Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-97REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, J-LrLy 28, 1997 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: A. Case #97-065 Consider a side yard setback for Alvin Mormens, 16697 Creekside Cir. SE. B. Case #97-066 Conditional Use Request for C. H. Carpenter, 16450 Anna Trail SE. Old Business: A. Case #97-050 (Continued) Bryan & Philip Hines request setback variance from Ordinary, High Water Level, for the property at 2719 Spring Lake Road. B. Case #97-053 (Continued) Brian Mattson request a side yard setback and impervious surface variances for the property at 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle. Ne~v Business: Announcements and Correspondence: A. Review of Recreational Vehicle Requirements B. Continue discussions on community image Adjournment: 16200 ~9~-~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 553,72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 23, 1997 1. Call to Order: The June 23, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Wuellner, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Absent Stamson Present Kuykendall Present Criego Present Wuellner Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The June 9, 1997 Minutes were approved as submitted. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case #97-050 Variance Request by Br~an and Philip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road requesting: A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE OHW OF SPRING LAKE (912.8); RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND A NEW GREENHOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE Ri-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Philip and Bryan Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house is setback 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) (912.8 feet) level of Spring Lake. The existing deck (24 by 8 feet) extends 8 feet beyond the house, towards the lake, to be setback approximately 39 feet from the (OHW) instead of the required 50 feet. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a larger deck, porch, and green house. A portion of the new deck and green house will extend closer to the OHW and will be located 30 feet from the OHW. Therefore, the applicants MN062397.DOC 1 are requesting a 20 foot variance to the OHW setback to permit a structure setback of 30 feet rather than the required 50 feet. The existing structure is situated in the center of the lot between the street and the lake and towards the east side lot line. The front yard setback is approximately 25 feet. The eastern side yard setback is 7 feet and the western side yard setback exceeds the required 10 feet. On the lakeside, the existing house is setback 47 feet from the OHW and the existing deck extends 8 feet towards the lake to be setback approximately 39 feet from the OHW. The proposed porch will be "lined up" with the existing structure to be setback from the OHW the same distance (47 feet). The proposed deck will be setback 30 feet from the OHW and the greenhouse will be setback approximately 37 feet from the OHW. The legal building envelope shows the proposed porch and deck could be built on the west side of the existing structure. The variance to the setback from the OHW could be eliminated if the applicant moved the proposed additions to be within the legal building envelope. There is approximately 1600 sq. feet available on the west side of the house which would accommodate the size of the proposed addition. The existing deck can be replaced to be of the same size and in the same location without a variance. In a letter dated June 19, 1997, the DNR has recommended denial of the variance as requested. There is a legal building area which will accommodate the proposed additions. The DNR is not opposed to the replacement of the existing deck. Comments from the public: Philip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road SW, stated two fairly large trees would be destroyed if he built his addition in the building envelope. He felt there was conflict between the Tree Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hines said his neighbors would prefer to view his trees rather than a structure and felt would be an improvement to his property. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: · The existing deck can be replaced. · Concurs with staff's recommendation. The structure is far too close to the lake · Understands the request but there are no hardships. Wuellner: · Supports staff recommendation. The hardship criteria is very straight forward. · The existing deck is well laid out. · Applicant has a larger building envelope and other legal alternatives. MN062397.DOC 2 Stamson: · Questioned previous variances. · Concurs with staff and commissioners. There are no hardships. · Reasonable use of the property. Criego: · Agreed it is important to preserve trees, but also the quality of the lake. · Pollution and runoff is a concern. The staff and DNR agreed. · There are no hardships. · As presented, agreed with staffs recommendation. Commissioner Kuykendall explained a lower level deck would not require a variance. Mr. Hines questioned extending the existing deck to the west and requested continuing the matter to the July 28, 1997 hearing. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO THE JLILY 28, 1997 MEETiNG. Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #97- 053 Variance Request by Brian Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, requesting: A 24% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 54% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%; A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 1 FOOT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE; ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI- SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SHORELAND DISTRICTS Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian Mattson proposing to construct a new detached 480 square foot garage and access driveway. There is no existing garage on the property. The existing house with deck is setback approximately 22 feet from the front property line, 9.8 feet from the side property line to the north, approximately 10 feet from the side property line to the south. The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot detached garage in the rear yard with a bituminous access driveway located along the side of the principle structure to the garage in the back. Existing impervious surface is 28%. The proposed additions will create an impervious surface of 54%. The proposed driveway will be located 1 foot from the property line. The City Code requires a minimum driveway setback of 5 feet from the side yard property line. Also snow storage will be a significant problem for a driveway located 1 foot from the property line. Therefore, the MN062397.DOC 3 applicants are requesting a 24% variance to impervious surface coverage maximum to permit coverage of 54%, rather than the maximum allowed of 30% and a 4 foot variance to the driveway side yard setback to allow a 1 foot driveway setback rather than the required setback of 5 feet. The variance to impervious surface and driveway setback could be eliminated if the garage was located on the existing driveway, or under the deck. In this case a variance to front yard setback would be required. If variances are granted, a reduction of the existing impervious surface by removal of the concrete area should be considered. This has been suggested to the applicant. Verbally, the applicant has stated that he has a great need for the concrete drive and would not be willing to remove a portion or all of it. The DNR has responded to the variance request in a letter dated June 19, 1997. The DNR is not opposed to the location of the proposed garage, but recommended removal of the existing concrete drive to reduce the impervious surface. The DNR suggests a more suitable option of locating the garage on the existing drive, as not to increase impervious surface. This would required a front yard setback variance. As proposed, the staff and DNR recommends denial. Comments from the public: Brian Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle, stated he was originally reluctant to remove the driveway. He is now willing to cut the drive down but would like to leave a reasonable amount of space to the side and front entrance. Mr. Mattson would also remove a 10 x 12 foot shed and also felt snow storage would not be a problem. His neighbor with the adjacent vacant lot told him he did not have a concern with the driveway being one foot from the property line. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · Initial feeling is not having a garage is a hardship. · Impervious surface is too high in the Shoreland District. Wuellner: · Suggested looking at different designs. · Go back to the drawing board and think about removing the driveway. Be creative in designing a garage. Kuykendall: · Look at a tuck-under approach. · There are alternatives. · Support staff's recommendation and recommend the matter be continued. MN062397.DOC 4 Criego: · 54% impervious surface is a real problem. · The City's standard is 30% the DNR's 25%. For the City to go beyond that is probably not going to happen. · Suggested not to exceed 30% impervious surface. · The one foot driveway setback has to be looked at. Mr. Mattson said he would like to continue the heating. Tovar suggested a driveway easement (5 feet) with the neighbor for snow storage. Sandy Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach, said they have looked at many designs. She is concerned for the suggested design which would totally cut off the front entrance. There would be no real exit out of the house except for the garage. It would also eliminate many of the windows. For those reasons they felt building in the back yard would be appropriate. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO THE JULY 28, 1997 PLANNING MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: A. Case #97- Continuation of Northwood Oaks Estates Preliminary Plat. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report reviewing the preliminary plat hearing from the June 9, 1997 meeting. The revised plans addressed some of the questions asked by the Planning Commission. The staff also reviewed the plans with respect to the conditions listed in the Planning Report dated June 9, 1997. The revisions have addressed some, but not all, of the proposed conditions. Specifically, the revisions did not reduce the length of the cul-de- sac, did not include revisions to the tree preservation or landscaping plans, and did not address the issues outlined in the memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer. The revised plans did change the name of Pond View Lane to Lakeview Circle; however, there is already a Lakeview ,Circle in the City. The Prior Lake Police surveyed Northwood Road traffic for three days and gave out one citation for speed and one warning. The average speed was 32.5 mph. The outstanding issue in this preliminary plat is still the disturbance of the slopes on this site. This plat has several locations in which slopes of 20% or greater are disturbed, either for the placement of roads and utilities or the placement of homes. While the MN062397.DOC 5 Subdivision Ordinance does not specifically prohibit the disturbance of these slopes, it does state that, whenever possible, these slopes should not be disturbed. The general grading information submitted by the developer indicated the greatest impact on these slopes occurs in the area of Lots 8, 16 and 19. The house locations on these lots are almost entirely within the areas of 20% to 30% slopes. The cul-de-sac for Oakcrest Circle is also within an area with 20% slopes. It may be possible to minimize this disturbance by shortening the cul-de-sac. This would result in a different lot configuration, and might provide alternative house locations on the lots with the steepest slopes. In its recommendation to the Council, the Planning Commission should address the impact of the development on the natural features of the site. Comments from the public: Dan Westergren, Westergren & Associates, explained how they originally tried to extend the cul-de-sac which would lessen the disturbance of the environment. Mr. Westergren went on to discuss the grading and elevations. He feels the custom home designs in this area will fit into the slopes and went on to explain the City acquired the 16 foot easement for sidewalk and utilities. Comments from the Commissioners: Wuellner: · The cul-de-sac is roughly around 550 feet. · Not clear how the developer can bring back the cul-de-sac by 50 feet. Westergren explained the grading. If they extend the cul-de-sac further down the slope it would preserve more of the environment. · Mr. Westergren agreed with stafi°s recommendation. · Steep slopes and long cul-de-sacs are not what the City needs. Kuykendall: · The cul-de-sac is as much a visual design. Drivers will assume it is a through-street. Whether it is 600 or 500 feet it is confusing. It misleads the motoring public. · Not in favor of cul-de-sacs that long. There are other alternative designs. It is a matter of choice. If the developer cannot get that many lots in, maybe they will have to go with less lots. Follow subdivision standards. · Prefer a re-design of the plan. · Does not favor granting a change in the subdivision standard for a cul-de-sac. Stamson: · Custom grading lots are approved by the engineering department. · Overall, is agreeable with the issues addressed. MN062397.DOC 6 Custom grading seems to be the best way to deal with the slopes. Agreed with Kuykendall on the vision problem with a 500 foot cul-de-sac. In this case a longer cul-de-sac would fit in okay. Criego: · Sue McDermott explained the speeding problem is an enforcement issue not engineering's. · There are two parks within a half mile of the development. The developer will have to pay for assessments. · Main concern is to reduce the impact of cutting down trees and getting slopes removed. Would like to keep it as natural as possible. · Having a longer cul-de-sac would reduce the impact on the development. Kansier explained the trade offs between the long and short cul-de-sacs. No variance has been requested by the applicant. · The cul-de-sac should be longer and preserve the slopes. · Agreed with staff on the other issues. · Recommends granting a 600 foot cul-de-sac variance. Open discussion: Kuykendall suggested eliminating the dog-leg design and visually drivers would be able to see it is a cul-de-sac. Mr. Westergren explained the standards are met for the east side (lake side) of Northwood Road. As developers they are locked into the grades. Applicant Kurt Larson, 1450 Killing Ave, Savage, said by pulling the cul-de-sac back it would cut down a number of lots and still be in the steep slope area. Criego's main concern was preserving the slope and preserving the trees. He agreed with staff s recommendations. Stamson said the trail on Lakeview Circle is on the north side of the street. Park Director Paul Hokeness suggested it should be on the south. Kuykendall stated the City has to stay with its standards. It is up to the developer to re- design the plan not the Commissioners. Kuykendall also felt the developers should show design alternatives. He suggested to continue or deny the extension of the cul-de-sac. Wuellner agreed with Kuykendall. The best alternative is to go back to the drawing board and find a plan that fits everyone's goal. Rye said the end of the cul-de-sac would be 30 feet below the street elevation. MN062397.DOC 7 MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NORTHWOOD OAKS ESTATES WITH CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH SEVEN OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH AN ADDITIONAL EIGHTH CONDITION PLACING THE SIDEWALK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET SHOWN AS LAKEVIEW CIRCLE. ALSO, RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CUL-DE-SAC MORE THAN 500 FEET AS PROPOSED. Open Discussion: Wuellner stated he was generally against cul-de-sacs. To move it either way out of the slopes is a better plan. Criego felt it was a good development with preservation of the trees. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item should go to City Council on July 21, 1997. A recess was called at 8:17 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:22 p.m. B. Review outstanding Zoning Ordinance issues - Open Discussion. Discussion on the Zoning Ordinance issues included the following: · Language on floor ratio and boat storage. · Lighting · Noise issue - PCA has adopted State roles. Who is going to enforce it? Boat noise is extremely loud. Noise from Green Heights after 10:00 p.m. is a problem. Urban noise is a big issue. · Home occupation has to be reviewed. What can be stored with home occupations? Deliveries to homes. Gross vehicle weight. · Shoreland Ordinance for setback issues. · Common ownership of lots in the Shoreland District. Set up two special zoning meetings. Boat tour set for Tuesday, August 12. Comments from people the Commissioners talked to regarding the image of Prior Lake. Criego: · "Prior Lake - Intown retreat" · "Small town with a lot to do" MN062397.DOC 8 · "All day, Ail night, All seasons" · "The resort we call home" · "The get away without the drive" · We should be known as a small community, a residential community, a place to raise a family. Kuykendall: · Emphasize the natural features - trails, lakes, boating, fishing, sailing and parks. · Prior Lake is the #3 bass lake in the State. · Casino · Topography · Benefit - active healthy lifestyles. · Promote recreation and entertainment · Create a real down town · Need to develop a community to take pride in Prior Lake. There is a general feeling of community with traditional family values centered on an active lifestyle. Try to connect the parks, down town and Priordale. Stamson: · Most people said what they would like to see is something to draw them down town. Something is needed for the residents, shopping, restaurants, etc. · The neighborhoods are friendly. Key on: sense of community, neighborhoods, healthy active lifestyle. Schedule to continue for next meeting. New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: The meeting adjoumed at 9:20 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MN062397.DOC 9 PLANNING REPORT AGENDAITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: CONSIDER SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ALVIN MONNENS, Case File #97-065 16697 CREEKSIDE CIRCLE JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER~_~ ~t'" JANE K~a, NSlER, PI-~NNING COORDINATOR YES X NO JULY 28, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from Alvin Monnens who is proposing to construct a new detached 480 square foot garage. The driveway is existing as drawn on the survey. There is no existing garage on the property. No previous variances have been granted. The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot attached garage in the side yard utilizing an existing bituminous driveway located along the south side of the principle structure (Exhibit A). The proposed garage will be located 5 feet from the property line. The City Code requires a minimum structure setback of 10 feet from the side yard property line (Section 5-4-1). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a $ foot variance to the side yard setback to allow a 5 foot garage setback rather than the required setback of 10 feet. DISCUSSION: The lot is located in the subdivision known as Jo-Anna Stepka's Hi-View 3rd Addition (1962). The property is zoned R-1. The house was constructed in 1963 without a garage. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) district. This lot is 22,095 sq. feet and 100 feet wide at the street. Therefore, this lot is not a substandard lot because it does meet the minimum lot area of 12,000 sq. feet and lot width of 86 feet. The existing house is setback approximately 42 feet from the front property line, 25 feet from the side property 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER line to the south, and approximately 29 feet from the side property line to the north. No previous variances have been granted. Generally, the city maintains a 5 foot drainage and utility easement on side property lines. However, the plat shows a 6 foot dedication (not shown on survey). The city does not generally permit structures to be located within drainage and utility easements. The issue of drainage onto the adjacent property is not a major concern, as easements exist. The variance to side yard setback could be eliminated if the garage was located behind the existing structure or to the north. The legal building envelope is approximately 80' by 170' or 13,640 square feet (Exhibit B). 