HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-972.
3.
4.
o
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, November 24, 1997
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
A. Continue public hearing to consider a proposed zoning ordinance and
zoning map for the City of Prior Lake.
Old Business:
New Business:
A. Case #97-109 Hillcrest Homes requesting a 42 foot variance from the
location of the top ofbluffsetback to allow a structure to be constructed within
the bluff and bluffimpact zone for the property located at 16091 Northwood
Road.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.~ Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The November 10, 1997, Planrdng Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:34 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Kuykendall, Stamson
and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary
Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Cramer Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Absent
Vonhof Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
THE OCTOBER 27, 1997 MINUTES WERE ACCEPTED AS PRINTED.
4. Public Hearings:
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case #97-105 Prior Lake Baptist Church requesting a 37.5 foot variance to
permit a steeple height of 72.5 feet instead of the permitted 35 feet for the property
located at 5690 Credit River Road.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report dated November 10, 1997.
The Planning Deptatment received a variance application from Dennis Batty and
Associates, on behalf of Prior Lake Baptist Church, who is proposing to renovate the
existing facility and construct a 6,442 square foot addition for use as a sanctuary and
multi-purpose room and a 1,792 square foot addition for classrooms, and the addition of a
new front entry. The proposed spire is 72.5 feet high. Section 5-4-3 of the City Code
allows for a maximum height of 35 feet with the exception the Board of Adjustment may
grant a va_dance to height regulations if the structure is a church spire. In this case, the
Planning Commission is the Board of Adjustment.
Generally, the Planning Commission reviews variance requests as they meet four specific
hardship criteria. However, in this case, Section 5-4-3 of City Code specifically states
the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance to height regulation if the proposed
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~ 111097.DOC 1
building setbacks are increased one foot for every additional foot of height or if the
proposed structure is among other things a church spire.
There are no specific hardship criteria to review. Therefore, the Planning Commission
can review the variance request to some other unspecified hardship criteria or can
approve the variance because it is a church spire and the City outright allows for
variances for church spires.
Staff has concluded the height variance request is substantiated because it is permitted
upon approval by the Board of Adjustment with or without justification of hardship
findings.
Comments from the Public:
There were no comments fi.om the applicants.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· No comments.
· Supports the motion.
Kuykendall:
· Supports the resolution.
Cramer:
· Concurs with commissioners.
Stamson:
· Agreed.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 97-19PC GRANTING A 37.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
STEEPLE HEIGHT OF 72.5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
ALLOWED OF 35 FEET FOR THE PRIOR LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH.
Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case #97-109 Hillcrest Homes requesting a .28 foot variance to permit a lot
width of 49.72 at the front yard setback instead of the required 50 feet to be
buildable for a single family dwelling for the property located at 16091 Northwood
Road.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staffreport dated November 10, 1997.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~MN 111097.DOC 2
The Planning Department received a variance application from Hillcrest Homes who is
proposing to remove an existing structure and construct a new single family residence.
The lot is 49.72 feet wide at the 25 foot minimum required front yard setback. Section 5-
8-12 of the City Code requires substandard lots have a minimum lot width of 50 feet to be
buildable. Because the City Code does not specify what measurement distances are in,
the setbacks and other numerical ordinance requirements cannot be rounded. Thus, the
existing lot width at the fl:ont yard setback is less than 50 feet requiring a variance. No
specific house plans have been drawn up at this time. However, all setbacks will be met
as well as imperious surface coverage. The lot is located in the Nonhwood subdivision
on Prior Lake.
Staff has concluded the criteria are not met.
Comments from the public:
Applicants were present to answer questions.
Winston Simonson, 16807 Northwood Road, questioned the lot ownership. Chris
Deanovic of Hillcrest Homes said the applicant, Paul Lemke signed a purchase
agreement.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· The lot has a large square footage, but an unusual configuration.
· Believe the hardship criteria has been met. It looks like a survey error.
· Grant the variance.
Kuykendall:
· Questioned the dimension of the lot at the property line. Tovar responded it was
49.67.
· Supports the item.
· Suggests adding a provision to round up to the nearest foot.
Stflmson:
· This variance meets all four criteria.
