. The Ordinance was written that way based on input from the
community. Supports the Ordinance and staff.
Criego:
· Would like to grandfather the business in at the existing square feet. With any further
growth he would have to go to the business park.
· Keep in mind why the Planning Department makes these decisions. The Planning
Department is doing exactly what they are told to do. Without written proof they
have to take it through the required process.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL THE PROPERTY AT 4190 EAU CLAIRE TRAIL WITH THE HOME
BUSINESS OPERATING BE CONSIDERED A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE.
Commissioner Wuellner went on to state the home occupation should be grandfathered in
because the Planning Commission's interpretation of the Ordinance in effect at the time
the house was built the Ordinance did not contain specific language supporting the
requirement for a home occupation permit, and the property owner in good faith called
the City Planning Department and was told a permit was not required based upon
testimony and documentation at this hearing.
Open Discussion:
Wueilner:
· I am in support of the new Ordinance as written and support home occupations as
they grow are moved out of the home and into a business district.
· It should be pointed out to City Council there should be conditions if this business
expands with the number o[employees or deliveries or whatever is impacting the
neighborhood be moved out of the home.
· Rye stated that is a condition of the Ordinance at the time. It says you cannot expand
or intensify the operation.
Kuykendall:
· Asked for the definitions of accessory garages and structures.
Vonhof:
· Is there any precedent grandfathering in a non-permitted home occupation?
· Rye said there is a procedural issue involved.
Vonhof recommends to the City Council all new home building permit applications be
issued with a line asking if there is an accessory use on the property under this structure.
It would be a simple housekeeping solution for inspections. Kuykendall said it would be
useful to use a stamp on the blue print by the building inspector stating "No Home
Occupancies Allowed Without a Permit", so it is recorded and documented.
There was a brief discussion on warehousing for home occupations. The intent is to
minimize noise, visual impact and traffic.
Vote taken signified ayes by ail. MOTION CARRIED.
B. 1996 VARIANCE SUMMARY REPORT
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report.
During 1996 the Planning Commission reviewed 41 requests for variances (27
applications). This is down from 43 applications and 78 requests in 1995. The nature of
the individual requests and their disposition are contained in the attached table. Of the 41
requests heard, 25 (61%) were approved, 8 (24%) were denied, and 6 (15%) were
The most common request was for a variance from the Ordinary High Water Level
(OHWL). The most common request in 1995 was for side yard setback variances. The
next most common request was for a variance from the front yard setback requirement.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall suggested bringing the report back with more information showing variances
from the past few years, what percentage of the variances were in the Shoreland District,
how many were appealed to City Council and reasons for approval or denial.
C. 1996 PUD SUMMARY~
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report.
The City of Prior Lake currently has seven PUD districts, Cardinal Ridge, Prior View,
The Wilds, Westedge Estates, Windsong on the Lake, The Harbor, Sand Pointe and
Tower Hill Apartments East. Several of the PUD's are completely developed. The report
provided a brief history, site data, current development status and a recommendation
pertinent to the disposition of each PUD.
A recess was called at 8:12 p.m The meeting reconvened at 8:17 p.m.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Zoning Discussions (continued)
R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
Staff will give a short report on garage standards.
· Discussed 35' elevations for homes and steep slope developments.
· Value to what the lake looks like with 3 and 4 story homes.
R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
· Discussion on overhangs and 5 foot side yard setbacks.
R-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
· Add single family units under the PUD. Require Conditional Use Permit.
· Dimensional standards.
· Sign ordinance with Home Occupations.
· Uses in a PUD. (Office) (Retail Service Uses) Mixed uses in a PUD.
OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS, PAVED AREAS AND LOADING SPACES
· The City needs higher standards.
· Need more landscaping in commercial parking areas.
· Good design for new developments.
· See C.2 under Design and Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Areas.
· Briefly discussed lighting and light pollution.
Bring information on floor area ratios to the next meeting.