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, the lot does have a building envelope of 13,640 square feet to accommodate a garage. There is a legal alternative for the eliminating the variance request. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The lot exceeds minimum requirements for the R-1 zoning district. The lot is 22,095 square feet. The rear yard is divided by a bank. However, there is considerable area above the bank to accommodate a garage. There are no unique circumstances effecting the property which cause unnecessary hardship. There appear to be alternatives that reduce the hardship which should be considered by the applicant. 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 exceeds the minimum requirements for lots within the R-1 district. There is a legal building envelope that accommodates the garage in a different location, thus meeting setbacks. If the applicant moves the garage to within the legal building envelope, the variance would be eliminated. The hardship caused by the provisions of the Ordinance is the result of the applicants proposed building and drive locations. L:~97FILE S\97VAR\97-065\97-065 PC.DOC Page 2 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 10 foot side yard setback for structures is to protect drainage and utility easements, allow for snow storage and automobile overhangs, and to allow for building separation and access to the rear yard. The granting of the requested variance is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance in that the drainage and utility easement would not be unobstructed. However, if an unobstructed easement can be obtained, then the spirit and intent of the ordinance can be met. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded that the intent of the applicant to construct a garage certainly is reasonable, the proposed location and variance requested does not warrant undue hardship. There does exist a legal alternative which eliminates the variance. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolution 97-16PC. If the Planning Commission approves the variance, staff should be directed to prepare a resolution with findings to be adopted at the next meeting. In this case, the variance should be approved for a 6' side yard setback (the width of the easement) and the survey should be revised to show the easement. L:\97FILES\97VAR~97-065\97-065 PC.DOC Page 3 RESOLUTION 97-16PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A 5 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 10 FEET FOR A PROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16697 CREEKSIDE CIRCLE FOR ALVIN MONNENS. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Alvin Monnens has applied for a variance from Section 5-4-1 of the City Code in order to permit the construction of a 480 square foot attached garage on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District at the following location, to wit; ! 6697 Creekside Avenue, legally described as Lot 15, Jo-Anna Stepka's Hi-View 3rd Addition, Scott County, MN I. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-065 and held heatings thereon on July 28, 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. 3. There is a legal building envelope, above the bank dividing the rear yard, that can accommodate a garage of the proposed size, without a variance. 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 convenience to the applicants, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as alternatives exist. 5. The contents of Planning Case 97-065 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following variances for the proposed garage and driveway as shown in Exhibit A; 1. A 5 foot variance permitting a 5 foot driveway setback from the side yard instead of the required 10 foot setback. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 28, 1997. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director l:\97var\97-065 va\97-016re.doc ALVIN MONNEN$ 16697 CREEKStOE CIRCLE PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 YLJIl~y ~UlVfdylll~j UO., K/A. EXHIBIT A PROPOSED GARAGE NORTH LINE OFLOT LoC 15, JO-ANNA STEPKA'S HI-VIEW 3RD ADDITION, Scott County, Minnesota. Also shoWing all visible improvements and encroachments on to oF off from said property if any. Co~taining 22,095 sq. ft. NOTES' Benchmark Elevati~ 971.80 top nut of hydo at the SE co~ne~ of lot ~ 968.2 Denotes existing g~ade elevation ~-~Denotes proposed finished gcade elevations Denotes pcoposed direction of finished st]~face drainage Set gaFacje slab is at elevatio~ 968.43 F. xisting top Of block %s at elevation 968.78 The lowest floo~ is at elsvation 961.99 0 30 60 9CALE IN FEET SURVEY PREPARED FOR: ALVIN MONNENS Volley Surveying Co., P.A. EXHIBIT B SUITE IZO-C~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE~ MINNESOTA 55572 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2~ LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE DESCRIPTION: pcope~ty if any, Containing 22,095 sq. ft. 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET REV 6/t6/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED GARAGE , EL{~VaTtONS ~, TREES / s 400 O0 g m CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD). The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address ~ 1.~ Iw°,'3 ~.eekc6 ~,~o C~ r~.\-e_- Lot Area . ~.'Z~ OC~' Sq. Feet x 30% -- .............. % I ~2.c[ LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET HOUSE ~"c.. - x "z..,~ ~ \ ~o ~, ATTACHED GARAGE x TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE ...................... DETACHED BLDGS (Garag~ X TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ....................... DRIVEWAY/PAVED AREAS ~\~ _ Iq .$ x ~,.~ -- q-'lo ,,, ~---, ,, ((D~vewa--O~- ~wa ~r not) (Sidewalk/Parking Areas) x TOTAL PAVED AREAS .........................................I 0~o .% PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS (Open Decks W' min. opening between boards, with a pervious surface below, are not considered to be impervious) X TOTAL DECKS...., .................................................. OTHER TOTAL OTHER..,i .................................................. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (~VER ' Company Date Phone APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO FINDINGS Property Identification No. aS-{09 City of Prior Lake LAND USE APPLICATION 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (6 I2) 447-4245 Type of Application: [] Rezoning, fi-om ' - (nresent zoning) to (nronosed zoning) [] Amendment to City Code, Comp. Plan or City 0rd/nance [] Subdivision of Land [] Administrative Subdivision [] Conditional Use Pen-nit ~yariance [] Other: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional sheets/narrative if desired) Applicable Ordinance Section(s): Applicant(s): Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]: Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Type of Ownership: Fee t/ Contract for Deed __ Purchase Agreement Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that applications w!ll not be pro~essed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee. ~,pplicant's Signdmre Da Fee Owner's Signature Date THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date lu-app2.doc NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A 5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMITA 5 FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED '10 FEET; FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-I (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 16697 CREEKSIDE 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, July 28, 1997, at 6:30 p.m, or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: Alvin Monnens 16697 Creekside Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 PROPERTY OWNERS: Same as Applicants SUBJECT SITE: 16697 Creekside Avenue, legally described as Lot 15, JO-ANNA STEPKA'S HI-VIEW 3RD ADDITION, Scott County, MN. REQUEST: The applicants are proposing to construct a 20' by 24' attached garage on a lot which has 22,095 square feet of lot area and is 100' wide. The garage will have a 5' side yard setback instead of the required 10 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. 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. 97var~97-065va\97065pn.doc I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. 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 Friday. 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: July 14, 1997 97var\97-O65va\97065pn.doc ALVIN MONNEN$ Volley Surveying Co., P.A, NORTH LINE OFtOT I~- 0 SOUTH LINE OF LOT I~ 0 50 60 SCALE IN FEET PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: CONSIDER AMENDED CUP FOR C.H. CARPENTER LUMBER, Case File #97-066 16450 A..A JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR~'/i~f-~ _~X YES NO JULY 28, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The City received an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from C.H. Carpenter Lumber on July 3, 1997. The applicant proposes to construct two pole type building in a phasing plan. The property is zoned B-2, Community Business. The Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit for this type of use in the B-2 district. The applicant obtained a conditional use permit in 1976 for the original building to allow "Supply Yards" in the B-2 zoning district (CUP 76-02). The applicants are substantially increasing the structure beyond original approval, thus an amendment to the original CUP is necessary. Because the proposed expansion exceeds 10% of the existing gross floor area or 4,000 square feet, the landscape ordinance applies (Section 5-5-10 C). Credit can be given for existing material on the site. The applicant is proceeding with a tree inventory/landscape plan, but is in need of more time. Considering that notices of public hearing were sent and published, the Planning Commission must continue the hearing to August 11, 1997. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion continuing the hearing on the request until August 11, 1997. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER NOTICE OF HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 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 CR. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday. July 28. '1997. at 6:30 o.m. or as soon thereafter ~15 possible, APPLICANT: C. H. Carpenter Lumber John C. Andren 16450 Anna Trail Prior Lake, MN 55372 SUBJECT SITE: 16450 Anna Trail This proper~ is located west of HWY 13, on the north side of Anna Trail. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A tract of land in the Northwest 1/4 of Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, Township 114, North, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Northwest 1/4 of Southeast 1/4 distant 494.8 feet East of the northwest corner thereof; thence continuing East along said north line a distance of 205.2 feet; thence South and parallel to the West line of said Northwest 1/4 of Southeast 1/4 a distance of 400.0 feet; thence West and parallel to said North line a distance of 50.0 feet; thence South and parallel to said West line a distance of 267.2 feet to the centerline of a township road; thence westerly along said road a distance of 155.25 feet; thence North and parallel to said West line a distance of 522.7 feet; thence West and parallel to said North line a distance of 110.55 feet; thence North and parallel to said West line a distance of 74.9 feet; thence East and parallel to said North line a distance of 110.55 feet; thence North and parallel to said West line a distance of 75.1 feet to the point of beginning, with right of access over the existing road to Old State Highway Number 13. AND A tract of land in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, Township 114 North, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 distant 700 feet East of the northwest comer thereof: thence South and parallel to the West line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 a distance of 400 feet; thence West and parallel to said North line a distance of 50 feet; thence South and parallel to said West line a distance of 267.2 feet to the centertine of a township road; thence easterly along said road a distance of approxirnately 670 feet to the East line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence North on said East line to the northeast corner of said Northwest 1/4 of Southeast 1/4; thence West along said North line approximately 620 feet to the point of beginning, except that part taken for Highway 13, and also subject to easements of record, except that portion thereof lying southeasterly of the southeasterly right-of-way of State Trunk Highway 13, REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct two pole type buildings for storage at the above location, zoned B-2 (Community Business). The Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit for this use in the B-2 district. The 1:\97files\97cup\97-066\97066pn.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER applicant obtained a conditional use permit in 1976 for the original building to allow ~Supply Yards" in the B-2 zoning distdct (CUP 76-02). The applicants are substantially increasing the structures beyond odginal approval, thus an amendment to the original CUP is necessary. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend this hearing. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. 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. Jennifer Tovar Planner City of Prior Lake TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON JULY 12, 1997 1:\97files\97cup\97-066\97066pn.doc PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FROM OHWL FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES, Case File #97-050 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD JENNITOVAR, PLANNER ~¥~ _ ,..) JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATO YES X NO JULY 28, 1997 INTRODUCTION: On June 23, 1997 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Bryan and Philip Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. The applicants had originally requested a variance to allow an expanded deck with porch to be setback 30 feet from the OHW and a proposed greenhouse to be setback approximately 37.5 feet from the OHW. Based on the hardship criteria used for evaluating variances, the Planning Commission was prepared to deny the variances as requested. Upon request of the applicant, the Planning Commission continued the discussion to July 28, 1997. This was to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance request. The revised proposed deck does not extend any closer to the OHW than the existing deck. However, it extends 8 feet farther to the west. This is to allow access around the proposed porch. The proposed larger deck and porch have been located at the same OHw setback of the existing principle structure of 47 feet. The originally proposed greenhouse has been eliminated. The house is setback 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of Spring Lake of 912.8 and the existing deck (24 by 8 feet) extends 8 feet beyond the house, towards the lake, to be setback approximately 39 feet from the (OHW) instead of the required 50 feet (Section 9.3 A of the Zoning Ordinance). The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 5537241714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER larger deck and porch (Exhibit A). The applicants are requesting an 11 foot variance to the OHW setback to permit a structure setback of 39 feet rather than the required 50 feet. DISCUSSION: The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house was constructed in 1967. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. This lot is 12,800 sq. feet and 100 feet wide at the street and approximately 100 feet wide at the setback and at the OHW. Therefore, this lot is a substandard lot because it does not meet the minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. feet for general development lake riparian lots under the current Shoreland Ordinance. No previous variances have been granted on this property. The applicant has significantly reduced the variance requests and is proposing to build no closer to the lake than already exists. However, the variance to the setback from the OHW could be eliminated if the applicant moved the proposed deck addition and porch 3 feet away from the lake to be setback 50 feet from the OHW and replaced the existing deck as it exists. 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 to meet the OHW setback and to replace the existing deck to be of the same size and location. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstances in this case could be the setback of the existing house and deck. The applicant is not proposing to encroach any more than already exists. However, there is no topographical or vegetative hardship relating to the property that warrant the granting of a variance. 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. L:\97FILE S\97VAR\97-050\97-50PC2. DOC Page 2 The lot is considered to be substandard. It is under 15,000 sq. feet in area (12,800 sq. feet) and 100 feet wide. If the applicant reduces and/or relocates the proposed additions and/or replaces the existing deck to same location and size, 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 somewhat inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The property to the east is setback 46 feet from the OHW and the property to the west is setback 51 feet. The applicant can legally be setback 50 feet and existing house is setback 47 feet and the existing deck is setback about 39 feet. Considering that the applicant can replace the existing deck, it is contrary to the intent of the ordinance to allow for an expanded non- conforming use. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded that there are legal alternatives for which the applicant could build the proposed additions. A relocation of the additions to within the legal building envelope and/or replacing the existing deck to be of the same size and location are viable alternatives to the granting of a variance. CTI N R I : A motion adopting Resolution 97-14PC. If the Planning Commission grants a variance, staff should be directed to prepare a resolution with findings supporting such action. L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-050\97-50PC2.DOC Page 3 ,ill .HINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN, 55:572 Valley Surveying Co., P.A. 'SUITE 120-C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE ~'612 } 447- ~.570 EXHIBIT A REVISED PLAN 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) For Ali Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD). The Max/mum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address Lot Area \'2- Sq. Feet x 30% -- ..............'72c8~q,O LENOTH WIDTH SQ. FEET TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE ...................... U') .,~'0 DETACHED BLDGS ~.4- .?_~,~ x ~O (Garage/Shed) Ic~o ~"':' C x TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ....................... DR.WEWAY/PAVED AREAS (Driveway-paved or not) P ATIOS/~P. eHE_.~DECKS (Open Decks ¼" min. opening between 'ooa~ds, with a pervious surface below, not considered to be impervtous) TOTAL PAVED AREAS ......................................... / ~"L"zo TOTAL DECK$ ...................................................... OTHER x x TOTAL OTHER ....................................................... TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Prepared By Date 7- SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PHIL HINES Z;-19 SPRiNg LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN, 555;-Z Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE 120-C ~ 166;'0 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 5537~ TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 EXHIBIT B ORIGINAL PROPOSAL The existing top blcck is at elevation 928.7 The lowest floo~ e)evaticxt is at 920.37 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET REVISED 6/10/97 TO Sk~OW PROPOSED DECK, FORCH ~ GREEN HSE. HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD SUITE /20-C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FR4NKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINUIM PRIOR LAKE, MtNNESOT~ 55372 TELEPHONE (61Z) 447-2570 EXHIBIT C ( sPR~ SHOWS EXISTING DECK // -2. 