Cramer:
· Meets criteria.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 97-18PC GRANTING A .28 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.72
LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25
FEET TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMiN~vfl~ 111097,DOC 3
C. Case #97-110 Hillcrest Homes appeal of the decision of the Zoning
Administrator relating to the definition of a bluff in the Shoreland District.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated November 10, 1997.
Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of the
Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. The action
was initiated by an inquiry to the definition of a bluff and top of bluff with regards to a
proposed structure on the lot. The City sent a letter to the appellant detailing the
definition ofa bluffand top of bluff and staffs interpretation of those definitions. In a
letter to the city, Hillcrest Homes is appealing staffs interpretation and is providing their
interpretation of the same definition.
Staffs conclusion is the statement not including areas with slopes less than 18% is meant
to allow construction on flat areas of lots where there may be multiple bluffs. When the
top ofbluffis determined to be the highest point of a 50 foot segment where the average
slope exceeds 18%, the area downhill from the top of bluff must be part of the bluff by
definition.
The Department of Natural Resources concurs with staffs interpretation stated in
Hydrologist, Pat Lynch's letter dated November 7, 1997.
Comments from the public:
Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue, Savage, representing Hillcrest Homes
highlighted the bluff section from the DNR Shoreland Regulations. He understands there
is a bluff and went on to explain his belief of where the top of the bluff should be. He
knows the DNR agrees with staff but also indicated the ordinance is ambiguous and can
be flexible. Mr. Deanovic went on to explain their proposed home stating they are trying
to position their building not to obstruct their view of the lake (between the two
neighboring structures). Their interpretation of the bluff would be a 10% slope.
Winston Simonson, 16087 Northwood Road said he was present for curiosity purposes.
He is a neighbor and said the house in question is 24 years old. Mr. Simonson explained
he is not complaining but was interested how the new structure will affect them. He was
hoping the new home would be set back so they could see the lake.
Deanovic went on to explain the 50 foot segment on the back of a proposed home with a
9 foot difference. They have no desire to impact the bluff. The DNR accepts a 20 foot
setback, Prior Lake 30 feet.
Rye explained the City was informed by the DNR that a couple of years after they
promulgated these rules with the definition the City adopted, they administratively
adopted the language that talks about where one can observe the slope change fi.om
greater to lesser. Prior Lake adopted the Shoreland Rules definition.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMkPCMINkMN 111097.DOC 4
Winston Simonson pointed out the obvious slope always referred to as a cliff on the
survey. There is quite a grade to the front of the house compared to the back. He feels
the slope should end at the front of the building. The house is going to be crowded no
matter where it is placed. Mr. Simonson stated he received a variance 24 years ago. The
Board at the time said he had to get written permission on each side. One neighbor
refused and the other stated he had to maintain the 15 foot setback.
Jim Albers, Storms Circle, pointed out staff's interpretation opposed to his interpretation
of the bluffwith the 50 foot segments and feels the error is in the definition of the top of
the bluff and suggested a proposed top of bluff definition: "The lower point of the closest
50 feet segment to the toe of the bluffthat has an average slope of 18% or less." He feels
it is really hard to enforce because of the complicated definition.
The DNR has two documents for the City, one regulation and a sample administrative
ordinance.
Vonhofpointed out that surveys in the Shoreland District should have contour lines.
Marv Mirsch, has a seasonal home at 15432 Red Oaks Road, permanent home in St. Paul,
presented a proposed Minnesota Rules from the legislature provided by Pat Lynch of the
DNR. One word is missing in the Prior Lake Ordinance "to find it necessary to exclude
from the definition of the bluff any areas that .... with an area slope of 18% or less over a
50 foot segment. He feels the City should exclude anything 18% or less in the bluff area.
Mr. Mirsch believes the ordinance interpretation is an exclusion not inclusion.
Rye said Mr. Mirsch and Mr. Albers definitions are correct stating the DNR allows
flexibility. But the issue is Prior Lake's definition.
The bluff impact zone includes the bluff itself.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· The definition is defined in the Shoreland Management hand book, Zoning Ordinance
and DNR Rules and Model Ordinance.
· The only option is to stay out of the bluff impact zone.
Stamson stated the discussion is if staff's interpretation is correct.