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
INNE$O
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
DEFINITION OF MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE
SHORELAND DISTRICT (Case File f1~97-011 )
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance which will clarify the definition of minimum lot area in the Shoreland
District. The purpose of this amendment is to simplify the administration of the
current ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
In the Shoreland District, only land above the Ordinary High Water Mark may be
used to meet the minimum lot area standards. This provision is currently found
in Section 5-8-3 C (Additional Special Provisions) of the City Code and Section
9.3 C (Additional Special Provisions) of the Zoning Ordinance. In order to cladfy
this provision, the staff is proposing the definition of Minimum Lot Area be
amended as follows (proposed language in bold italics):
LOT, MINIMUM AREA OF: The measurements of a lot computed exclusive of
any portions of the right-of-way of any public thoroughfare. In the Shoreland
District, only land above the Ordinary High Water Mark of a public water
may be used to meet minimum lot area standards.
The proposed amendment d'~es not change the current standards of the
Shoreland District. It merely clarifies the intent of the minimum lot area
provisions, and places this standard in a more logical location.
1:~97flles~97ordamd~zoning\97-011 \97011 pc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendments.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Language
2. Hearing Notice
1:\97flies~97ordamd~zoning~97-011 ~97011 pc.doc Page 2
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 97-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION $-1-7 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 8.1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING
ORDINANCE 83-6.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
Section 5-1-7 of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 8.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to read as follows:
LOT, MINIMUM AREA OF: The measurements ora lot computed exclusive of any portions of
the right-of-way of any public thoroughfare. In the Sboreland District, only land above the
Ordinary High Water Mark of a public mater may be used to meet minimum lot area
standards.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this day of ,1997.
ATTEST:
City Manager Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
day of ,1997.
1:~97filesX97ordamdXzoningX97-01 l\drat~ord.do¢ PAGE I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 5-1-7 OF THE CITY CODE AND TO SECTION 8.1 OF THE PRIOR
LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF
MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of
the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, February 24, 1997, at
6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to
consider an amendment to Section 5-1-7 of the City Code and to Section 8.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance relating to the definition of Minimum Lot Area in the Shoreland
District. The proposed amendment defines the minimum lot area in the Shoreland
District to include only the area above the Ordinary High Water Mark.
If you wish to be heard in reference to this item, you should attend the public hearing.
Oral and written comments will be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have
questions regarding this matter, please contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at
447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Prepared this 4th day of February, 1997 by:
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON FEBRUARY 8,
1997
[:\97files\97ordamd~zoning\97-011 \97011 pn.do¢
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Dh. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OI>I~ORTUNITY EMPLOYER
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FROM OHWL FOR
JOHN MAHONEY, Case File #97-012
15731 HIGHLAND AVENUE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES ~( NO
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from John Mahoney,
on behalf of David Fong, who is proposing to replace a deck with a four season
porch and construct a new deck, No previous variances have been granted.
The lot is located in the Island View 1st Addition on Prior Lake.
The existing deck (14 by 26 feet) is setback 51 feet from the Ordinary High
Water Level (OHWL) of 904 instead of the required 75 feet (Section 9.3 A of the
Zoning Ordinance). The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck
and replace it with a four season porch of the same size (14 by 26 feet) and to
construct a new deck on the east side of the dwelling setback 51 feet from the
OHWL.
Based on the survey submitted by the applicant, the adjacent properties are
setback 56 feet and 54 feet. Setback averaging results in a setback of 55 feet.
The applicant is requesting a 24 foot variance to permit a setback of 51 feet from
the OHWL.
Lot 3, Block 4, Island View 1st Addition was platted in 1976. The house was
constructed in 1977, with a basement finish in 1990. The property is located
within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district.
This lot is 15,335 sq., feet and 103 feet wide at the street and approximately 100
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
feet wide at the setback. Therefore, this lot is a conforming lot under the current
Zoning Ordinance.