909 e L4~E 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET PHIL HINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, IVlN 55372 Valley Surveying Co,, PA. EXHIBIT D SUITE 120-C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE~ MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (61Z) 447-2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE ~ - ~OA D ) ~ BUILDING ENVELOPE AREA FOR R,-o- by' ~ ! S El. 0 30 60 SCALE ~N FEET NOTI~S' Benchm~rk Elevation 928.38 top of the existing garage slab on Lot 4. The existing garage slab is at elevati~l 928.38 The lowest flcoc elevaticxl is at 920.37 Net Lot AEea REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW FROPOSED DECK, ~ORCH I~ GREEN HSE. > .." RESOLUTION 97-14PC A RESOLUTION DENYING AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 39 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF SPRING LAKE (912.8 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND EXPANDED DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS Phil and Bryan Hines have 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 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; 2719 Spring Lake Road, legally described as the westerly one half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the easterly one half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of land between said Lots and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring Lake Townsite, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part or portion of any street or alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. 1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-050 and held hearings thereon on June 23, 1997 and July 28, 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 the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER There are no unique conditions applying to the subject property. Adjacent properties are setback further, and legal alternatives exist. The existing encroaching deck can be replaced in the same location of the same size, and the proposed porch and greenhouse can be placed within the legal building envelope. 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 convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as legal alternatives exist. 5. The contents of Plarming Case 97-050 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 porch and new deck, as shown in Exhibit A; 1. An 11 foot variance permitting a 39 foot setback from the OHWL of Spring Lake (912.8 El.) instead of the required 50 foot setback. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 28, 1997. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director l:\97var\97-050va\97-014re.doc 2 1. Call to Order: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 23, 1997 The June 23, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Wuellner, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Absent Stamson Present Kuykendall Present Criego Present Wuellner Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The June 9, 1997 Minutes were approved as submitted. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case #97-050 Variance Request by Bryan and Philip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road requesting: A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE OHW OF SPRING LAKE (912.8); RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND A NEW GREENHOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS. Planner Jermi Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Philip and Bryan Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a pomh and a separate greenhouse. The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house is setback 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) (912.8 feet) level of Spring Lake. The existing deck (24 by 8 feet) extends 8 feet beyond the house, towards the lake, to be setback approximately 39 feet from the (OHW) instead of the required 50 feet. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a larger deck, porch, and green house. A portion of the new deck and green house will extend closer to the OHW and will be located 30 feet from the OHW. Therefore, the applicants MN062397.DOC I are requesting a 20 foot variance to the OHW setback to permit a structure setback of 30 feet rather than the required 50 feet. The existing structure is situated in the center of the lot between the street and the lake and towards the east side lot line. The front yard setback is approximately 25 feet. The eastern side yard setback is 7 feet and the western side yard setback exceeds the required 10 feet. On the lakeside, the existing house is setback 47 feet from the OHW and the existing deck extends 8 feet towards the lake to be setback approximately 39 feet from the OHW. The proposed porch will be "lined up" with the existing structure to be setback from the OHW the same distance (47 feet). The proposed deck will be setback 30 feet from the OHW and the greenhouse will be setback approximately 37 feet from the OHW. The legal building envelope shows the proposed pomh and deck could be built on the west side of the existing structure. The variance to the setback from the OHW could be eliminated if the applicant moved the proposed additions to be within the legal building envelope. There is approximately 1600 sq. feet available on the west side of the house which would accommodate the size of the proposed addition. The existing deck can be replaced to be of the same size and in the same location without a variance. In a letter dated June 19, 1997, the DNR has recommended denial of the variance as requested. There is a legal building area which will accommodate the proposed additions. The DNR is not opposed to the replacement of the existing deck. Comments from the public: Philip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road SW, stated two fairly large trees would be destroyed if he built his addition in the building envelope. He felt there was conflict between the Tree Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hines said his neighbors would prefer to view his trees rather than a structure and felt would be an improvement to his property. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: · The existing deck can be replaced. · Concurs with staff's recommendation. The structure is far too close to the lake · Understands the request but there are no hardships. Wuellner: · Supports staffrecommendation. The hardship criteria is very straight forward. · The existing deck is well laid out. · Applicant has a larger building envelope and other legal alternatives. MN062397.DOC 2 Stamson: · Questioned previous variances. · Concurs with staff and commissioners. There are no hardships. · Reasonable use of the property. Criego: · Agreed it is important to preserve trees, but also the quality of the lake. · Pollution and runoff is a concern. The staffand DNR agreed. · There are no hardships. · As presented, agreed with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Kuykendall explained a lower level deck would not require a variance. Mr. Hines questioned extending the existing deck to the west and requested continuing the matter to the July 28, 1997 heating. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO THE JULY 28, 1997 MEETING. Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #9% 053 Variance Request by Brian Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, requesting: A 24% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 54% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%; A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 1 FOOT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE; ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED 1N THE Ri- SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SHORELAND DISTRICTS Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian Mattson proposing to construct a new detached 480 square foot garage and access driveway. There is no existing garage on the property. The existing house with deck is setback approximately 22 feet from the front property line, 9.8 feet from the side property line to the north, approximately 10 feet from the side property line to the south. The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot detached garage in the rear yard with a bituminous access driveway located along the side of the principle structure to the garage in the back. Existing impervious surface is 28%. The proposed additions will create an impervious surface of 54%. The proposed driveway will be located 1 foot from the property line. The City Code requires a minimum driveway setback of 5 feet from the side yard property line. Also snow storage will be a significant problem for a driveway located 1 foot from the property line. Therefore, the MN062397.DOC 3 PI.ANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4A CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FROM OHWL FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES, Case File #97-050 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO JUNE 23, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from Phillip and Bryan Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. No previous variances have been granted. The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house is setback 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of Spring Lake of 912.8 and the existing deck (24 by 8 feet) extends 8 feet beyond the house, towards the lake, to be setback approximately 39 feet from the (OHW) instead of the required 50 feet (Section 9.3 A of the Zoning Ordinance). The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a larger deck, porch, and green house (Exhibit A). A portion of the new deck and green house will extend closer to the OHW and will be located 30 feet from the OHW. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 20 foot variance to the OHW setback to permit a structure setback of 30 feet rather than the required 50 feet. The proposed pomh and additional deck area will be located on the west side of the dwelling and setback the same distance of the house (approximately 47 feet from the OHWL). DISCUSSION: The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house was constructed in 1967. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. This lot is 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 12,800 sq. feet and 100 feet wide at the street and approximately 100 feet wide at the setback and at the OHW. Therefore, this lot is a substandard lot because it does not meet the minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. feet for general development lake riparian lots under the current Shoreland Ordinance. No previous variances have been granted on this property. The existing structure is situated in the center of the lot between the street and the lake and towards the east side lot line (Exhibit B). The front yard setback is approximately 25 feet. The eastern side yard setback is 7 feet and the western side yard setback exceeds the required 10 feet. On the lakeside, the existing house is setback 47 feet from the OHW and the existing deck extends 8 feet towards the lake to be setback approximately 39 feet from the OHW, The proposed porch will be "lined up" with the existing structure to be setback from the OHW the same distance (47 feet). The proposed deck will be setback 30 feet from the OHW and the greenhouse will be setback approximately 37 feet from the OHW. The legal building envelope (Exhibit C) shows that the proposed porch and deck could be built on the west side of the existing structure. The variance to the setback from the OHW could be eliminated if the applicant moved the proposed additions to be within the legal building envelope. There is approximately 1600 sq. feet available on the west side of the house which would accommodate the size of the proposed addition. The existing deck can be replaced to be of the same size and in the same location without a variance. in a letter date June 19, 1997, the DNR has recommended denial of the variance as requested. There is a legal building area that can accommodate the proposed additions. The DNR is not opposed to the replacement of the existing deck. 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, thero is a legal alternative for the applicant, and that is to build the proposed additions to meet the OHW setback and to replace the existing deck to be of the same size and location. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. L:\97FILES\97VAR~97-050\97-050 PC. DOC Page 2 There are no unique circumstances in this case. The applicant is proposing to build a porch and part of the expanded deck within the legal building envelope. Considering that the existing deck can remain and be replaced to the same size (outside of the legal building envelope), the proposed porch and most of the greenhouse would fit into the area where the applicant proposes to place the porch and expanded deck. 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 considered to be substandard. It is under 15,000 sq. feet in area (12,800 sq. feet) and 100 feet wide. If the applicant reduces and/or relocates the proposed additions and/or replaces the existing deck to same location and size, 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 somewhat inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The property to the east is setback 46 feet from the OHW and the property to the west is setback 51 feet. The applicant can legally be setback 50 feet and existing house is setback 47 feet and the existing deck is setback about 39 feet. To encroach any further into the required OHW setback would place the proposed structures significantly closer to the lake than the adjacent properties. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded that there are legal alternatives for which the applicant could build the proposed additions. A relocation of the additions to within the legal L:~97FILES\97VAR\97-050\97-050PC. DOC Page 3 building envelope and/or replacing the existing deck to be of the same size and location are viable alternatives to the granting of a variance, ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolution 97-14PC. L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-050~97-050 PC.DOC Page 4 RESOLUTION 97-14PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A 20 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 30 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF SPRING LAKE (912.8 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND GREENHOUSE AND EXPANDED DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS Phil and Bryan Hines have 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 porch, greenhouse, and deck on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 2719 Spring Lake Road, legally described as the westerly one half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the easterly one half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of land between said Lots and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring Lake Townsite, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part or portion of any street or alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. 1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-050 and held hearings thereon on June 23, 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 the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372q714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 3. There are no unique conditions applying to the subject property. Adjacent properties are setback further, and legal alternatives exist. The existing encroaching deck can be replaced in the same location of the same size, and the proposed porch and greenhouse can be placed within the legal building envelope. 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 convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as legal alternatives exist. 5. The contents of Plaiming Case 97-050 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 porch, greenhouse, and new deck, as shown in Exhibit A; 1. A 20 foot variance permitting a 30 foot setback from the OHWL of Spring Lake (912.8 El.) instead of the required 50 foot setback. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on June 23, 1997. ATTEST: William Criego, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 1:\97var\97-050va\97-014re.doc 2 PHIl_ HINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 vu~ey ~urvey~ng Co., P.A. EXHIBIT A PROPOSED ADDITIONS ~ooo Ne~ Lot A~ea = 12,800 0 :50 60 SCALE IN FEET CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To bo Submitted with Building Permit Application) For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD). The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address Lot Area YZ-, Sq. Feet x 30% = ..............'Z2c8~0,0 LENGTH HOUSE t~.¢ x ATTACHED GARAGE ~ '7"l~'~a x X WIDTH SQ. FEET z~.G = 6~ ~ TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE..' .................... ~'3 ~,0 DETACHED BLDGS ~.,I- 'ED, ~ x ~ O (Gm'ago/Shed) ~W,,~C X TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ....................... DRIVEWAY/PAVED AREAS (Drivoway-paved or not) ~arking Areas) ~ PATIOS~ECKS (Open D~cks ¼" min. opening bar, peen boarfl~, with a pervious surface below, ate not considered to be impervious) OTHER '7.-U, x I},G = c~ x '2-0 = % oq TOTAL PAVED AREAS ......................................... TOTAL DECKS, ....................................................... TOTAL OTHER,...; .................................................. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VER ~X Company q [~\~e~, S~ ,vx a Date '~qoO \qO PHIL HINES Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE 120-C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 555?2 TELEPHONE (61Z) 447-~.$70 EXHIBIT B SHOWS EXISTING DECK 0 $0 60 SCALE IN FEET , IL HINES ~T{9 SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55572 Valley Surveying Co., PA, SU,TE ,2o-c , ,~67o ~RA~,~L,N TRA,L EXHIBIT C PRIOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 55372 ~'ELEPHONE (612) 447- 2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE BUILDING ENVELOPE %REA FOR CAKE 0 30 60 SCALE NC~E~' Benchmark Elevatlc~ 928.38 top of the existii~ gacage slab c~ Lot 4. Denotes exiDting grade e[evation Denotes p~oposed finished goads elevations Denotes proposed direction of finished ,~u~face drainage The existing garage slab is at elevati~t 928.38 The existing top block is at elevaticzt 928.7 ~%e lowe,~t flc~ e3evatic~t is at 920.37 REVISED 6/10! 97 TO SHOW P~OPOSEO O[CK, PORCH ~ GREEN HSE. IN FEET pROPERTY LOCATION couNTY OF sCOTT CENTER ,: DNR METRO; 6-19-97 10:34; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #1/2 Minne.$ota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 .Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 June 19, 1997 Mr. Don Rye P I ara'u-nC Director City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, Mirmesota 55372-171 4 RE: HINES SETBACK VARIANCE REQLr~ST (SPRING LAKE) AND MATT$ON $1DEYARD AND I.MPER. V[OU$ SURFACE COVERAGE VARdANCE REQUEST Dear Mr. Rye: I have r~ived the hearing nod~ for tl~ subject variance requests wh/clx ~511 be considered by ~e Prior Lake Planning Commission on Juno 23, 1997. Please include tho following comments into tho official record of thc hcanng. HI~ES OItW SETBACK VARIANCE REOU'EST ]'he city of Prior Lalc~ r~cenfly amended their ordln,'mce to reflect a relaxation oft. ha lake setback standard for Prim' ,and Spring Lak~. The required setback is 75'. It is recommended thc variance ~ requited bc denied. The deck siv. e depicted on thc sur~cy which acconlpanicd the hearing notice appears to have placed little regard for thc setback requirement in its design. 1 note thc at,matures on either side of thc Hh~es' property ~n: setback at $1' m~d 46' Thc DNR recommends ~e applican~ re-design thc proposed, improvements to meet the required setback. ]'here appears ample buildable area to the wcst and north of'the existing structure. In addition, thc property currently has a deck. If [he e.,d.s',.