Kuykendall:
· Staff's interpretation is correct.
· Will recommend to redefine the definition.
Stamson:
· At first agreed strictiy with staff, then agreed with applicant.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMkPCM INkMN I 11097.DOC 5
· The definition ofbluffis really an independent description of what the top of a bluff
is.
· The staff interpreted the ordinance correctly and is backed by the DNR.
Cramer:
· The wording is contradicting. There is no consistency. The DNR is responsible.
· The intent of the ordinance is to prevent someone fi.om coming in the furore where
their home slides into the lake.
· People will ask why did the City let me build in a bluf~
· Staffs interpretation is correct.
Vonhof:
· Concurs with staffand Commissioners.
· It should not be that hard for residents and staff to interpret. The intent is to have
bluff protection.
· There is a second issue to deal with after this motion.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL TO UPHOLD THE STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE AS
OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Open Discussion:
Kuykendall suggested having someone fi.om the DNR come in an explain the negative
impacts of this issue. We need to be educated, what steps can one take and maintain the
ordinance. He believes an engineer can come in and show how to stabilize the land and
meet the objectives.
Vonhof agreed. Some one should come up with better definitions.
Stamson stated the DNR obviously did a study and this was the conclusion. His concern
is the original way it was written it was fairly restricted but now administratively, the
DNR has become loose in their definition.
There should be btuffstandards. Meet certain criteria.
Stamson and Cramer's concern is the definition of the top of the bluff.
Rye said he would be happy to meet with the applicant and go over a definition to present
to City Council. Until it is changed, staff's recommendation will follow the ordinance.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO REFER THIS BACK TO
STAFF FOR STUDY AND FOR STATING THE PRACTICE IN SIMILAR
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMINLMN I 11097.DOC 6
COMMUNITIES WITH SIMILAR ISSUES AS PART OF THE ZONING CODE
ORDINANCE ON NOVEMBER 24, 1997.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
MOTION BY KUYK_ENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO MODIFY ALL
REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO HAVE ALL LOT
MEASUREMENTS ROUNDED UP NO GREATER THAN .5 FEET.
Vonhof suggested the Zoning Administrator could make the decision. There would still
be a process but could be determined administratively.
Kuykendall retracted the motion and agreed to have staff come up with a practical
solution.
Cramer questioned the availability of the new zoning ordinance. Rye responded by the
end of the week.
Kuykendall wanted to bring back a previous issue of"traffic calming" on Highway 13.
The Commissioners would like to reconsider changing the truck traffic routing by the
State to County Road 17 to minimize the traffic on Highway 13. He suggested a study
using County Road 27 and 21 to alleviate traffic.
Kuykendall also suggested revisiting all traffic controls on Highway 13. This would
bring in State, County and local engineers. He would like to see 4-way stop signs. 4-way
stops it will fome track traffic off Highway 13 and reduce the volume of traffic.
This issue should be part of a workshop after the zoning ordinance.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VON-HOF, THAT COUNCIL BE APPRISED OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INTEREST IN REVIEWING THE ISSUE OF HIGHWAY
13 FROM A STRATEGIC POINT OF VIEW RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC CALMING AND THE
POTENTIAL OF PULLING NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER INSTEAD OF SEPARATING
NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE INVITE THE STATE AND COUNTY PEOPLE TO JOIN US
IN WORKSHOPS.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
8. Adjournment:
CHAIRMAN STAMSON ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:44 P.M..
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMkPCMINkMN 111097.DOC 7
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
A COMPREHENSIVE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE AND
A ZONING MAP
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
NOVEMBER 24, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 22, 1997, to
discuss the proposed zoning ordinance and zoning map. At that time, the
Commission decided to continue the public hearing until November 24, 1997, in
order to allow staff some additional time to revise the ordinance. A revised copy
of the Zoning Ordinance was distributed to the Planning Commission on
November 14, 1997.
BACKGROUND:
The majority of the discussion at the original public hearing centered on the
requirements of the Shoreland District. Specifically, this discussion included bluff
requirements, setbacks from the ordinary high water elevation, and impervious
surface requirements. There was also some discussion about the Flood Plain
requirements. Each of these issues is discussed below.