The structure is situated toward the lake shore within the legal building envelope.
The front yard setback is slightly more than 50 feet. On the lakeside, the
building envelope accommodates most of the proposed building alterations. A
corner of the proposed four season pomh and part of the new deck extended
into the required yard setback. The applicant wants to preserve the existing 32
inch oak and the 8 inch maple tree adjacent to the existing deck. As a result, the
location and size of the four season porch are the same as the existing deck and
the new deck is located on the east side of the structure.
The variance to setback from the OHWL could be eliminated if the applicant
adjusted the size of the proposed addition to meet the current setback
requirements of 55 feet. This would reduce the corner of the porch by 4 feet, to
be 10 feet in length. Or, the applicant could move the porch addition to the west
and the size could remain the same. This would result in the loss of a tree,
which may be lost anyway, upon construction of the four season porch.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. In this case, there is a legal alternative for
the applicant, and that is to build the proposed additions smaller to meet the
setback or to moved the proposed addition as not to encroach upon the
required setback. The building envelope can accommodate either
alternative.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are no unique circumstances in this case. The applicant could reduce
the size of the proposed addition and thus could construct a four season
porch and deck that meet the required setback, preserve the existing trees,
and is considered to be reasonable in size.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The lot is not considered to be substandard. It is over 15,000 sq. feet in area
and about 100 feet wide. If the applicant reduces or relocates the proposed
97-012pc. doc Page 2
addition, the setbacks can be met and a variance will not be necessary. The
applicant has control over the proposed structure of which their size and
location are not hardships.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The size and location of the existing and proposed structures on the lot are
not greatly inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The
property to the east is setback 54 feet and the property to the west is setback
56 feet. The applicant can utilize setback averaging, resulting in a setback of
55 feet which could allow for the proposed addition if relocated/reduced in
size.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the cimumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded that there are legal alternatives for which the applicant could
build the proposed addition. A reduction of the proposed addition to meet the
setback or relocation of the addition as is are viable alternatives to the granting
of a variance.
A motion adopting Resolution 97-06PC.
97-012pc. doc Page 3
RESOLUTION 97-06PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 24 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A
51 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND DECK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
John Mahoney, on behalf of David Fong, has applied for a variance from Section
9.3A of the Zoning Ordinance in order to remove an existing deck and permit the
construction of a four season porch and deck on property located in the R-1
(Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the
following location, to wit;
15731 Highland Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 4, Island View 1 st
Addition, Scott County, MN
1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #97-012 and held hearings thereon on February 24, 1997.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that meets the requirements of City
in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
3. There are no special cond~ons applying to the subject property are unique to such
property. Adjacent properties are setback further, and legal alternatives exist.
4. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship
as legal alternatives exist.
5. The contents of Planning Case 97-12 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 proposed four season porch and new deck;
1. A 24 foot variance permitting a 51 foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake
(904 El.) instead of the required 75 foot setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on February 24, 1997.
ATTEST:
William Criego, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\97var\97-012va\97-012re.doc
2
83
BLOCK 3 ISLAND VIEW IST ADD'N /
/
/
148-415
L. BOHNSACK
149824
6
9
I0
I 20
2 J9
18
11 W. FISHER
~01~ 198
~5
II
18
I0
14
II
19'
17
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT
B
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
JOHN MAHONE¥ CONST.
17276 MURPHY LAKE 8LVO.
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 5537'2
Volley Surveying Co., PA.
TELEPHONE ~612~ 44?-25?0
HIGHLAND AVE. N.W.
o 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
JOHN MAHONEY CON$~
IZZ?6 MURPHY LAKE BLVD.