~g deck is in a state ofdixrt'pair, the DNR is not opposed to reconstruction at the existing location, and to the existing dimensions of the current deck. It will bc dil'ficult to argue hardship in this case. MATT'SON IMPIqRVIOU$ SURFACE COVERAGE AND SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE The subject lot is var,/small (5,607 squ~c fact), and is relatively narrow. Thc potential for additinnal dcvciopmen[ on the lot without the need for multiple variances is lh~red. ~c DN~ is not oppos~ to ~c cona~cfion of a garage at thc proposed location, provided ~ ~qual amotmt of impcmious su~La~ is removed. It appears that there ia a ai~i~cant amour of ~n~cte on ~= wcs~ side of ~= prupc~ w~ch cc~d be removed to bal~c= ~e additienal imp~ of~c pro~s~ncw ~a~. ~o~cr option, perhaps more suitable ~ ~ ofhnpc~ious surface, would be to cons~ct a g~age on ~e existing c~crete slab, ~is would result ~ ~e =liminadon of~e need for variances ~om im~io~ s~fag md flora the sid~nrd setbac[ It woO~ howler, most l~ely require a v~anc~ ~om ~e road setback. ~e DNR would not be opposed to the road setback v~ianec. Aa proposed, ~e DNR rezommcnds demal or thc vmmce for ~pe~ious surface coverage of 54%. SENT BY: DNR METRO; 6-19-97 10:35; 6127727573 => 6124474245; .~ung 19, 1997 page 2 Please enter these DNR objections into thc hcaring record. If you have any questions or con'uncnts regarding DNR rcvicw of the pending short'and issues, plcasc call me at 772-7910. Sincerely, Patrick J. Lynch III Ama Itydrolog/st Planning Case File No. ~050 Property Identification No. ~ff/-~-~O ~ ~ 0 City of Prior Lake LAND USE APPLICATION 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 4474230, Fax (612) 4474245 Type of Application: [] Rezoning, from (nresent zoning'~ to (pronosed zoning~ [] Amendment to City Code, Comp. Plan or City Ordinance [] Subdivision of Land [] Administrative Subdivision [] Conditional Use Permit [] Variance [] Other: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional sheets/narrative if desired) Applicable Ordinance Section(s): Applicant(s): B~o~ c~,~/ ,~2~,'/~'o ~///n~-r Address: ~¢/9 ,~,-;,,o Ak. £d. £,1~.I Pr'to'~ k.~ke ~. Home Phone: qt/-) 6rff-O,¢ ~ Work Phone: Propert3~ Owner(s) Jif different from Applicants]:. Address: 7s o - g- Cg Home Phone: Work Phone: Type of Ownership: Fee ~ Contract for Deed __ Purchase Agreement Legal Description of.Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that aP~ ~.~t ~ PT~/~runtil deemed c°mplete bY the Planning Direct°r °r assignee' I Applicant~gnamre Date Fee Owner's Signature Date THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date lu.app2.doc City Planning Staff/Pla~ing Commission, We are proposing to make some additions and changes to our home located at 2719 Spring Lake Road South West. Despite the fact that the majority iftbe proposed construction does not occur closer to the lake than our existing structure, with the present changes to the setback requirements the project will require a Variance to meet current Ordinances. We are proposing to add 16 feet to the West End oftbe house. The lower (ground) level of the structure to be used for storage of recreational equipment (canoes, life preservers, ski equipment, etc.). The upper level is to be an entry porch facing the north and a screened porch facing the lake. The second part of this proposed building project would be the replacement and updating oftbe existing deck. The existing deck is 24 feet along the south side if the house and extends 8 feet toward the lake. The existing deck is structurally over spanned with most of the members substantially rotted. When it was built I am sure that 8 feet was the standard, but by today's standards 8 feet is an impractical size with limited use. As is the case with many aspects of house design, over time the normal uses of a structure change. When this deck was built it was common to pull a couple of chairs out on the deck in the evening and spend an hour or so enjoying the weather (until the mosquitoes chased you away). Today the deck is a family gathering place and the focal point for most recreational activities on the lake. Rs structure is far more substantial and its size increased to accommodate meals and permanent seasonal furniture. We are proposing to increase the depth of the deck toward the lake by an additional 8 feet and the length of the deck along the house to the other side if the windows that open from the living room (14 feet). The design of the addition and deck was done with our neighbors in mind for both privacy and Lake Ascetics. The enclosed structure has been designed to the West Side of the house, where it is behind the line of site to the lake. The house to the West would only have partial view of the structure through a single window on their Easterly side, a view that is obscured by a large pine tree. The deck once constructed will also fall behind the line of site to the lake. The view fi:om the east is blocked by an out building and a large oak tree existing on the neighbor's property and the view from the west is blocked by the location of the home itself and a large pine tree on our property. The final part of this proposed building project would be to attach a small Green House on the South (lake) side of the house. This structure would be glass over a aluminum frame extending approximately 10 feet toward the lake and would be six feet behind the proposed deck. We would ask you to consider, when reviewing our request, that a large portion of the area between our home and the lake is unusable. It consists of fairly steep grades or is encompassed in the retaining system currently in place to help counteract the shore line erosion conditions experienced on the north side of this lake. We have been in contact with the DNR in an attempt to determine what other methods of shoreline restoration have been approved for this area, but to date the most reasonable course of action seems to be m create level recreation space next to the house. We would also ask you to consider the following four responses to the Ordinance criteria: outlined in the (Planning Commission Review/Decision) section of the Variance Procedures / Land Use Application. We thank you for your consideration of our request. 1. Our home is situated on a substandard lot (Less Square Footage than standard lot). The home was constructed approximately 47 feet fi.om what is now considered the (011574). The setback requirements as they exist today do not allow any improvement to the lakeside of our home, All will require a variance. Our lot is at the apex of the shore line arc which makes our home closer to the lake by inherent geometry even though our house falls on a strait line with our neighbor to the east. When this home was constructed I can only presume it met all the building codes and zoning requirements. Today however the Ordinance has been changed to the extent that this house no longer complies with the standard. The change we are requesting will significantly improve the use and enjoyment of our home. And because of the topography and location of other existing structures on and around the area, there will be no reduction of views and no other reduction of use or enjoyment of the adjoining properties that we can foresee. 24 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES; A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OI-IW) SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE OI-IW OF SPRING LAKE (912.8); RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND A NEW GREENHOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI~SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS 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, June 23, 1997, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: Bryan and Phillip Hines 2719 Spring Lake Rd. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 SUBJECT SITE: Part of Lot 3, Lot 4, and part of Lot 5, Block 46, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as 2719 Spring Lake Road. REQUEST: The applicant proposes the re-construction of an existing deck to be larger than the original deck and a new greenhouse to be constructed in the rear yard of the subject property. The proposed construction will result in the following requested variances; A 20 FOOT OHW SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning OrdNance. 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. 16200'E~C"u~k'4~t~"~£'0'P~&~gP~i~P'ors~'v~3zJ~2-~4~:~r~=~- o~ ~ ~.~,~,-.~ / Pr. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612)_747'4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. 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 hearing. Questions related to tiffs 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 Friday. The Plarming 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: June I0, 1997 Revision Mailed: June 16, I997. L:\97FILES\97VAR.\97-O50\9750VAPN.DOC9750VAPN.DOC SURVEY PREPAREO FOR: PH IL HINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAO PRIOR LAKE! MN. 5557~ Volley Surveying Co., PA. SUITE I20-C ~ ~6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONOOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612} 447-2570 PLA tJ AGENDAITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: CONSIDER SIDE YARD SETBACK AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCES FOR BRIAN MATTSON, Case File #97-053 16575 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER , ~-'~ JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR~._~ YES X NO JULY 28, 1997 INTRODUCTION: On June 23, 1997 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Brian Mattson who is proposing to construct a detached garage with driveway. The applicant had originally requested a variance to allow impervious surface coverage on the lot to be 54% and the driveway to be setback 1 foot from the property line. Based on the hardship criteria used for evaluating variances, the Planning Commission was prepared to deny the variances as requested. Upon request of the applicant, the Planning Commission continued the discussion to July 28, 1997. This was to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance request. The Planning Department has received a written request from the applicant requesting an extension until August 11, 1997. The applicant has significantly reduced the impervious surface on the site and is awaiting completion of final survey. ACTION REQUIRED: Because the Planning Commission continued the hearing until July 28, 1997. A motion continuing the hearing until August 11, 1997 is necessary. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447~4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER June 24,1997 Brian Matttson 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Extension of Sixty Review Period for Variance Requests Dear Mr. Mattson: The purpose of this letter is to advise you the 60 day deadline for City of Prior LaKe action on your variance requests to driveway side yard setback and impervious surface has been extended an additfonal 60 days from August 2, 1997 to October 1, 1997. The reason for the additional 60 day extension is to due to the continuation of the Planning Commission decision of your request, to allow you to make revisions for consideration of the variances. Please submit your revised survey to me by July 15, 1997. This will alJow us time to prepare a report for Planning Commission consideration on July 28, 1997. I[ you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 447-4230. Sincerely, Planner I:\g 7file s/97var~97-053\f0d ayle t.doc Eagle C're~k A~e. S.E.. Prior ~ke, HJnn~so~a 55372-[7[4 / Ph. (6[2) ~7-~230 .' Fax (612~ Stamson: · Questioned previous variances. · Concurs with staffand commissioners. There are no hardships. · Reasonable use ofthiproperty. Criego: · Agreed it is important to preserve trees, but also the quality of the lake. · Pollution and nmoff is a concern. The staff and DNR agreed. · There are no hardsh/ps. · As presented, agreed with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Kuykendall explained a lower level deck would not require a variance. Mr. Hines questioned extending the existing deck to the west and requested continuing the matter to the July 28, 1997 hearing. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO THE TULY 28, 1997 MEETING. Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #97- 053 Variance Request by Brian Mattson, 16575 Ing'uadona Beach Circle SW, requesting: A 24% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 54% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%; A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 1 FOOT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE; ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE Ri- SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SHORELAND DISTRICTS Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian Mattson proposing to construct a new detached 480 square foot garage and access driveway. There is no existing garage on the property. The existing house with deck is setback approximately 22 feet from the front property line, 9.8 feet from the side property line to the north, approximately 10 feet from the side property line to the south. The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot detached garage in the rear yard with a bituminous access driveway located along the side of the principle structure to the garage in the back. Existing impervious surface is 28%. The proposed additions will create an impervious surface of 54%. The proposed driveway will be located 1 foot from the property line. The City Code requires a minimum driveway setback of 5 feet from the side yard property line. Also snow storage will be a significant problem for a driveway located 1 foot from the property line. Therefore, the MN062397.DOC 3 applicants are requesting a 24% variance to impervious surface coverage maximum to permit coverage of 54%, rather than the maximum allowed of 30% and a 4 foot variance to the driveway side yard setback to allow a 1 foot driveway setback rather than the required setback of 5 feet. The variance to impervious surface and driveway setback could be eliminated if the garage was located on the existing driveway, or under the deck. In this case a variance to front yard setback would be required. If variances are granted, a reduction of the existing impervious surface by removal of the concrete area should be considered. This has been suggested to the applicant. Verbally, the applicant has stated that he has a great need for the concrete drive and would not be willing to remove a portion or all of it. The DNR has responded to the variance request in a letter dated June 19, 1997. The DNR is not opposed to the location of the proposed garage, but recommended removal of the existing concrete drive to reduce the impervious surface. The DNR suggests a more suitable option of locating the garage on the existing drive, as not to increase impervious surface. This would required a front yard setback variance. As proposed, the staff and DNR recommends denial. Comments from the public: Brian Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle, stated he was originally reluctant to remove the driveway. He is now willing to cut the drive down but would like to leave a reasonable amount of space to the side and front entrance. Mr. Mattson would also remove a 10 x 12 foot shed and also felt snow storage would not be a problem. His neighbor with the adjacent vacant lot told him he did not have a concern with the driveway being one foot from the property line. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: * Initial feeling is not having a garage is a hardship. · Impervious surface is too high in the Shoreland District. Wuellner: · Suggested looking at different designs. · Go back to the drawing board and think about removing the driveway. Be creative in designing a garage. Kuykendall: · Look at a tuck-under approach. · There are alternatives. · Support staff's recommendation and recommend the matter be continued. MN062397.DOC 4 Criego: 54% impervious surface is a real problem. · The City's standard is 30% the DNR's 25%. For the City to go beyond that is probably not going to happen. · Suggested not to exceed 30% impervious surface. · The one foot driveway setback has to be looked at. Mr. Mattson said he would like to continue the hearing. Tovar suggested a driveway easement (5 feet) with the neighbor for snow storage. Sandy Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach, said they have looked at many designs. She is concerned for the suggested design which would totally cut off the front entrance. There would be no real exit out of the house except for the garage. It would also eliminate many of the windows. For those reasons they felt building in the back yard would be appropriate. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO THE JULY 28, 1997 PLANNING MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: A. Case #97- Continuation of Northwood Oaks Estates Preliminary Plat. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report reviewing the preliminary plat hearing from the June 9, 1997 meeting. The revised plans addressed some of the questions asked by the Planning Commission. The staff also reviewed the plans with respect to the conditions listed in the Planning Report dated June 9, 1997. The revisions have addressed some, but not all, of the proposed conditions. Specifically, the revisions did not reduce the length of the cul-de- sac, did not include revisions to the tree preservation or landscaping plans, and did not address the issues outlined in the memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer. The revised plans did change the name of Pond View Lane to Lakeview Circle; however, there is already a Lakeview Circle in the City., The Prior Lake Police surveyed Northwood Road traffic for three days and gave out one citation for speed and one warning. The average speed was 32.5 mph. The outstanding issue in this preliminary plat is still the disturbance of the slopes on this site. This plat has several locations in which slopes of 20% or greater are disturbed, either for the placement of roads and utilities or the placement of homes. While the MN062397.DOC PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 7A DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR PARKING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR~7~ YES ,X NO JULY 28, 1997 BACKGROUND: At the last special meeting devoted to the draft zoning ordinance, we discussed some possible language for regulation of recreational vehicles. Specifically, we looked at where and when these vehicles should be allowed to park on residential properties. Attached is some draft language for these regulations. As you can see, we have included a definition of recreational vehicles. We have also included specific dates, parking locations, and screening provisions. Please review this language for discussion purposes. The intent is to provide you with a starting point. We can refine this language as needed. You will also note, this language does not deal with the issue of junk cars or abandoned vehicles. We may want to look at that as a separate provision. k\g6files\96zoamnd\newzone\97zonord\recvehpc.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL ©PPORTUN[TY EMPLOYER PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE REGULATIONS DEFINITION: Recreational Vehicle. Recreational vehicles shall include, but not be limited to, boats, boat trailers, general purpose trailers, recreational campers, self-contained motor homes, truck toppers, fish houses, utility trailers, all terrain vehicles, jet skis, and snowmobiles. Parking of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Districts. Currently licensed and operable winter recreation vehicles may be parked on or adjacent to a driveway in a residential district from "ice-in" to "ice-out" conditions each year. Summer recreational vehicles may be parked from on or adjacent to a driveway in a residential district from "ice-out" to "ice-in" conditions each year. At all other times, recreational vehicles may be stored in the rear or side yards if properly screened from view from a public street or neighboring property. Screening shall be satisfied by the use of a fence, a landscape screen, a berm, or a combination thereof. A landscape screen shall consist of coniferous plantings a minimum of 2 1/2" caliper inches in diameter. Shrubs may be used in combination with a berm, and shall be a minimum of 2' in height. Spacing of trees and shrubs shall be so as to create a screen in which the stored vehicles are not visible from a neighboring property. Screening fences shall be opaque, 6' in height, compatible with the principal building and surrounding land uses, and shall create a screen in which the stored vehicles are not visible from a neighboring property. If the topography or other natural conditions of the lot do not allow for storage in the side or rear yards, the recreational vehicles may be parked adjacent to the driveway subject to written permission from the Zoning Official. These vehicles may be subject to the same screening requirements as those listed above. l:\96files\96zoamnd\newzone\97zonord~recveh.doc luly 23, I997