Bluff Requirements:
The attached memo from Jenni Tovar, dated November 18, 1997, discusses the
proposed bluff language. This language is the result of several discussions.
The purpose of these revisions is to make the language clearer, while still
meeting the intent of the provisions mandated by the State. This language was
not prepared by the printing date of the revised ordinance, but will be included in
the final version of the Ordinance.
I:\n, ew,~onff\rr~sc\l ~,-2..4p~doc
16200 Eagle ~reeK ,ave. ~.~., ~'rior Lake. Minnesota 55372~1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (6~z~ ~7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNI~ EMPLOYER
Setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation:
The Planning Commission also discussed the possibility of changing the setback
from the Ordinary High Water Elevation from 50' to 75' on General Development
Lakes. Since the 50' setback was so recently adopted by the Council, we did not
change it in the proposed ordinance. However, this is the opportunity for the
Planning Commission to make a recommendation on this requirement.
There are two issues pertaining to this requirement. The first is the fact that the
50' setback is consistent with State requirements. The City, however, may adopt
an ordinance more restrictive than State requirements. If the Planning
Commission recommends a 75' setback, the staff would also suggest that the
averaging provision be included in the Ordinance. Additionally, the Planning
Commissioners have discussed allowing a 50' setback with special provisions for
landscaping or some other means of screening. These conditions should be
included in any recommendation.
The second issue pertains to the existing development on the lake. The majority
of existing homes on the lake are set back less than 75' from the Ordinary High
Water Elevation. Maintaining the 50' setback results in fewer nonconforming
situations and fewer variance requests.
Impervious Surface Requirements:
The current Zoning Ordinance and the proposed Zoning Ordinance allow a
maximum impervious surface of 30% in the Shoreland District. The State has
allowed this percentage even though it exceeds the 25% impervious surface in
the State standards. The Planning Commission has also discussed revising this
percentage to be consistent with the State requirements. As in the setback
issue, this is the opportunity to make that recommendation.
Flood Plain Regulations:
At the first public hearing, there was some discussion about the Flood Plain
regulations. At recent meetings, we have discussed the Flood Plain regulations
and the fact that State law mandates these provisions. The current ordinance,
as recently revised, is consistent with the State requirements. At the last Council
meeting, we discussed the possibility of including structures built prior to 1978,
but with a lowest floor elevation equal to the 100 year flood elevation, as
conforming structures. The staff will continue to work with the DNR on this issue.
DISCUSSION:
Since so much of the previous discussion centered on the Shoreland and Flood
Plain requirements, it is necessary to discuss the City's authority and the State's
authority in these issues. The Minnesota DNR has created a set of minimum
I:\newzone\misc\l 1-24pc.doc Page 2
standards and cdteria in the Shoreland and Flood Plain areas. The City is
required, by law, to adopt regulations consistent with these regulations. The City
does have the authority to adopt regulations more restrictive than the State
requirements. The City may also, in special circumstances, adopt controls that
are not in strict compliance with the State requirements. However, the DNR
must approve these controls prior to adoption.
It is also important to remember that the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Zoning
Map include controls for the entire City, not just areas within the Shoreland and
Flood Plain. The Planning Commission should review and discuss any changes
they believe necessary.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map as
proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Zoning
Map.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purposes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance and Zoning Map.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memo from Jenni Tovar
2. Proposed Zoning Map
I:~newzone\misc\l 1-24pc.doc Page 3
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CC:
November 18, 1997
Planning Commission
Don Rye, Planning Director
Jenni Tovar, Planner
Proposed Bluff Language
Jane Kansier, Planner; Bob Hutchins,
Building Official; Pat Lynch, DNR; Hillcrest
Homes; Jim Albers and BUD Waund,
Edina Realty; McKnight and Associates
Upon the direction of the Planning Commission at its November 10, 1997
meeting, the Planning Staff met with a local developer and real estate
agent. The purpose of the meeting was to write revised bluff and top of
bluff definitions to alleviate the cumbersome and difficult to interpret
current bluff definitions. Based on this meeting, the Planning Staff is
proposing the following amendments to the Shoreland and Zoning
Ordinances:
TOE OF BLUFF: Definition to remain the same.