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 555?2
Volley Surveying Co,, PA,
SUITE I20-C ~ t6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANNLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 555?2
TELEPHONE (612 J 447 - 2,5?0
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES:
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A $1 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY
HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHWL) OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) INSTEAD OP THE
REQUIRED 75 FEET;
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION (FOUR SEASON
PORCH) AND DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL)
DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 1573'1
HIGHLAND AVENUE.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, February 24, '1997, at 6:30
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
John Mahoney Construction
17276 Murphy Lake Blvd.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PROPERTY
OWNERS:
David Fong
9400 Lyndale Avenue S.
Bloomington, MN 55420
SUBJECT SITE:
15731 Highland Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 4,
Island View 1st Addition, Scott County, MN.
REQUEST:
The applicants are proposing to remove an existing deck and
construct a four season porch of the same size in the same
location and construct a new deck on a lot which will have a 51
foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake instead of the required
75 feet.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance
against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
97var~97-012va\97012pn.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the headng. Questions related to
this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-
4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Fdday. The
Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written
comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are
or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: February 13, 1997
97var~97-012va\97012pn.doc 2
Property Identification No. c9~-/~'~3 ~/'X%
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application:
[] Rezoning, from (nresent zonin~]
to (pronosed zonirlg)
[] Amendment to City Code, Comp. Plan or City Ordinance
[] Subdivision of Land
[] Administrative Subdivision
[] Conditional Use Permit
[~ Variance
[] Other:
Applicant(s):
Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
sheets/narrative if desked)
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
Address:
Home Phone:
Work Phone:
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants].
Address: q
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee /.~r~ohtract for Deed __ Purchase Agreement
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if themAs not enough space on this sheet):.
To the best of my kan ledge the information provided ia this application and other material submitted is correct. In
l addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand tha~
applications will not be proc d until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
~'~e Owner's Sig~ture Date
77
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CITY COUNCIL ~PPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
Date
lu-app2.doc
OLD REPUBLIC
~' National Title Insurance Company
232 South Marschall Road
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1675
o612) 445-3196
12) 445-9522 FAX
me Office: Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-2499
February 12, 1997
According to the records in the office of the Scott County Treasurer, the following
is a list of property owners within 100 feet of the following described property:
Lot 3, Block 4, Island View 1st Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
Mark A. Rude
Debra A. Covingston
15724 Skyline Ave. NW
Prior Lake, M~ 55372
Timothy Jaspersen
Kellie McCann
15704 Highland Ave. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Randy Enger
John B. Maho~ey Const Inc.
15687 Skyline Ave.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Gilbert W. & Marlene M.
15733 Skyline Ave. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Rowe
David T. & Lois E. Wade
15731 Highland Ave. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
George W. & Judith E. Pinc
15751 Highland Ave. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
David E. Lewis
15753 Highland Av. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Scott County Hwy. Engineer
600 Country Trl E.
Jordan, MN 55352
Gary R. & Karen A. Miles
15711 Skyline Ave. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Old Republic National Title .Insur%nce Co.
By Barbara Marschall
Authorized S'lgnature
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For AIl Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Address / t~
Property
LotArea /~ff, $~"- Sq. Feet x 30% -- ..............
LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
HOUSE
X
ATTACHED GARAGE x --
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE ......................
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage/Shed)
X
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS .......................
DRIVEWAY/PAVED AREAS / ac--'
(Driveway-paved or not) ,~/&~ ~ ~
(Sidewalk/Pa~king Areas) /~,
TOTAL PAVED AREAS .........................................
PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS-~- / C[ x / q
X
(Open Decks ¼" min. opening between
boards, with a pervious surface below,
are not considered to be impervious)
OTHER
TOTAL~ ...................................................
X
TOTAL OTHER .......................................................
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
~OVER
Prepared By ~
Date ~. -' 7- ~; 7
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
1996 VARIANCE SUMMARY REP~Q.~.~
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ~1 ~.~
YES X NO-N/A '-'~ '
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
The purpose of this item is to provide the Planning Commission with information regarding 1996's
variance activity. It is hoped that this information will give the Commission information which will be
useful in evaluating new variance requests, and also in evaluating the possible need for changes in the
City's zoning ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
The following table is a summary of variance activity for 1996 and a comparative of the previous years
activity.