TOP OF BLUFF: The highest point of the slope, as measured from the
toe of the bluff, where the grade is 30 percent or greater.
BLUFF SETBACK: As measured from the TOP OF BLUFF, the upper
end of a segment at least 25 feet in length having an average slope less
than 18%.
This removes the floating 50 foot segment. TOP OF BLUFF is
determined as measured from the TOE OF THE BLUFF, with the slope
measured between the 1 foot contours. The building setback is
determined by the slope as measured from the TOP OF BLUFF (25 feet
minimum), not distance to meet the intent of the ordinance. If the slope
from the top of the bluff, towards the street, never drops below 18%, then
the lot would be unbuildable without a variance.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
CONSIDER A TOP OF BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE,
AND A BLUFF IMPACT ZONE SETBACK VARIANCE
FOR HILLCREST HOMES, Case File #97.115
16091 NORTHWOOD ROAD
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
NOVEMBER 24, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Hillcrest Homes
who is proposing to construct a new single family residence with attached garage
(Exhibit A). An existing house will be removed to accommodate the proposed
structure. The lot is located in the Northwood subdivision on Prior Lake.
The applicant is proposing to build a house in the bluff and bluff impact zone as
defined the current zoning ordinance (Exhibit B). Exhibit A indicates the
proposed house with respect to the existing bluff ordinance and a recently
drafted, yet to be adopted, bluff ordinance. Considering that the proposed
ordinance has yet to be adopted, this report and recommendation reflect the
existing ordinance. The applicant is requesting a 42 foot variance from the
location of the top of bluff setback to allow a structure to be constructed within
the bluff and bluff impact zone rather than the required 30 foot setback from the
top of bluff and out of the bluff impact area as per City Code Section 5-8-3.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 92, Northwood was platted in 1911. The property is located within the R-1
(Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. The applicant
does not own either of the adjacent parcels. Lot attributes are as follows:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E,. Prior Lake, Minnesoi:a 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Area
(above 904 el)
Lot Width
(measured at setback)
OHW Width
Size
23,035 sq. feet
49.72 feet
51.82 feet
(approx.)
Requirement to
be E, uildable
(as a substandard lot)
7,500 sq. feet
50.00 feet
N/A
The legal building envelope is approximately 35 feet wide and 295.15 feet deep,
resulting in an area footprint of approximately 10,330 sq. feet (Exhibit C). A
variance to lot width was granted on November 10, 1997.
Front Yard
Side Yards
OHW Setback
Top of Bluff
Bluff Impact
Zone (20 feet
from top of bluff)
Proposed Setback Setback Variance
Requirement Requested
(as a substandard lot)
25 feet 25 feet None
5 feet (on east side) 5 feet (one side) None
10 feet (on west side) 10 feet (other sides)
88 feet 50 feet None
0 feet 30 feet 30 feet
0 feet from top of 20 feet from top of 20 feet
bluff bluff
Generally, the ordinance prohibits the placement of fill and excavation materials
in the bluff impact areas. A variance to the bluff impact zone and top of bluff
setback would allow the applicant to excavate and fill within the bluff and impact
area as indicated on the survey. If a variance to the bluff impact zone or setback
to the top of the bluff are granted, then the resolution should specify that storm
water be diverted from the roof away from the bluff towards the front of the
house. This could be achieved with gutters and/or grading.
Furthermore, the excavating of the bluff does not meet the intent of the
Shoreland District in the preservation of the natural features of Prior Lake. Pat
Lynch, of the DNR, has verbally recommended that no variance to top of bluff or
bluff impact zone be granted. He is of the opinion that there exists a legal
building envelope to accommodate the proposed house and the ordinance as it
exists today is what we must adhere to.
At the November 10, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, staff was directed to
work with Mr. Deanovich of Hillcrest Homes and Mr. Albers of Edina Realty to
draft revised bluff definitions and setbacks to be clarified and specific so as to be
easily interpreted and understood. This has been done and a copy of the
proposed language is attached. The revised language is to be considered as
part of the Zoning Ordinance amendment and public hearing the same day as
L:\97 FI LES\97VAR\97-115\97-115PC.DOC
Page 2
this hearing. The applicant feels that the proposed ordinance meets the goal as
directed by the Planning Commission. Rather than wait for the proposed
amendment to be approved and adopted by the City Council, the applicant is
applying for this variance to expedite his project schedule.