OHWL Setback 10 24% 14 18%
From yard setback 8 20% 16 20%
Side yard setback 6 15% 23 29%
County road setback 6 15% 0
Impervious surface 5 12% 10 13%
Rear yard setback 2 5% 3 4%
Accessory buildings 2 5% 1 1%
Lot size 1 2% 5 6%
Height 1 2% 0
Lot Width 0 4 5%
Driveway setback 0 2 2%
Sign 0 1 1%
Temporary building 0 1 1%
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Number of Applications 27 43
Number of Requests 41 88
Requests Approved 25 61% 61 69%
Requests Denied 8 24% 24 27%
Requests Withdrawn 6 15% 3 4%
Requests Appealed 8 2
Appeals Overturned 1 0
Number Lots in SD 20 31
Number of Riparian Lots 14 22
Note: If an applicant requested a variance and the Planning Commission approved a reduction
of the original request, then it is represented as one approved request and one denied
request in the tables. In 1995, there were 6 requests the Planning Commission approved
as less than what the applicant had originally asked for, and in 1996 there was only 1.
The nature of the requests for variance is probably very familiar to the Commission, and similar to
previous years. Ordinance number 96-12, approved 5-20-96, permits a 5' side yard setback on
substandard lots, and also allows for reconstruction of existing decks without variances. Many of the
requests in 1995 were for side yard setbacks on substandard lots or involved an OHWL setback variance
to replace a deck. These changes to the ordinance have greatly reduced the number of variance requested.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
While the current variance criteria have been a part of the City Code and Zoning Ordinance since 1983,
they have not been a part of the review process until 1995. The criteria are the same for each request and
substantiate the legal grounds for granting or denying variances on a case by case basis.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the
property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance is literally enforced.
The hardship resulting from literal enforcement of the ordinance is identified.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property.
Unique circumstances consider conditions of the property and not the owner. Conditions such as lot size, lot
dimensions (length, width, and shape), topography, wetlands, trees, lakes, and other factors specifically related
to the property itself are considered.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons
presently having an interest in the property.
Hardship created by the applicant is not a grounds for granting a variance (such as design of the proposed
structure or changes to the topography). The shape and width of the lot and location of the existing structures
may be hardships over which the applicant had no control. It is common, that the lot and dwelling may have
been existing prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is
not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of the ordinance is examined, and considered in relation to the request. Also, adjacent properties
may be considered as not be contrary to the existing conditions of the neighborhood or public interest.
Variances granted prior to 1995, didn't specifically address these criteria and a motion, rather than a
resolution, was the documentation of action taken. The following is a sample of rationale used for
granting variances:
· The topography of the land necessitates a deck, will not interfere with the private space of adjoining
areas and is not detrimental to the health and welfare of the neighborhood;
· The lot is substandard, variances are reasonable, the hardship was not created by the applicant, and the
variances would not be detrimental to the health and welfare of the neighborhood.
· Hardship is caused by the lot being a substandard lot and the development practices of a former
government.
The home was built before the highway was constructed, the highway location created a hardship for
improvements to the property and the redesign of the structure would not be detrimental to the health
and welfare of the community.
· The small size of the lot is a hardship and the variance is consistent with variances granted in the
Grainwood neighborhood and would not infringe on the health and welfare of the community.
The lot is substandard, hardship is not the result of the applicant since the parcel was platted in 1927 and
annexed into the City of Prior Lake in 1975, it observes the spirit and intent of the ordinance and would
not be contrary to the public interest.
· The lot is substandard, hardship is apparent due to topography and it is not detrimental to the general
health and welfare of the community or out of character with the neighborhood.
· It is consistent with the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the health and welfare of the
community.