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 structure to meet the setbacks
as not to encroach upon the required setbacks. The 10,330 square foot
building envelope can accommodate alternative layouts.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
The unique circumstances are the bluff and substandard lot. Considering
that those are existing conditions created in 191 l, they cannot be altered to
meet the ordinance requirements. However, with respect to the setback
variances, the applicant can build the proposed house within the legal
building envelope to meet the required setbacks,
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. The lot area is 23,035 sq. feet and
the lot width is 49.72 at the required front setback. A variance was granted
on November 10, 1997 to allow a lot width of less than 50 feet. However, the
size of the lot and legal building envelope, under the current ordinance, do
not cause hardship with respect to the property. 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 intent of the bluff setback and bluff impact zone is to protect the existing
topographical features within the shoreland area. The bluff and bluff impact
zone, as the current ordinance is literally written and interpreted, will be
compromised if the vadance is granted. However, on a larger scale, the
definitions of bluff and top of bluff are currently under review to be more
accommodating and meet the intent of the bluff and bluff impact areas. To
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-115\97-115PC.DOC Page 3
grant a vadance based on a proposed ordinance is contrary to the public
interest. If the new language is not adopted, and a variance is granted, the
public interest and justice could be compromised.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded there do exist legal alternatives for which the applicant could
build the proposed structure and meet the setbacks as set out in the current
ordinance. The hardship criteria is specific to the property and cannot be
financial. The applicant has not proven a hardship relating to the property. The
proposed dwelling can be built in the legal building envelope as a viable
alternative to the granting of setback variances.
if variances to the Bluff Setback are granted, the Resolution should include
specifications that storm water be diverted from the roof of the structure away
from the bluff as to reduce erosion of the bluff.
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.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends denial of the variance to top of bluff and bluff impact zone.
The attached Resolution 97-20PC is consistent with this recommendation. If the
Commission agrees with this recommendation, a motion and second to adopt
Resolution 97-20PC is needed. If the Commission feels the variance is
appropriate, you should direct the staff to prepare a resolution approving the
variances with findings for Commission approval at the next meeting.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-115\97-115PC.DOC Page 4
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED HOUSE. LOCATION AND BLUFF
EXHIBIT B
5-1-7
DEFINITIONS
5-1-7
BLUFF:
BLUFF IMPACT ZONE:
A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or
embankment having the following character-
istics (an area with an average slope cf less
than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or
more shall not be considered part of the bluff):
(A) Part or all of the feature is located in a
shoreland area;
(B) The slope dses at least twenty five feet (25')
above the ordinary high-water [evet of the
waterbody;
(C) The grade of the slope from the toe of the
bluff to a point twenty five feet (25') or more
above the ordinary high-water level averages
thirty percent (30%) or greater; and
(D) The slope must drain toward the weterbody.
A bluff and land located within twenty feet (20')
from the top of a bluff.
TOE OF THE BLUFF:
TOP OF THE BLUFF:
The lower point of a fifty foot (50') segment with
an average slope exceeding eighteen percent
(~ 8%).
The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment
with an average slope exceeding eighteen
percent (18%).
EXHIBIT C
FILE C~py
LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE
RESOLUTION 97-20PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 42 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE LOCATION OF
THE TOP OF BLUFF SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED
WlTmN Tus; BLUFF AND BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RAI'HER THAN THE REQUIRED
SETBACK OF 30 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF AND OUT OF TH ~; BLUFF
IMPACT ZONE PER CITY CODE SECTION 5-8-3 FOR A PROPOSED
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Hillcrest Homes Inc.. has applied for a variance from Section 9.3A of the Zoning
Ordinance in order to construct a single family dwelling with attached garage and
deck (Exhibit A) on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and
the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
16091 Northwood Road, legally described as Lot 92, Northwood, Scott County,
1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #97-I 15 and held hearings thereon on November 24, 1997.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that meets the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
There are no unique conditions applying to the subject property. A legal building
envelope of approximately 10,330 sq. feet exists allowing for structural alternatives
without variances.
4. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E_ Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship
as legal alternatives exist.
5. The contents of Planning Case 97-115 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 single family dwelling with garage as shown in the
attached Exhibit A;
1. A 42 foot variance fi'om the Iocation of the top of bluff setback permitting a 0
foot setback fi.om the top of bluff and bluffimpact zone instead of the required
30 foot top of bluff setback and 20 foot bluff impact zone.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 24, 1997.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\97var\97-115vakre9720PC.doc
2
HILLCREST HOMES, INC.
16714 Jaguar Ave., Lakeville, Minnesota 55044
(612) 898-7663 Office {612) 898-3364 Fax
"A Builder Driven By Q,,~,lity Craftsmanship and Value."
November 13, 1997
Jennifer Tovar
planner
Dept. of planning and Zoning
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
DenS,nifo:
I-rdlcrest Homes, Inc. wishes to apply for a variance for 16091 Northwood Road. We are
seeking a setback variance of 42 feet ~om the current definition for bluff setback.
The last planning commission meeting we attending, it was quite evident by all in
attendance that the current definition and determination of a bluffand top ofbluffwas
confusing, cumbersome and difficult to apply. Since that meeting we have met with the
planning department, to help adopt revised definition(s) that will be more "user fiiendly"
to both staff; DNR and builders while still maintaining the original intent of the code. It is
my understanding that this revised code will be proposed for adoption in the new planning
and zoning changes that are currently in process,
Therefore we are asking for a variance of 42 feet ~om the bluff setback. The variance
setback that we seek, would be the setback derived from using the proposed new zoning
definitions. However, we do not have the time to wait until the new zoning is
implemented, thus we are requesting a variance.
President
Builder License # 20036544 · Member of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES:
A 42 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE LOCATION OF THE TOP OF BLUFF
SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE
BLUFF AND BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED
SETBACK OF 30 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF AND OUT OF THE
BLUFF IMPACT ZONE PER CITY CODE SECTION 5-8-3.
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD
(SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 16091 NORTHWOOD ROAD.
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, November 24, 1997, at
6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
Hillcrest Homes
14122 Louisiana Avenue
Savage, MN 55378
PROPERTY
OWNERS:
Paul and Jeanne Lemke
14624 Wilds Parkway
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
16091 Northwood Road, Iegally described as Lot 92 Northwood,
Scott County, MN.
REQUEST:
The applicant is intending to remove an existing cabin and is
proposing to construct a new single family dwelling on an existing
lot that is 49.72 feet wide at the front yard setback rather than the
required 50 feet. A .28 foot variance was granted by the Planning
Commission on November 10, 1997, to allow the construction of a
single family dwelling on the lot.
This variance request is specific to the location of the proposed
house in relation to the bluff. Section 5-8-3 of the City Code
specifies a 30 foot setback from the top of bluff. The applicant is
proposing to build a house with no setback to top of bluff and
located 12 feet into the bluff. The basis of their request, is a
revised definition of top of bluff and bluff setback as directed from
the Planning Commission on November 10, 1997 to be completed
by the planning staff and brought back to the Planning
7var~ -11 v \971 .d
16200 Eg~gle ~'~ee~ ~ve. ~.P~., ~rior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Commission for discussion as part of the revision to the Zoning
Ordinance to be heard on November 24, 1997.
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.
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: November 14, 1997
97var~97-115va\97115pn,doc 2
SITE LOCATION
t5~-539
75
74
73
71
7Q
68
67
~5
//
NOV i ? //Iii:
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application:
[] Rezoning, from (nresent zonin~
to (pronosed zonin~
[] Amendment to City Code, Comp. Plan or City Ordinance
[] Subdivision of Land
[] Administrative Subdivision
[] Conditional Use Permit
V
ariance
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]:'-~t- ~-
Address: ttl(,,Z-cf ',-o,~-~' '"~-o~ MoD '~.,o~ I~1(.~,
Home Phone: ~'! ~-~- '~g Work Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee )C Contract for Deed __ Purchase Agreement __
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on th/s sheet):
to the o by k
additiog(I h~:a~e re/.~l t
Fee Owner's Signature
ae information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
at sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
11'
.,..~ ~..~ Date
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