· There is a precedent for granting 50 foot variances in the Grainwood area and it would not be
detrimental to general health and welfare to the community.
As the city proceeds to review the zoning ordinance and prepares a draft modified zoning ordinance,
which will be completed in the first half of 1997, changes to zoning ordinance as a result of variance
activity should be taken into consideration then. There appears to be no ordinance currently beiing
enforcedresulting in an extreme number of variance requests at this time that would require a change in
the ordinance before the complete revision. Therefore, changes to the current ordinance are not
recommended, as they can be considered in the re-write.
Accept the report and direct that it be transmitted to the City Council for
information.
Accept the report, direct that the report be transmitted to the City Council for
information, and direct further study of possible ordinance revisions in response to
the report.
ACTION REOUIRED:
A motion accepting the report, and directing further action revising the if appropriate.
t I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I
~:~ ~:~:~ ~:~ ~:~:~ ~: :~ :~:~:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I I
:.~:~:~ ~:~ :~ :~ ~:~ I I
I ~ I I I I I ~ I I I I ~ I I ~ I I
~::?:~:?:~]?:~::~::~?:::~::~::~ I ~ I ~ I I I I ~ I I ~ I I ~ I I ~ I I
~::~::~::::~::~?:~::~::~J~?: I 0 I ~ . I I . I I ~ I I 0 I I m I I m I I
................................
:::J::::::::::?:?:::?:::::::::::?:::::::::::::::?: I ~ I~ ~ ~ I I~ I I~ t~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I . I
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~l ~ t ~ 0 ' t~ I~ , ~ , ~,__ I ~ I~ 1~ I~ I~ Ii~
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ml~l
.............................
.I~l~ ~ ~l~I ~l~. ,m ~I~ ,~l~l~l~l~ ~1~1~ I~0
~1~1--~--L I--I~ ~ ~1'~ 01~1~1--1~ __1~1~ ~1~ ~ I--
~1 ~1 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 I I I0
~.~ ~l Ol~ ~ _l~l_l~ ~ ~l~ ~ I~l~l--I. 0 0
I I~ I I0
~ I t ~ I o I
I~ Ii~ I Ill I I I I
I I~l I~1~ I I I I
~?: ?: ?: ::~?:~?.~ ?:?: ?:?:~
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
..l~l~
~l~l__ I~l~ Im I ol'--I~l~ I~l ~ II~
~l~lO
L~IOI I~ I>l~l.~l~ I~I~ I~ lO
I~l~l~l~
' I I I I
I I
I I I
I
I I I I I I ~1 I I I I
I I I I I I ~.d I I I I
I IC~I I I I t~l I , I lC
I I I
I I I~
II~ ' ' '' ' '
I I I~ I ~1 I I I ~1 ~ I
,, ,
~ ~l~l ~1~ ~l~ Io I~l ~ ~,, ~,, ~l~ OI
~',~',~l~ ,~,~ ,- , ,.,.ee~,~ .,.
........... I
~,o,~,.
........ ~ ....... I I~l~ I~ mi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~l~l~l~ I~l~ '' ~ I -~l~l~ ~ ~ ~l~ 01~
I g I ~1 m ~ I .. I~
~1~ I.ol. o I~ I~ ~l~l~ ~ ~ °~l. ~1~
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I t I I I I I I I
I I I~ I~1I I~ I I I
~?~?~ ~,' ,' ,~'~ ,~'~',~ ', ,'~ "~, ~,= "i~
~,,,,~,~ , ,~,~, ,
~,~,~,~,~, i~ ,i ' I~ l~
I~1~
~1'~1~1.~ I~ I ~ I~ I~1~
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: , , ~ , , , , , , t ,
I I I I I I I I I I
0 I0 I0 I0 I0 I0 I~ I~
::::: .. ~:~::~:::::s: ~ ~ ~ ~1 I I I ~ ~1 ~ I~ ~j I j I~
< << << <<<< < <4